BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II [Archive]

fincastle84

9th Jun 2010, 21:20

Right, before I start my last – for now – blog from Bedfont, it is best to warn you that I have had a drink or two. The atmosphere there was so fantastic, to be honest it was impossible not to linger and share a pint and bathe in all the warmth, camaraderie and shear emotion. Today saw the biggest crew room party of all time – we reckon, and this is not exaggeration, that at least 20% of the total BA crew population were at Bedfont today. The turnout was simply overwhelming and the march along the Bath Rd to Waterside was something that will go down in folklore. Pity the poor stewardess, who in her excitement, walked into a lamp post and ended up nursing the biggest black eye I have ever seen. Hard luck Ali – I hope your husband believes you!

Before I forget or the drink catches up with me, I have got to mention 4 crew who were there today who live in Edinburgh. They caught the 06:30 flight down to LGW, then bussed to Bedfont before standing on a picket line for 4 hours; they then bussed back to LGW to catch the late afternoon flight back to EDI. Why? They had heard so much about the Bedfont buzz they had to come see for themselves and they were so pleased they had – the only downside was they had paid full fare on BA. Their actions shame the Sausage Chips And BeanS.

And incredibly it seems you all have more stamina than the SWP, either that or they have given you up as a lost cause because they have not been seen at Bedfont for 2 days. Perhaps they are mobilising again at ACAS. Tony won’t be happy.

I have been asked to mention the two nuns who were waving vigorously as the open top bus did its circuit – they obviously have no time for Wee Willy either!

Also thank you for the yesterday’s whip round for Mr Dillon, the samosas man organised by Andrea. I have, thanks to your kind donations, 8 bottles of top quality scotch to give him which should just about last him until the next strike.

Lenny’s speech went down a bomb as did his pink shirt – and thanks to Ken Livingstone and John McDonnell for taking the trouble to visit.

While on the subject of pink – that was some display of solidarity. It is incredibly uplifting to see all the straight lads (and lasses) rallying to the cause and, if there is a broader “church” than the BASSA membership then I am unaware of it. I think that it is this diversity that is so remarkable – young old, straight gay, British foreign, you name it crew come in all colours, shapes and sizes (cue references to the Bedfont burger bulge) and yet today it was if we were all one. Don’t want to come over all spiritual or evangelical- especially when I have had a few – but I really mean it when I say how proud I felt tonight as Louise and I headed home to try and find our feral kids. Thanks for all your support. I would have looked a bit stupid standing in the burger queue by myself.

So the season has finally ended for Bedfont FC – it is time for the summer break - with matches again scheduled to start at the beginning of August. It is true we did not win the League, nor were we promoted but there again, neither have we been relegated! We live to fight another season and if we can persuade some new players to join our team in the summer perhaps we can push Bedfont to the top of the table.

Many of you probably don’t realise this but the last few months have really been ground breaking and historically important. We have already mounted one of the longest strikes in aviation history and we have taken on one of the largest, most ruthless, nastiest blue chip companies ever to darken this countries’ social fabric and we are still standing strong, preparing for more. Many years from now you will look back on this summer and say “I am so glad and proud I did what I did”, I wonder if Willie Walsh will feel that same pride?

Tomorrow I have my first appeal against my sacking at Waterworld. I am not holding my breath as, all along, it has, imo been “pre-ordained”, but despite “squeezing tea-bags” for 34 years I feel no sorrow because the company I have left.

There is no mention of what happens next. What is happening about the next ballot? When will it be called, if ever, & on what subject will the CC be asked to vote?

It seems to me that Bassa are in total disarray, which is reinforced by the total silence from the usual Bassa contributors on the various forums.

I imagine that Mr Walsh will be sleeping very soundly tonight.

Landroger

9th Jun 2010, 22:47

We have already mounted one of the longest strikes in aviation history and we have taken on one of the largest, most ruthless, nastiest blue chip companies ever to darken this countries’ social fabric and we are still standing strong, preparing for more. Many years from now you will look back on this summer and say “I am so glad and proud I did what I did”, I wonder if Willie Walsh will feel that same pride?

Tomorrow I have my first appeal against my sacking at Waterworld. I am not holding my breath as, all along, it has, imo been “pre-ordained”, but despite “squeezing tea-bags” for 34 years I feel no sorrow because the company I have left. (My bold)

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this sort of purple prose exactly typifies the utterly confused, rather hysterical and completely direction-less thinking that BASSA have fomented, propagated and encouraged. Is there any wonder we don't get rational replies and fact filled statements from anyone in control in the Unite branch?

one of the largest, most ruthless, nastiest blue chip companies ever to darken this countries’ social fabric Excuse me? Are we seriously talking about the same company? I don't work for BA, but I read the posts of dozens; hundreds who do and the impression I get is absolutely not as DH describes it. Does anyone else recognise the company he is talking about? Perhaps he got confused with the North Korean Army? :ugh:

all along, it has, imo been “pre-ordained” Oh yeah, right. BA are going to simply rubber stamp his sacking and hope no-one will notice or resort to law? The grapes, I fear, are a little sour.

I feel no sorrow because the company I have left I think the chips and alcohol got to him here. :rolleyes: It simply doesn't make any sense. There should either be a bit in front of it or a bit behind it, but as it stands, it's even more incomprehensible than the majority of it. And BASSA CC believe every word this muppet expounds? Extraordinary. :ugh:

Roger.

harrypic

10th Jun 2010, 01:58

Someone posted an excellent post here, many many posts ago, on Cult behaviour....

You will never, ever, convince the hardcore Bassamentalists or change their views, no matter how logical, fact, true or expert your opinions are. The cult has told them what to beleive. So, dont even bother and waste the energy. Fortunately, some of the led lemmings are starting to think for themselves....

