I enjoy Count's contributions, they clearly have no understanding of what actually happened in the cabin crew industrial action (beyond the BASSA version of events) and yet are still determined to use it as proof that BALPA is doomed.

I am curious to hear at one of the BAPLA briefings what the original offer was.

I certainly hope that this unpalatable offering (see Steve Rileys 4 bulletpoints) is significantly better than what was first offered by the company.

Otherwise what the hell have I been paying 40 quid a month for?

RE those bulletpoints:

*5% savings to be found within BLRs (sounds very fuzzy to me - but hey thats what the briefings are for I guess)
*Reduction from 30 days leave to 28 - any danger of meeting in the middle at 29?
*Waving the holiday pay claim - is it ok for BA to break the law now then? It is my understanding that it took an appeal court judge to clarify the situation - holiday pay is to be based on basic pay + lost allowances. End of story.
*Re the pay scale I see both sides of the arguement. It was never designed for people to spend 15 plus years on PP24. But also the companys pension scheme is now no longer a defined benefit type. The upshot being you need/desire 15 years at the top of the tree to squirrel away a decent amount of savings to make for a cushy retirement.

Re this final BP - I joined a few years back so will remain on the old payscale (at least until Willy comes back for 'seconds' yet again pleading poverty). Even so, I would be willing to accept a PP29 scale for all (personally foregoing 5 years at the top of the pile) - I think this would show an appreciation for the changing financial times whilst not leaving all newbies to shoulder the biggest burden.

I think after

1) Several successful attacks on pilot pay and productivity over the past few years
2) Introducing BFD whilst never explaining what it actually is / will become
3) Adjustments (always for the worse) to BLRs
4) Our assistance whilst many CC were being tools in 2010

We deserve more than this intransigence on the part of senior
management.

I looked at this thread expecting to read about the thread topic and find it has descended into the usual BASSAbashing by the usual suspects.

BASSA made mistakes as did we all but we achieved an honourable negotiated Settlement Agreement, recognising our Union and promising to abide by our industrial agreements.

Upholding that agreement and the new behaviours required of it is challenging for both sides but a recent joint message from both our CEO Keith Williams and the head of Unite Len McCluskey, addressed not only to BASSA members but our whole IFCE department including our managers, shows the commitment the Leadership Team have to making it a success.

Moving forward, our dispute exposed a dysfunctionality that goes deeper than just our Cabin Crew Union. The New Year is bringing new initiatives, including closer collaboration between Flight Ops and IFCE and Beyond the Flight Deck. The senior Cabin Crew have been invited to take part in a confidential survey to identify Flight Crew behaviours which would support our community and cement the foundations of the refreshing new relationship required of our Settlement Agreement.

The Cabin Crew dispute saw an anti Cabin Crew sentiment become accepted as the cultural norm by some but peace has restored dignity to our profession. We may not be as technically qualified or highly trained as other employees but our role is as important. Indeed innovative developments, such as equipping the Senior Cabin Crew with I Pads and the newly launched Flywell forum, are empowering and up-skilling us whilst making us more productive. Plans for CSDs to manage their own teams and harnessing our community’s knowledge and passion to improve the customer experience will reduce our departments overheads, as ground positions duplicating these functions can be cut from the business.

Back to the thread topic. If the merger goes ahead our new Flight Crew colleagues can expect to be welcomed to a Company that does not tolerate bullying and a Cabin Crew community ready to support them if should they be subjected to any.

Our Company is reportedly recruiting 800 Pilots over the next few years and the newly acquired short haul slots are predicted to be used for long haul flights. With new aircraft rolling out too, this is an exciting time of expansion and those Pilots who are junior now will benefit long term, with opportunities for promotion and fleet movement if they merge with BMI.

A ‘NO’ vote may not affect your terms and conditions in the short term but any future expansion will undoubtedly take place on the lower cost BMI fleet. My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.

Instead of focusing on the Cabin Crew and obsessing about BASSA and rising to the bait offered by the Count, I recommend you all engage with your Association Reps to discuss how you will achieve the required productivity to seal the deal, as it has an expiration date.


The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions.

Well that's us told to behave - I think :confused: .....

I'm perplexed by that strange comment and I wonder what you base it on?

What gives you the impression there's a senior/junior split?

Err thanks - we already are ( still :confused:.)

Having seen recent comms from "Admin" of Bassa, the promise mentioned above seems to have passed them by.

Now back to topic.

Nope - never worked for BMI or BA. My question stands, however - what possible reason would current BA pilots have to integrate the BMI pilots anywhere other than the bottom of their seniority list? It is a genuine question. Sure, let the current captains remain as captains on type as long as they do not change fleet, but what argument can there be to put anyone ahead of current BA pilots? If, for example, 50 pilots with 20+ years' seniority on the BMI list appear at that same point on the BA list, will they not all next year be claiming 747 and 777 commands? Why would the BA pilots do that to themselves?

Having left BMI (or BM as it was then ) in 1996 having joined in 87, I was wondering how that would possibly be the case too.
I admit to having very little understanding or interest in the TUPE rules having long ago forsaken the UK for pastures less brown (well, in most respects) but it seems to me BA/IAG whatever you want to call it, are buying Bish's Baby so I would have expected that being tagged on the end of a BA seniority list was a result for anyone from BMI.
I would be mightily p1ssed off had joined I BA in 87, & now found myself about to have a (ex) me slotted in ahead in seniority, having worked for BA for the square root of b*gger all days/years. Shome mishtake shurely ? ? or does it really work like this ?
If it does, it just goes to show, I should have stayed put in 96 :ugh:
This could become my second biggest career regret after failing to get into BCAL in 86 having failed to impress the Ozzie (?) bloke at the final interview :{

And how is it possible that, through no fault of their own, pilots who wind up having flown for an airline that has been turned into a train wreck by its management, have to suffer the loss of 20+ years seniority (in your example), just because their airline happens to be being bought by another?

Explain to me how that is fair?

Doctors must laugh at the lunacy of our industry...that we could ever allow that to happen.

But then, at EZY, its every man for himself isn't it?

:E

But I'm still having trouble realising how, if BA pilots vote "No", bmi can expand at their expense at a slot-constrained airport...unless the BA brand is to be sacrificed? If bmi is not going to be integrated, then are people really saying WW will grow bmi, or whatever the new entity will be called, at the expense of BA?

And at the point he tries to shuffle work in bmi's direction, the bmi pilots dig their heels in for BA T&C's - after all they're now doing "BA" work - isn't everyone a winner?

At that point you might as well merge the operation(s).

The difference between this and the J*/Qantas situation, is that the proposal is centred on a seriously slot-constrained airport. WW doesn't have the flexibility to "outsource" work to his new cheap airline via alternative hubs.

Maybe I'm missing something.

SR71, I subscribe to your sense of "fairness", but, regretably, the big bad world generally doesn't.
So, if you work for a company that is fecked, by association, you too. . .are fecked.
Unfortunately, for the hard working individual who made (with the benefit of hindsight :hmm: ) the "wrong" choice, that, as we (used to ) say is "how the cookie crumbles" :bored:

You have to see it from both points of view, had I not left BMI in 96 with 9 years service, well I guess you can see my political campaigning direction, had I joined BA in 87 ? I would probably wish to strangle the "other me", or more pertinently the BritishAirwaysLinePilotsAssociation for allowing it to happen.

Fairness is a painting, which (like most worthwhile paintings)what you see, may vary greatly depending on where it is viewed from.

