The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

DWC wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

If they want a share in the profits they can.... buy shares and get dividends. Of course this involves an investment and they might lose some money too.
For the union to say that the cost of the strike to BA far outweighs the difference between their demands and what BA has offered is no way to negotiate.
Stay on strike. Take the airline down with you. Reap what you sow.

That's not how societies work, and society in many languages means private company ( whether or not publicly traded ).
Investors & shareholders have every right to earn profits on their money.
But so do all workers who actually make that happen.
Reserving the money to shareholders who sit there waiting their arms folded & legs on the table drinking scotch is not only morally wrong, it is economically asinine. All economic & social studies show that sharing dividends with the workforce actually not only keeps them content & calm, but also augments productivity. Good for everyone involved, including pax : by culture but also because of relative good pays, East Asian airlines are in another league in terms of courtesy & customer service.

A strike means a management failure. You'd hardly see that in Germany or Japan ( but it did happen to LH lately ).
It is management's duty to manage a company well & keep workforce happy, specially the pilots, who were not asking anything remotedly close to IAG's profits.
Stay filthily stingy & expect more strikes. Images goes down, loyalty dwindles or pax go elsewhere, then more strikes terrible management.

If I were a majority shareholder, I would sack the current board, for that & pathetic customer service. Same of AA's. OneWorld, what a coincidence, without CX, JL, QF, LA and QR, OW is now an empty shell.

When did society enter the arena? BA isn't a society. The pilots are not striking for the greater good of the UK so why widen the scope to anything other than the entity that is BA?

The fact that you would sack the board if you were a major shareholder speaks volumes. In your hypothetical what would be the reason for you becoming that major shareholder in the first place?

What is fair? To say they are only 5 million pounds apart plays both ways. The union is prepared to risk the whole business for this sum so why do you paint this as the evil empire vs the humble employee?

Maybe you want a cooperative? Everyone takes a fair slice of the pie... but who decides what is fair? Sounds like an exercise in the mediocre if you ask me. There was a union that took that to a whole new level a little further east and it didn't work out too well and... the division between the haves and the have nots was even wider.

Back to reality. Who is going to front the money to start this utopian commercial society that you dream of? We've already ruled out the scotch drinking feet resters.

TXMikeDC wrote:

I assume this is why BA’s BWI-LHR flight last night and LHR-BWI flight today are cancelled. Any idea why BA switched from a 787 to a 777 on the route a couple weeks ago?

It was due to some extra checks required on 787 engines. So BA wetleased an Evelop A330 to fly the LGW-JFK route, which freed up a LGW frame to fly the LHR-BWI route that required the 787s that are having engine checks. Why they didn't just wetlease the A330 to cover the BWI and leave the LGW-JFK trip as it was I don't know!

I'd love to say more, there's quite a bit of inaccuracy on here but I'm better off keeping quiet. Thought the above question was a fair one to answer though.

DWC wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

If they want a share in the profits they can.... buy shares and get dividends. Of course this involves an investment and they might lose some money too.
For the union to say that the cost of the strike to BA far outweighs the difference between their demands and what BA has offered is no way to negotiate.
Stay on strike. Take the airline down with you. Reap what you sow.

That's not how societies work, and society in many languages means private company ( whether or not publicly traded ).
Investors & shareholders have every right to earn profits on their money.
But so do all workers who actually make that happen.
Reserving the money to shareholders who sit there waiting their arms folded & legs on the table drinking scotch is not only morally wrong, it is economically asinine. All economic & social studies show that sharing dividends with the workforce actually not only keeps them content & calm, but also augments productivity. Good for everyone involved, including pax : by culture but also because of relative good pays, East Asian airlines are in another league in terms of courtesy & customer service.

A strike means a management failure. You'd hardly see that in Germany or Japan ( but it did happen to LH lately ).
It is management's duty to manage a company well & keep workforce happy, specially the pilots, who were not asking anything remotedly close to IAG's profits.
Stay filthily stingy & expect more strikes. Images goes down, loyalty dwindles or pax go elsewhere, then more strikes terrible management.

If I were a majority shareholder, I would sack the current board, for that & pathetic customer service. Same of AA's. OneWorld, what a coincidence, without CX, JL, QF, LA and QR, OW is now an empty shell.

Then buy a chunk of the airline and have board seats. Funny how employees owning airlines do not seem to workout well. ie. United Airlines.

