Why? Are you saying the bmi pilots have no balls?

Ha ha ha ha ha oohh stoppittt! OOOHHH hee hee :D :\

Reality hasn't arrived in your world yet, has it?

So how did it feel, being hung?

I suspect that it is the Cabin Crew who have changed their behaviour, not the Flight Crew.

No matter how much they wish it, this has no similarities with their disagreement. But then again, we will always have Cabin Crew who compare themselves to pilots. No one knows why.

I think we're back to ignoring the Count.

Anybody got anything to add before I vote?

Ignoring the Count`s ramblings, there is still the unpalatable truth which is : if IAG see the business case for setting up a "BA lite" operation sometime in the future then they will regardless of any assurance given to the contrary

Is it worth accepting worse terms and conditions to help IAG not BA finance the bmi deal ?

How will IAG be able to set up "BA Express" with no slots at LHR?

Why do you think they are buying bmi, or have you fallen for the " we will use all the bmi slots for long haul" story ? and do you think all the current BA short haul slots are not up for re allocation if IAG think it appropriate ?

I meant if BMI are integrated into BA. I understand that they don't have to use all the slots for LH but if all slots are transfered to BA, as would surely happen with the integration, then those slots are all now BA's. Therefore cannot be used to set up new airline (that's how I understand SCOPE). I'm just trying to understand it as this question doesn't seem to have been answered by those saying that IAG can still set up a new carrier in the future.

The slots may only be "leased" to BA and still "owned" by IAG until they (IAG) decide the time is right to set up the BA lite operation. There have been no assurances that if bmi is intergrated the bmi slots would become BA`s permanently.

My apologies. I made a typographical error in my last post.

Please read any reference to BMI as "BA Express".

In case no one has noticed here, if Lufthansa do not find a buyer for BMI Baby by 31/3/12, IAG inherit that outfit as well.

Where will these pilots be slotted in?

British Airways/IAG with bmi looks to re-establish world leadership – and long term survival | CAPA

Hardly news. It is part of the deal that if Baby is not sold, the price for the deal goes down.

It doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to imagine what will happen if IAG is forced to take on Baby as well.

No. All slots will be taken by BA and become part of scope. The BACC had spotted that one.

Until you get that in writing I would be sceptical of any "assurances" in that area.

Take a look at the link the Count posted, the inference is quite clear, BA will eventually have a lower cost short haul operation, sooner rather than later if the outcome of the vote is a yes in my humble opinion !

It is in writing in the agreement between BA and BALPA. The BA members have read and digested that which probably explains why nobody in BA is getting overexcited.

If I was the count I'd me more concerned about the 20m IFCE have agreed to save without consulting the union.

The slots will be transferred to BA ownership as well as the airframes thereby placing them under the legally ratified Scope clause as part of the MOA. This has been agreed by IAG as part of the deal to integrate. After that point it would be very tricky for IAG, given the lack of slot availability and the competition authority's approval, for IAG to expand its slot portfolio at LHR.

Cost reductions for SH have been on the cards for years. A short term snapshot of 5% productivity and some leave days (to be replaced by wrap around working days off giving a reduction of 2 credit hours per day or 4 credit hours per year) are irrelevant when looking at the long term ability to grow LH.

BMI, under the NO vote, would cease to exsist. Their AOC would be annulled and a new AOC instigated. What happens to the contracts at that point? There is no 'integration', no 'takeover' and certainly no TUPE. Think of the position of all of the BMI crews be it flight, cabin or ground staff at that point. When you are presented with a 'take it or leave it' scenario.

As for the Count, most in the cabin, bar of course the rampant militant BASSA members who wanted the company to fold anyway, are breathing a collective sigh of relief that the BASSA lunacy is behind us. Is the CC union a sheep or a lamb? The fact that IFCE, along with ALL other departments, are having to submit their annual cost savings and have entered their proposals to the board without even bothering to consult with the almighty BASSA might go someway to prove that the Union has become more akin to a turkey than even a lamb.

£20 M from IFCE? When/where was that announced? Is that their contribution to integration of BMI?