This comment keeps cropping up all over the place in recent years, and I'm really struggling to understand what the **** its got to do with anything. Our politicians are hell bent on destroying the country in an attempt to make things more 'fair'. Why let some people get unfairly rich - why not make everyone poor - thats much fairer.

Since when was life supposed to be fair? It is what it is. There are many claims you can make in the british (and most other) legal systems. however "It ain't fair guv'nor" isn't one of them.

Bottom line is BMI is donald ducked. I supposed the 'fairest' option would be to let it go bust, put all the pilots in the job centre and let them apply for BA jobs along with everyone else, and let the slots go to the highest bidder. That option sounds very egalitarian to me
However I suspect the BMI pilots would like the 'unfair' option of being parachuted into BA mainline, with BA job security and benefits, albeit with a loss of seniority.
However as has been said before the seniority question only arises IF its is merged into BA. if it remains standalone, then it is irrelevent, as is TUPE as its not got anything to do with BA.

SR71 - At easyJet it is not 'every man for himself'. Indeed, compared to what is unfolding at BA/BMI, our takeovers of GB Airways ang Go were positively gentlemanly. Everyone kept their positions, including Training Captains. Many people at Go received massive payouts and the GB guys got varying degrees of compensation deals. On one hand the more senior GB captains ended up on a lower salary, but offsetting that numerous GB FOs are now captains who would not have been under their previous employer. Not having a seniority list proved a great blessing as it was one less thing to fight over. No takeover or merger is perfect, and ours were no exceptions, but in retrospect they went about as well as any of these events ever do.

There is no doubt that if you are a BMI pilot then the current situation seems both unfair and very depressing. It may indeed be the case that BMI management have created the effective destruction of their own company. Nonetheless, that is hardly the fault of BA pilots, who not unreasonably will take the view that is someone else's problem. Having been on the receiving end of a company bankruptcy with all the fears and anxieties that generates, I have nothing but sympathy for the BMI pilots. However, I also fully understand the reasons why the BA pilots will not budge an inch. I also have to observe that were the tables reversed, the BMI pilots would not budge an inch either. The bottom line is that if your company goes up the spout, your seniority, alas, counts for nothing - nor should it, if that would disadvantage the current employees of your new company.

Chief Brody has a number of valid points.

What you will find many BMI pilots consider fair is the fact that they integrated the BMed pilots on Date Of Joining. This was initially fround upon by the BMI pilots but were instructed by BALPA HQ that this was the most legal and fair way of dealing with this subject under TUPE.

It is for this reason that many BMI pilots will feel particualarly letdown by BALPA if BALPA then does a monumental U-turn in what it advocates as the legitimate formula for bringing two companies together. I am no legal expert but by my reckoning they would be seen as offering impartial and false advise if anything other than what they advised BMI staff were employed in this example. I'm not saying its right or wrong but BALPA can't say that combining seniority lists HAS to be done in a particular way because it's the law to one group and then spin a different line when the circumstances are repeated a couple of years later, unless the law has changed?

With regard to DanAir, CityFlyer etc, the same point applies. However, in these cases the TUPE law MAY have changed since that time, which may well be why what was deemed a solution then (bottom of the seniority list) may not be applicable now.

Notice that there are a number of MAYs in my posting. I am merely suggesting and hoping that someone who actually is current and familiar with TUPE law would shed some light on this subject. At this time there is so much rumour and conjecture, that it is difficult to see the wood from the trees.

As a final point and something that I have read about somewhere in one of these forums, why isn't BALPA playing a more active part? What have they negotiated in terms of the proposal? Is there not something that they can do whereby an agreement is reached between the two Company Councils that they will not allow workers from either Company to operate the others routes. If this were the case, BA/BMI pilots could both continue to exercise their rights to Industrial Action without fear of the other party operating their routes temporarily. I believe that BA BALPA has about a 98% membership and BMIs membership is well into the majority of pilots. With so few pilots in either airline not BALPA members, if the Union decread that it's members should not break any picket lines, I would expect that there would be insufficient resources to cover the majority of IA'ed company's flying programme.

Food for thought?!

I am having de ja vu. I seem to remember the exact same conversations happening 4 years ago. Funny thing is the employment lawyers then said there was only one viable solution that would stop the lawsuits
In their tracks. Guess what there was and still is some people who didn't like the result but it was as fair as it could be. People were disadvantaged some got lucky. That was an airline that was in its eleventh hour an fifty ninth minute. The administrators were in and the lights were out. Do you know? It worked out in the end. Btw we ended up with full integration because it was the best option out of some bad choices. Seems like we may have gone full circle IMHO.

And there was me thinking it was 'Rum, innocent Tarzan'! :E

The Count is nothing more than DH's alter ego. 'Ego' being the word! He can't bear being out of the 'game' and trolls here in an effort to stir things up. All the references to BA cabin crew make it so obvious ..... and so tiresome. A good ignoring will make him fume far more than any response to his drivel.

It's water under the bridge and can't be changed now, but the fact that VS did not win the bid still bugs me. BA would have had a closer competitive equal out of LHR with the BM-VS tie-up. I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive considering BA's strong position at LHR... Oh well, no use living in the past.............

Compare Lufty's position at FRA and KLM at AMS, Air France at CDG and you will see that the new IAG will still hold fewer slots by % at LHR.

IAG's bid for BMI does still have to pass final regulatory approval. However, you can be reasonably sure that behind the scenes, even before the final takeover was announced, that IAG had made some preliminary enquiries to see if the purchase was likely to be approved.

LHR has take-off and landing slots which do not automatically lend themselves to these short turnarounds. Adding BMI slots will help but it still won't give the flexibility to do this routinely.

40 mins? Try 25 mins!

merge or be damned
 

SR71,

From past experience I believe it would play out something like this...

IAG call for internal tenders for some short haul routes from LHR.

BA Express (BMI), newly created AOC holder (part of BA Group) wins hands down and begins operating with slots owned by BA Group. Plan is to expand BA Express over eg 5 years to expand into BA shorthaul routes through the internal tendering process.

New recruits are given BA Express contracts to sign. Some eg 50% of Left Hand seats in BA Express are ring fenced with BALPA agreement to allow BA SFO's a route to command ( seconded ) before bidding for long haul ( a sweetner to prevent industrial action in the transition ). BA short haul commanders offered longhaul with the newly aquired slots.

BA shorthaul shrinks, BA Express expands.

Eventually as supply of secondees in BA Express dries up commands become available for BA Express FO's, but not able to bid for long haul as BA long haul now recruits seperately for experienced long haul talent.

BA Brand suffers a little in the transition but everything still looks the same on short haul to Jo Public , same uniform, same tail fins, but costs are 2/3 rds, and long haul retains its reputation and expands.

In the end IAG would be very pleased, crew of both companies would be happy but have a nagging sense that they had just been shafted.

Has the company confirmed that 'BA Express' would be LHR based?

A much more likely outcome to a no vote IMHO would be the creation of BA Express at LGW with terms and practices that allow it to compete with easyjet on bucket and spade routes - the company could then been seen to allow LGW pilots to 'choose' to move to LHR on mainline terms or stay but on BA Express terms.

Some people on this forum seem to think that a pilots salary alone can turn an airline from legacy to low - cost, a lot more needs to change at BA SH LHR than just pilot salaries and with the slots, capacity constraints, and BA's need to align connections at LHR I don't see that happening.

And the fact no low cost operater put a bid in for BMI means the industry can't see it as a viable option either.