BA777FO wrote:

TXMikeDC wrote:

I assume this is why BA’s BWI-LHR flight last night and LHR-BWI flight today are cancelled. Any idea why BA switched from a 787 to a 777 on the route a couple weeks ago?

It was due to some extra checks required on 787 engines. So BA wetleased an Evelop A330 to fly the LGW-JFK route, which freed up a LGW frame to fly the LHR-BWI route that required the 787s that are having engine checks. Why they didn't just wetlease the A330 to cover the BWI and leave the LGW-JFK trip as it was I don't know!

I'd love to say more, there's quite a bit of inaccuracy on here but I'm better off keeping quiet. Thought the above question was a fair one to answer though.

For one thing, Air Belgium A330 does not have PE class. It is better to use on a route where sales are not very good so one has flexibility to jingle around (like upgrade existing PE ticket to Business). Second, LGW is mostly O&D when compared to LHR. It is better for BA to have consistent product flying out from LHR.

I would like to hear your other inconsistencies. But I think the two points I made is part of the consideration taken by BA.

BA777FO wrote:

I'd love to say more, there's quite a bit of inaccuracy on here but I'm better off keeping quiet. Thought the above question was a fair one to answer though.

As always I'm impressed by your candor. I wish it was possible for you to publicly speak your mind without repercussions.

Either way, i hope the situation works out well for you and everyone else involved.

BA777FO wrote:

TXMikeDC wrote:

I assume this is why BA’s BWI-LHR flight last night and LHR-BWI flight today are cancelled. Any idea why BA switched from a 787 to a 777 on the route a couple weeks ago?

It was due to some extra checks required on 787 engines. So BA wetleased an Evelop A330 to fly the LGW-JFK route, which freed up a LGW frame to fly the LHR-BWI route that required the 787s that are having engine checks. Why they didn't just wetlease the A330 to cover the BWI and leave the LGW-JFK trip as it was I don't know!

I'd love to say more, there's quite a bit of inaccuracy on here but I'm better off keeping quiet. Thought the above question was a fair one to answer though.

Thanks. I saw the 777 sitting on the ramp this morning flying out of BWI and was curious. My wife flies the BWI-LHR route in a couple of weeks. She’s not a big woman but complains of how cramped economy is on the 787. Her company is too cheap to let her fly even in PE.

flightuk wrote:

The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

Would you say that a being a Surgeon is so scripted that anyone can do it? It is really the same concept that on a normal day, it should just be following the procedures but the salary is earned when things get messy due to weather, mechanicals, and other unforeseen factors that happen quite often.

flightuk wrote:

The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

The pilots could operate the airline without an IT department. Most charter companies do not have IT departments and could run a scheduled operation.

Varsity1 wrote:

flightuk wrote:

The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

The pilots could operate the airline without an IT department. Most charter companies do not have IT departments and could run a scheduled operation.

Do you really believe a company that discusses how many olives should be served in a drink hasn't already thought about whether a whole department is needed?

Although I agree that employees should be gratified when a Company is doing well if they made sacrifices during hard times, the quote from CNN/BA made me think otherwise:

"The average salary for a BA Captain is £167,000 [$206,000] plus flying allowances. The offer of 11.5% would take the average salary to £202,000," a BA spokesperson said. A first officer earns £90,000 on average, the spokesperson said.

CPHFF wrote:

Although I agree that employees should be gratified when a Company is doing well if they made sacrifices during hard times, the quote from CNN/BA made me think otherwise:

"The average salary for a BA Captain is £167,000 [$206,000] plus flying allowances. The offer of 11.5% would take the average salary to £202,000," a BA spokesperson said. A first officer earns £90,000 on average, the spokesperson said.

That is not much living in the London area, specially after how much it costs to actually become a pilot.
I lived in downtown London, rent was twice a month & four times higher than in downtown Paris less than an hour flight away.
Now, £206.000 in BKK & you live a local prince. Not so in SIN or Brunei.

Virtual737 wrote:

When did society enter the arena? BA isn't a society. The pilots are not striking for the greater good of the UK so why widen the scope to anything other than the entity that is BA?

