|
Surely with every aspect of the business under fire is it not time for the union to grow some balls and balance the power out a little? If you bow down and let them rear end you then you've only got yourselves to blame? Time for LH/SH/senior/junior to surely come together and make a stand. The "I'm alright Jack" issues at the top of the list has to be put to one side because everyone will have the sharks after their t&cs at some point in the future, the top needs the bottom's help and the bottom needs the top's help. Get with it before it's too late.
|
Rex, don’t worry, when you do eventually get to long haul, you’ll realise all these years of thinking long haul is easy and it’s only short haul taking the pain, was actually completely wrong and you’ll wonder why on Earth you’ve given all of these years to BA just to end up feeling fatigued and worthless, with no useful time at home and no useful time downroute. |
Rexbanner ...I see where you’re coming from. You will merely join the masses of pilots ahead of you that have trodden the same path of resentment and disappointment in BA. As previously mentioned, this could be the best job in aviation if only it was run properly. I came to the conclusion years ago that BALPA reps and the pilot workforce share the blame. Many of the changes don’t really affect reps that only fly once or twice a month, and the majority of pilots seem to be grateful to BA that they have a job and are unwilling to stick their necks out for anything. Lots of complaining but no action. |
I came to the conclusion years ago that BALPA share the blame |
Originally Posted by GS-Alpha
(Post 10330952)
BALPA need to lead the pilots. The problem is, the BACC is made up of pilots. They are not negotiators, nor do they have any idea of the concept of leading members and encouraging them to think as one unified workforce. Instead, they act as BA’s expectation management team, allowing repeated targeted attacks at various minority groups of the workforce. BA hammer our terms and conditions using this technique, and will continue to do so until the BACC realise that whilst the members are indeed the union, it is the BACC’s responsibility to galvanise them as one. Together we are strong, but as it is we are incredibly weak, and we might as well be a non-unionised workforce. I say again, merge all of the payscales into one and start to reduce the myriad of differences between us. Once we're all on ONE payscale we can move forward TOGETHER. KG seems to be very keen on looking things in a "blended' way. Lets start with some blending of our own shall we. |
Originally Posted by 2 Whites 2 Reds
(Post 10330993)
Couldn't agree more! I've been saying for some time that we REALLY need to start targeting the things that divide us. The company would be fearful of a united workforce IMHO. When the classic divide and conquer is being countered and the "I'm alright Jack" attitude has gone we MIGHT stand a chance. Until then the company will continue to pick off various parts of work force off at will.
I say again, merge all of the payscales into one and start to reduce the myriad of differences between us. Once we're all on ONE payscale we can move forward TOGETHER. KG seems to be very keen on looking things in a "blended' way. Lets start with some blending of our own shall we. |
You can’t just slam from reverse into forward gear. Getting everyone onto the same terms and conditions requires positive forward motion. I don’t think you can expect to push back against BA quite so aggressively straight from the off. That’s unrealistic in my opinion. However, first things first, we need to stop BA picking us off one by one. Once that has been achieved then we can work to reversing stuff. But even if no reversing happens, we’d be doing ourselves a massive favour just by stamping on the relentless chipping away. |
Originally Posted by GS-Alpha
(Post 10331013)
You can’t just slam from reverse into forward gear. Getting everyone onto the same terms and conditions requires positive forward motion. I don’t think you can expect to push back against BA quite so aggressively straight from the off. That’s unrealistic in my opinion. However, first things first, we need to stop BA picking us off one by one. Once that has been achieved then we can work to reversing stuff. But even if no reversing happens, we’d be doing ourselves a massive favour just by stamping on the relentless chipping away. Drastic action is required and it's not a case of being agressive towards BA. It's simply a matter of unifying the workforce. I agree it's hopeful to think such a thing could happen but in my humble opinion it's what's required. Until we're more unified the company will continue to pick us off one by one and the Me Me / I'm alright Jack's play right into their hands. Just to add, this tactic isn't unique to BA. They just do it better than most. |
We need BALPA educating the community as to why supporting a cause which does not directly effect the individual is vital for the long term bigger picture of said individual. The problem is, that would bring us closer to strike action, and BALPA are scared stiff to find themselves in a battle with BA/IAG after what happened with openskies. It suits them to maintain the current status quo, and just watch our terms and conditions dwindle whilst keeping us under control for the company. That way they get a nice revenue stream with not too much hassle or risk. Our current union needs to be replaced with one that actually has a backbone. |
The problem is, that would bring us closer to strike action, and BALPA are scared stiff to find themselves in a battle with BA/IAG after what happened with openskies |
Originally Posted by Thegreenmachine
(Post 10330880)
All of the above sounds horribly fatigue inducing.. How seriously is this taken at BA? Until a raft of fatigue reports come in, with crew stuck down route then nothing will change will it.
As someone above alluded to also there is a fantastic non punitive fatigue reporting system at current outfit, by sounds of it may well need it at BA too. Yes there are some airlines out there with FRMS systems which are now mature and have been around for some time. Up until recently there was a well known quote "there is no fatigue at BA" - might have to get through the "yee who has the last laugh" before things move in the right direction for both BA and its crews. |
I suspect if you asked a senior long haul FO what they had in common with a new FO at LGW, I suspect it might be easier for the list of differences to be highlighted rather than what they have in common within the context of their job. One doesn't need to look too far to see how there are numerous aspects of flying for BA that can create differences between colleagues. LHR vs LGW, Shorthaul vs Longhaul, Carmen vs Bidline (in a historical context of course) and BARP vs NAPS and that is coming from someone who doesn't work for the company, so I suspect more could be added to the list!! The more differences amongst colleagues, then the more challenging it has to be to create any solidarity in the workplace.