The likely outcome is that BA pilots vote yes and bmi mainline at LHR is integrated into BA, simple as that folks.

Count - Good man! At last I've found someone here with their glass half-full.

1033 - Quote "What you will find many BMI pilots consider fair is the fact that they integrated the BMed pilots on Date Of Joining. This was initially fround upon by the BMI pilots but were instructed by BALPA HQ that this was the most legal and fair way of dealing with this subject under TUPE.

It is for this reason that many BMI pilots will feel particualarly letdown by BALPA if BALPA then does a monumental U-turn in what it advocates as the legitimate formula for bringing two companies together. I am no legal expert but by my reckoning they would be seen as offering impartial and false advise if anything other than what they advised BMI staff were employed in this example. I'm not saying its right or wrong but BALPA can't say that combining seniority lists HAS to be done in a particular way because it's the law to one group and then spin a different line when the circumstances are repeated a couple of years later, unless the law has changed?"


Sorry for the long post but an excellent point made by 1033. Yes, just what WOULD Balpa look like if they did a u-turn? Guess this would be an awkward time for them.

Quote from Studi - "Willy would be in deep !!!! if he would be fighting with pilots in LHR and MAD."

Well Studi, Willy has already proved he likes a scrap and won't be pushed around. Why do you think he heads up IAG now?

He has very cleverly gone to a lot of trouble to devise what is a difficult choice for the pilots themselves to make as he knows the havoc they could cause if they feel pushed around, so the choice is theirs alone. But it is clear what he wants and if said pilots make the wrong decision watch out for Plan B to be exercised and standby to receive the revenge dished up cold.

It is cleverly divisive as well as the BA seniors will truly believe it won't affect them the know it will. Again every man for himself I guess. It will be interesting to see the result, how lucky do you feel?

goerring....

Well written and I think if the 'NO's are successful that is a very likely outcome!

[QUOTE]and IF BA Express was created, to fight to get the T&C to BA levels thant to just give 24pp away for nothing./QUOTE]

If BA Express IS created (it will be if the NO voters win - it is all about unit costs) then the 24 pay points are given away completely anyway. Never mind 34 pay points. The BA Express T&Cs will be in line with Iberia Express - 35k (euro) basic with 3 pay points and 5 years between each one. And it will have plenty of applicants perfectly willing to settle for far less than we hope to secure with 34 pay points. How does anyone propose you fight to get back to where we are now from such a terrible starting position?! We could spend the rest of our careers on strike - it would make no difference. Just voting no and waiting to see what happens next is pretty much the same as pretending the world outside a legacy cockpit window isn't happening - it is, and we can either adapt and move with it or look the other way and hope for the best.

Where would a continuing (possibly re-named) BMI fit into this scenario?
No axe to grind - a genuine question.

What are the proposed bidline rule changes? The proposals are short on detail. How is the 5% productivity going to be achieved? - CAP increase, minimum day credit down from 4.30 hours. Loss of Wrap days? The devil is in the detail which will affect how one votes. If it tastes too bad then its off the menu?

Jockster

It has been stated by BALPA that minimum credit is not up for discussion.