Seems you speak english only & do not read well.
I did not say "society" but "societies" ( i.e. human groups ) & went on remarking that "society" is the word for "private company" in other tongues, like French "société", spanish "sociedad", german "Gesellschaft" where they all mean both, same for chinese "Kongci" or japanese "Kaisha", both actually written with different characters but sharing the society or common idea. In English, "Company" also has that social aspect if you ever kept anyone company.
Those who think businesses are only about efficiency or making money walk past their lives.
A company is also where you spend at least over half of your daily hours when not sleeping, it better be rewarding in other aspects than just salary & perks.

Varsity1 wrote:

flightuk wrote:

The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

The pilots could operate the airline without an IT department. Most charter companies do not have IT departments and could run a scheduled operation.

My goodness, did you really just say that. It was only a couple of weeks ago a whole airline was grounded because of an IT system fault, not an aircraft system fault. My point is, there are lots of critical departments in an airline, not just the pilots.

DWC wrote:

A company is also where you spend at least over half of your daily hours when not sleeping, it better be rewarding in other aspects than just salary & perks.

Thanks for the language lesson. Now remind me what the strike is all about?

Virtual737 wrote:

Thanks for the language lesson. Now remind me what the strike is all about?

Do you mean you don't know ? And keep arguing ?

DWC wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Thanks for the language lesson. Now remind me what the strike is all about?

Do you mean you don't know ? And keep arguing ?

Discussing while being beaten around the head with a dictionary, which isnt as bad as other alternatives.

I quoted your comment that stated your work life had better be about far more than pay and perks. We are in a thread about a strike over those very things. So... apologies that English is my only first language and that I don't read quite as well as you believe I should, but what on earth is your point?

Questions:
- When on strike, are flights originating at outstations flown back in to the hub? If so, does LHR have enough parking stands to accommodate all BA fleet?
- If/when strike happens, what happens with the crew at outstations? Are they still on BA's dime or does the Union take up accommodating them?

berari wrote:

Questions:

- If/when strike happens, what happens with the crew at outstations? Are they still on BA's dime or does the Union take up accommodating them?

Certainly during the cabin crew strikes, you only strike “at base.” Therefore, if you’re downroute and there’s an aircraft to bring back, you bring it back. For crew on “links” (ie, they’ve come back from somewhere in Europe and are about to do another European flight) they could walk out as soon as they got to base. If you’re downroute and your inbound aircraft gets cancelled, you are on the company buck until you’re back at base.

Canuck600 wrote:

As a Canadian this concept of "scheduled strikes" is foreign to me, is there a particular reason for this style of job action? In Canada they would go on strike until things are settled.

In the U.K., the Conservative government (who are anti-trade union by nature), introduced the Trade Union Act a few years ago which means that trade unions have to give 14 days notice of industrial action and have outlawed wild cat strikes. They’ve also introduced margins for turnout at ballots for industrial action which are higher than we’ve had for some governments to be elected.

FlyingElvii wrote:

starguy wrote:

I hope the pilots win, and by that I mean an agreement being reached and the strikes getting called off. Win win!

The supply of pilots in Europe is not the same as in the US. Euro Pilots are coming to the states in droves for more money due to the shortage, while a kid in the UK has to CFI and work in a bar for years, even decades, for the slim hope of a slot at BA, or most any other European major.

Not so sure about the "coming in droves" statement. Most airlines would require citizenship, if not a right to work permit, not to mention a conversion to FAA certificates. It can be done, but its not as easy as one might imagine. Also some significant $$$ involved in this process.

SierraPacific wrote:

flightuk wrote:

The pilots are one of many critical parts in the overall airline machine, who's more important, the BA IT department? or the BA pilots? The planes cant fly without the IT systems, the planes can't fly without the pilots. However being a pilot does have a certain kudos/romance about it, and it is that which makes pilots feel important. In reality, the job of being a pilot in the modern glass cockpit age is nothing more than an individual working in a highly disciplined/scripted environment. Every phase of the flight is so scripted that after enough training anyone could do it. Successful pilots are the ones that can be trained in the least amount of time i.e. pass exams the first time around.

Would you say that a being a Surgeon is so scripted that anyone can do it? It is really the same concept that on a normal day, it should just be following the procedures but the salary is earned when things get messy due to weather, mechanicals, and other unforeseen factors that happen quite often.

Agreed, its the curve balls that come along...........Been flying for years

I’m conflicted on this one. I can see why the public are generally against the strike. I don’t think anyone earning a six figure salary is going to have an easy time convincing people that what they really need is more money...

