Ralph: Point taken and not entirely in disagreement but the government i.e.us the taxpayer cannot keep paying furlough to the aviation industry as surely it has far more important calls on the funds?

The deals on pay and conditions going forward may be concluded but I suspect long periods of unpaid leave are just around the corner.

IAG is a penny share as of right now.

PLEASE can someone explain why BA didn't furlough (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme CJRS) ANY pilots?

It just doesn't make sense!

Presumably BALPA didn't want pilots furloughed? But look at these figures:

Given the schedule since March, BA could have furloughed ALL 747 and 380 pilots, and probably 40% of A320 (given LGW not flying), probably 60% of 777 pilots, and 40% of 787 and A350 pilots. If not even more than this! We REALLY have not been flying much as an airline!

So lets say 3500 pilots (leaving 1200 active), for 7 months (April to October), at 2500 GBP per month per pilot. That takes us to:

61,250,000 GBP (61.25 MILLION).

"Free" money from the Government to BA and thence to the pilots.

BUT hold on a minute.... We just made the ~250 newest pilots (with the exception of about 2 who weren't the most junior) redundant..... so lets assume they are all on Pay Point 1, and a mix of DEP and SSPs. So lets say 50,000 salary each....... That 61 million from the Government could have paid their full salary for.....

4.9 YEARS!

What were you doing BALPA?

This money could have kept people employed at least until October, and could have meant more funds for a better VR deal and therefore more leaving voluntarily "off the top of the list" thus retaining people who would otherwise have been made VR.

So WHY? Why was the Government CJRS not used? I just do not understand it!

Because they [WW and I suspect JM] had a political score to settle and they were going to achieve it at any cost. Not only did they get retribution for last year but they destroyed the idea that “BA has never made a pilot CR” setting themselves up nicely for achieving whatever they want in the future.

I have it on very good authority that it was discussed, however BA wanted to furlough by fleet, seat and base. BALPA declined fearing it would undermine the all important LIFO*. Jury’s out whether it was the right call I guess (I know what I think)

*LIFO unless on a particular fleet and don’t have all your uniform yet, or have worked for another airline for a while.

Dave, the reason is that BA wanted to maintain flexibility, as they stated at the time.

it was believed that a recovery might be underway by June and it was important to be ready to capitalise on any rebound.

🙄

Timesreader84 summarises the current situation and BA in general, up perfectly.

Those that left easyjet for the BA 'dream' and now finding themselves on the scrap heap must be absolutely kicking themselves. As soon as every single easyjet pilot realised they had skin in the game, then the real show of solidarity began. BA? It soon became very clear it was every (most) man/woman out for themselves when their personal fate became clearer.

The current CRS (for a mix of 300 mainly 747 captains and FO's earning on average £110k on 66% pay) cost the workforce 8%. What would it have cost percentage wise, to keep an extra 249 very junior pilots, earning on average £55k, on say 40%-50% pay? Was it really that difficult to negotiate something like that? Who is the real baddy here?

I remember the Balpa brigade entering the room on induction day telling us how it's in all our interests to sign up to the Union. What they should have done is entered the room holding up signs on sticks saying 'be prepared to one day bend over and take one for the senior boys'. This could well be the start of a long slow death for Balpa.

Yes from what I heard it was difficult to negotiate "something like that" and the real baddy here is some in BA management.

As I recall it the claim was BA management were highly resistant to any plans put forward by BALPA that would have prevented any pilot CR...and I'd suggest that was very much down to the political factors Busdriver01 has mentioned.

Ah yes, that other total debacle orchestrated by you know who. The debacle that fell off a cliff and was never mentioned again after the terribly sad demise of Thomas Cook. The debacle that you're now suggesting has led to 249 pilot redundancies. Well, it was all worth it, wasn't it.

Paddington Bear

BALPA put forward several strategies to prevent any redundancies, all were rejected by BA management. BALPA aren’t the bad guys, you should project your anger elsewhere.

Rumour has it the redundancies are payback for the (totally shambolic and I’ll advised) strike combined with enhancing BA’s negotiating position going forwards. Bear in mind it was the newest BALPA reps that orchestrated that strike.