for those interested
 

General Questions
How many Aircraft and Pilots do BMI bring to BA in the event of integration?
25 Shorthaul Airbus 320 series aircraft and 2 Longhaul A330 Aircraft. BMI Mainline consists of just over 340 pilots and approximately 600 Cabin Crew.
What specific concessions are BA seeking in exchange for an agreement to integrate BMI into BA?
Pilots are being asked to agree concessions that equate to £10M of annualised savings delivered in full by 2015. These savings would be found by a number of measures which include LHR SH productivity, New Entrant Payscales, changes to leave entitlement and an agreement to remove future Holiday Pay liability.
Why is it necessary to secure agreement from BA Pilots before implementation can proceed?
Key elements of senior management within IAG favoured a standalone solution to the BMI purchase, seeing it as a once in a generation opportunity to create a separate “BA Express” operation at our main base. The BACC was able to influence decision makers within BA and IAG. The agreement of pilots to the changes being proposed will determine whether or not BMI is integrated into BA.
Will a YES vote guarantee integration of BMI into BA Mainline?
Should IAG go ahead with the purchase, after regulatory approval, we have a very clear undertaking from BA CEO Keith Williams that a vote in favour of this package will ensure integration into BA Pilots are the only specific work group being consulted on the changes. All other directorates in BA have accepted that they will either meet the cost targets IAG has approved as part of a proposed integration, or they will lose out on the new BMI work. The company has indicated to us that all ground handling and engineering functions could be carried out by third party contract as necessary. BMI cabin crew may or may not be integrated into Mixed Fleet, but at any rate unit costs will not be permitted to rise above BMI levels.
What stops IAG setting up a Low Cost Carrier anyway even after the BMI integration?
Principally the infrastructure constraints of LHR. There is no spare terminal or runway capacity at LHR and will not be so long as the 3rd runway remains off the table.
Had those within IAG pushing for a standalone option won the day, or should BA pilots reject these proposals, that would have inevitably led to the emergence of ‘BA Express’. Ultimately, key decision makers have been convinced that acceptable operational efficiencies can be found from BA as part of a turnaround plan for BMI and BA Shorthaul combined.
Following the proposed integration of BMI into BA, there will be no other carriers, UK based or otherwise, with sufficient slots and LHR operations to enable a LHR LCC to be set up in the foreseeable future.
What stops IAG transferring assets out of the combined BA/BMI Operation to set up a new Low Cost operation?
The obvious and easiest time to do that would be now, and we have been able to influence them otherwise. For the future the simple answer is SCOPE.
2
On reaching agreement for the merger with BA pilots the 27 BMI aircraft will become part of the BA fleet for the purposes of the Employment Security section (SCOPE clause) of Schedule K. As long as these aircraft are not expressly covered by SCOPE there is a very real risk of IAG seeking to deploy them in a manner highly detrimental to our interests. Once they are covered by the BA SCOPE agreement it would not be possible for IAG to do this without it being a clear breach of our Scope agreement. There have been no material breaches of our SCOPE clause by BA at any time in the past and we would expect the conditions to be honoured in the future.
What is the process that will follow a YES vote by BA Pilots?
BA must consult with BMI pilots about the detail of integration. This is required by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, known as TUPE. We will expand on a number of the specific issues on that point elsewhere in the document.
After the consultation is completed then a plan to implement will be put forward. At this stage it is not clear what the timeline of integration will be but we would expect to see the full integration done without delay given the timeline set for getting the new combined operation to breakeven by 2015.
In the meantime, once the regulatory approval allows the transaction to be completed, other departments will be enacting changes that bring the BMI work “in-house”.
Seniority
What will happen to BMI mainline pilots in the event that BA Pilots reject this package?
If BA pilots vote to reject the package, then BMI mainline pilots will not be integrated into BA Mainline. The BMI mainline aircraft will operate separately to BA Mainline, although they may do so as BA Branded aircraft, such as “BA Express”. The BACC believes that such an arrangement represents the greatest risk to BA Mainline pilots.
What will happen to BMI mainline Pilots in the event of a merger?
They will become British Airways pilots, however the MOU signed between BA and the BACC is very clear. The integration package is conditional on “Seniority arrangements on terms acceptable to BA pilots.”
The BACC position is explicit in its commitment that “No BA pilot will be disadvantaged by the proposed acquisition and integration of BMI”. What does this mean?
We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation between BA and the BMI Company Council. However, the legal protections enjoyed by BMI mainline pilots under TUPE would not extend beyond the protection of their employment and their existing terms and conditions.
For example, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots any legal right to
(i) transfer onto other BA fleets or
(ii) be integrated into the BA seniority list. This is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer, which, as we understand it, they wouldn’t be.
3
What will happen to the Seniority lists of the two companies?
As in the previous answers the MOU condition and the BACC position will apply.
BA will be required to inform and consult with BMI mainline pilots under the TUPE Regulations. In addition, the employment and the current Terms & Conditions of BMI mainline pilots would be protected. This means the current BMI seniority arrangements (i.e. the seniority arrangements within the BMI pilot community) would be protected. However, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots the legal right to join the BA seniority list.
Again, this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be). There is, therefore, no legal requirement to merge the BMI and BA seniority lists even in the event that BMI is integrated.
Will BMI pilots displace any existing BA pilot from their current position and seniority?
For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline.
Will the BMI Integration affect the current (2012) PRIAM result?
No, course allocations and results for 2012 will not be affected in any way. Normal operational issues such as fleet size/network/training resources etc may still result in changes to the course allocation but none of these factors will be down to the integration of BMI.
Will the BMI integration affect future opportunities in the subsequent years’ PRIAM bids?
The Integration of the BMI operation will result in some changes to the shape of BA and its fleets. BMI pilots will be protected under TUPE (as outlined above) and BA pilots will not be disadvantaged as a consequence of the merger. It is difficult to see any outcome therefore whereby a BA pilot PRIAM bid in future years would be adversely affected.
As the operational integration is completed, and BA begins to make full use of the opportunities afforded by this purchase, it is anticipated that more slots will be used for LH services, creating more aspirational opportunities.
Productivity Changes
Why are we being asked to agree to further productivity changes?
IAG have the option to integrate BMI into BA or to run BMI as a separate, stand alone carrier, “BA Express”. IAG and BA have allowed the BACC to determine this critical decision.
IAG is taking a clinical approach to its analysis of individual business units. Each must, in addition to any symbiotic benefit it has (i.e. SH feeding LH), make a profitable contribution in its own right.
When considering our request to integrate BMI, IAG has analysed the turnaround plan for BMI, the effect of integration into a SH business that is not making a profit, and set a cost saving target for BA as a whole to address. Flight Operations proportion of this cost is £10M.
4
Why do the changes fall on Shorthaul alone?
They don’t. Approximately half of the £10M target comes by making improvements to the combined LHR SH productivity, equivalent to 5% of LHR SH unit costs. The balance of the target comes from the other measures such as leave days and addressing the Holiday Pay issue from 2014 onwards.
Why can’t all pilots make a smaller concession to reach the target?
Concessions from all pilots will meet nearly half the target. The 5% of SH productivity from the combined SH business is a condition set by BA. In our assessment it represents the absolute maximum that can realistically be achieved whilst not having a disproportionately detrimental effect on SH lifestyle.
If Flight Operations were to allow “cross-subsidy” of the target, (i.e. spread the target equally across all fleets) IAG would inevitably return to the performance of LHR SH elements of the BA business and, as Stephen Riley’s letter clearly states, would still demand that steps are taken to address our overall LHR SH cost base relative to our direct competitors in the London market.
In other words, if we all give up the equivalent of £10M, (2% of the overall Flight Ops budget) IAG is ultimately still going to demand that SH unit costs are addressed. Therefore, we risk paying twice. We will seek rule changes that minimise the impact on LHR SH lifestyle.
Why don’t we know the specific detail of the rule changes before being asked to vote on the package?
It will take several months to finalise rule changes, while decisions on integration or not need to take place at the end of January 2012. Changes will be phased in from January 2013.
BA needs to integrate the BMI SH aircraft into our current fleet. Network planning will optimise the schedules, removing cross-over, exploring new markets and finally optimising frequencies to make the best possible use of the new assets.
Agreeing specific rule changes in advance of that process being completed means that a change made today may not deliver either the full value that we expect or worse, has a disproportionately negative effect on LHR SH lifestyle.
The requirement under the agreement is to deliver, in full by 2015, the equivalent of 5% of the current LHR SH pilot costs towards this agreement. Once full visibility is achieved on the new Network, we can optimise the rule changes to make the smallest possible impact on lifestyle for the greatest value.
Will LHR SH pilots be given a choice in what rule changes are to be made?
All BA pilots are being asked to commit to the £10M overall target which will contain productivity changes of the order of 5% of LHR SH productivity. At the point that rule changes themselves are agreed, it is anticipated that, if more than one option is available a consultation would take place to establish the preferences from the community for which changes would be made.
5
Any such consultation would not have the option to reject the proposed changes as we would be committed from a YES vote in this ballot to delivering the required cost savings for integration to occur.
Shorthaul lifestyle will have to suffer disproportionately to allow this agreement?
We will work to minimise detrimental impact. In the same way that we were able to meet the BP targets previously without substantial impacts on SH lifestyle, we believe that, given the efficiencies to be found in the new network, well targeted rule changes can deliver the efficiencies required.
BA pilots are being asked to bear all the pain while BMI pilots gain from this integration?