Statements such as...

DWC wrote:

That is not much living in the London area, specially after how much it costs to actually become a pilot.
I lived in downtown London, rent was twice a month & four times higher than in downtown Paris less than an hour flight away.

...probably won’t help the cause either. Many, many people live in London on a fraction of a pilot wage and are able to enjoy fairly decent standards of living. I’ve been living in London for a long time now and I’m paid nowhere near what a FO receives (and I’ve been stuck with 1% pay rises for god knows how long). I’m fairly happy that I can have a decent lifestyle. I could only laugh if someone on six figure salary tried to convince me that things were actually quite hard for them.

On the other hand, I do believe that employees are key to a businesses success and should share in the bounty. If an employee is expected to make sacrifices when times are tough, it is not unreasonable for them to expect rewards when times are good. I doubt that any money BA (or IAG) saves by not offering a higher pay increase is passed on to hard up passengers by way of lower fairs.

I’m generally in favour of the employee in matters like this. But typically it involves a group of people, maybe in high stress/ risk jobs who’ve been paid well below par and are offered an insulting pay increase. BA pilots just don’t entirely present that image...

Andy33 wrote:

steeler83 wrote:

PIT-LHR is cancelled - is the 787 going to sit at PIT indefinitely or would they have someone come in to ferry the plane back to London? I'm thinking it's the latter. Forgive me; don't know much about the logistics of planes when it comes to these strikes.

This is not an indefinite period strike. The pilots are out for just two days, so the plane and crew is now in the correct place to operate PIT-LHR on 11 September.
These one or two day strikes are common in many countries - the strikers don't lose so much income, they usually cannot be sacked for going on strike as they have a legal right to do so, and in some ways the disruption and cost to the employers is as great as if they went out and stayed out.

Ah ok. Yeah, my bad on the "indefinite" wording there. Clearly didn't proofread what I'd posted.

Kestrel333 wrote:

Many, many people live in London on a fraction of a pilot wage and are able to enjoy fairly decent standards of living. I’ve been living in London for a long time now and I’m paid nowhere near what a FO receives (and I’ve been stuck with 1% pay rises for god knows how long). I’m fairly happy that I can have a decent lifestyle. I could only laugh if someone on six figure salary tried to convince me that things were actually quite hard for them.
..

I don't know why a BA pilot would want to live in Central London anyway. 25 years ago I had to commute to the east end and i still chose to live more than 100 miles away. Both LHR and LGW are easier to get to from outside the M25 than inside. LGW of course is outside anyway. Why does the cost of living in central London come into the equation anyway? For LCY maybe it's a different matter

As for public support, what percentage of people living within 20 miles of the centre of London earn well north of £100k? I would guess it is very much south of 10%.

The pilots clearly feel they have a legitimate gripe and at the end of the day they are striking within the law, so my opinion matters not one bit.

However there are conflicting angles. The soundbites from the Union say the strike could have been avoided for a measly 5 million more. National newspapers would suggest that remuneration is not the main factor.

The strike has affected many 10s of thousands of the travelling public who might well have saved for months for their flight. The very least the union and its members could do is get their story straight about why it is happening in the first place.

BA238 departed BOS this morning and is arriving at LHR shortly, is this an empty plane returning home?

https://www.flightradar24.com/BAW29G/2207eec6

I see that the Evelop sub LGW-JFK BA2273 is on route, bet that's full.

It is probably because only containerized baggage is allowed at LHR terminal 5.

VV wrote:

It is probably because only containerized baggage is allowed at LHR terminal 5.

)))

No idea where they will fly all those MAX's to then

Are their lots of BA aircraft parked on the ground at LHR, like much more than usual?

DWC wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

If they want a share in the profits they can.... buy shares and get dividends. Of course this involves an investment and they might lose some money too.
For the union to say that the cost of the strike to BA far outweighs the difference between their demands and what BA has offered is no way to negotiate.
Stay on strike. Take the airline down with you. Reap what you sow.

That's not how societies work, and society in many languages means private company ( whether or not publicly traded ).
Investors & shareholders have every right to earn profits on their money.
But so do all workers who actually make that happen.
Reserving the money to shareholders who sit there waiting their arms folded & legs on the table drinking scotch is not only morally wrong, it is economically asinine. All economic & social studies show that sharing dividends with the workforce actually not only keeps them content & calm, but also augments productivity. Good for everyone involved, including pax : by culture but also because of relative good pays, East Asian airlines are in another league in terms of courtesy & customer service.