But, the fundamental problem was created through years and years of weak BA management, possibly, in the bad directionless old days, BASSA felt they had to take charge of IFCE with such weak mangement.....?

Now, there is a strong CEO who wants control of his company back......but BASSA got drunk on that previous, arguably, necessary power? Their big mistake is failing to yield to someone who, at last, they can hand over the reins to and pass the company back into compentant hands?

So there is no polarity in blame....

A bit of a devils advocate post......

ChicoG

10th Jun 2010, 04:22

Len McCluskey, the assistant general secretary of Unite, told strikers at Heathrow airport on the last day of three five-day walkouts today that the union was "up for a rematch".

The losing fighter ALWAYS says that, doesn't he?

And, writing under a pseudonym, a "BA Long haul pilot" is quoted as saying: ""Having recently returned from a trip during the strike, what 'outsiders' can't see is the fear, intimidation and unsustainable conditions endured by those who are working."

He should have been more specific about who is doing the intimidation.

call100

10th Jun 2010, 06:29

I fail to see how working staff are intimidated and bullied by striking cabin crew. They were not there by definition.
I don't think there is much truth from either camp. People will choose to believe whatever camp they follow.

Mariner9

10th Jun 2010, 06:57

Many of you probably don’t realise this but the last few months have really been ground breaking and historically important. We have already mounted one of the longest strikes in aviation history and we have taken on one of the largest, most ruthless, nastiest blue chip companies ever to darken this countries’ social fabric and we are still standing strong, preparing for more.

Look what we have achieved in this Fight:

We have alienated the public and our fellow BA employees.
We have damaged the long term prospects of our employer which will adversely affect our future pay and conditions.
We failed to ground the airline.
The CSD's still have to work a bit harder.
The next BA offer was worse that just having the CSD work a bit harder.
The current BA offer is worse than that still.
We have lost Staff travel
We have lost weeks of salary and flying allowances.
By threatening further action we are putting BA into the position were they will likely have no option other than to dismiss us.

fincastle84

10th Jun 2010, 07:25

Some Unite person named Boyd was on BBC 1 @ 07.10 today. Yet again he gave no indication as to the date or subject for a further ballot.

Interestingly, even the BBC interviewer was very unsympathetic to Unite/ Bassa & quoted several emails from both the public & CC protesting against IA.

Methinks that the tide has turned decisively against the militants.:ok:

pwalhx

10th Jun 2010, 07:48

I saw the interview too, he referred again to half empty planes and customers being flown on other airlines, I believe he quoted Virgin and BMI.

We ll I was booked on 4 flights in the strike period 3 off which were opereted by BA aircraft and all full and the other yes I was moved to BMI (not really relevant but the BMI flight was abou a 3rd full).

slf22

10th Jun 2010, 08:08

From the other thread, posted by ottergirl
The new wording for the next phase of industrial action.

BA has shown a total disregard towards its collective agreements by using employees from other work areas within the Company to operate Worldwide and Eurofleet routes on reduced terms. This, along with the introduction of temporary cabin crew on terms and conditions which are contrary to those agreed within Worldwide and Eurofleet agreements, is totally unacceptable. The company’s actions have created an unworkable environment.
The removal of travel concessions from individuals who have exercised their right to participate in lawful strike action is viewed as vindictive and therefore totally unacceptable. Unite is seeking the full reinstatement of this important item immediately and without pre-condition.
We consider the disciplinary action taken against Unite members for various misdemeanours related to the current industrial dispute as vindictive, disproportionate and unnecessary. Unite is therefore seeking the withdrawal of all disciplinary measures administered to Unite members under those circumstances discussed during the recent negotiations.So what say you IR legal eagles? High court trip?

RTR

10th Jun 2010, 08:45

Many years from now you will look back on this summer and say “I am so glad and proud I did what I did”, I wonder if Willie Walsh will feel that same pride?

The answer is NO you won't - AND - YES I will.

The truth is that BASSA is no longer the force it was (if it ever was) and has shown such gross mis-management and foresight it now has to look inwards to see how far they have truly let their members down. To the detriment of its members it now has few, in any, alternatives to take a further stance on ST as just one example. They knew well that this was a perk and warned again and again that it would be taken from them. Fighting for it was NEVER an option, it was always there. So, when BASSA turned down perfectly acceptable offers and went on strike they shot themselves in the foot. I doubt that UNITE have ever come across a situation like that before. What a useless exercise that was and once again proved how silly and stupid they had been. UNITE then took the strike to a 'NEW' level - and changed the reason for striking for the return of ST! What a ridiculous thing to happen.

So now the union is clutching at straws. Inventing nasty little stories about BA bullying its staff while all the time it is they bullying their own members. Time after time they try to impress using the 'success' of the Bedfont fiasco. Claiming massive support by filling one bus or 300 or 400 hundred eating whatever DH can come up with. At best they were incentives paid for by DH at worst they were a pathetic attempt to persuade others to join in. For it to be effective there should have been 2000 or 3000+ there. Where were they? The press were never going to be interested in a group of cats posing as lions.

It is time to be realistic and accept that your gripes were badly mis-handled by your reps using dirty tactics that go back to the bad old days of unions. Since then the whole wicked world of the bad old unions has been to to sleep.

I sincerely hope that if BASSA has another ballot it it will fail. Simply because the guys and girls of BA are far far better than having out of date thinking by rabble rouser's representing them.

I truly wish the cc staff, and the whole of BA well. I know that it will come good if you all get out from under the power of self seeking, power hungry despots.

Good luck.

Mariner9

10th Jun 2010, 09:16

To summarise Unite's reasons for the next proposed strikes for the three bullet points listed:

1. To prevent BA from ever again being in a position to defend itself against industrial action.

2. To prevent BA from ever again being in a position to give incentives to staff not to strike.

3. To allow staff to behave as they wish during IA without any possible recourse.

Does even the most blinkered BASSA member think BA will roll over and accept any of this? Do they intend to strike indefinately?

