Absence definitely makes the heart grow fonder.

On short haul you also spend 1/2/3 nights away from home at a time. Will you like BA, LH or SH? I don't know but it's a good job. If your happy where you are then stay there.

What will happen is change in BA and easy. Make your choice and go with it.

4468, SH pilots will be disappointed? Does that mean we won't be able to join our colleagues "at the table" for a minimum of 30 mins? :E

Not necessarily true. I know several who felt great sadness upon leaving loved ones when they returned home to wives and families.

So, so true :-)

At risk of thread drift talking about this but it's an important subject. Depends how you're wired up amd your perception of being away. I'm away weeks. I find leaving painful but it's great when back. I know people (mentioned the navy) who go away to sea on tankers for months. When they get extended, it's for an extra month! They find it tough. A few days away long haul based out of home country is perfect to me. Keeps the spice of life going and I've done commuting which makes it seem nothing. I found on short haul I was damn ass tired, grouchy, bored of flying and the misses and I took our time together for granted anyway. I actually counted it up and even commuting on long haul I spend more "quality" time with friends and family than when back on short haul and on constant shift work.

Of course it's only a rumour and could be well wide of the mark, but from the whisper I heard, what is proposed may come as something of a shock? Though it might certainly satisfy the expressed desire to just work harder on the days when one is actually at work!:rolleyes:

It remains to be seen whether the 'differential' with other departments relative 'Gap to market' is narrowed, retained, or widened!

We shall see soon enough.

Regarding this rumoured introduction of a SH pay cap..... Surely they could only impose this willy nilly on new joiners to the company?

The incremental pay scales are contractural, including the current pay caps at LGW etc. Legally, I doubt that the company could just change them without agreement with the current workforce. For new joiners it would be different because they would sign up to the new deal, as per the 34 pay points scale.

BALPA can represent us as a working group and agree to changes without consulting with us. Not saying they would or have but on lesser issues this has happened.

As 4468 says, we will all have to wait for the company communication before we all look at it with stunned silence.

Fair enough but can it agree to contractual changes? Ie. things contained within the Memorandum of Agreement??

I doubt it. I imagine BALPA can only agree to changes in BALPA agreements, such as the hotel agreement. Pilots contracts are between the individual pilot and the company. My understanding is that the MOA, whilst negotiated by BALPA, is contractual rather than simply a union agreement. Of course, I stand to be corrected.

I imagine that non-BALPA members would be particularly annoyed if their contract were to be changed without their consent. In fact, surely that can't be legal.

Before I give the wrong impression, I am am full BALPA member.

Ts and Cs can ONLY be changed with BALPA agreement. That's the whole idea.

BA shorthaul is inching its way towards a 'gun against the head' moment. 'Take these new terms and conditions or your job / that part of the company won't exist'. When that happens BALPA can negotiate and/or accept on your behalf, and your contract can be re-written. (They would probably put it to a vote, but everyone will agree because there will be no real choice).
When that point comes you suddenly won't be worrying about all those minor scuffles you had about crew food, or whether a certain hotel is really up to scratch. The company will have you by the proverbials and you'll agree to what you thought you'd never agree to.
BA shorthaul requires a cost base similar to other operators. It's held out for a good while now, but the consequences of that fact are heading its way. It's a pity, and it'll be painful. The arse end of capitalism.
For those about to retire from this industry, what fabulous luck that you are stepping off the ship just at the right time. For those of us with a few years to run - things are only heading in one direction - more work for less than you expected.
Hey ho.

In all our contracts is a collective bargaining agreement which gives BACC the ability to negotiate and agree on our behalf. If you're not in the union, you are still subject to the agreements made.

BA CCQ 320 application
 

They must be desperate....


Wonder why they're not finding enough people?


First they were targeting the Monarch guys (320 rated), then the Cargolux guys (B747 rated). Who is their target with this one?

To be considered for our current A320 CCQ shorthaul vacancies you will need: a current type rating on the Airbus A330 or A340, to be currently operating the aircraft (up to the point of your course start with British Airways) and a minimum of 500 hrs experience on type

What's the point of recruiting A330/340 pilots and then pay for their CCQ when they are loads of 320 rated pilots out there ??? I really don't get this...

Any thoughts ? Anyone ?

There may well be lots of 320 guys out there but do they want to come to BA? Those that want to come, are they passing the selection?

Greygoose7,

See post 719

Regards

Anyone else invited for an assessment having trouble making the date offered?

One week's notice and no other choice available.

All very strange, I had an email alert from BA today asking me to apply for the 330/340 CCQ TO 320 ....... I'm 320/321 rated not 330/340.
So burning question is, are they still taking 320 guys as this email alert would indicate they are. Or is this another cockup on their website like the last one, which showed 320, 747-400, 757, 767, 777 and 787 but didn't allow you any further if you were only 320 rated......???? :ugh:

In the 2008 and 2011 recruitment drives pretty much everyone I knew that could apply, did. This time round I can't name one person, but for understandable personal reasons... New commands, aged 35 plus, not living South or not wishing to return to the UK yet after the last industry fallout.