A strike means a management failure. You'd hardly see that in Germany or Japan ( but it did happen to LH lately ).
It is management's duty to manage a company well & keep workforce happy, specially the pilots, who were not asking anything remotedly close to IAG's profits.
Stay filthily stingy & expect more strikes. Images goes down, loyalty dwindles or pax go elsewhere, then more strikes terrible management.

If I were a majority shareholder, I would sack the current board, for that & pathetic customer service. Same of AA's. OneWorld, what a coincidence, without CX, JL, QF, LA and QR, OW is now an empty shell.

Societe Air France!

findingnema wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

As a Canadian this concept of "scheduled strikes" is foreign to me, is there a particular reason for this style of job action? In Canada they would go on strike until things are settled.

In the U.K., the Conservative government (who are anti-trade union by nature), introduced the Trade Union Act a few years ago which means that trade unions have to give 14 days notice of industrial action and have outlawed wild cat strikes. They’ve also introduced margins for turnout at ballots for industrial action which are higher than we’ve had for some governments to be elected.

In British Columbia Canada the union does have to serve strike notice, what's strange for me is setting the length of the strike beforehand. Hope I have the quote thing figured out, apologies in advance if I messed up.

Virtual737 wrote:

Kestrel333 wrote:

Many, many people live in London on a fraction of a pilot wage and are able to enjoy fairly decent standards of living. I’ve been living in London for a long time now and I’m paid nowhere near what a FO receives (and I’ve been stuck with 1% pay rises for god knows how long). I’m fairly happy that I can have a decent lifestyle. I could only laugh if someone on six figure salary tried to convince me that things were actually quite hard for them.
..

I don't know why a BA pilot would want to live in Central London anyway. 25 years ago I had to commute to the east end and i still chose to live more than 100 miles away. Both LHR and LGW are easier to get to from outside the M25 than inside. LGW of course is outside anyway. Why does the cost of living in central London come into the equation anyway? For LCY maybe it's a different matter

As for public support, what percentage of people living within 20 miles of the centre of London earn well north of £100k? I would guess it is very much south of 10%.

The pilots clearly feel they have a legitimate gripe and at the end of the day they are striking within the law, so my opinion matters not one bit.

However there are conflicting angles. The soundbites from the Union say the strike could have been avoided for a measly 5 million more. National newspapers would suggest that remuneration is not the main factor.

The strike has affected many 10s of thousands of the travelling public who might well have saved for months for their flight. The very least the union and its members could do is get their story straight about why it is happening in the first place.

Then check the cost of housing between LHR and LGW outside of the M25, it will make your eyes water.

Mrs Jetwet1 has this pipe dream that when we retire we will move to that area, thanks, love to visit, but no way is that happening.

As to the current situation, I to am on the fence, what the current management has done to the in-flight product of BA should be a crime, however, nobody can argue with the profits being generated.

jomur wrote:

BALPA wants a share of the profits. Not something BA will entertain as all the other employees will then want the same.

Delta does it. Seems to work good for them.

airlineguy1234 wrote:

jomur wrote:

BALPA wants a share of the profits. Not something BA will entertain as all the other employees will then want the same.

Delta does it. Seems to work good for them.

Will they accept a loss when times are hard as any other shareholder does or do they just want a one-way street, take only when times are good with no penalty when times are hard. My goodness wouldnt we all like that.......

flightuk wrote:

airlineguy1234 wrote:

jomur wrote:

BALPA wants a share of the profits. Not something BA will entertain as all the other employees will then want the same.

Delta does it. Seems to work good for them.

Will they accept a loss when times are hard as any other shareholder does or do they just want a one-way street, take only when times are good with no penalty when times are hard. My goodness wouldnt we all like that.......

Isn’t one of BALPA’s arguments that they took a pay cut when BA was losing money around the time of the GFC?

JFK is littered with BA metal, 2 B772 and a B744 at T-8 (American ramp)

At T-7 A318, B772, and 2 B744's

Cheeky little BA flight operating, JED-LHR BA132 nearing Heathrow.

https://www.flightradar24.com/BAW132/220a7a1b

Virtual737 wrote:

VV wrote:

It is probably because only containerized baggage is allowed at LHR terminal 5.