Diplome

10th Jun 2010, 09:25

Mariner9:

No. 3 may be a bit of a problem for BASSA. If discussion regarding what some of these disciplinaries were really about becomes public it will remove much of BASSA's argument regarding who was bullying and bring to light for many in the public how outrageous and threatening some of the militants have been.

I notice in public statements that the disciplinary matters are always described to the press as "simply posting a comment on Facebook"...or "mostly trivial" and they never state what specifically was posted on Facebook, etc..

BASSA may have opened a can of worms with this request.

Snas

10th Jun 2010, 09:27

So what say you IR legal eagles? High court trip?

Certainly.

The question is will BA take court action before any proposed strike commences to try and prevent it, or will they take action after it has started hoping to get a ruling against it which could result in strikes being considered an extension of the current dispute, and therefore unprotected strike action allowing BA far more freedom in their subsequent actions.

But I’m no eagle, more of a budgie I would suggest!

BetterByBoat

10th Jun 2010, 09:49

I think an injuction to stop the strikes really just keeps the problem bubbling away so my guess would be the second option - wait for the strikes and take the unions to court for compensation first. If that battle is won then the strikers will by implication have been taking part in unprotected industrial action and have to face the consequences.

All of that of course assumes that BASSA \ Unite win a ballot for further strike action. By no means guaranteed.

fincastle84

10th Jun 2010, 09:53

Whatever the issues, will the turkeys yet again vote for Christmas or will it eventually dawn on Bassa members that Mr Walsh is NOT going to surrender; indeed he is ever closer to a victory.

Airclues

10th Jun 2010, 10:10

If discussion regarding what some of these disciplinaries were really about becomes public it will remove much of BASSA's argument regarding who was bullying

BA have complied with the disciplinary rules (that were agreed with the unions) that details of cases should not be made public. However, if the strike ballot was challenged in court, I assume that the judge could demand that the 'crimes' be revealed to the court.

I don't think that either the court, or public opinion, would have much sympathy with Unite once the facts are known. It might be better for Unite to drop #3 and let the public continue to believe that the crew were disciplined for 'expressing their views'.

Diplome

10th Jun 2010, 10:14

All of that of course assumes that BASSA \ Unite win a ballot for further strike action. By no means guaranteed.

Agreed..though it is hard for a logic based individual to have much insight into the more radical BASSA members thinking.

What is surprising is that ALL three points are issues that arise directly out of the strike action. I would have thought that BASSA would have developed a list that has a greater appeal for its membership as a whole.

Ancient Observer

10th Jun 2010, 10:31

Where are the managers and the Directors? Who is painting the compelling vision for the future? Who is seeking to engage the great staff that BA clearly have - Tira, JSL et al??

BA are allowing Bassa and the Bassa Broadcasting Corp to lead this dispute. The managers and directors should be out there talking about a great future, rather than being buried in committee rooms with their lawyers.
Visible managers excited about the future could - if they are good enough, overcome all this Bassastuff - unless the managers too believe what Bassa believe - that the corrupt practices of 30 + years will return when WW goes............

As I've said before..............

IMHO, BA need an action plan
1. to change most of the managers involved, (I know, Diplome, I've said this too often - but the current lot appear to be still asking bassa for permission to serve their customers. Madness).
2. to remove any CSD who is unable/unwilling to demonstrate that their actual behaviour, (not words, and not an interview) has been fully supportive of BAs customers
3. to remove the current CSD job completely, and to replace it with a proper Customer Service Supervisor role. Recruit for this new job from the best of the current total BA CC population - but only allow 49% of the new CSS to be from BA, with 51% recruited from Tesco, John Lewis and etc.
4. Jfdi with respect to New Fleet, and insist that the folk in BA who actually do the recruitment to NF are their brightest and best. Don't let the current lot recruit in their own image.
For induction and early training - Use the best of PPF and PPF2 from all those years ago.
5. Give notice - say, 6 months, that all the current T & C are going to be changed. Get rid of all the T & C that cause the many and varied "Spanish" practices and spurious reasons for payment. (Dodgy lightbulbs in LH crew rest places, 2 + hours breaks for SH etc). Make all CC work like they do at EZY.
Implement new pay system no matter what bassa say.
6. The Leadership team need to paint a compelling vision of the "New BA" that good current staff and all future staff can imagine themselves in to. Give some hope and aspiration to a workforce that wants more positive meaning from its workplace. Listenning to Tira, JSL, and some of the VCC on the other thread - the raw material is in BA, but I'm not sure that it's being nurtured and fed properly!
7. Hire some much better managers, from well outside Aviation. The inspirational types are available on the market place, but Aviation is not the sector to find them in.
8. Do some real customer service surveys, that the new CSS cannot influence. Make them cheap and cheerful, but accurate. BT do this very well, and even Virgin do try to get real feedback.
9. Employ, via an agency, (not BA staff) some real "Mystery flyers" who will fully report on BA's flying experience for customers, and whose reports really impact managers' salaries.
10. Insist that Captains fully own the total in-flight experience of customers.
11. Publish (anonymised) pay of all BA CC who earn in gross terms a penny over the National average wage. (Currently c £25,000).
12. Pay expenses as incurred. Get rid of the rich, and corrupting influence of the NRT etc golden wheelbarrows.
....................

Well, that's a start................

Winch-control

10th Jun 2010, 10:33

If I understand correctly, Bassa/Unite are not allowed to continue or re-ballot on the same strike issue (imposition). They therefore need to seek a reason to strike. Unfortunately they appear to have chosen to ballot on strike action that they cannnot win.
The wording of the ballot, if it is to include the 3 aforementioned points in previous posts will be interesting though.