Every BA pilot gains by this integration. By removing the risk of BA having an IAG owned competitor on its doorstep, we end up with greater job security and the LH growth anticipated from this deal should positively impact all BA pilots in the future.
BMI has two main issues. Firstly, it doesn’t make enough revenue because of its inability to feed in to a LH network at its home base. Secondly, its network drives relatively low productivity, with flying hours below 650 hours a year.
A sizeable part of the LHR SH Productivity increase will come from the network efficiencies found in LHR SH that will enable the BMI pilots to get nearer to the 700 hour average that BA pilots currently achieve.
How many more flying hours will SH fly because of this agreement?
Given the current average of around 700hrs achieved on LHR SH we anticipate that the overall increase in flying will be of the order of 30-35 hours per annum. If this is achieved under the present rules, it would equate to less than 8 additional days a year at work. Some suggestion, that we would agree concessions, like the old regional agreement that allowed rosters with as few as legal minimum days off, are way off the mark and not based on the reality of what is being asked for in these proposals.
So will there be extra days at work for SH pilots if we accept this agreement?
All pilots will give up one leave day per season. The LHR SH productivity changes will inevitably mean more days at work, but our aim is to minimise the additional days at work, as pilot feedback is absolutely clear on this objective.
How are LGW members affected by the £10m package?
LGW members would obviously be affected by any “all-fleet” measures such as new entrant pay scales and holiday pay offset and as such LGW members will therefore be included in the BMI integration ballot.
How does this fit in with the separate LGW SH fleet renewal negotiations that are currently taking place?
LGW members have a separate target to meet in order to justify the renewal of the ageing 737 fleet. An additional consultation exercise will take place at LGW in Feb or March. However any savings made by LGW pilots in the measures proposed in the BMI deal will be attributed to any LGW targets raised in the LGW talks.
6
Will BA or IAG be back after this agreement for further concessions in LH or SH?
The aviation industry has been through a period of immense uncertainty since 9/11 and the reality is that we have been forced to respond to a number of challenges provided by external events.
Throughout this period we have delivered employment security on some of the best T&Cs in the industry for BA pilots. We will continue to do that.
Any LHR SH rule changes will address SH unit costs. It is envisaged that 735 hrs a year is approaching the absolute maximum that can be flown by a networked SH airline given the constraints of LHR.
It has been stressed to Keith Williams that pilots are in need of period of stability. However, it would be foolhardy to believe that this agreement offers permanent guarantees, as clearly an external shock or sudden downturn would be looked at on its merits. Nonetheless, BA accepts that these measures address the known competitive SH threat. LH is efficient and cost effective within its market.
34 Point Pay Structure
What are the details of the new entrant 34 Point basic pay structure?
The new entrant basic pay structure will have the same starting and finishing points as the current 24 structure, but it will have a larger number of pay points to reach top of scale. The annual increment is therefore lower than the current 24 point increment.
The progression up the new pay scale is linear, based on one pay point for each year of service in exactly the same way as the current 24 point scale works.
Why 34 Pay Points?
The changes reflect the different career lengths arising from the change to the Age Regulations in 2006. It was for us an essential point of principle that the starting and finishing points for pilots were maintained in these new pay arrangements. The 10 year increase in retirement age is reflected in the extra 10 pay points to reach the top pay point.
What effect does this have on Pensionable pay scales for New Entrant pilots?
NONE. New entrants will be on the current pensionable pay arrangements for existing BA pilots in the BARP scheme. They will achieve PP24 for pensionable pay purposes after 23 years service in exactly the same way as current BARP pilots.
Does this mean that pilots on the current PP24 structure will be forced onto the new 34 Point structure?
NO. BA accepts that a contractual promise exists to pilots on the current structure and only after consultation could they amend the pay arrangements for current pilots. BALPA has no interest in making such a change. The company does, however, control future contract promises that it may issue and it has been a long held desire of BA to address the effects of the Age Legislation changes that afford pilots a potential of 10 extra years at top of pay scale.
Is there a risk to having more than one pay structure in BA. Will it result in pressure in the future to amend the pay point 24 structure?
7
We already have 3 separate pension arrangements in BA and while we would prefer all pilots to enjoy exactly the same terms and conditions, the reality is that market forces and external factors have resulted in changes from APS to NAPS and subsequently from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme.
The BACC has been very mindful of how the new basic pay structure is determined, to ensure that it most closely reflects the pay arrangements of the existing BA pilot workforce. The changes are purely in basic pay increments to reflect longer career lengths. All evidence in BA since 2006 is that pilots choose to exercise the right to remain in employment to age 60 and beyond.
Our terms and conditions would be under greater pressure as a result of a NO vote to integration. That would only place even greater pressures on our terms & conditions in future than any in-house payscale differential between pilots on the 24 point structure and the proposed 34 point structure for new entrants. A stand-alone IAG company would have a far more radical solution to pay structures and therefore be the future growth vehicle for IAG in the UK.
Holiday Pay
What does “An agreed mechanism to remove any future liability with respect to the holiday pay ruling” mean?
In September 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally ruled in our favour and determined that BA should base pilots' holiday pay on “normal remuneration” or overall earnings and not just on basic pay. We are now waiting for the UK Supreme Court to determine how this ruling will be applied in practice. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place between April and July 2012.
BA is therefore faced with a retrospective claim back to 2006 which is NOT covered by the agreement you are being asked to vote on. As part of the ongoing legal process, BALPA is therefore still pursuing a claim for retrospective holiday pay going back to 2006.
As part of the £10M in concessions being sought by BA for the BMI agreement, BALPA believes a measure that mitigates any future liability from 2014 onwards is a preferred way to help meet this financial target. Any monies accrued up to that point are not covered by the proposed BMI agreement and will continue to be claimed by BALPA. It remains our clear intention to make sure that all BA members receive the retrospective holiday pay they are owed by BA as soon as possible and certainly before 2014.
Subject to this ballot being approved BALPA will negotiate a mechanism that effectively deals with Pilots reduced pay whilst on Annual Leave. It would most likely be an amendment to the Variable Pay structure that means a pilot is not worse off in months when on leave than in months that contain no leave.
Will I be getting my retrospective Holiday Pay or has this been given up?
As indicated above, BALPA is continuing to claim retrospective holiday pay on your behalf (back to 2006) and will do everything it can to ensure that you receive the money you are owed as soon as possible. This will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing which we expect to take place later this year. The time period of the claim will be from January 2006 to the date on which we implement the agreed mechanism for removing any future liability (probably 1 January 2014).
8
We have not waived our right to retrospective payments, given up our claim to such pay, or conceded any rights in this agreement. None of the agreement being voted on here prejudices the legal victory on Holiday Pay entitlement.
When will BA pay the Holiday Pay Claim or can they be forced to pay it by us agreeing the mechanism in this agreement?
BA has indicated that it wants to wait and see what the final Supreme Court ruling is on the issue as this will determine their exact liability. The amount credited under the agreement represents a best estimate on the value of the claim, based on the ECJ ruling last year. It represents approximately 25% of the £10M target set by BA.
However until the exact liability is known BA will almost certainly wait to make payment. In the meantime Holiday Pay entitlement continues to accrue from the date of the first submission.
Will I will be worse off than I am now under this agreement?
We intend to make sure that you receive, subject to the conclusion of the legal process, Holiday Pay in accordance with our claim. Until we reach agreement on the mechanism with BA you will continue to accrue entitlement. Under this agreement we will see the following benefits rather than BA seeking to simply recover the monies in some other manner.
Firstly we meet a significant proportion of our cost target, almost a quarter in fact, by reaching agreement on a payment that we have so far not received.
Secondly, we intend to use this opportunity to address some of the large variability in pay between months where leave is taken and those where a full month is worked. For most pilots having greater certainty of earnings is of benefit.
Can BA use our agreement here as the basis to challenge the ECJ ruling?
NO. We have categorically not waived our entitlement to Holiday Pay under this agreement.
The Ballot Process
What will happen next?
The BACC will be holding General Members Meetings on Tuesday 10th, Wednesday 11th , Thursday 12th and Tuesday 17th at Heathrow. There is also a GMM at Gatwick on Monday 16th January. Full details have been sent separately about these.
On, or immediately after January 13th the BACC will be issuing a unique Voter ID to either the email address that we hold on file for you or, for those members who choose to receive paper communications only from BALPA to their home address.
The ballot will be conducted electronically. Full details of the voting process will be contained within this communication.
Why is the ballot being conducted electronically and not by post?
A postal ballot would require a minimum of 21 days to complete and given that full details of the proposed package were only sent on January 4th members will need sufficient time to attend the GMM’s and then vote. IAG have been clear that a decision from pilots, that will determine whether integration occurs, cannot be allowed to delay the process of seeking
9
regulatory approval. To ensure the longest possible briefing period while meeting this requirement we will use a widely accepted ballot tool to conduct this ballot.
Is this ballot binding in the same way as a postal ballot?
The ballot result is binding in exactly the same way that the BACC would consider the result of a consultative postal ballot. The software being used is recognised and used by a number of other unions as being very effective for consulting with members. It is software that BALPA has used in other CC’s to conduct both survey and ballot processes.
When will the ballot close?
Full details will be contained within the ballot briefing package.
When will the result be published?
Immediately after the closure and the results have been collated.