)))

No idea where they will fly all those MAX's to then

To Gatwick, Madrid and Dublin

DWC wrote:

CPHFF wrote:

Although I agree that employees should be gratified when a Company is doing well if they made sacrifices during hard times, the quote from CNN/BA made me think otherwise:

"The average salary for a BA Captain is £167,000 [$206,000] plus flying allowances. The offer of 11.5% would take the average salary to £202,000," a BA spokesperson said. A first officer earns £90,000 on average, the spokesperson said.

That is not much living in the London area, specially after how much it costs to actually become a pilot.
I lived in downtown London, rent was twice a month & four times higher than in downtown Paris less than an hour flight away.
Now, £206.000 in BKK & you live a local prince. Not so in SIN or Brunei.

Virtual737 wrote:

When did society enter the arena? BA isn't a society. The pilots are not striking for the greater good of the UK so why widen the scope to anything other than the entity that is BA?

Seems you speak english only & do not read well.
I did not say "society" but "societies" ( i.e. human groups ) & went on remarking that "society" is the word for "private company" in other tongues, like French "société", spanish "sociedad", german "Gesellschaft" where they all mean both, same for chinese "Kongci" or japanese "Kaisha", both actually written with different characters but sharing the society or common idea. In English, "Company" also has that social aspect if you ever kept anyone company.
Those who think businesses are only about efficiency or making money walk past their lives.
A company is also where you spend at least over half of your daily hours when not sleeping, it better be rewarding in other aspects than just salary & perks.

I'm sorry, £167k is not much living in the London area? Do you think everyone living in London makes more than that?

£167k is plenty of money even for London, see below:

£80k net after tax per year
£6.6k per month
Rent for even nice places in nicer areas can be had £1.5-2.5k
£500 council tax and other bills
Still left with £3.6-4.6k expendable income.

So, to sum up, you can live pretty close to being a prince on £167k in London.

But again, why would you live in central London if you're a pilot?

I really don't understand why companies are so dead set against profit sharing. It is a win for both sides. By giving profit sharing instead of a huge raise they only pay out when the airline makes money. With the huge raise they are committed to pay those rates when the economy tanks then next time. Sure they can walk them back, but that usually only occurs months after the losses have begun piling up.

With profit sharing they just say, sorry didn't make profit this quarter, no bonus.

You all do know most US based airlines offer profit sharing?

DAL763ER wrote:

I'm sorry, £167k is not much living in the London area? Do you think everyone living in London makes more than that?

I'm sorry, do you think every BA pilot makes £167k?

A cadet pilot starts on £26,300. Remember they have training debt of ~£120,000.

A short haul captain starts on £78,000. At Gatwick, they're pay capped at £125,000...after 23 years service! Only after 12 years service will a short haul captain earn over £100,000. For camparison, time to command at easyJet is ~5 years depending on base and easyJet base salary for a captain is £108,000. That'll take a BA pilot 15 years. That pay cap of £125,000 for Gatwick pilots...easyJet captains top out at £147,000.

That £167,000 salary requires a longhaul command and 31 years service. Most pilots that reach that length of service will most likely have to go part time so actually taking home far less - flying 900 hours a year on longhaul in your 60s is seriously bad for your health. Virgin are only contracted to 750 hours a year and earn similar amounts. For the same money a BA pilot is required to fly the equivilent to an extra BOS round trip each month compared to a Virgin pilot. And this is without a lot of other issues regarding T&Cs.

Those are just UK comparisons. Compared to AF, LH, KLM and the US3 the difference is even more stark.

There's a lot more going on that I can't say, but there's a lot of misinformation out there. It's not quite as clear cut as some seem to think.

Is what they are asking for completely unreasonable? Is it close to what other major airline pilots earn in Europe? It sounds like BA management is acting like our US management teams. Fight, fight, fight until you have caused angst among the employees, cost the company more money than if they settled earlier, and finally made passengers so angry that they swear they will never fly BA again. Once they finally settle, management will expect everyone to be so happy and everything will be rosy. Meanwhile labor will have piled up so much negativity that the compounding attitudes will cause further detriment to the airline.

Management comes and goes in the airline industry while employees are married to their airline. As an employee you will not forget the treatment from previous managements actions. The current team may not have forced bankrupt contracts, stolen retirements, and pay cuts but they will feel the employees pent up negativity.