ChicoG

10th Jun 2010, 11:23

Willie Walsh has refused his bonus (334K of shares) for the second year running.

Meanwhile, back in the 70's:

Union leaders said there would have been "uproar" if Mr Walsh had pocketed a bonus this year.

Len McCluskey, Unite's assistant general secretary, said: "His plans for BA have seen it become a byword for bullying, driving customers into the arms of competitors, poisoned working relations and is denying the airline a peaceful, stable future.

"This is not success, it is ruination of a great British company. There should be no bonus and no mega-pot of shares until BA sorts the cabin crew dispute."

There is no word as to whether Woodley, Simpson and McWitless have offered to forgo any of their six figure salaries, benefits, second homes or luxury cars while members suffer as a result of their lacklustre negotiating skills ***

*** (That means saying "No" all the time till your red nose glows in the dark).

johnoWhiskyX

10th Jun 2010, 14:25

9. Employ, via an agency, (not BA staff) some real "Mystery flyers" who will fully report on BA's flying experience for customers, and whose reports really impact managers' salaries.

I agree on the mystery flyers. But i would prefer them to be BA employed. I'm on the recieving end of external contractors and quite frankly they are only there to make money, service isn't in their vocabulary. Lets face it, even if BA implemented mystery flyers, the jobs would go to someone with a relative allready working at BA, rather than real people with a passion for BA, travel, customer service and has no connection with BA at all at present.

I would have to agree with your comments regarding certain posters on the CC forum. there appears to be some excellent folk with heads screwed on that should be nurtured. they may allready be in management positions for all i know, but if they aren't they should be. External managers without flight experience are essential, managers are there to manage staff, intimate knowledge of a plane, loading dock, cockpit is not essential, desirable yes , but not essential.

The SSK

10th Jun 2010, 14:47

Len McCluskey, Unite's assistant general secretary, said: "His plans for BA have seen it become a byword for bullying, driving customers into the arms of competitors, poisoned working relations and is denying the airline a peaceful, stable future".

To make it spot-on, he only needs to change a single word. The first one.

Should be 'BASSA's'

4Foxtrot

10th Jun 2010, 15:32

baggersup, I perceive that they aren't going to ballot for IA based upon the reinstatement of the perk so much as the means by which it was removed. Yes, they were warned Staff Travel would be removed but their (untested) legal belief is that you cannot be 'punished' by your employer for participating in IA. Thin ice in my books, and largely outside the scope of original reasons for the dispute, but the outcome in court/employment tribunal would be interesting. It might all become irrelevant anyway if BA go down the SOSR route.

Mariner9

10th Jun 2010, 15:42

Having said that, previous messages about mystery shoppers got huge responses in an old thread here, saying BASSA would go absolutely mental if that were done and would not stand for that in any circumstances

How would one spot the difference between "going absolutely mental" and BASSA's normal behaviour Baggers? :ok:

GCI35

10th Jun 2010, 16:03

YouGov; Industrial Action Ballots.

1. "You should be allowed to vote in secret without interference from a Trade Union or its officials."

2. "Your Trade Union is not allowed to ask any of its members to take part, or to continue taking part, in Industrial Action unless it has held a properly conducted secret ballot."

3. "Voting is by post."

My understanding is that the ballot for the strike that ended yesterday was conducted online whereby the members had to identify themselves. Are there any legal eagles who'd care to comment.
Just a thought.

Diplome

10th Jun 2010, 16:19

Mariner9:

If I could rate up a post yours would be my choice. :D

just an observer

10th Jun 2010, 16:20

The ballot for the strike just ended was conducted by post and counted by the electoral reform society (I think).

The online ballot recently was just to ask CC if they would accept BA's latest offer. They were recommended to turn it down by Unite, as in the parent union, not BASSA, as it did not return staff travel unconditionally, nor stop the disciplinaries. Interestingly, Woodley and Simpson speaking for Unite the parent union, did approve the financial package. However there was always a doubt that BASSA would not agree the financial package anyway, on the grounds of no guarantees etc.

Neptunus Rex

10th Jun 2010, 16:36

BASSA going "absolutely mental" over a management suggestion would seem to completely vindicate management's point.

It seems that the BASSA leaders are all Frankie Howard fans; well, most of them are of that vintage. I quote:

"Nay, Nay and thrice Nay!"

MCOflyer

10th Jun 2010, 16:44

This is my first post on this forum. I have been following this IA very closely as I am about to take my first trip on BA to EDI this August in Club World. I have been looking forward to this trip since January when I made the booking.

I was one of the PATCO Air Traffic Controllers that went on strike in 1981 and was terminated (sacked; not killed). I see a lot of parallels with what we were told by our union leaders (as well as the national union leadership) and what the members of Bassa are being fed. Don't believe a bit of it! It is all garbage (rubbish)! They will lead you down the path to ruin. I wish I could post this to the other forum so more Bassa members could see it.

What the Bassa strikers do not understand is the amount of flights flying between the US and the UK that are operating. I have been watching on Flight Aware since this whole thing began. My flight, ATL to LHR, has run close to schedule since the beginning of this IA as well as a lot of other BA airplanes making their way across the pond . My only fear is getting from LHR to EDI. If I have to I will take the train. I have tickets to the Tattoo and do not intend on missing it.

You CC that went to work made the right choice and I hope that you will be the crew that takes care of me on my trip over and back. I would like more than a sandwich though. I fully understand the problems you will face working with the Bassa militants but possibly, as I have seen on the other forum for CC, many think in 90 days they will be gone. I support the CC that went to work. On the next strike ballot simply vote NO! There are more of you than there are of them if I have read these forums correctly. Best of luck to those of you (all departments) that are trying to save one of the world's great airlines.