I just wonder where all the UK applicants will come from, given most feeder jet operators have gone. Not many experienced, current and available folk about when you exclude FR and EZY as per the job posting.

Are A320 pilots being accepted by BA
 

I am a 1000 hr M.......ch FO. I was rejected at the first day of tests..you know. The ones to see if you are good enough to be an airline pilot..the tests must be flawed cos my flying record is flawless above average throughout and passing all my check rides to captain standard.....are BA looking for managers/corporate types who could stall an Airbus into the Atlantic?
Perhaps the HR guys at BA have gone rogue or something !
I know many guys of first class quality both personally and as pilots who have been turned down.....what ARE they looking for?

Bloody good question HA. You probably have just too many hours. I know of an SFO with same company with 4500 hours, most on 320, and also with an impeccable flying career who "failed" at the same hurdle. Yet CTC candidates with nothing under the belt get through.

There have been captains with 10,000+ hours being invited back for an interview so its not because you've got too many hours.

I've witnessed some very strange results from BA selections amongst the F.Os where I work, good solid people get rejected and others who scrapped along the bottom standards of both technical and non technical skills were taken. I believe that the BA system is as inaccurate a method of selection as any other airline that has allowed HR to interfere.

I haven't applied my self, so have no first hand knowledge of the tests and procedures but the stuff described by colleagues doesn't seem to me to be suitable for selecting aircrew.

Really student88. 10k+ hr captains applying for FO role that required 200 hrs as advertised.

So the 10000 hrs Captains were rejected first time around?
I was under the impression once you have been rejected you have to wait at Least 12 months before you can reapply.....was this the case ?
Did they have to re-sit ALL the tests plus interviews?

I can think of numerous skippers with 10000hrs who got in during the recruitment drive in 2005/2006.
If I can say anything about the BA selection is that it matters not who you are or where you come from. Completely above board and no favours can be pulled.
It is what it is and it's served us well over the years, like it or not.

Quite possibly Shaka Zulu, but not really relevant what happened 10 years ago. I was asking if it was really true that captains with other airlines with over 10000 hours are really applying for First Officer positions with BA where the experience requirement for the role is 200 hours.

I questioned, as have others, why very good experienced pilots with other airlines are rejected at a phase designed to test aptitude to be a pilot when others with no experience get through. If BA really do need 320 pilots then a lot are being passed over. I also wonder why the hours requirement dropped from 500 hrs earlier this year to 200 hrs this time. Is the answer because there were not enough good experienced pilots first time round or is because the process is silly and unnecessarily eliminates excellent candidates. Is it really feasible that Monarch pilots (for example) are not suitable to be pilots ?

It may be that the process is not open to corruption or discrimination and is even handed but it is also not the point.

Yes, Captains from various UK airlines have been at the assessment days.

..invited to interview after successfully passing stage 1.

I first applied to BA at the end of the eighties. At that time it was obvious the company were looking to recruit pilots. In the intervening period it has become apparent that pilot ability may have fallen quite far down the list of desirable qualities. I believe some years ago BA turned down the leader of the Red Arrows for lack of flying ability!:sad:

If BA are looking for managers with a flying licence, anyone wishing to get in should prepare themselves accordingly. Anyone not wishing to play that game probably isn't what BA are looking for anyway?

Apart from meeting the minimum criteria, I very much doubt BA will be too interested in additional experience? Perhaps it comes with too much baggage?

Anyone like to discuss the merits of monitored approaches, for example?:E

It must also take a certain type of personality for an experienced captain to happily spend a number of years back in the RHS with no possibility of 'upgrade'? Sitting next to relatively young, relatively inexperienced captains.

Don't really disagree 4468. BA are looking for more than a pilot but then (rightly) so are many many others who don't decide on the strength of a computer game, a maths test and verbal reasoning whether an individual has these abilities. These tests are for assessing the aptitude of an individual to be a pilot and would be valid in assessing an individual before a company takes them on where there is no track record or evidential history of ability. For instance in the case of choosing individuals onto a cadet scheme. I wonder how many current BA pilots would actually pass these tests now - I bet not all ! In fact BA should do this to test the validity of the tests - spring it in a few with a weeks notice and see what happens.

Oh, and yes, it must be a very desperate 10k hours captain who applies for a BA FO position. Maybe one who is now out of work.

The problem is that the days of 'let's have a look around and if we like the cut of yer Jib we'll give you the job nod from the Chief Pilot' have long gone.

Day 1 is primarily sorted out by 'Da Computer' with little input from mere humans except in the group discussion exercises. Personally I do not know what score percentage these carry to the final pass/fail criteria (perhaps Lindsay could shed some light on it eh? ;-) ).

The bottom line means that irrelevant of whether you are Pontious the Pilot himself or the most charismatic man in the Fifedom if the computer say 'No' the HR mafia won't let you through to the next round.