It just doesn’t have to be as hard as it is. Lies from management (real or perceived) costs everyone. Openness and honesty will always benefit the company and unions more than fighting tooth and nail until the end.

DobboDobbo wrote:

flightuk wrote:

airlineguy1234 wrote:

Delta does it. Seems to work good for them.

Will they accept a loss when times are hard as any other shareholder does or do they just want a one-way street, take only when times are good with no penalty when times are hard. My goodness wouldnt we all like that.......

Isn’t one of BALPA’s arguments that they took a pay cut when BA was losing money around the time of the GFC?

Valid point, however, didn't most industries do the same at that time. The IT industry laid off so many people as did the banks (no sympathy for them) The whole country suffered not just the pilots. Whichever way you look at it nearly 4% for the next 3 years is a bloody good deal. especially in today's climate. I cannot think of many other jobs that also get so many allowances and perks as BA pilots. What dollar value would you put on staff travel, overnight allowances etc......

flightuk wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

flightuk wrote:

Will they accept a loss when times are hard as any other shareholder does or do they just want a one-way street, take only when times are good with no penalty when times are hard. My goodness wouldnt we all like that.......

Isn’t one of BALPA’s arguments that they took a pay cut when BA was losing money around the time of the GFC?

Valid point, however, didn't most industries do the same at that time. The IT industry laid off so many people as did the banks (no sympathy for them) The whole country suffered not just the pilots. Whichever way you look at it nearly 4% for the next 3 years is a bloody good deal. especially in today's climate. I cannot think of many other jobs that also get so many allowances and perks as BA pilots. What dollar value would you put on staff travel, overnight allowances etc......

Actually, 4% for the next 3 years is about the UK average.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49646201

What dollar value do you put on being able to sleep in your own bed every night? Or even not missing out on several nights sleep each month? What dollar value do you put on getting off more weekends in a ywar than you can count on one hand? What dollar value do you put on not being compelled to travel to places with high threats of maleria and other diseases? What dollar value do you put on being there for your kid's birth? Or birthdays, or wedding anniversaries? What dollar value do you put on not being classed as a radiation worker? What dollar value do you put on not knowing if you'll have the day off for your daughter's wedding in 3 weeks time because rosters haven't been published? What dollar value do you put on actually finishing work when you're supposed to rather tham getting home several hours (or days) later than rostered?

Overnight allowances are spent on sustenance downroute because the GBP has crashed so much. Staff travel is all well and good, if you can get a seat. None of it is guaranteed. You can't spend thousands on accommodation only to end up with no seats for your family. On short haul routes the commercial fare, which guarantees you a seat, is almost the same or sometimes better than the ID90 fare.

I think people have an image of this grandeur and luxury and privilege. It's beyond far from the truth.

BA777FO wrote:

DAL763ER wrote:

I'm sorry, £167k is not much living in the London area? Do you think everyone living in London makes more than that?

I'm sorry, do you think every BA pilot makes £167k?

A cadet pilot starts on £26,300. Remember they have training debt of ~£120,000.

A short haul captain starts on £78,000. At Gatwick, they're pay capped at £125,000...after 23 years service! Only after 12 years service will a short haul captain earn over £100,000. For camparison, time to command at easyJet is ~5 years depending on base and easyJet base salary for a captain is £108,000. That'll take a BA pilot 15 years. That pay cap of £125,000 for Gatwick pilots...easyJet captains top out at £147,000.

That £167,000 salary requires a longhaul command and 31 years service. Most pilots that reach that length of service will most likely have to go part time so actually taking home far less - flying 900 hours a year on longhaul in your 60s is seriously bad for your health. Virgin are only contracted to 750 hours a year and earn similar amounts. For the same money a BA pilot is required to fly the equivilent to an extra BOS round trip each month compared to a Virgin pilot. And this is without a lot of other issues regarding T&Cs.

Those are just UK comparisons. Compared to AF, LH, KLM and the US3 the difference is even more stark.

There's a lot more going on that I can't say, but there's a lot of misinformation out there. It's not quite as clear cut as some seem to think.

Apologies, I should've mentioned that I don't think every pilot (if any) makes that. I was just responding to DWC's claim that £167k isn't a lot of money for London.

I agree with everything you've said and as a frequent BA flier, I respect your right to strike and hope things work out.