I support BA!

GCI35

10th Jun 2010, 19:10

The point I'm trying to make is: when is a ballot on a new mandate to continue a strike, based on the revised BA offer, suddenly allowed to be online rather than postal? The implications being that those voting against continuation of IA and accepting the offer have to reveal their identity in order to vote. I can't access the BASSA website, but the vitriolic comments levelled at non-strikers and VCC that have appeared on the BA vs BASSA forum is sufficient to put non-striking Unite members in fear of retaliation in one form or another. I hope I'm not being over-dramatic here, but what better way to ensure the vote going Unite's way than to make possible 'yes' voters think twice about revealing their identities and therefore abstaining. It's a cynical ploy to continue this totally unnecessary action. More importantly: is it legal?

Boxkite Montgolfier

10th Jun 2010, 19:15

The prospects for yet another ballot by Unite/Bassa ,should surely now concentrate the minds of dissatisfied BA cabin crew. The arguments, reserved justifications,legal clarifications and sheer loyalty of other BA sections are too persuasive to be ignored other than by the bigoted minority.
For those now that profess to be intimidated,bullied or imposed upon, I have no sympathy. Their argument is now redundant and totally transparent.

In my view the divisions are now too entrenched for BA to risk the sour, disgruntled militant strikers back into a customer service scenario. All reports indicate a huge public response to 'on board service' on strike days. This positive reaction must not be jeopardised. The 'Final Solution', hopefully .will now emerge with punitive, justifiable legislation to ensure the 'unemployable' will be released.

101917

10th Jun 2010, 19:21

What we have in DH is the UK version of David Koresh of Waco fame and the Rev Jim Jones of the mass suicide in Guyana. Both led their followers, who were not around when the marbles were dished out, into oblivion.

It is quite stunning to observe the power these people have over supposedly intelligent and normal individuals. Should the militant folks be allowed back, BA will no longer be a safe and sound airline.

Tears are going to be shed and they will not be from those supporting BA.

Hartington

10th Jun 2010, 20:09

It's the BA AGM on 13th July. Could be interesting to attend for once!

citroman

11th Jun 2010, 00:30

I recently heard on a radio discussion a phrase I'd never come across before, it was a term associated with Lenin, "Useful idiots"

I hope that the rank and file members of Bassa take the precaution of checking that they are not being cynically used by the upper ranks of Bassa for other end purposes.

Have a look here: Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

"The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature."

Citroman

just an observer

11th Jun 2010, 07:06

For GC135 - The online ballot was not 'a new mandate' to continue the strike, the original secret postal mandate to strike was still sufficient.

The online ballot was to see if the offer was acceptable to a majority of union members. Had the earlier immediately before the first strike offer been made available to union members, that would also have been done by online ballot, but BASSA called strike dates and that offer was withdrawn because they had done so. So, it's only ballots to call off a strike that can be online.

But yes, I agree, the fact that it is not a secret ballot could well affect the voting. 28% of eligible voters 'abstained' in the last online ballot, and could presumably be considered no voters if it were a secret one. But it is legal. The secret vote is only legally required for an actual strike mandate, not to call a strike off.

Landroger

11th Jun 2010, 09:47

This has been posted on the CC forum by BLUEUPGOOD and is in response to a striker who claims the usual "its not fair, they're all against us, it's all Willie's fault" argument.

Hi Fabio,

welcome to the debate - it's always good to hear a new opinion. Can I offer you another perspective on all of this? If one listens to what BASSA has to say, then the CC have been bullied, harassed, victimised, etc etc. Fabio, can you give evidence of your mistreatment? I accept your argument that withdrawing staff travel can be seen as singling out those who chose to strike, and I think it is reasonable to want to contest this. However that is the nature of industrial disputes, and BASSA would have been more responsible if they had warned you of the realities, rather than tell you BA can't do it. They can, and they have, and that part of the dispute will run it's course. But bullying? Harassment? I see no evidence of it on the part of BA. Indeed I would suggest BA have been immensely patient, whilst BASSA have frankly prevaricated and denied reality , and in the process done you and your colleagues a huge disservice.

It is clearly stated in your contract of employment that contact with the media must have the approval of BA. It's the same in every PLC across the land. That doesn't mean BA are trying to harass or gag you, and before the dispute did anyone give that clause in your contract a second thought? No, but BASSA are trying to subvert BA in every way possible, and frankly their claims don't add up.

Fabio, you may have read about some unfortunate comments by BA pilots in the papers. They are now suspended, and are in the disciplinary process that is clearly set out in BA's employment guidlines. There are also CC members in the same process, for other misdemeanors, some with a criminal investigation likely to follow. Are the BA pilots being bullied too? Can you explain why it is ok for UNITE to demand the cases against CC be dropped, but not those against the pilots? Can you tell me why UNITE don't want to follow the disciplinary process that they themselves signed up to before this dispute? Why was it ok a couple of years ago, but not now? Disciplinaries have been taking place for years, over all sorts of allegations. The vast majority find no case to answer, or a chat with a manager for a minor indiscretion. If you push your luck and bring the company into disrepute, or are willfully negligent, then you could be sacked, but the process has been deemed to be fair by UNITE.
I assume you have been absent from work on strike days Fabio. I'd like to tell you this, and I mean it with all sincerity, and without bias.. I have talked to many crew who also exercised their democratic right - the right not to go on strike. They are all concerned, some are terrified of the strikers. They are receiving threats of damage to cars, revelations of private matters to partners, exclusion onboard and down route, having their meals tampered with, being called scum and scab etc etc. THIS IS bullying and harassment. THIS IS against BA policy, and SHOULD be the subject of disciplinary action against the perpetrators.