BASSA not consulted either? That will initiate a few hissy fits :D

As an external observer with an interest in the outcome of the vote, I'm glad to see that those who actually have a say appear to be coherent and understanding. It's also nice to see that the laughable, militant views imparted by some (who generally show a complete lack of understanding) are indeed being laughed at.

4015

It is indeed. Whilst many like to think that only the Flight Crew have an input on this they are incorrect. Whilst IAG has allowed BALPA to be a major deciding partner, all other departments have also been consulted/told that they will have to achieve cost parity/savings in order to play a part in the merger. Some departments have had savings levied in line with reducing the BMI debt and other departments, with contractual obligations, have been asked to tender new contracts.

This is a business wide event. Not just for us Flight Crew to decide.

I think that the majority who have a say in this have a very coherent view of what's at stake. As for the rest, interesting as some of the comments are, they do show a lack of understanding IMHO, but are worth listening to.

Aside, of course, from those who have yet to move on and are deliberately playing the agent provocateur. They are unlikely to get around the credibility issue though.

It is indeed. BA want savings of over 100m company wide. All departments have agreed to the savings (the management that is). Any department not making the savings will see the work outsourced. Flight ops is no different except that we're the only ones getting a vote on it. Other depts will have to take or leave any changes.

To be strictly accurate they can only "take it"............

Or leave..... Bye Count...:ok:

If the vote to not integrate bmi happens, then a number of things will start to occur as I see it.
BA Lite will have the bmi slots which in time will become a long/mid haul enterprise. All new folk joining BA will join Lite and bit by bit it will become the new BA, lower cost, new lower contracts and new aircraft. It won't happen straight away, but it will happen, thus ruining the current BA Mainline machine.
It won't be good for the bmi staff but also it won't be good for BA staff in time to come.
I don't understand why there is a reluctance to merge bmi pilots. There will only be about 250 people any way, doubt if you folks at BA Mainline will even notice they have turned up.
True there will be some that might go ahead in seniority, but if you consider the amount of expansion that will occur because of the slots etc, it will be much better in the long run for every body.
The other thing is that not everyone at bmi will want to go long or mid haul. Many will simply stay doing what they do with the life style they currently enjoy. There will be little or no impact at all on the current Mainline pilots.
If you vote not to integrate bmi pilots, you may live to regret you decision.:hmm:

Only a lunatic would suggest that "rampant militant BASSA members who wanted the company to fold anyway". Here once again is the justification for BA's pilots to serve drinks in the cabins, and their policy of appeasing Willie.

As BMI pilots will find out, the self-preservation of the elitist cabal who are now deciding their destiny, will take precedence over any concerns for the careers of their future "colleagues".

Wowsers. Talk about having a chip on both shoulders.

You must be fun on a CRM course...

Ah 'Count' how short the memory must be getting.

Have a good look at some of the rubbish flowing from the Bassa Secretary during the dispute to see the real rhetoric of the lunatic fringe. I'm certain you know where to find them.

Unless you actually can vote and thus have any influence your ramblings are, as usual, meaningless.

I forgot, this is a convinient point to remind everyone that the Pilot VCC's were outnumbered almost 3:1 by members of other Unite sub branches so strong they were behind their poor downtrodden BASSA brothers. Ouch, that must have hurt Red Len!!!!

The change in T's & C's for BMI during the re-branding excercise would be catastrophic. At least with a merger they will get to consult on TUPE. Something that wouldn't be available unless BA pilots give up cost savings in order to bring them into the fold. Self preservation indeed.

Oh stop it Count. No really. Woo haw ha ha, no please, ha ha ha, pleas...woh ha ha, stop it, you're killing me.

Bottle it, and flog it Count, woo ha ha, Bedfont needs ya baby.

You only a missing 'o' away from being the latest entry in Roger's Profanisaurus. Ooh wah ha ha ha, stop it Count. Really.

Flow Wedge I am very surprised you making light of such a serious situation. All those two ringers who volunteered to be VCC's are the ones most affected by the takeover.