Err, would you mind formatting that a bit. I'm sure it's all very interesting, but it's more than my tired brain can take.

Just a quick question to somebody that might know; it's probably splitting hairs, but I am interested to know if it is clearly spelled out in the terms of the vote.

Is my understanding correct thinking that a 'Yes' vote by the BA pilots says that they agree to various concessions regarding productivity, etc. in order to allow bmi to be integrated?
If so, following a 'Yes' vote are BA compelled to go ahead with the integration? - or, could WW, having tested the water & through the vote currently underway with the pilot community having "shown their hand"- decide that, after all he still prefers the idea of a standalone operation, unless the pilots agree to give up 'xyz', etc. etc.
I only mention it having seen the results of discussions between pilots & mgmt where all the i's & t's weren't completely dotted & crossed; only to find that the airline's lawyers have discovered a little chink in the pilots' armour & have ruthlessly exploited it.

Edit: in the time it's taken to post this I think the above post covers it!

Whilst I have appreciated and commented on the support and positive attitude of nearly all the BA pilots on here and in person, I cant help but read an underlying negative possible hostile attitude towards BMI pilots in the BACC document kindly posted by buzz boy.

Very disappointing :hmm:

Doesn't that document also say that anyone unable to spell "disappointing" is barred from becoming a BA pilot? :rolleyes:

Does the document also mention anything with regards online idiots who spend all their time trying to cause petty disputes on pprune that distract from the real issue?

Whats up Blu, are you missing the count, billym, plus anyone else you can start an argument with?

Grow up! :ugh:

Calm down, girls.

I prefer not to stray from the thread, and I realise the words 'most likely' were used; however I have an inkling that the integration of just over 340 pilots into BA spells sh1t news for potential DEPs and members of the FPP. PP34 may be a far off dream if such services are no longer required.

For the benefit of SayAgainSlowly, (and my own) I have taken the liberty attempting some formatting of Buzz Boy's very interesting and informative post. I hope it makes it easier to read, knowing the difficulties sometimes encountered in sending posts from down route. I apologise if I have ^%£$* anything up. I clearly have too much time on my hands.

D.

[quote]General Questions

Q. How many Aircraft and Pilots do BMI bring to BA in the event of integration?
A. 25 Shorthaul Airbus 320 series aircraft and 2 Longhaul A330 Aircraft.
BMI Mainline consists of just over 340 pilots and approximately 600 Cabin Crew.

Q.What specific concessions are BA seeking in exchange for an agreement to integrate BMI into BA?
A. Pilots are being asked to agree concessions that equate to £10M of annualised savings delivered in full by 2015. These savings would be found by a number of measures which include LHR SH productivity, New Entrant Payscales, changes to leave entitlement and an agreement to remove future Holiday Pay liability.

Q.Why is it necessary to secure agreement from BA Pilots before implementation can proceed?
A.Key elements of senior management within IAG favoured a standalone solution to the BMI purchase, seeing it as a once in a generation opportunity to create a separate “BA Express” operation at our main base. The BACC was able to influence decision makers within BA and IAG. The agreement of pilots to the changes being proposed will determine whether or not BMI is integrated into BA.

Q.Will a YES vote guarantee integration of BMI into BA Mainline?
A.Should IAG go ahead with the purchase, after regulatory approval, we have a very clear undertaking from BA CEO Keith Williams that a vote in favour of this package will ensure integration into BA Pilots are the only specific work group being consulted on the changes. All other directorates in BA have accepted that they will either meet the cost targets IAG has approved as part of a proposed integration, or they will lose out on the new BMI work. The company has indicated to us that all ground handling and engineering functions could be carried out by third party contract as necessary. BMI cabin crew may or may not be integrated into Mixed Fleet, but at any rate unit costs will not be permitted to rise above BMI levels.

Q.What stops IAG setting up a Low Cost Carrier anyway even after the BMI integration?
A.Principally the infrastructure constraints of LHR. There is no spare terminal or runway capacity at LHR and will not be so long as the 3rd runway remains off the table.
Had those within IAG pushing for a standalone option won the day, or should BA pilots reject these proposals, that would have inevitably led to the emergence of ‘BA Express’. Ultimately, key decision makers have been convinced that acceptable operational efficiencies can be found from BA as part of a turnaround plan for BMI and BA Shorthaul combined.
Following the proposed integration of BMI into BA, there will be no other carriers, UK based or otherwise, with sufficient slots and LHR operations to enable a LHR LCC to be set up in the foreseeable future.

Q.What stops IAG transferring assets out of the combined BA/BMI Operation to set up a new Low Cost operation?
A.The obvious and easiest time to do that would be now, and we have been able to influence them otherwise. For the future the simple answer is SCOPE.

2
On reaching agreement for the merger with BA pilots the 27 BMI aircraft will become part of the BA fleet for the purposes of the Employment Security section (SCOPE clause) of Schedule K. As long as these aircraft are not expressly covered by SCOPE there is a very real risk of IAG seeking to deploy them in a manner highly detrimental to our interests. Once they are covered by the BA SCOPE agreement it would not be possible for IAG to do this without it being a clear breach of our Scope agreement. There have been no material breaches of our SCOPE clause by BA at any time in the past and we would expect the conditions to be honoured in the future.

Q.What is the process that will follow a YES vote by BA Pilots?
A.BA must consult with BMI pilots about the detail of integration. This is required by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, known as TUPE. We will expand on a number of the specific issues on that point elsewhere in the document.
After the consultation is completed then a plan to implement will be put forward. At this stage it is not clear what the timeline of integration will be but we would expect to see the full integration done without delay given the timeline set for getting the new combined operation to breakeven by 2015.
In the meantime, once the regulatory approval allows the transaction to be completed, other departments will be enacting changes that bring the BMI work “in-house”.

Seniority

Q.What will happen to BMI mainline pilots in the event that BA Pilots reject this package?
A.If BA pilots vote to reject the package, then BMI mainline pilots will not be integrated into BA Mainline. The BMI mainline aircraft will operate separately to BA Mainline, although they may do so as BA Branded aircraft, such as “BA Express”. The BACC believes that such an arrangement represents the greatest risk to BA Mainline pilots.

Q.What will happen to BMI mainline Pilots in the event of a merger?
A.They will become British Airways pilots, however the MOU signed between BA and the BACC is very clear. The integration package is conditional on “Seniority arrangements on terms acceptable to BA pilots.”
The BACC position is explicit in its commitment that “No BA pilot will be disadvantaged by the proposed acquisition and integration of BMI”. What does this mean?
We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation between BA and the BMI Company Council. However, the legal protections enjoyed by BMI mainline pilots under TUPE would not extend beyond the protection of their employment and their existing terms and conditions.
For example, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots any legal right to
(i) transfer onto other BA fleets or
(ii) be integrated into the BA seniority list. This is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer, which, as we understand it, they wouldn’t be.

3
Q.What will happen to the Seniority lists of the two companies?
A.As in the previous answers the MOU condition and the BACC position will apply.
BA will be required to inform and consult with BMI mainline pilots under the TUPE Regulations. In addition, the employment and the current Terms & Conditions of BMI mainline pilots would be protected. This means the current BMI seniority arrangements (i.e. the seniority arrangements within the BMI pilot community) would be protected. However, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots the legal right to join the BA seniority list.
Again, this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be). There is, therefore, no legal requirement to merge the BMI and BA seniority lists even in the event that BMI is integrated.
Will BMI pilots displace any existing BA pilot from their current position and seniority?
For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline.

Q.Will the BMI Integration affect the current (2012) PRIAM result?
A.No, course allocations and results for 2012 will not be affected in any way. Normal operational issues such as fleet size/network/training resources etc may still result in changes to the course allocation but none of these factors will be down to the integration of BMI.

Q.Will the BMI integration affect future opportunities in the subsequent years’ PRIAM bids?
A,The Integration of the BMI operation will result in some changes to the shape of BA and its fleets. BMI pilots will be protected under TUPE (as outlined above) and BA pilots will not be disadvantaged as a consequence of the merger. It is difficult to see any outcome therefore whereby a BA pilot PRIAM bid in future years would be adversely affected.
As the operational integration is completed, and BA begins to make full use of the opportunities afforded by this purchase, it is anticipated that more slots will be used for LH services, creating more aspirational opportunities.

