Wirbelsturm

You have set out an arguement that strongly supports the reasons why BA flightcrew should vote 'yes' to the merger.

I have probably missed it somewhere in the previous pages but please clarify this: what is to stop Walsh announcing that on 1 Jan 2013, IAG will create a new airline BA Express plc, or whatever, that will begin operations with 20 x A320 acquired/leased from British Airways and recruitment for the aforementioned airline begins on 1 June 2012 Aircrew affected by the withdrawal of the A320s from the BA fleet will be given the opportunity to apply for positions in the new airline?

Count, sorry .... Duncan, so what makes you think you are qualified to comment on this subject? Talk about a chip on the shoulder! Its a whole potato field in Germany that you have there. Please, your blathering is not welcome because this really isn't your strong subject, and your 'arguments' are founded on deeply flawed concepts. Your twisted view of the world just doesn't exist where everybody else is standing. :rolleyes:

Legally there is nothing to stop IAG doing just this.

However, the record of concilliation from BALPA and its members is, over the past years, exemplary. The pilot cost base has changed constantly to bring it into line with modern standards as a relatively fixed accountable asset. Whilst it remains a well paid job the ability to attract the right people has cost savings attached in the form of lower training costs and higher retention.

IAG would have to judge very closely what the potential savings of a 'BA Express' formed against the backdrop of inevitable industrial action taken against seeing the terms and conditions of current BA employees losing hulls and routes would be.

The agreement to take BMI into BA makes it far more difficult for IAG to form BA Express in any other form. The lack of space at Heathrow, the lack of crews and the lack of slots would make it a very costly excercise. As a direct contributor to the terms of Mainline BA IAG could not 'lease' BA owned aircraft to BA Express, they would have to be flown by Mainline pilots iaw Scope. The direct impact on the future prospects of BA and the recently merged BMI crews (all crew members) would be directly affected by the formation of BA Express and there, I personally think, you would see an end to goodwill if IAG were so hell bent on renaging on previous dealings.

If this were to pass then IAG would need to consider the costs of the BA fleet being grounded. Through the auspices of BAPLA the BA pilot community has continued to accept the need for change, productivity and rationalisation. This has been done on a basis of continued negotiation and a very close working relationship. From the GMM that I attended I came away with a very clear impression that both IAG and BA want the integration (if they didn't why offer it?), they want a cohesive product to offer the public and they are critically aware that going back on these agreements will, in the eyes of the Pilots, the Law and the public, leave them in a difficult position.

So, in short, there is nothing to stop IAG forming BA Express, however, if they do, it could potentially be a very expensive startup as it would have a direct impact on the future earnings potential of mainline after we have given so much to help the company survive.

We have patience and a clear understanding of the business. But concilliation only goes so far and must be a two way excercise.

'IAG would have to judge very closely what the potential savings of a 'BA Express' formed against the backdrop of inevitable industrial action taken against seeing the terms and conditions of current BA employees losing hulls and routes would be'

and do you seriously see WW worrying about that ?

Yes, I think he would.

Whilst it is fairly easy to justify losses attributed to strike action from an employee group who have consistently resisted change it is quite a bit more difficult for a CEO to justify losses attributed to an employee group who have consistently backed the company through difficult times.

The gulf between Iberia and their savings requirements was huge, thus Iberia Express happened. IAG are asking for a 5% short haul productivity increase in order for SH to break even. That is achievable.

To deliberately provoke IA from BAPLA would be difficult do defend to both the board and the shareholders.

You are kidding aren't you? You would damage the airline financially just to selfishly pursue your own agenda? There would be no legitimacy at all for this type of industrial action, and besides the pilot community is split and haven't got the stomach for it anyway.

Best to stick with appeasement.

Of course, otherwise it's called knowing when and where to pick your battles.

Really? I fail to see where you get that from? Transferring of assets away from the main company to a lo-cost starter at the Mainline base after productivity changes have been agreed? Reduction of perceived terms and conditions irrespective of changes given for profitability? No legitimacy? There would be no legitimacy in forecasting a future threat, when it is actually occuring then there is legitimacy. What is that course teaching you 'Count'?


I'm sure you'll be at the head of the VP queue.

Best leave a bit of time off for the 18 month qualification course though and good luck with the ATPL exams.

:ugh:

I think you'll find the 'Count' failed to get into Hamble in the 1970's. Still bitter, he had to settle for being a steward...

Edited so as not to sink to a common level!

Quite correct Fate Hunter, thank you. :E

Well put.

Everyone at bmi knows that things have to change and are prepared for virtually anything really.

Aviation is such a competitive business now and the margins very tight, that with legacy carriers like BA, there is always going to be a struggle when you see companies like RYR and EZy doing what appears to be the same job for a lot less. (We all know how different they are in reality really though.)

Sometimes you need to be pragmatic, but the best solution is for the company to work together and try to work for the best for everyone, company, employees, shareholders etc.

As long as everyone is doing their bit and no-one group is being victimised, then progress can be made.