Those commands are receding into the distant future like their hairlines, as the influx of BMI pilots combined with senior captains who choose to fly well into their 60's, take its toll on promotion.

Willie knows you will never strike, so he will just keep coming back for more. BA Express will be your Mixed Fleet and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Err, Count. I'm not a pilot.

You are entitled to peddle your views. We live in a democracy.

Bon Nuit.

Edited to add: Good luck to all during the next few months, including you Count. Time will out live us all.......

..and therin lies the beauty of this Rumour Network Count. You can say what you like, within the rules of course. But none of is really knows who each other are, except for the clever guys who collect the internet address data from numerous psyeudonyms to figure out the likely 'Hoods'.

I suspect you, Count, are a BA employee from a particular section, you may even be a proxy for someone else (no prizes), I don't care and you can post what you like, but, I am sure you have not been privy to the sophistications of the Board level machinations of IAG. Similarly, I suspect you have no detailed knowledge of the complexities of the negotiations between the BA/Union flight ops protaganists. Your reliance on, and interpration of historical industrial relations is the basis point for your assertions but, IMHO, you are comparing incompetent passion fruits with far more calculating minds; indeed, minds which are 'mindful' of the role of the IAG Board, to wit: make money in the harshest of economic blizzards. Therefore, again IMHO, much of what you assert is baseless, with the odd nugget, at best, flimsy.

That all said, I would defend, to the nth degree, you right to espouse your beliefs. It's what makes Pprune so compelling.

But you conveniently fail to mention, as always, the three-times-as-many Unite colleagues from other BA departments who became VCC. Tell me, what happens to them in any BA/BMI integration? The truth is you don't know, Count, do you? You don't know and you don't care, because the poison in your veins is that you detest pilots.

Your single-agenda ramblings really are not germane to the discussion here. Perhaps you could conduct your mutterings on a forum where your militant cabin crew comrades will happily believe you?

And loaders, and baggage handlers, and engineers.

Good to know you have seen into the future and know, already, the outcome of both the ballot and TUPE. Brilliant, pity you couldn't figure out the results of your own doomed strategy. Seems a touch 'rum' to coach others on theirs no?

Have you drunk your champagne you had so on ice for a resounding victory? Nope thought not.

Think about your adding up? 27 Aircraft with crews delivered, SH crewed at 5 crews per aircraft and LH crewed at 9/10 crews per aircraft. Duplicated routes traded to LH and an increase in the number of commands available to all.

Bubble burst again???

Flew to Las Vegas a couple of weeks with a TRM who had been VCC so add them to your list as well.

Wirblesturm
It gets better I believe the number is closer to 4.3 sh and 7.1 Lh full time equivalent. We have a lot of part timers :-)
Regards

Count,

Just watching shutter island and it got me thinking...you referred to yourself as a BA 747 co pilot in a previous post...is that true?

Everything ok?

Instead you must follow the sterling work of BASSA.

You too could have most of your reps fired for various acts during an illegal strike.

Brother Len will be proud of you if you do!

Ham Phisted. TRM's at BA are currently in fear of losing their jobs. In fact most employee groups in BA who were VCC's could see their jobs outsourced in the future. There won't be any tears shed by BASSA members. The VCC's proved during the dispute they were surplus to requirements. Their departments were still making their targets whilst they were serving drinks.

What I find remarkable at the moment is the lack of vision by BALPA and posters here, who cannot see beyond the end of their noses. The BMI takeover is the begininng of an avalanche of change. Do BA's pilots seriously believe that Walsh will not start a JetStar type operation as well, when he gets access to enough slots? In fact it was only talks between QANTAS and BA being exposed on Crikey.com back in 2008, which generated the predictable Ozzie backlash, that kiboshed the merger. JetStar is now expanding into Japan with BA and QANTAS interests overlapping. Walsh wants a bit more action in that region as well via JAL.

BA's flight crew scoff at the cabin crew dispute, as if the setting up of Mixed Fleet was a defeat. What is conveniently overlooked is that BA's assault on the UK's largest union branch was simply union busting. At no time before the dispute were there friendly relations between Walsh and BASSA's leadership. No doubt the feeling was mutual, as the cabin crew were well aware why Walsh had been brought into the company, and protected from taking responsibility for the T5 opening shambles. Two long serving directors carried the can for that, and have since never talked about their humiliation.