Reading some of the previous posts reminds me of an ex BA skipper who stepped into a Flight Ops management position at my last company after he retired. It was rather irksome to see how reluctant he was to engage with management and to address any issues that were passed up the food chain. After a few beverages down route one night, one of the cabin crew actually took him to task over his reluctance to communicate and help create change where it was needed. He admitted he had no desire to 'rock the boat' unless he himself was going to benefit as well. A carry-over from his BA days perhaps? As I said earlier, I am not at BA but I do have a few friends still there, so I do read this thread from time to time out of interest. I left the UK to become an ex-pat aviator before EASA FTLs were brought in, so my knowledge of them is rather scant, to say the least. Regardless of that, any manager worth their salt will use their FTL framework as a guideline for enhancing crew productivity and I have seen this where I am now. It seems that no airline in IAG appears to be immune from this nowadays either. If 24 hours down route in the US west coast is legal, then it's a case of when rather than if it ever happens before your management consider tweaking with your rosters. Having crews away from home base longer than needed, seems to be a bête noire for management in any airline and it is a very easy way for them to reduce operating costs. Some of you seem to have suggested that change will be forthcoming for trips that are changed to include shorter layovers, once a paper trail has started involving safety and fatigue reporting. I can assure you from first-hand experience that it is nothing short of a gargantuan task to revert roster practices, back to a level that reduces crew productivity. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose. From reading this thread it would seem that some BA aviators here, seem to have lost hope in your CC as well but this has to be your last line of defence against unfavourable change. If enough of you are disillusioned about your CC as some of the posters on this thread appear to be, then what would the outcome of a petition of 'No Confidence' in your CC be? Good Luck and I shall be watching from the sidelines! |
A VNC in the BACC? How many friends did you say you have in BA? |
Originally Posted by Emma Royds
(Post 10331985)
A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10332220)
There’s no uncertainty about that, it is already a “given”. A manager at BA stated in print a few weeks back that in the event of a fatigue report/ASR being filed travel arrangements would be examined (and anecdotally it seems it is not just air travel that gets looked at, apparently even a < 90minute drive to/from home between short haul days has already raised comment). I can vouch for that. I filed a Fatigue ASR not so long ago and was asked to detail (by email ie in writing) how I usually manage my commute which is just under 90 mins by car. I was doing short haul at the time. Was subsequently followed up with a phone call from the DFCM to go through it. I felt very much that the wrong answer would lead to another less pleasant phone call. |
Originally Posted by Emma Royds
(Post 10331985)
. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.!
Re EASA FTL. There was an important re emphasis from the previous essence of state regulations when EASA FTL was constructed re fatigue reporting. I appreciate you may not be too aware of EASA FTL not flying under them. But the FRMS system was a hand in glove condition to fly to EASA FTL rules. EASA FTLs were constructed only such that airlines MUST have an active FRMS. A legal roster or more correctly a roster constructed to FTL limits, does not infer fatigue free under EASA rules, hence the FMRS. That’s the very essence of the system. It is not a singular side addition as previous state FTLs. As such airlines and the regulator have to respect fatigue reporting. I do agree changing a fatiguing section of work will take somewhat of a trend in reality to stop outliers causing constant disruption to scheduling, but equally they cannot sit on reports in ignorance waiting for an artificial high amount. That is precisely the system and a culture of treading lightly and discouragement of fatigue reporting goes against EASA FTL. Some U.K. airlines adopt their FRMS responsibility that allows them to fly under EASA FTLS quite well. I gather EasyJet for example have an active, open and well used FRMS. That is exactly the way flying under EASA was meant to be treated. It was acknowledged during construction the rules can not possibly catch all fatigueing combinations. They have great limitations. “You can fly to these limits, but only, and only if you have an FRMS to catch fatigue”. A feedback loop system. It’s not meant to be a section of railway track that disappears into the buffers with fatigue reports being filed away ne’er to be seen again. Hence fatigue reporting goes to MOR (although when filed through airlines at least BA seem to override the MOR status sometimes) I have filed a fatigue report with BA and disappointingly did not meet the same positive response as others. I was told “BA fatigue reporting culture is still new and we’re learning” A somewhat concerning statement of juvenile innocence given fatigue has existed for years, and holding an AOC requires a mature compliance and understanding of state procedures. I hope the comment was just that manager’s attitude and not indicative of a wider culture. You are right. If someone is abusing their commute they would be wise to visit their lifestyle before blaming a line. However, reporting fatigue is not only a legal requirement it’s meant to be open and encouraged. After all no airline wants knackered crews either. |
Originally Posted by Emma Royds
(Post 10331985)
Some of you seem to have suggested that change will be forthcoming for trips that are changed to include shorter layovers, once a paper trail has started involving safety and fatigue reporting. I can assure you from first-hand experience that it is nothing short of a gargantuan task to revert roster practices, back to a level that reduces crew productivity. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose. Whether a trip is legal or not is irrelevant. Fatigue is personal! Some people find things more/less fatiguing than others. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I don't know where you work but BA claims to have an open and just culture- we should be reporting fatigue. We should not be punished for it and Im 100% sure the regulator would not take well to punitive fatigue management. Baring in mind you're not at BA and obviously don't work in an airline with a decent FRMS I'm not sure how relevant your post is to current/prospective BA pilots so please think about what you post and its effects on readers. |
I spoke positively about fatigue reporting. I was wrong I received a unpleasant phone call recently with a view to discredit my report. |
Did you CC Balpa in on it Bex? What did they try to discredit your report with?
|
Originally Posted by bex88
(Post 10332768)
I spoke positively about fatigue reporting. I was wrong I received a unpleasant phone call recently with a view to discredit my report. Email if the phone thing scares you. B |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:08. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.