Productivity Changes

Q.Why are we being asked to agree to further productivity changes?
A.IAG have the option to integrate BMI into BA or to run BMI as a separate, stand alone carrier, “BA Express”. IAG and BA have allowed the BACC to determine this critical decision.
IAG is taking a clinical approach to its analysis of individual business units. Each must, in addition to any symbiotic benefit it has (i.e. SH feeding LH), make a profitable contribution in its own right.
When considering our request to integrate BMI, IAG has analysed the turnaround plan for BMI, the effect of integration into a SH business that is not making a profit, and set a cost saving target for BA as a whole to address. Flight Operations proportion of this cost is £10M.

4

Q.Why do the changes fall on Shorthaul alone?
A.They don’t. Approximately half of the £10M target comes by making improvements to the combined LHR SH productivity, equivalent to 5% of LHR SH unit costs. The balance of the target comes from the other measures such as leave days and addressing the Holiday Pay issue from 2014 onwards.

Q.Why can’t all pilots make a smaller concession to reach the target?
A.Concessions from all pilots will meet nearly half the target. The 5% of SH productivity from the combined SH business is a condition set by BA. In our assessment it represents the absolute maximum that can realistically be achieved whilst not having a disproportionately detrimental effect on SH lifestyle.
If Flight Operations were to allow “cross-subsidy” of the target, (i.e. spread the target equally across all fleets) IAG would inevitably return to the performance of LHR SH elements of the BA business and, as Stephen Riley’s letter clearly states, would still demand that steps are taken to address our overall LHR SH cost base relative to our direct competitors in the London market.
In other words, if we all give up the equivalent of £10M, (2% of the overall Flight Ops budget) IAG is ultimately still going to demand that SH unit costs are addressed. Therefore, we risk paying twice. We will seek rule changes that minimise the impact on LHR SH lifestyle.

Q.Why don’t we know the specific detail of the rule changes before being asked to vote on the package?
A.It will take several months to finalise rule changes, while decisions on integration or not need to take place at the end of January 2012. Changes will be phased in from January 2013.
BA needs to integrate the BMI SH aircraft into our current fleet. Network planning will optimise the schedules, removing cross-over, exploring new markets and finally optimising frequencies to make the best possible use of the new assets.
Agreeing specific rule changes in advance of that process being completed means that a change made today may not deliver either the full value that we expect or worse, has a disproportionately negative effect on LHR SH lifestyle.
The requirement under the agreement is to deliver, in full by 2015, the equivalent of 5% of the current LHR SH pilot costs towards this agreement. Once full visibility is achieved on the new Network, we can optimise the rule changes to make the smallest possible impact on lifestyle for the greatest value.

Q.Will LHR SH pilots be given a choice in what rule changes are to be made?
A.All BA pilots are being asked to commit to the £10M overall target which will contain productivity changes of the order of 5% of LHR SH productivity. At the point that rule changes themselves are agreed, it is anticipated that, if more than one option is available a consultation would take place to establish the preferences from the community for which changes would be made.

5

Any such consultation would not have the option to reject the proposed changes as we would be committed from a YES vote in this ballot to delivering the required cost savings for integration to occur.

Q.Shorthaul lifestyle will have to suffer disproportionately to allow this agreement?
A.We will work to minimise detrimental impact. In the same way that we were able to meet the BP targets previously without substantial impacts on SH lifestyle, we believe that, given the efficiencies to be found in the new network, well targeted rule changes can deliver the efficiencies required.

Q.BA pilots are being asked to bear all the pain while BMI pilots gain from this integration?
A.Every BA pilot gains by this integration. By removing the risk of BA having an IAG owned competitor on its doorstep, we end up with greater job security and the LH growth anticipated from this deal should positively impact all BA pilots in the future.
BMI has two main issues. Firstly, it doesn’t make enough revenue because of its inability to feed in to a LH network at its home base. Secondly, its network drives relatively low productivity, with flying hours below 650 hours a year.
A sizeable part of the LHR SH Productivity increase will come from the network efficiencies found in LHR SH that will enable the BMI pilots to get nearer to the 700 hour average that BA pilots currently achieve.

Q.How many more flying hours will SH fly because of this agreement?
A.Given the current average of around 700hrs achieved on LHR SH we anticipate that the overall increase in flying will be of the order of 30-35 hours per annum. If this is achieved under the present rules, it would equate to less than 8 additional days a year at work. Some suggestion, that we would agree concessions, like the old regional agreement that allowed rosters with as few as legal minimum days off, are way off the mark and not based on the reality of what is being asked for in these proposals.

Q.So will there be extra days at work for SH pilots if we accept this agreement?
A.All pilots will give up one leave day per season. The LHR SH productivity changes will inevitably mean more days at work, but our aim is to minimise the additional days at work, as pilot feedback is absolutely clear on this objective.

Q.How are LGW members affected by the £10m package?
A. LGW members would obviously be affected by any “all-fleet” measures such as new entrant pay scales and holiday pay offset and as such LGW members will therefore be included in the BMI integration ballot.

Q.How does this fit in with the separate LGW SH fleet renewal negotiations that are currently taking place?
A.LGW members have a separate target to meet in order to justify the renewal of the ageing 737 fleet. An additional consultation exercise will take place at LGW in Feb or March. However any savings made by LGW pilots in the measures proposed in the BMI deal will be attributed to any LGW targets raised in the LGW talks.

6

Q.Will BA or IAG be back after this agreement for further concessions in LH or SH?
A.The aviation industry has been through a period of immense uncertainty since 9/11 and the reality is that we have been forced to respond to a number of challenges provided by external events.
Throughout this period we have delivered employment security on some of the best T&Cs in the industry for BA pilots. We will continue to do that.
Any LHR SH rule changes will address SH unit costs. It is envisaged that 735 hrs a year is approaching the absolute maximum that can be flown by a networked SH airline given the constraints of LHR.
It has been stressed to Keith Williams that pilots are in need of period of stability. However, it would be foolhardy to believe that this agreement offers permanent guarantees, as clearly an external shock or sudden downturn would be looked at on its merits. Nonetheless, BA accepts that these measures address the known competitive SH threat. LH is efficient and cost effective within its market.

34 Point Pay Structure

Q.What are the details of the new entrant 34 Point basic pay structure?
A.The new entrant basic pay structure will have the same starting and finishing points as the current 24 structure, but it will have a larger number of pay points to reach top of scale. The annual increment is therefore lower than the current 24 point increment.
The progression up the new pay scale is linear, based on one pay point for each year of service in exactly the same way as the current 24 point scale works.

Q.Why 34 Pay Points?
A.The changes reflect the different career lengths arising from the change to the Age Regulations in 2006. It was for us an essential point of principle that the starting and finishing points for pilots were maintained in these new pay arrangements. The 10 year increase in retirement age is reflected in the extra 10 pay points to reach the top pay point.

Q.What effect does this have on Pensionable pay scales for New Entrant pilots?
A. NONE. New entrants will be on the current pensionable pay arrangements for existing BA pilots in the BARP scheme. They will achieve PP24 for pensionable pay purposes after 23 years service in exactly the same way as current BARP pilots.