There is nothing BALPA or its members can do to prevent BA starting a low cost operation, all that is left is to adopt a 'Laager' type defence and protect as best you can, the T&C's of legacy crew until they eventually leave. Wirblesturm may point out all he likes how the legacy cabin crew will "wither on the vine", but that is exactly where the pilots are now.

It is kind of Walsh to give the pilots the impression, that the way they vote will make any difference where he intends to go with them. It is purely a psychological exercise to appeal to their sense of hubris. The truth is that BALPA and its BA members are on the back foot now, and there are many of us who are quite enjoying the spectacle.

The setting up of MF was a defeat for UNITE and BASSA. If union busting was WW's aim then BASSA not only colluded, they threw themselves wholeheartedly in with WW's plan. BASSA have been marginalised, MF is here and there is an agreement in place that means that the current discussions that BASSA has about recruiting on MF are irrelevant, as they cannot represent MF in discussions with the company. BASSA have been emasculated, they know that the only weapon in their arsenal, the strike, is now a busted flush. The faithful will no longer rush to walk out knowing that all it will do is speed the demise of Legacy Fleet, lose ST for them, cost them money that they will never recoup and they will not achieve their aims by it. I find it incredibly self serving and not a little ironic to hear claims go a lack of foresight from a BASSA supporter. The R of TDODAR is not being used with any critical thinking in the world of BASSA.

So come on BA pilots, lets take the advice of a BASSA and reject the deal, we can follow BASSA into irrelevance too!

Count,

As I haven't got anything better to do and it's obviously a slack day in University land for you, I'll reply.

Quite simply there is nothing, absoloutley nothing BALPA can do about IAG setting up BA Express. Not now, not in the future. The Openskies dispute proved, in a court of law, that, by using the Viking Case Study, it was illegal for workers from one company preventing the formation of another company. As the courts put it 'the ability to supress free enterprise by the projected future threats of jobs and earnings for current employees is not sustainable'.

There you go, IAG can, as with Iberia, set up a new airline wherever and whenever they wish.

Obviously we have buried our heads in the sand over this, stuck our fingers in our ears and shouted 'La La La we're not listening we're going on strike over something nebulous and untenable'. Sound familiar?

Why should we not negotiate over something that we have been talking about and discussing for the past 10 years? I.e. The simple fact that SH is not profitable in the current economic and trading environment. Unlike certain other groups we are well aware of the trading conditions, well up to speed with the financial projections of the company and, personally, very understanding of the business plan of the airline and its remit to return both profitability and, if possible, dividends to the shareholders. This is Willie Walshs job and contract. I refuse to be pulled into the BASSA 'it's personal' Quagmire. I've met Willie a couple of times and he is, primarily, the CEO of one of the worlds largest airline groups with the business accumen and responsibilities that go with it. The BASSA dispute was never 'Union Bashing' BASSA were given the chance to negotiate with everyone else. They just chose not to and then used the 'Union Bashing' moniker to cover up their mistakes and inability to protect their members future interests. It was the path of least unionistic resistance with the hope that Unite would have the clout to push through a untenable argument.

So, as with the BASSA refusal to negotiate anything why should we make it easy for IAG to set up BA Express? BASSA had the chance to nip Mixed Fleet in the bud but, as everyone from the Union decried 'oh but Project Columbus has been on paperwork for years' BASSA decided they had no chance and therefore went on a huff IA route. BA were willing to pull Mixed Fleet in return for working concessions. Those concessions didn't arrive therefore Mixed Fleet did. Why should BALPA do the same?

Should we really 'gift' IAG with BMI to transform instantly into BA Express with 30 aircraft and crews? Nope. When BMI is integrated then we have a stronger position to prevent BA from starting up its 'BA Express' as the Scope clause covers the airframes and the crews and they cannot transfer the airframes back.

