This sort of comment makes me laugh - arrogance at the highest level.

I have seen some excellent ex-colleagues join Big Airways over the last 30 years - and I have seen others pass selection who were (to put it politely) not a loss to their previous employer!

JSW, I used the word subsidiary simply because BACF is a BA subsidiary and the scope agreement applies to BA subsidiaries. I wasn’t suggesting there aren’t any BA subsidiaries flying greater than 100 seat capacity aircraft.

I’m enjoying the sim prep banter. Comedy gold.

Ah the real trolling begins.

Making people laugh is a good quality, thank you kindly.

You've just discredited the whole BA selection process in one sentence. All the hoops are put in place to ensure that they only get the crème de la crème and not the cast-offs that inferior airlines are delighted to pass onto them (to put it politely).

Definition
Trolling is when someone post or comments online to deliberately upset others. In short: Trolling is when someone deliberately tries to upset others online.

If you're upset then you do have the option to unsubscribe from this thread.

Hypothetically speaking if someone joined BA fairly recently say<10 years, would they be more junior than a city flyer pilot with >10 years on the master seniority list?
I ask as if BA merged an airline every 10 years you could effectively go backwards on a seniority list for decades, hence why I ask how it was done when BMI integrated.

That's a very valid question CSC, hopefully we'll get some sensible answers soon.

The chance of BACF length of service giving equivalent ‘slotted in’ seniority for the purposes of fleet moves, at any point in the future is NIL. (Hopefully that is clear enough). As for it happening with any future merger with another company? It didn’t happen when Cityflyer merged back in the early 2000s, and it didn’t happen with the BMI merger - but it depends what is negotiated at the time. The only thing that did happen with BMI, was an agreement giving limited grandfather rights for a small number of long haul commands each year, on the most junior long haul fleet. This was a reflection of BMI’s limited number of long haul hulls pre-merger (but that won’t apply to BACF anyway). Once on that most junior long haul fleet, they remain at the bottom of the seniority until a more junior BA pilot gets their command on the fleet (which I think probably means - until they retire).

Joining the BA master seniority list does not mean merging with it. These days, during company mergers (something which I highly doubt is on the cards with BACF), the law requires that as far as possible, no worker in either company is unfairly disadvantaged. BACF pilots obtaining long haul command positions ahead of current BA pilots would be a massive disadvantage to the BA pilots and a massive advantage to BACF pilots, and so it just isn’t going to happen. The law would not allow it.

So on that basis of legal protection, does that mean that current BA pilots would also be excluded from bidding onto the new Embraers as commanders which would essentially leapfrog any eligible BACF First Officers?

Other than TUPE my knowledge of employment protection associated with mergers is limited. Are you able to post a link to the legislation that would cover seniority based advantages?

The apparent rumour is not even suggesting a merger so continuously asking questions as if it is, is just scaremongering, but yes as I have already said, in a merger scenario I would expect the other company’s pilots to be protected too.

GS, I am neither scaremongering nor seeking an argument just a level headed debate. It was you who first brought the merger word into the mix 'These days, during company mergers'.

Anyway, let's just see what unfolds during the forthcoming months. In the meantime happy and safe flying to you all!

Ohh, and apologies to the wannabees on here whose thread was trashed by me and others after it went off piste. You all probably couldn't care less about any of it right now and skipped through it at >mach2.

It's not discrediting the whole BA selection process, its stating a provable fact that no selection process is 100% successful.
Any airline no matter the selection has pilots that made it through the selection, but are far from the "ideal" the airline wants.

I’m sorry but the BA selection is a joke , if you are looking to recruit a robot who can say the right things to HR then great.
They don’t get to see what the person would actually be like on a 14hr day …..

I wouldn’t call the BA selection a “joke”, and I doubt anyone that has had to jump through the various hoops (in some cases, more than once) would call it a joke.

The post before yours sums it up nicely. Look at the “assessment process” used several times in the last few years to select the UK’s Prime Minister….but that’s a discussion for the pub…

Certainly the argument that can be put forward is that the BA simulator element is far more thorough than many other operators - in essence comprising of an entirely raw data two sector LOFT exercise with very limited automatics permitted, on an unfamiliar type. In terms of seeing how people react when put under pressure and when overload/capacity limits are reached, it’s probably as good as you’re going to get without actively sleep depriving people. There is of course the issue that otherwise perfectly capable candidates who would potentially excel in the sim are filtered out by the earlier processes - which is of course a shame, but no different to any other operator.

Edited to add:

From my (very limited I must admit) understanding the current recruitment process has in fact been slimmed down, gone are the numerical and verbal reasoning elements “on the day”, having been replaced by an online element completed before the assessment day. This is an improvement in my opinion, although I am not a great fan of online tests and if I had to do them today I would probably fail spectacularly!

No interview and selection process is perfect; BA is no exception. Things may well have changed but certainly my recollection is of being pleasantly surprised that I wasn’t expected to recite chapter and verse of number of aircraft in different fleets or company history (well, not as specific questions anyway), very much more a “get to know you” and some competency based questions.

Having worked there I would say it's genuinely the best selection process out there because believe it or not that's what they do want.

I have indeed also worked at BA for many years, I didn’t know it had changed so I stand corrected

Yes they do when you reach the sim assessment,two candidates over five hours

Pretentious and pompous sums it up and I've heard that many times. Here's the irony; BA CityFlyer pilots are all suitable to fly the Embraer into LCY and other CAT C airfields. All as a wholly owned subsidiary in the livery and uniforms of BA. However, their pilots have to jump through all the hoops if they wish to join the world's biggest flying club. Furthermore a lot of them get rejected which begs the question why are they allowed to return to CityFlyer as sub standard pilots? CE247, IMHO you are better off out of it.

A shame the thread has to be hijacked in this way by some thinly-disguised bitterness and/or insecurity.

The fact is BA flightcrew really aren’t that different to those flying elsewhere. I’ve found that the majority of disparaging remarks re BA pilots seem to have come from people that have in fact, never flown for BA….so I tend to take their views with a pinch of salt.

The BA interview that some seem to find issue with is pretty standard in the U.K. - mainly competency based questions and the usual why BA etc.

The assessment process is partly about weeding out folk who waltz into the recruitment centre believing they’re entitled to a job there …BA do not want this kind of person in their flightdecks.

The recruiters I’ve met have been very friendly and professional. That can’t be said for some of the airlines I’ve interviewed for in other countries.

The fact that some people don’t pass the BA assessment is not of course a reflection on the individual - but nor is it necessarily a sign that the assessment process itself is somehow flawed, and that only unpleasant individuals pass the assessment (complete rubbish in my experience). There are unpleasant individuals in every company and no, BA don’t have the monopoly on them.