Do I agree with such a system? Perhaps not, I was once offered a job after a walk around and a coffee but that was a long time ago in a world where lots of people knew who the others in the industry were. Perhaps understandably the HR department use the system as a filter to cut down on the workload at day 2. However the system DOES work for the company and the 'product' the system delivers is excellent. You must remember that a 10,000+ hour Captain from an airline will have the same process as a 3,000 hour military Captain and a 500 hour 'self improver'. It is a difficult juggling act.

Far from perfect but it's what the world is coming to and it seems what is necessary.

p.s. A few of my mates have failed BA interview, good guys all of them. It's just the way it happens on the day I'm afraid.

p.p.s I have it on good authority that human intervention is made in all cases and all day 1 assessments are checked over by the recruiting team before the final decision is made!

WhyByFlier,

Whilst any recruitment process isn't infallible there is a certain degree of commonality and fairness that must be attributed to all applicants. Hence initial processes must be irrespective of experience and hours. If you apply as DEP it's a given that you have the licence and can fly the jet. Your performance on the day is what is going to get you through the process and that is a level field for all.

Like all of these processes I have been through it provides the employer with a 'snap shot' of who you are and what you are. How well the applicant puts that across is up to them but, as we've seen in the past many times, some people are better than others at projecting what they want others to see.

As far as 'odd-balls' go I'm afraid that you will find your percentage in all walks of life. That's a product of statistics. Also it's pointless stating a list of 'look what these guys have done' people as the company has no control over how these people develop over the years. Perhaps they displayed their 'persona' better at the time of recruitment, certainly those who have gone on to do, shall we say, less savory acts have historically been proven to be able to cover up their alter lives/ego's very well.

No process will be 'perfect' but if the recruitment system puts all applicants on a level playing field of having whatever experience they have to draw from and a licence then it is up to the applicant to prove themselves capable for employment, not the employer.

Can't really get much fairer than that.

As far as those leaving I believe it is due to the amount of time to command. I wish them well and good luck. Ironically the stagnation attributed to the increase in the compulsory retirement age is coming to an end and, with the return of the 'Little Red' slots to BA and the delivery of the 350 XWB, I feel we are about to see some more growth and movement at Heathrow. Potentially increased by the decision to keep and refit some of the 744's that were due to be retired. Perhaps they jumped too soon, perhaps not, personal circumstances will always dictate peoples decisions and I have always respected that. Not everyone wants the same thing.

WOW

Not often do I see something as bad as this from a poster - but this is unbelievably rude, potentially libellous, and of course I'm sure you asked your CP before posting this did you? And we're talking about your CP yes, where you've said already you work?

Jeepers.

WhyByFlier

You may be an Easy SFO. Yet you have an awful lot to say about BA's Direct Entry Pilot process, and BA pilots generally. (with some inaccurate understanding of how the company works) So I'll ask again, as I did a little earlier:

Sawadee I'm not sure you understand the definition of libellous. This would in fact be slander, but it's not anyway because no-one has been identified at any point, not the individuals concerned or the chief pilot or even the company. it's just an opinion, relax.

Heck, who cares if it is slander or libel?

I thought it was a great quote. I wish I'd thought of it myself.

Actually, I hope it is made up. It is a great line. Bravo, Sir!!

Which bits of WBF post are not true then ?

Also, level playing fields are great when they are level. You don't think that a training company coaching their guys with the actual software is a level of support not available to others.

Jeepers

WBF I assume you'd be that rude to my face if we met?

I was posting a robust comment because I thought your repeating of that comment (true or untrue) was pretty poor show really. It's a horrible thing to say, and a horrible thing to repeat, in a world that's full of hatred, problems...

If you are saying my understanding of the word is wrong then mea culpa - but I did just look up the dictionary and it says (Collins):

2) any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement

So, my thought was just that's a rude thing to repeat. There was no need to say it. Also, you were extremely rude to me - am I not allowed to express an opinion without being shot down? Were you the name caller school bully? If so, bravo for growing out of it already.

It's the language only I don't like, not your position. I would agree that each airline may or may not be for an individual - BA/EZ/FR/EK whichever. BA isn't the white gloved government owned enterprise it once was, but that's life. If someone doesn't want to join, then that's their choice! EZ is a fine airline in my opinion - does what it says on the tin, very successful, and customers obviously like it! I would wish that cadets were offered a fairer start and package to begin with but that's just me. I would say that anyone working for EZ will have great training, good aircraft to fly, and a wide network to operate on. Relatively quick command on a fab aircraft, lots to like? I think some others would probably agree.

OK and one apology - I know you didn't identify your airline, or the CP concerned, and I was clearly baiting to try and get a response and for you to say more on the topic. That wasn't good form so I do apologise for that.

Horribly, horribly offensive, again:

I can only assume (go on hit me with that ASS U ME thing again) that you are an awful bully, and a nasty person to know.