I really do not think that compulsory redundancy will be required at BA and don't understand why some people keep raising it, particularly on a Virgin thread.

BA's redundancy policy has been updated over the years, the last time in 2015, 9 years after age discrimination legislation came into force. Seniority rules everything at BA, it is not dependent upon age, there are relatively young senior LH P1s and old junior P2s. Joining BA is always a very long term bet. MOA K.11 clearly specifies LIFO as the general principle to be applied if redundancies are required.

I personally believe that an effective treatment for the virus will be found soon. A vaccine may be far away, but much improved treatment needn't be. Confidence will be restored if people know the likelihood of passing away from the virus is very very small.

Let’s put a lid on this. It will only escalate to an argument with no benefit. BA will do as it sees fit. Virgin will do the same. Extraordinary times will mean the past is a unreliable reference for the present. Let’s wait and see, once we know more hopefully we can come together to look out for each other.

Let’s be honest here. Generally Speaking, the pilots most vociferously against LIFO are the very ones who would benefit the most if it were not applied. Typically they make up the bottom 20-30% of the pilot work force.

And those for it are on the wrong (usually older so should have known better) fleet.

You mean the majority of pilots?

exactly, also making people redundant from the top costs much more than someone with less time in the company. Less than 2 years and they dont have to pay redundancy.
good luck to all.

Mr Kipling are you sure about that? Have you seen the pitiful state of a statutory redundancy payment in the U.K. recently? In the greater scheme of things it’s peanuts. The average BA PP24 LH Captain would be looking at a rough maximum of £16K as a payout. Not even including the company pension payment BA will have broken even on that redundancy payment in less than a month of payroll reduction. There’s huge savings to be made on an ongoing basis from chopping the most senior first. Not saying that’s going to happen just pointing out that saying it’s more expensive to sling out the most senior pilots is nonsense.

(I’m neither arguing for or against LIFO. If you were talking about a 20% reduction in VS or BA, I‘d actually probably be just about safe if it were applied. However I’m a realist and I know that a company in financial distress will do exactly what suits them and is the safest legally (ie slinging out those caught up in the process of closing a base or chopping a fleet) not abiding by gentlemen’s agreements).

There's no way BA will continue with the current pilot headcount as it stands. They'll be doing the numbers already and planning on a significantly smaller airline post this crisis than at the start of this year which means jobs lost sadly. Yes there'll be guys who go part-time, take VUL and early retirement but it won't be enough for the scale of this economic crisis. Anyhow, this is a Virgin Atlantic thread not BA.

I hear you Rex and I haven't looked at the figures, however, 16k is still more than 0 isnt it. I presume the bottom 20% aren't ready to do the jobs of the top 20% either?

LIFO on its own apparently isn't legal, however as someone else said it is if there is a mix of ages in the bottom 20% and lets face it at all of the bigger companies where people used to want to work they have a good spread of ages.

LIFO in BA isn’t a “gentleman’s agreement”. It’s written in the MOA. (k.11.). And yes, it was updated as recently as 2015.

And what do you think we’re going to be able to do about it if BA decide it will cost them too much money, 3Greens? Go on strike?

Anyway this has drifted far from VS so I apologise. My general point though which will apply to Virgin too is that - in the current climate - if anyone seriously thinks an airline is going to play nice and uphold agreements and start retraining pilots at massive cost whilst their financial house is burning down around them then I’d like some of what they’re smoking, especially as lockdown is seemingly going on forever.

Would this be the MOA that had a section of it suspended just a month or so ago when it didnt suit?

Exactly my thoughts. They'll do as they wish - a balance sheet with the strength of IAG let's hope CR is not reqd.

the very same one that was suspended in full agreement with BALPA, and as I’m sure you’re aware. It was just a small subsection of schedule F that is suspended. That being, to allow fleets in surplus to have a supplementary bid processed before PRIAM. But I’m sure you knew that..
I’m fact i understand as I was on the online meeting today that BA are very much inside with BALPA on all of this.
I think there will be some tough decisions ahead, but as it stands, I don’t see CR being on the cards at BA yet. I think we can find ways to keep everyone employed until it picks up again, which it will.
the MOA is our contract with our employer and without agreement, BA need to follow the law and any changes either agreed, or if it wishes to serve notice on any part it has to make a legal case and serve 90 days notice. There is legal precedent within our airline from 2008 when BA filed the HR1 for 140 MPE. I understand, from the chair of the BACC at the time, it was their intention to use qualified LIFO.
As a group we took some pain back then, and I’m sure we can do again.

Thanks for the additional info 3G. Interesting.

Nothing would suprise me at the moment, but I do hope you're correct.

the other point to consider is that anyone above about the age of 55 could be categorised as an at risk group. It may well be the best plan to send the over 55/60s off to furlough for a while whilst this blows through - there may even need to be temporary command upgrades required to cope. Looks like community immunity is the only way out of this pickle with no vaccine in sight. After Thalidomide the medical research profession will refuse to cut standards, unless it’s for
life saving treatment. That means that unless there is a controlled release put in place for this, the global economy won’t survive. The media coverage preparing populations for this has already started.

VR,

I suspect that you are only looking at 1 side of the solution, a vaccine to prevent people catching the virus.

Another way forward is to establish effective treatments to cure those with the virus. It may be easier to progress more quickly with finding a cure as those already in ICU and facing grim odds may be willing to try experimental drugs to help find that life saving treatment. Some countries seem to have a much higher success rate than others, with time the various strategies can be examined and compared. Hopefully there will be time over the summer to prepare for a second phase in the autumn.

quite the opposite - I think the only way out of this is natural transmission and natural immunity. A vaccine will provide at best 80% effective protection. That’s the typical figure for an effective vaccine, this one is new, so May be lower. After thalidomide, research companies won’t release without extensive testing. I honestly don’t see a vaccine this side of September 21.

agree on treatment though. Be interested to see what the government guidelines are when they are released ref consideration of “vulnerable”. I’ve flown with some of our more elderly chaps recently and they are not content to fly if this becomes more widespread.
Edit:
Government may recommend lockdown to everyone including over 60s now. Know it’s in the daily rant, but no smoke without fire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...erts-warn.html