Fabio if you want fairness, could I ask you to consider this. Every other department in BA has made a significant contribution to the undeniable crisis the company is in. Staff across the airline have changed working practices, taken pay cuts, lost T&C's etc. Permanently. Period. BASSA will tell you otherwise, but it's undeniable fact, and if you are in doubt, then why not ask a TRC how their life has changed in the last few years. Or a CSA. Or (heaven forbid) a pilot, or tug driver, bus driver, manager (those that are still here) etc. They will ALL tell you of significant change. Unfortunately the CC (or should I say BASSA) think they are a special case, and this doesn't apply to them, and instead of making small changes that could have been satisfactory to everyone, they have instead cost the company £120m, destroyed our reputation, driven customers away, and caused great upheaval and further loss of earnings to all those who have already given their share to get BA on track again. Is that fair?

Finally, I would ask you consider this. BA is one of the most unionized businesses in the country. Every department is strongly represented, mostly by UNITE. I find it extraordinary that BASSA's actions have been willfully undermined by staff from across the airline. Not just pilots, as BASSA and UNITE love to claim, but by UNITE members.. in their thousands. Fabio can you explain why? Willie Walsh can't MAKE these union oriented individuals volunteer. They have decided to do it themselves. To subvert industrial action by members of their own union. Why Fabio? May I suggest it is because they see BASSA's expectations as way beyond reasonable? Because they recognize the plight of the company, and have done their bit? Because they don't want to see BASSA hold a gun to BA's head for ever and a day? Because, like Willie Walsh, the board of directors, the shareholders (who stated their support of WW today), and believe it or not many of our passengers, they want to ensure that BASSA don't get away with stamping their feet, and getting their own way yet again. It's far too serious for ego-centric selfish protectionism.

Fabio, as you are a first time poster here I hope I haven't been too harsh or dogmatic in my comments. I hope to show you another point of view from that repeated endlessly by BASSA. I would strongly urge any genuine ordinary CC member who has put their trust in BASSA to find out for themselves the truth of the situation. Ask questions of others. Be open to another point of view. Pause to consider why events have played out as they have. If at the end of the process you still stand with BASSA then fair enough.

It seems to me that if any striker, particularly a BASSA supporter, can read this and tick off a reasoned counter to all the many points BlueUpGood makes, then they can, perhaps, claim justification for their dispute. However, I believe this post to be the most telling and irrefutable argument in favour of BA I have read since the start of the dispute. Thus it is my guess that any such BASSA supporter would stand rather more chance of pushing butter up a cats bottom with a red hot needle than counter it.

Roger.

deeceethree

11th Jun 2010, 10:29

It seems to me that if any striker, particularly a BASSA supporter, can read this and tick off a reasoned counter to all the many points ... That would be problematical! BASSA followers don't tend to read a thing of any importance - not from their company, not in the financial press - they only do or think what BASSA tells them. Unfortunately, that has led them to where they are now. Duncan Holley calls it:
... one of the longest strikes in aviation history ...And probably the most ineffective in history for accomplishing anything for the supposed purposes of union members' interests. It has actually achieved the very opposite.

Will DH be proud enough to put that on his CV? Probably. :rolleyes:

fincastle84

11th Jun 2010, 10:33

Blueupgood's response to Fabio is a superb piece of logical prose & should be read by all as an explanation of why Bassa's IA is wrong. Any Bassa member reading this should resign from the union immediately.

It occurs to me that Bassa may have some ulterior motive in this dispute & actually want to bring BA to its' knees. I would be interested to know just how many of their leaders are/ were members of the Communist Party.

GCI35

11th Jun 2010, 10:34

JAO, thanks for clarifying the situation, but it doesn't alter the fact that identifying oneself in an online vote favoured Unite, the organiser of said vote. That 28% you mention who abstained plus the few who did vote in favour could have tilted towards acceptance. Conjecture of course, in my considered opinion, ALL votes on such important issues should be secret to level the playing field.

AlpineSkier

11th Jun 2010, 11:05

@GC135

I recall - but cannot vouch for the veracity of - someone explaining that the way the on-line vote was conducted meant that ID had to be proved to be able to vote but thereafter the vote was not able to be linked to the ID.

The SSK

11th Jun 2010, 11:25

BlueUpGood makes a very good job of telling it like it is, If I can add just one more angle:

The dispute was never about pay, it was about productivity. It was about the manning levels and about the restrictive practices which kept staff on the ground, being paid salary and allowances, when they could have been flying.

On one level, a union doesn’t care that much about its members’ pay but it does care HUGELY about productivity. Because better productivity means fewer people needed to do the same job, and fewer workers equals fewer union members, equals lower subscription income. And in the case of UNITE, less money to spend buying political influence.

And we are talking about an employee group which was massively under-productive compared to its industry peers. For any given cost-saving requirement, it was always going to be easier for BA to attack the productivity side of the job rather than the remuneration side.

If anyone can be bothered to read through it, what follows is my personal recollection of the ‘old way’ of doing things at BA, of which the current CC working practices are the last vestige.

Way back in the mists of time, I spent a year working on the BOAC check-in desks in Terminal 3 (it was called the Oceanic Terminal in those days). We worked a pattern of 6 on – a late-late (15:30 start), a late, two mids and two earlies (06:45 start) – followed by three days off. Normally, you were rostered to work individual flights, opening the desk 90 minutes before departure and closing the flight 45 minutes before. Usually, you did three flights per shift. The first one would be always at least a half-hour after your start, so as soon as you arrived you were sent for coffee. You got a long lunch break, another coffee break in the second half of your shift, and you were always sent home early, usually about two hours before you were due to finish, sometimes more.