It's a tough job though when you have people's livelihoods at stake though and it's obvious how emotive this sort of thing can be.

Will bmi be turned into BA lite or will it be a standalone unit? No idea. I know what I'd prefer from my point of view, but that might not tally with what IAG want.

(We all know how different they are in reality though)

So what precisely are the differences between EZY/RYR and BA on short haul and are they that significant?

This is hardly the place for a debate about the differences between legacy and lo-cost carriers, but I'll just say that the differences as a passenger are relatively minor, but the difference between a legacy carrier and a lo-cost is absolutely vast in terms of how they go about their business behind the scenes.

Yes they fly aeroplanes from A to B, but other than that, it's a different world.

I was going to vote "No" but The Count's drivelling, ill informed garbage has made me change my mind so I have pressed the button on "Yes"!

We're going round in circles here: Voting "no" will not lead to further negotiations.

Studi is only protecting his own backside by throwing every man, woman and child infront of his own position in a bid to stave off change in DLH.

You cannot stirke over the formation of a new company as was proven during the Openskies dispute.

You cannot strike on supposition that future changes will affect you terms and conditions. As was also proven during the Openskies dispute.

You can strike if a your company transfers assets to a lower cost group company which will directly affect your terms and conditions due outsourcing.

That's how it is in the UK. Perhaps not in Mighty Deutschland but we're stuck with it.

What is there to prove that Willie Walsh won't honor his agreement with the CEO of BA and go ahead with BA Express after giving explicit assurances to Keith Williams that IAG would only integrate? Do you have proof somewhere that he will? I have met Willie on several occasions and I have to admit that I certainly trust him more than an anonymous internet poster who has nothing to lose whatever the outcome. Perhaps DLH will outsource everything to Austrian Arrows? Legally there's nothing to stop them.

We've discussed this before Studi and I disagree with you. I won't be drawn into it again.

So if we can't talk about past industrial disputes with BA, exactly what makes you qualified to talk about our future with BA?


ROFL, but thanks for the complement.

A bit of research elsewhere on this forum would show otherwise, and anyway I'm not Orish and I loath Guinness: )

So to sum up after 15 pages, if its a no vote then here comes BA Express and if its a yes vote then the mainline pilots have worsened there terms and conditions and have no guarantee that BA Express wont be set up anyway. So is it fair to say that BA Express is high in BA Management minds and that a lot of work has been put into it behind the scenes? After all Willie did not just come up with the idea over tapas in Madrid one friday afternoon! So a yes vote gives Willie everything he wants, a major workgroup on reduced terms and conditions in mainline, and also with BA Express set up another workgroup on reduced terms and conditions up holding the BA name. Only one winner here Willie Walsh.

Marlow - you would think after reading 15 pages you would understand the politics / mechanism / protections behind the vote but you clearly don't - Why not - How can I / We explain it in simpler language to you to you?

Situation NOW is that IAG can set up BA Express using BMI as soon as they purchase it and there is nothing we can do about......

.... BUT BA / BA pilots have the opportunity to stop this happening with BMI aircraft and crews by incorporating them into mainline AT A PRICE - lower T&Cs - Simple. Once / if absorbed into mainline then our SCOPE agreement with BA means all 100 seat plus A/C owned / operated by BA must be flown by mainline. If the company try to circumvent this then we all strike = not cost effective to do. IAG can buy another company/aircraft/slots and set up BA Express BUT NOT with the existing BA aircraft / crews and slots. Can I elaborate / help you any more?

Jockster thats all well and good IF you were to strike over it, but reading the posts on here it seems that most people feel that a downgrade in the terms and conditions is the price to pay for keeping the status quo in the company and to carry on doing what they are doing, albeit on reduced T&Cs . BA Express has obviously had a lot of thought put in to it over a period of time and is not something thought up quickly so its not going to go away. I applaud your faith in the scope agreement .

Nope, post Openskies BA (prior to IAG) made a legally binding agreement with BALPA that ALL orderd aircraft (listed by type and numbers) would be going to BA Mainline. They cannot change that.

Oddly enough the DLH leadership team have been spotted numerous times over at Waterside? The beginning of the same problems for VC perhaps?

I would beg to differ about DLH in Waterside as it has been discussed in the City about DLH wishing to tie up with BA/Iberia since well before Bishop excercised his Put option.

I have always been well aware of any other scenario pertaining to the BMI purchase, it's just that, when armed with ALL the information, most of which is not available on an anonymous forum, it makes sense to follow the advice of the BACC.

Fighting when fighting is needed but, as BASSA have proven, fighting when negotiation is required is suicide.

I appreciate all points of view but I don't live in a 'what if' world and can only take action on factual information and cannot advocate action based on future 'what if's '. The legal groundings in the UK are totally different to that in Germany where workers still retain a large power base in the courst with respect to worker rights. Sadly that has been whittled away in the UK reducing the power of the Unions.