Q. Does this mean that pilots on the current PP24 structure will be forced onto the new 34 Point structure?
A. NO. BA accepts that a contractual promise exists to pilots on the current structure and only after consultation could they amend the pay arrangements for current pilots. BALPA has no interest in making such a change. The company does, however, control future contract promises that it may issue and it has been a long held desire of BA to address the effects of the Age Legislation changes that afford pilots a potential of 10 extra years at top of pay scale.

Q. Is there a risk to having more than one pay structure in BA. Will it result in pressure in the future to amend the pay point 24 structure?

7

We already have 3 separate pension arrangements in BA and while we would prefer all pilots to enjoy exactly the same terms and conditions, the reality is that market forces and external factors have resulted in changes from APS to NAPS and subsequently from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme.
The BACC has been very mindful of how the new basic pay structure is determined, to ensure that it most closely reflects the pay arrangements of the existing BA pilot workforce. The changes are purely in basic pay increments to reflect longer career lengths. All evidence in BA since 2006 is that pilots choose to exercise the right to remain in employment to age 60 and beyond.
Our terms and conditions would be under greater pressure as a result of a NO vote to integration. That would only place even greater pressures on our terms & conditions in future than any in-house payscale differential between pilots on the 24 point structure and the proposed 34 point structure for new entrants. A stand-alone IAG company would have a far more radical solution to pay structures and therefore be the future growth vehicle for IAG in the UK.

Holiday Pay

Q .What does “An agreed mechanism to remove any future liability with respect to the holiday pay ruling” mean?
A. In September 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally ruled in our favour and determined that BA should base pilots' holiday pay on “normal remuneration” or overall earnings and not just on basic pay. We are now waiting for the UK Supreme Court to determine how this ruling will be applied in practice. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place between April and July 2012.
BA is therefore faced with a retrospective claim back to 2006 which is NOT covered by the agreement you are being asked to vote on. As part of the ongoing legal process, BALPA is therefore still pursuing a claim for retrospective holiday pay going back to 2006.
As part of the £10M in concessions being sought by BA for the BMI agreement, BALPA believes a measure that mitigates any future liability from 2014 onwards is a preferred way to help meet this financial target. Any monies accrued up to that point are not covered by the proposed BMI agreement and will continue to be claimed by BALPA. It remains our clear intention to make sure that all BA members receive the retrospective holiday pay they are owed by BA as soon as possible and certainly before 2014.
Subject to this ballot being approved BALPA will negotiate a mechanism that effectively deals with Pilots reduced pay whilst on Annual Leave. It would most likely be an amendment to the Variable Pay structure that means a pilot is not worse off in months when on leave than in months that contain no leave.

Q.Will I be getting my retrospective Holiday Pay or has this been given up?
A. As indicated above, BALPA is continuing to claim retrospective holiday pay on your behalf (back to 2006) and will do everything it can to ensure that you receive the money you are owed as soon as possible. This will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing which we expect to take place later this year. The time period of the claim will be from January 2006 to the date on which we implement the agreed mechanism for removing any future liability (probably 1 January 2014).

8

We have not waived our right to retrospective payments, given up our claim to such pay, or conceded any rights in this agreement. None of the agreement being voted on here prejudices the legal victory on Holiday Pay entitlement.
When will BA pay the Holiday Pay Claim or can they be forced to pay it by us agreeing the mechanism in this agreement?
BA has indicated that it wants to wait and see what the final Supreme Court ruling is on the issue as this will determine their exact liability. The amount credited under the agreement represents a best estimate on the value of the claim, based on the ECJ ruling last year. It represents approximately 25% of the £10M target set by BA.
However until the exact liability is known BA will almost certainly wait to make payment. In the meantime Holiday Pay entitlement continues to accrue from the date of the first submission.

Q. Will I will be worse off than I am now under this agreement?
A. We intend to make sure that you receive, subject to the conclusion of the legal process, Holiday Pay in accordance with our claim. Until we reach agreement on the mechanism with BA you will continue to accrue entitlement. Under this agreement we will see the following benefits rather than BA seeking to simply recover the monies in some other manner.
Firstly we meet a significant proportion of our cost target, almost a quarter in fact, by reaching agreement on a payment that we have so far not received.
Secondly, we intend to use this opportunity to address some of the large variability in pay between months where leave is taken and those where a full month is worked. For most pilots having greater certainty of earnings is of benefit.

Q.Can BA use our agreement here as the basis to challenge the ECJ ruling?
A. NO. We have categorically not waived our entitlement to Holiday Pay under this agreement.

The Ballot Process

Q.What will happen next?
A. The BACC will be holding General Members Meetings on Tuesday 10th, Wednesday 11th , Thursday 12th and Tuesday 17th at Heathrow. There is also a GMM at Gatwick on Monday 16th January. Full details have been sent separately about these.
On, or immediately after January 13th the BACC will be issuing a unique Voter ID to either the email address that we hold on file for you or, for those members who choose to receive paper communications only from BALPA to their home address.
The ballot will be conducted electronically. Full details of the voting process will be contained within this communication.

Q.Why is the ballot being conducted electronically and not by post?
A. A postal ballot would require a minimum of 21 days to complete and given that full details of the proposed package were only sent on January 4th members will need sufficient time to attend the GMM’s and then vote. IAG have been clear that a decision from pilots, that will determine whether integration occurs, cannot be allowed to delay the process of seeking regulatory approval. To ensure the longest possible briefing period while meeting this requirement we will use a widely accepted ballot tool to conduct this ballot.

Q.Is this ballot binding in the same way as a postal ballot?
A.The ballot result is binding in exactly the same way that the BACC would consider the result of a consultative postal ballot. The software being used is recognised and used by a number of other unions as being very effective for consulting with members. It is software that BALPA has used in other CC’s to conduct both survey and ballot processes.

Q.When will the ballot close?
A.Full details will be contained within the ballot briefing package.

Q.When will the result be published?
A.Immediately after the closure and the results have been collated.

At the risk of upsetting some of the more sensitive BA pilots, it would be worthwhile everyone reviewing the DanAir take-over in 1992 which seems to have many similarities and followed a 'less-than popular' BCal take-over with list merging..

Severe restrictions on pilots from non-BA bases/non-737CFM a/c types - they were 'fired' with minimum severance. 120 pilots 'retained' and lines drawn across the lists at 60 of each seat, again 'sacking' (aka not 'retaining') those below the line (no seat changing). Initially the remaining 13 737 3/400 aircraft and 40 routes were to remain 'separate' at LGW but to fly in BA colours.

DanAir seniority etc retained.

It became apparent that the grand plan was to expand the operation to displace the existing 737-200 mainline operation at LGW and who knows where else.

Threats of industrial action by mainline pilots.

Eventual 'resolution (not properly formally agreed by DanAir PLC as far as can be established) was for DA pilots to join mainline seniority list in DA order BELOW the most junior BA entrant at the time. IE 25 year senior Captains 'junior' to latest Prestwick cadet, able to bid out of LGW onto other fleets with loss of 'grandfather' seats,.staff travel protected and pensions manipulated to compensate. This 'opened' commands at LGW on the 'new DA' T&C to very junior BA F/Os (mostly OK with the odd exception) and cause the odd CRM issue, thus 'freezing' command prospects for DA F/Os. Eventually the existing T&C caused the flow of bidders from BA to dry up, 'DA' F/O's accordingly achieved command (from 1996) and T&C were 'improved' for all and now (well up to 2004 when I retired) the only main difference was in T&C for things like Hotac and bidding.

It has all the hallmarks of going the same way.