The late-late was due to finish at 23:30. The last flight of the day was due to close at 21:45. Of the six shift members, four would be sent home around 20:30-21:00, the two unlucky ones rostered for the last flight would be guaranteed not to have it again next time. If the flight was delayed or for any reason you were still at work after 23:00 – a half-hour before you were due to finish – you were entitled to a car to take you home.

During your downtime, there were some other jobs you could be given – prepping your next flight , helping out where queues were building up or relieving colleagues who were late getting a break. Plus there were a couple of desks, first class and early check-in, which had to be permanently manned. On average, though, I would say that you were actually working between, 3h30 and 4h00 of your eight-hour shifts (the mids were supposed to be 9 hours). Which adds up to 20 hours – say, max 25 – of work over a nine-day ‘week’. Best job I ever had.

Sorry for the nostalgia-fest, bet seriously, I see quite a number of parallels with the present CC situation (most of my colleagues were ex-CC anyway, grounded by age or by marriage under the rules of the day). Within a couple of years of me moving on, the system had changed, any flight could be checked-in from any desk, and allowing for lunch and coffee breaks, staff were working about 6h30 of their shift, an increase in productivity of about 60-80%.

just an observer

11th Jun 2010, 12:24

Re The SSKs comments about productivity, presumably the VCC and any temps have been working to a much more productive arrangement, as this is the subject of Unite's first para as to it's reasons for a reballot.

Have the CC who worked also done less down time etc, as they would be on the same aircraft as the VCC. If so, what would happen if a regular CC member working though the strike insisted on the normal arrangements applying? Did it happen? Did they have different arrangements for normal CC who worked through the strike?

Abbey Road

11th Jun 2010, 15:36

If so, what would happen if a regular CC member working though the strike insisted on the normal arrangements applying?Would have been a brave, or daft, person attracting attention to themselves in that manner. However, I cannot say what happened for sure ..... but I vaguely recall the company issuing comms along the lines that owing to the 'unusual circumstances prevailing' then cabin crew roster stability, agreements etc would be subject to temporary changes to keep the operation as going as well as possible.

johnoWhiskyX

11th Jun 2010, 15:37

BlueUpGood's post is superb. Yet there are still people looking forward to the next ballot and presumably industrial action.I really do fail to see the sense, logic or reason behind such an attitude.

In todays age of information at your fingertips, none of the strikers have an excuse that they were not informed, aware of something. I understand working CC being concerned for their collegues and friends who decided to strike. But if they haven't got the sense that god gave them to read or think for themselves they deserve no sympathy at all.

Jipperty

12th Jun 2010, 02:45

Sat here in the Galleries lounge at YVR on a sunny evening awaiting BA084 I have observed with a sense of pride the arrival of our ride home. G-CIVL has parked up in front of us in all of its splendour and glory wearing with pride the flag on its tail.

The departing Pax and crew are soon replaced by an army of attendant service personnel. I note in particular the cleaners and catering staff who are clearly up against it to prepare this great bird for the next flight. No doubt they have just finished delivering a similar service on a previous a/c and will soon be expected on the next a/c.

As I watched them I wondered which union was representing them, who would look after their interests in the event they were asked/told to perform a new duty. I found myself thinking about their t's & c's and perks from working in the airline industry and peforming a clearly critical service to the airline.

I pondered on the reaction of their employers and the airline if they were to withdraw their services as a result of the team being reduced by one member or perhaps the additional payment they may receive for having to work "one down".

I think we all know the answer - BASSA time to get real!

Python21

12th Jun 2010, 05:47

This report in todays Daily Mail tells it like it is.

We can't afford to keep on striking: BA cabin crew turn their fire on union militants | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286016/We-afford-striking-BA-cabin-crew-turn-union-militants.html)

P21

Tin67

12th Jun 2010, 13:24

I flew out J-Class to YVR on Thursday and have to note that the crew seemed very happy, friendly and were attentive and open to conversation. :D

I was in the upper deck, so I can't comment on other cabins, but the two crew attending this cabin and the visiting CC and flight crew all seemed to be very jovial. I must admit that I was pleased to see this given some of the negative tales we've all read about.

As this was the first day after the strikes, the food services was down on usual, but that's the only criticism I have from my flight.

Let's hope my return to LHR is the same.

TruBlu123

12th Jun 2010, 15:18

Over on the other thread current contributors cannot seem to get beyond debating the rights and wrongs of ST privilges.
In the real world serious commentators are focussing on what is happening elsewhere. The latest edition of the Economist journal has on page 80 a piece on the ever expanding ambitions of the 3 Gulf carriers. In a week that saw EK order a further significant tranche of A380 aircraft the article spells out the considerable cost and productivity benefits that these airlines enjoy over their western rivals. It was claimed that EK's manpower costs are 15% compared with LH's 30% of total costs. Quite a margin. I wonder where BA fits?
It is this bleak picture that points to why BA must endure the current painful restructuring of its cost base.
How many employees across the company and especially CC are listening?
That to my mind is WW's challenge and why he cannot relent.

Basil

12th Jun 2010, 15:20

BBC News - Acas proposals submitted to end British Airways dispute (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10301298.stm)
A new set of proposals to end the British Airways (BA) industrial dispute has been unveiled by the arbitration service Acas.

A spokeswoman for BA said: "We can confirm Acas's statement is correct but it would not be appropriate to start commenting further at this time.

"The process is continuing. We do not give a running commentary on our discussions with Unite."

Touché!

GCI35

12th Jun 2010, 16:12

That would make sense, but with 28% not voting are members aware that their identities are protected? Having never been involved in IA during my 35 years with BEA/BA, and having read about the misinformation spewed out by BASSA it makes me wonder if their members know that their vote cannot be traced to them.

binsleepen

13th Jun 2010, 19:00

If I remember correctly, after the failure of negotiations, before the first strikes at Easter WW mentioned something about a new policy regarding the union if agreement was not reached by the 14 June. It will be interesting to see if tomorrow brings any announcements.
I think its time to get this over with and issue new contracts to cc based on the last BA offer with an incentive (say maintaining seniority) if signed within 28 days. If it is not signed then an individual will be seen to have resigned after 90 days.

