SpeedbirdLHR

BA will not be making all employees redundant on 15 June. The 45 day period is simply for consultation and yes, BA could act if desired at the end of this period. However as the airline continues to operate, staff will continue to work in all department and there will be a period of transition to the new organisational structures in each department, with people going through the process of apply for roles if required. Staff will fall into 3 groups essentially.

There are many areas and employees who will be retaining their current positions with no change in what they do.

There are others where the job hasn't changed, but the number of people doing the job will be reduced (for example going from 10 admin assistants to 6 in a department) and so only those not successful in retaining those positions may be made redundant. These are usually closed to those currently in those currently role. If there are vacancies due to some people opting to leave the business or not everyone being successful, then these would open to general recruitment.

Then the third group will be those where their role has completely gone or has been changed into a new role. They will need to apply for one of the now open roles, if they wish.

Unite is ignoring that BA has said that they expect the period where people leave the business to run until the end of the year.

Having been through a number of these including one where my entire section were at risk of redundancy, it is never a nice feeling and there is always rumours and speculation. Thankfully most of us kept roles in the new structure, some opted to leave and others unfortunately were made redundant but during the process were put onto the career transition service and some were able to find jobs elsewhere in BA.

What I've learnt is to ignore most of what is said and pick out the facts where possible. Closely review the new org charts and jobs and ensure you know exactly what the proposal means for you as an individual. If in doubt, ask direct questions face to face of both the union reps in your area and management.

Will100

Nice to hear a voice of reason, it is all too easy to jump on the evil employer bandwagon. However, the issue I have with this situation is the removal of VR terms (at the moment anyway).

I have been through a number of restructures and have always had the (relative) comfort that, should things not work out, I would have a reasonable settlement to leave. I also, voluntarily, took a package from a very secure role and have never regretted the opportunity it gave me to move on with some financial security.

I do hope that BA, in the end, offer at least a reasonable package (maybe not as good as previously offered). I suspect the legal minimum being touted is part of the negotiation.

Not forgetting the non-financial support to find new roles in and out of the business. I have personally benefited from this and it was very useful to have someone coach you through applications, interviews and offers.

More twists and turns to come I suspect.

Raffles

Surely you miss the point. So many EF and WW crew will refuse the new contracts that BA’s biggest problem is too many people leaving with only statutory redundancy rather than too few.

Turnhouse1

Are the new contracts on offer essentially the same as Mixed Fleet, or is there some significant derogation for these staff?

My general understanding is the MF contracts were roughly similar to what cabin crew would get at other airlines, whereas legacy EF or WW contracts were more generous. Inevitably there is some variance depending on the routes flown as to the exact amount earned.

I say this as a Unite (not at BA) member, but clearly all airlines will be operating fewer flights for the next year or so, reductions in flight crew, cabin crew, baggage handlers, gate staff etc are sadly inevitable. The union should be looking into options such as short time working, i.e. everyone works and is paid for say 75% time. It's not ideal, but is better than being unemployed when there are unlikely to be many alternative jobs, and allows both the company and employees to get back to regular business in a year or two when the economy picks up.

Raffles

MF is roughly the same basic pay but slightly worse overall AIUI. However, EF and WW represent 60% of Heathrow crew. If fewer than 50% of EF and WW refuse to sign and accept the massive pay cut, BA won't have enough.

Speedbird989

On overall headcount the split above is correct. However, a significant proportion of both EF and WW are on a part time contract of some description, which skews that number.

BAeuro

BA won’t have a shortage of crew, they know that. There will be mass job losses in every sector and people won’t have the flexibility to move airline or become picky. Virgin are laying off 3000 crew, I’m sure they’d happily take the BA job over being unemployed.

The only problem is that they’d have to train all these new crew which would take time and cost a fair bit.

I do believe that a very small proportion of EF/WW will come back after this though - whether that be through early retirement or risking leaving and looking for an equally well paid job/contract.

Mike P

Surely you too are also missing the point that, in the current climate, if BA needs to recruit more staff under the new, less advantageous terms because too many people have left, it will be super easy for them to do so? Having too few people for a few months during the depth of the downturn might actually turn out to be a very smart move.

mguinness

If BA don't get enough crew to accept the initial offer, they could also sweeten the pot to increase uptake - not saying that's their plan, but it's possible.

Bohinjska Bistrica

Unfortunately, this is the reverse of how it usually works. Normally you'll have enhanced redundancy and if not enough are found, compulsory redundancy (with the bare legal minimum offered).

The above is based on my non-airline previous experience. A former employer (UK govt department) ran such a scheme although I wasn't impacted. Mrs BB has very just gone through the same with her work and has taken the package to avoid compulsory redundancy, in case she didn't get one of the fewer number of roles available following a "restructure".

FlyerTalker7654

Does anyone have any specific information with regards to the pilots? How many are being let go, new contracts etc?

brunos

The redundancy plan was drawn in April. A month later, the situation looks worse, especially for the coming months or even year(s).
Any additional departures would be welcome by BA.

A P Yu

BA already have several hundred cabin crew applicants who have been selected but not yet offered roles which they can use to make up any shortfall. BA are going to have many months before they’ll need their future crew compliment anyway. It’s also going to take months to train EF / WW to the SOPs they now need to follow.

Agent69

I could imagine some of the legacy crew resigning, but where are they going to get an equivalent job with equivalent pay and perks (cutting your nose off to spite your face)?

As a young engineer many years ago I worked on a lage contract near Glasgow. We advertised for new employees and were inundated with responses. I was asked to help sift through the applications and was told to discard any that had an address in Greenock, Gourock or Port Glasgow. When I asked why I was told that it was the shipbuilding area of Glasgow, and the workforce were all militant unionists. I can still recall the works manager saying to me "we don't want any of them trouble makers up here". Given BA's chequered industrial relations past, I wonder if potential new employers may take a similar view?

Raffles

For many it is physically impossible - many EF don't or can't take a job where they are away from home for multiple days at a time, and many WW crew don't live anywhere near London (or indeed in the UK) and don't want short-haul days.

Purely on principle I doubt many people on £50k+ will take a new contract at (effectively, ex meal allowances etc) £20k. Not sure about those on £30k who drop to £20k.

It's also worth noting that, because of the way the benefits system skews towards those with a house and family, an older person with kids and a house might be better off (or at least not substantially worse off) on the dole than taking a £20k job.