BA777FO wrote:

flightuk wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Isn’t one of BALPA’s arguments that they took a pay cut when BA was losing money around the time of the GFC?

Valid point, however, didn't most industries do the same at that time. The IT industry laid off so many people as did the banks (no sympathy for them) The whole country suffered not just the pilots. Whichever way you look at it nearly 4% for the next 3 years is a bloody good deal. especially in today's climate. I cannot think of many other jobs that also get so many allowances and perks as BA pilots. What dollar value would you put on staff travel, overnight allowances etc......

Actually, 4% for the next 3 years is about the UK average.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49646201

What dollar value do you put on being able to sleep in your own bed every night? Or even not missing out on several nights sleep each month? What dollar value do you put on getting off more weekends in a ywar than you can count on one hand? What dollar value do you put on not being compelled to travel to places with high threats of maleria and other diseases? What dollar value do you put on being there for your kid's birth? Or birthdays, or wedding anniversaries? What dollar value do you put on not being classed as a radiation worker? What dollar value do you put on not knowing if you'll have the day off for your daughter's wedding in 3 weeks time because rosters haven't been published? What dollar value do you put on actually finishing work when you're supposed to rather tham getting home several hours (or days) later than rostered?

Overnight allowances are spent on sustenance downroute because the GBP has crashed so much. Staff travel is all well and good, if you can get a seat. None of it is guaranteed. You can't spend thousands on accommodation only to end up with no seats for your family. On short haul routes the commercial fare, which guarantees you a seat, is almost the same or sometimes better than the ID90 fare.

I think people have an image of this grandeur and luxury and privilege. It's beyond far from the truth.

Interesting points and all validate, however, 4% year on year for 3 years is the UK average? really.... I find that very hard to believe. All the above points about being away from home and unsociable hours are just Par for the course nowadays in so many industries, IT, oil and gas, hospitality, medicine to name but a few. It is now the way of the world, go and tell your tale to any doctor or nurse, to any production manager, to any IT project manager, to an ambulance driver, to any policeman, to any soldier and see what they say. Your job which is undoubtedly difficult, long hours and shift patterns, however, that is no longer a differentiator any more.
I understand your points about the perks, not all what they used to be (I used to get ID90's and ended up buying tickets to guarantee seats and dates). You failed to mention constant time zone changes and high degrees of stress, plus constant testing. I just hope all gets resolved for all involved.

flightuk wrote:

Interesting points and all validate, however, 4% year on year for 3 years is the UK average? really.... I find that very hard to believe.

I quoted the BBC article detailing news today that the average UK pay award was 3.8% or 4% including bonuses versus last year.

flightuk wrote:

go and tell your tale to any doctor or nurse, to any production manager, to any IT project manager, to an ambulance driver, to any policeman, to any soldier and see what they say

I get the point about those in the military deployed overseas but how many doctors or ambulance drivers are away from home for 91 hours at a time? How many of them plan their lives around being gone for only 48 hours but after the first day then find out you'll be gone another 24 hours due to "disruption"? A 24 hours when you'd made plans, possibly expensive or unavoidable/immovable plans?

How many of those, again, aside from those military personnel deployed overseas miss Christmas completely almost every other year? Any other shift worker can get a chance to see their kids in the morning before work or in the evening when they get home. Not quite so easy when you've reported for a trip to Shanghai or Riyadh on the 23rd December and are not due back until the 27th.

This isn't the worst job in the world, but pilots make immense sacrifices on their health, family and finances for decades. The days of flying 400 hours a year and retiring at 55 on a full salary pension are long gone. It'd be nice if more people realised it as an industry-wide issue.

Skimmed the thread for a similar question so I am very sorry if I missed a prior answer to my question below:

What happens to the crew when a strike happens while they are overseas? I can imagine many cities would be great places to explore but what if one ends up in places they'd rather not be? Quite a few BA birds all over the place at the moment.

I'm not trying to stir the pot (for once, honest), but given the high turnout and the high positive count for the strike then surely there must be a lot of relatively new hires that voted in favour.

ie. pilots who knew the wages / perks / hours were less beneficial than in days gone by and were not affected by a previous pay cut yet still took up a contract and still voted in favour to strike? If that is the case, I wonder how much pressure there would have been on them from peers to support the strike and not face the potential lifelong label of scab.