AFAIK the merger will take place but the BACC Chairman has already made public that BALPA are tired of giving and are concilliatoried out.

"Fighting when fighting is needed but, as BASSA have proven, fighting when negotiation is required is suicide.

Sadly that has been whittled away in the UK reducing the power of the Unions.

AFAIK the merger will take place but the BACC Chairman has already made public that BALPA are tired of giving and are concilliatoried out"

Unfortunately the myths that BA's pilots still use to justify them serving drinks, is deliberately misinterpreted as the real reason for the cabin crew dispute. Imposition and union busting were the incendiary items as recognised by over 100 academics and Professor Keith Ewing. In any forthcoming dispute between BA pilots and Walsh, I can assure you there will not be the same intellectual condemnation or support.

As Wirblsturm and others are recently discovering, the cabin crew dispute was a shop window for what Walsh would dish out to employee groups who are not 'conciliatory'.

Wirdble kids himself that the pilots could ever organise themselves for any sort of industrial action. He quite rightly illustrates how the law in the UK is used against employees by management via the Establishment, in what is now coined as "British Airways tactics". BA pilots are no longer on a pedestal, but just another cost that requires a haircut.

Studi is right. A Yes vote is just feeding the crocodile, it is not even buying time. Whatever agreements BALPA asserts it has with Walsh regarding the placement of new aircraft, will simply be brushed aside and BA will fight it out in the Courts months or years down the line.

And we're back to imposition and union busting. They may have been incendiary items but they were avoidable which is one of the reasons it was so sad.

Move on Count.

Mods

A word please............:hmm:

On the previous very lengthy thread, over in Cabin Crew, concerning the BA CC dispute, non pertinant posters were moderated very tightly (by Tightslot :ok: ) and sometimes banned when they wouldn't take the hint.

We now have a BA Cabin Crew member making deliberately inflammatory posts that actually have little to do with the subject of this thread. I'm wondering why he has been given such leeway?

Could I ask you to take a look and, if nescessary, .......................


give us break from him :D

As the majority of the bmi fleet is leased and most of these leases (esp A319 s) will be due to end within the next couple of years what is to stop IAG renewing the leases for a BA Express operation instead of BA ? the scope agreement surely does not cover aircraft that are lease expired.

A BA express operation is inevitable in the next couple of years regardless of whether we like it or not, why make concessions now instead of later when there will be more to play for.

ETOPS....

Of course it's possible that the Count is not, or is no longer ;) a BA Cabin Crew member..........

I agree entirely with the sentiments of your post and the contrasting way about the way debate was err, handled, in another place.....

The scope agreement may not protect movement of the slots within the IAG group but the protection of the companies assets for the purpose of protecting the pension funds would how ever have something to say if the slots where transferred out of BA at anything other than full market value.

Hardly the way to go about setting up a new low cost carrier buying full price slots from yourself.

Wiggy, ETOPS.

Please don't try to get him banned, he gives me right laugh every time I log on!

Its all right,

Count got it so spectacularly wrong that he just needs a little help in how to get it right as his course gets to that tricky word 'negotiation'.

Obviously only those experts polled who agreed with the SWP paymasters get an outing as to the real reason behind their dispute. I, and the rest of the grown up world, saw it for what it was, a hissy fit at having to make change. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the 'Count's' track record in calling the shots, I, personally, am really glad he is calling doom and gloom for me and my erstwhile colleagues. It only means there is a better future ahead. :E

I would vote to keep him, it reminds me why we kicked the Labour party and their paymaster Unions out.

What about the cabin crew ?
 

If the pilots at BA as expected do accept the vote and to all intent and purpose there is a merger of the respective seniority lists with protections for promotions and transfers then would this create a precident for the same policy to be enacted for the cabin crew ? Bmi has alot of crew and pilots who have considerable seniority who I would imagine would bring their joining dates with them for staff travel purposes. The only cabin crew contact now with BA is the MF contract but many bmi crew would have joined bmi well before the MF contract was introduced so i was wondering how the lists for cabin crew will be handled. There must be approx 600+ cabin crew at bmi and this will need to be looked at very soon.

No. They don't have a Scope clause so no vote needed. BA will simply tell them what is happening to them.

Thank you for that ETOPS as the trip I was on nobody knew the answer but those of us who have been around a few years remembered when we took over DanAir for a £1 and the crews all maintained their date of joining for staff travel purposes along with their pensions and were integrated into LGW and Midfleet as at the time they were the only fleets recruiting. I appreciate now that the SCOPE Agreement is the key and why our pilots need to vote on this. Thank you

Having said that I hope whatever is decided allows as many crew as possible to continue in their jobs without suffering substantial reductions in T' & Cs

Totally agree ETOPS. A no brainier for those based at LHR but could be a hard decision for those crew based away from LHR

The plot thickens

Potential AMR Suitors Hope to Draw Support of British Airways - WSJ.com

Did the ballot close today? Had today in my head for some reason...

The result is a yes to BMI integration.