Unlike with the ill informed BASSA members it is very difficult to get a full company up and running with the adequate training and standards structure that will be required for CAA approval within a short time frame. Therefore the current aircraft orders of 787's, 380's and 777-300's, all of which have been allocated, legally after the Openskies dispute, to BA mainline, cannot be 'gifted' to BA Express.

So to sum up, yes, we are aware that IAG could do what they want with a new company. We are aware that failing to bring BMI into the fold would hasten the formation of said company. We are aware that the company requires cost savings and that the spectre of BA Express won't go away and we are aware that it is the companies responsibility to look at all future options.

We are also aware that BA/BMI combined will leave little/no room at Heathrow for a start up. We are aware that the combined company BA having >50% of the slots at LHR will make for a strengthened bargaining position when the time is right and we are aware that Len McClusky presided over the biggest Union defeat of the 1990's and is probably not the best person to take advice from.

Finally Count, you claim hubris, I would suggest that, by trying to preserve and increase the slots/routes available to BA mainline crews, not just pilots, we are trying to maintain the work into the future for the whole airline and all the CC as well. Unlike BASSA who sold their members down the river by allowing the rapid formation of Mixed Fleet. Hubris? Perhaps from BASSA.

Unfortunately Wirblsturm, you are not qualified to comment on the reason for the BA dispute with its cabin crew . However for your convenience, I have provided a link where you can avail yourself of the correct information, instead of peddling the usual "BASSA refused to negotiate" propaganda. For a mere £30 a man of your financial resources can acquaint himself with the facts, instead of living in a bubble of fiction.


Keith Ewing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BA's flight crew as I have already alluded to, would be far better off entrenching into longhaul to preserve their legacy pay and conditions. Shorthaul is finished as a career other than for hour building by junior jets.

BA's pilots should look to QANTAS to see what Willie has in store for them. Already BA's flight crew have seen the threat posed by Walsh, who cut costs by only allowing Airbus type rated pilots on the initial batch of A380's. Geoff Dixon the previous boss of QANTAS, threatened his pilots with JetStar flight crew flying the super jumbo. At the moment replacement CEO Alan Joyce is doing his best to remove the T&C's of QANTAS "brand" (aka legacy) pilots.

A win-win Qantas resolution? | Ben Sandilands | Commentary | Business Spectator

So the future is not so bright on the other side of the flight deck door. Whilst the two ringers were preoccupied serving drinks during the cabin crew dispute, they really should have kept their eye on the ball with the goings-ons at QANTAS.

Count, while casting aspirations as to Wirbelsturm's qualifications to comment on the reasons for BASSA's dispute and abject defeat by BA during their dispute, you fail to list your qualifications to comment upon the current situation. Could you please list your qualifications and experience so that we may judge your fitness and perspicacity on this issue.

Studi

From Wirbelsturm

The scope clause covers hulls not slots, so it is always possible to transfer slots to BA lite whichever way the vote goes. By integrating BMI, the BMI hulls would be covered by scope, IAG would have made enough savings to satisfy them for the moment, but would also make it much more difficult for them to set up a BA lite in the future, as they would not have the ready made airline complete with a useful portfolio of slots that they have with BMI.

What are the alternatives? Vote no and gamble that it's a big bluff and that IAG will integrate anyway? Or encourage the BMI guys with all their new joiners to go on strike from the sidelines for BA terms and conditions, whilst knowing that not only would it be illegal for us to assist by secondary action, but that also we would probably be rostered to cover some of their work.

Contrary to the Count's assertions, I would not be comfortable with being so selfish.

On that, the senior guys in BA LHS long haul, by voting yes to this, have the least IMO to gain. They will still have long haul commands until they retire, albeit with diminishing choice of destinations, but most will be gone before that bites so will be giving up two days leave for the benefit of short haul and yet every one that I have spoken to is willing to do that for the greater good.

Count

It was a defeat, no ifs.
It wasn't union busting, BASSA busted themselves.

Many Cabin Crew I flew with stated that they would prefer the company to fold than negotiate with Willie. Pretty unequivocal. Were they lunatics for saying it or was I for listening?