VACC newsletter: 21 August 2026

750/90

We are pleased that the long-running dispute over the 750/90 contract has now been resolved and the FTA closed.

The company had sought to introduce a number of caveats and restrictions to the contract, including proposals not to count unused standby and cover sims towards the relevant FDP limits. Throughout this process, we have remained clear that the contract must reflect the CLA and, importantly, the terms pilots actually voted for in 2024.

We are therefore pleased to hear that pilots are now receiving updated contracts to sign which reflect that agreement.

Temporary part time contracts

As you know, the company has decided to unilaterally offer temporary part time contracts directly to pilots without reaching a collective agreement with the VACC.

We are taking this extremely seriously and are continuing to investigate the legal and industrial options available to us.

It is important to be absolutely clear about our position. We are not seeking to prevent pilots from accessing temporary part-time contracts. Far from it. We recognise that these arrangements will suit some of our members, and we were willing to work constructively with the company to introduce them.

Our position was that the terms should be properly discussed and jointly agreed between the VACC and the company, ensuring appropriate protections were in place for pilots and that the arrangements interacted correctly with our existing agreements.

We also proposed using some of the winter over-establishment to trial meaningful fatigue-prevention measures alongside any cost savings being sought. These included three RDOs following trips and increased crew complement on some of our most fatiguing routes.

The company has been clear that the purpose of these temporary contracts is cost saving and has, so far, declined our proposals to use the winter over-establishment to trial those fatigue-mitigation measures.

That position is particularly disappointing following the financial briefing given to us this week, which did not, in our assessment, reflect the degree of financial urgency previously communicated as the rationale for introducing these contracts at pace.

Implementation problems

Unfortunately, the implementation of these contracts has also created a number of problems.

We have seen pilots rostered LPP days despite not having accepted a temporary contract, while other pilots who had accepted one have subsequently had those days removed.

We are also challenging cases which are inconsistent with the CLA, including pilots having LPP days removed and replaced with standby or reserve despite already having a separate block of standby rostered during the same month.

We raised this issue with the company several weeks ago and requested that these additional standby days be removed. At the time of writing, we are still awaiting a response.

If you have been rostered two separate blocks of standby/reserve in the same month, please write to your FCM asking for the roster to be reviewed and copy the VACC into your correspondence.

Our position is that, where there is no flight available to roster in place of the LPP days, those days should be converted to RDOs or rest days, while ensuring that the contractual minimum of ten RDOs within the month is maintained.

Please continue to send these cases to us. Having clear evidence of how the arrangements are being implemented in practice is extremely important.

The wider issue

The issue here goes considerably further than whether an individual pilot wants a temporary part-time contract.

There are statutory protections surrounding collective bargaining and direct offers made to members of a recognised trade union where terms of employment would otherwise be determined through collective agreement.

We believe the circumstances surrounding the introduction of these contracts raise serious questions in this area, and we are investigating those issues further.

We will not prejudge the outcome of that work, but neither will we ignore what we believe to be a potentially significant interference with the collective bargaining arrangements that exist between BALPA and Virgin Atlantic.

Regardless of whether you personally want one of these temporary contracts, the manner in which they have been introduced should therefore concern every pilot.

We are about to enter crucial pay and scheduling negotiations. At exactly that point, the company has chosen to proceed with these arrangements without securing agreement with your elected representatives.

That risks setting a very concerning precedent. If contractual matters that would ordinarily be dealt with collectively can simply be taken directly to individual pilots whenever agreement cannot be reached, the effectiveness of collective bargaining is fundamentally undermined.

That is why unity now matters.

Please wear your Fit To Fly lanyard and encourage colleagues who are not currently members to join BALPA.

This is about demonstrating that Virgin Atlantic pilots stand together behind their elected representatives and expect collective bargaining and our collective agreements to be respected.

The stronger and more united we are, the stronger our position going into these crucial negotiations and the more options remain available to us to secure meaningful improvements.

Our objective remains a pay and scheduling agreement that properly addresses fatigue, protects our pilots and once again positions Virgin Atlantic as a sustainable and attractive career airline for the long term.

General fleet newsletter

Last week the company published a general fleet newsletter. Since then, we have received a significant number of emails from members expressing anger and concern about some of its content.

The VACC were equally disappointed, particularly by the comments regarding CRR and the decision to promote a pilot out of seniority.

CRR

The attempt to normalise the routine use of CRR within our operation, without any meaningful acknowledgement of the risk associated with prolonged periods of single-pilot operation, is extremely concerning.

The suggestion that regulatory bodies are unconcerned does not, in our view, reflect the operational reality.

We have been asking the company for route-specific data showing the actual duration of CRR for a considerable period of time, and we still have not received it. That absence of data speaks volumes.

Any pilot who regularly flies Florida or Caribbean routes will know the reality. Pilots report that these sectors can involve extended periods of single-pilot control, often during the most fatiguing parts of the duty.

In the meantime, please continue using the BALPA Realtime app on every sector. The data genuinely matters and gives us independent evidence of what is actually happening across the operation.

It is equally important that pilots are completely honest and accurate in both the BALPA Realtime app and the company flight report/fatigue reporting data. The purpose is not to exaggerate the issue or minimise it, it is simply to create an accurate record of the operation.

KSS scores should reflect how alert you genuinely felt, and CRR duration should reflect the actual amount of CRR taken. If CRR lasted 40 minutes, record 40 minutes. If it lasted two hours, record two hours. The same principle should apply to the information recorded in company reporting systems.

We are hearing anecdotally that some Captains are asking First Officers only to record CRR on night flights, or to record no more than the recommended 40 minutes. Please do not do this. Equally, nobody should inflate CRR durations or KSS scores. The credibility of the evidence depends on pilots simply recording what actually happened.

The 40-minute figure is a recommendation, not a hard limit on the amount of CRR that should be recorded, despite the impression given in the fleet newsletter. Artificially reducing or failing to record CRR simply masks the scale of the issue.

Accurate data, whether submitted through BALPA Realtime or through company systems, is ultimately what allows the true picture of fatigue and CRR within the operation to be understood.

We will be providing a much more detailed update on FRM and fatigue in a forthcoming newsletter.

Seniority

For many months we have been told that there will be no further commands on the 787 in the immediate future because of fleet downsizing. Indeed, the company is currently attempting to encourage pilots to move from the 787 onto the Airbus fleet.

We were therefore extremely surprised to learn of the company's decision to proceed with an out-of-seniority command appointment on the 787 fleet that, until now, we had been told did not exist.

We categorically do not agree with this decision.

We have made it absolutely clear to the company that we do not approve of an out-of-seniority promotion and expect the established principle of seniority to be honoured.

The response we have received amounts, essentially, to: this is happening regardless.

That attitude is not only disrespectful to those pilots who are senior and would ordinarily expect to be offered the opportunity first, but risks establishing a very dangerous precedent for every pilot in the airline.

We also do not accept the justification presented in the General Fleet Newsletter. There is nothing within our agreements that supports the suggestion that particular management or specialist positions must be filled by a Captain. Indeed, our previous VP Flight Operations remained a First Officer throughout his entire time with the company.

This therefore raises a much wider issue than one individual promotion.

If the company can simply bypass seniority whenever it considers it convenient to do so, the principle of seniority itself becomes meaningless.

We are currently considering all avenues available to us and intend to challenge this decision in the strongest possible terms.