As much as LIFO+ sucks for those at the bottom of the seniority list (and I speak as the second most junior pilot in the company on 911) it is the right thing to do, otherwise no pilot can ever commit to a big financial decision. Also bear in mind those at the ‘top’ have been at the bottom, many have rebuilt careers after redundancies, think Gulf War 1+2, 911, sars etc.

I don't have the energy to be angry. I'm far too busy working out how I'm going to keep a roof over my family's head.

Good day to you.

A few extra things to remember:

- BA wouldn’t allow more than 300 HCE (or FTE? Never did get this) in the CRS
- BA didn’t offer any part time off the back of the part time bid “to save as many jobs as possible” - they only gave part time to people who went for it at the start, which if I have been told correctly has left those people going into the pay cut on a lower contract than they should’ve been on while not saving any jobs.
- JM actually said AB had given out too much part time already - it’s clear that he simply didn’t want to achieve zero CR. With training costs covered by the pay cuts, the unit cost of having everyone part time shouldn’t have increased. Most other major airlines have achieved it. But then they don’t have WW,AC or JM.

The lack of solidarity shown by those who knew they were safe, to those who were not, by way of lack of applications for part time is obviously woeful (I heard only 900 bids were actually made, compared to say, eJ where they had something in the high 90%) and that is something all BA Pilots should reflect upon - it was expected that everyone would go on strike for the pay rise (and I doubt the large majority of the CR group felt like they needed a pay rise) but when it comes to it, everyone for themselves.

However, it wouldn’t have made a difference if all 4300 pilots bid for part time because BA weren’t going to offer it anyway.

thetimesreader84

Interesting, the BALPA official view communicated to members was the BA would not consider it rather than BALPA and BA could not agree on how it would be done! Bearing in mind the fact that things are not picking up it will be interesting to see if BA and BALPA can agree a mechanism to use the chancellor's recent jobs saving scheme to actually save jobs!

Not quite sure what you mean by this - practically every job in the entire economy and even most jobs in BA dont have LIFO, yet the people in those jobs have long and successful careers and make big financial decisions all the time.

I don’t want to name names, but my “source” was in the room when such things would have been discussed. While they could be spinning a line, I’ve no reason to doubt them.

As for lifo+ it’s been done to death. I don’t think it’s particularly fair, and while it may stop you being in the “wrong place at the wrong time” it relies on you joining the right company (on the right fleet also it seems) at the right time. As I said, I don’t see how that’s any more fair.

Perhaps it is time to stop calling that, whatever it is you have, LIFO+? Sounds like the US powers telling the world their involvement in the ME is "peacekeeping".

Seriously, there a complex redundancy matrix. Partly known, partly secret, and at least one third of it constantly evolving. For the breadcrumbs who are left, DoJ principle would be applied UNLESS a necesarry but overruling decision needs to be made about the matrix. Such as uphelding a part of it, ignoring a part of it, or creating a new part for it possibly also cancelling some part of it.

What I see is at least a half palette of boxes with labels such as "How to avoid employees getting in the way" "Commitment or Obstacle? Jump over it and never find out", and similar. That palette has a folded piece under one corner so that it stands nice level and straight, allowing more boxes on top in the future and keeping all nicely aligned.

That piece of paper has LIFO written on it.

LIFO+ designator is rather delusional, is it not?
In my world it might be the union leaders using such name in order to pass the message how nail and teeth they fought, managing even little beyond possible to preserve the sacred seniority.

Whereas in practical terms, with regards to firing people, the stone cold reality is that seniority was taxidermized.

Not sure what world your in Flightdetent ! Perhaps your looking outside the pallette box.......

If BA start by saying 2 fleets are exempt 787/350 then the policy of LIFO is flawed.
The DOJ I am sure was followed with the handful of modifications produced by the matrix, but the MSL which most hang their hat on, is not aligned with the actual DOJ list unfortunately

If you leave your job in almost any other industry you can find an equivalent one that offers more or less identical pay / terms and conditions.

In aviation you join a seniority based company at the very bottom irrespective of your skills and experience.

I'm not saying it's the right thing.