Regards

Mariner9

14th Jun 2010, 11:24

PS, just returned from a night stop and on the way out the crew noticed that all oxygen bottles in the world traveller cabin had been emptied.

That's the second such allegation I've seen concerning oxygen bottles.

If true, it should in my view be subject to a criminal investigation.

binsleepen

14th Jun 2010, 20:56

Baggersup,

Yes that was what I was thinking of. thanks

RTR

15th Jun 2010, 07:06

It would be highly surprising if BA's CAA inspectors, on call and in attendance very regularly, are not aware of incidents that affect the safety of the aircraft. Engineers would have been involved in a case such as oxygen bottles being emptied (IF indeed it happened) and would make instant reports on such matters both to the company and the CAA. This would be behind closed doors but anyone foolish enough to tamper with aircraft equipment would certainly face the courts, and equally certainly would be jailed.

Desk Jockey

15th Jun 2010, 11:53

:cool: On the cabin crew forum one comment was about volunteer cabin crew...
...Willie Walsh can't make these union oriented individuals volunteer. They have decided to do it themselves...
That may not be totally true. When I was at BA, in the department that I was in the managers were told that they would "volunteer" (not for cabin crew) . In my book that is bullying, and one of the reasons I left.
Also that around 4-5 years ago I was at a social gathering including someone from investor relations. All I can say now is that it looks like the plan is coming together.

just an observer

15th Jun 2010, 12:20

Someone from my husbands department (within engineering) has volunteered as CC, there was no coercion from BA for anyone to do so however.

I can't speak for any other sections of course.

Basil

15th Jun 2010, 12:27

DJ,
the managers were told that they would "volunteer"
But isn't it common in all industries for managers to pick up the tools during a strike?

If they can :hmm:

Desk Jockey

15th Jun 2010, 12:39

Bongodog1964

15th Jun 2010, 13:12

This wasn't during a strike but to cope with day to day disruption. With poor training. On your days off. I did say not as cabin crew. Managers in BA aren't what you would expect in other industries but includes people who do not manage people at all. Making them managers means you don't have to pay them overtime and can tell them to volunteer!

What makes you think this is peculiar to BA ? It is quite normal for managers to be salaried, and thus expected to work overtime for no extra renumeration. It is whats expected in return for the enhamced salary and benefits.

just an observer

15th Jun 2010, 13:26

Ok, I would agree re disruption, snow etc, that 'volunteering' is more heavily requested shall we say, but my comment above re VCC still holds good.

Basil

15th Jun 2010, 13:49

they have indirectly inferred that VCC were responsible for the tragic Bangkok fire
Pretty irrelevant. We've all been to room parties and the affair brings us all into disrepute. There but for . . .
Nevertheless, it is not normal to set the room ablaze and how terrible that a member of staff died as a result.

Not that it matters much and AFAIK, the steward was not VCC and I have reason to believe that neither was the stewardess.

Bucksbird

15th Jun 2010, 15:22

Wonder if The City knows something we don't?

BA share price up 7.10 to 213.20 today.:ok:

oggers

15th Jun 2010, 16:00

just an observer:

there was no coercion from BA for anyone to do so however.....
I can't speak for any other sections of course.

Her indoors tells me that a few of her department (not engineering but CSAs) have volunteered. They definitely weren't leant on either, in fact they weren't even asked but simply came forward on their own initiative because they knew the company was after vcc. So that's two massive departments covered.

You'd have to be in a state of denial to believe that BA are twisting folks' arms into volunteering. Outside of BASSA the strike has virtually zero support. Other departments aren't labouring under the misconception that BA can survive against leaner competitors whilst carrying the monkey that is BASSA on its back.

desk jockey:

When I was at BA, in the department that I was in the managers were told that they would "volunteer" (not for cabin crew) . In my book that is bullying, and one of the reasons I left.

Sure, but in my book it definitely isn't bullying.

Basil

15th Jun 2010, 16:07

No disapproval intended, Baggers. I meant it didn't matter whether the crew were CC or VCC or, for that matter, pilots. The candle ambience thing is pretty common at home, in restaurants etc. but rarely ends in death.

fincastle84

15th Jun 2010, 18:15

Have no worries about the CAA. From personal experience whilst working for EAAC whilst operating under CVA conditions, they will be all over BA like a rash.

However, BA will be pleased to receive such close attention because it will demonstrate to their customers that safety standards are not being compromised. It will also leave the Bassa imbeciles even more exposed to possible prosecution.

One Outsider

15th Jun 2010, 19:52

It is easy to believe anything that put your philosophical opponents in a bad light. In war the first casualty is, as we all should know, the truth. Neither side has a monopoly on militants or truth.

RTR

15th Jun 2010, 20:37

I wondered at the time if just the exhortation of Mr. Holley to employ "guerrilla tactics" had twigged the interest of the CAA. Of course it is a vague suggestion on his part, but in an area as hyper sensitive as airline safety....I wondered if the envelope might be pushed out a bit on what the CAA might consider an actionable offense.

The CAA has not in its remit the right to interfere in any or all of the day to day operations that are solely those of the company. They do, however, exercise their powers to bring to the attention of the company any information that might come from a whistleblower - however, a whistleblower is not immune from identification. If he/she does not agree to be identified the CAA will not take any action even if the charge has substance. Somewhat weird in my view.

As for imperiling the safety of an aircraft the CAA will act with great swiftness and will usually descend in large numbers on the airline or operator to effect an arrest, or question however many possible suspects, or simply question anyone they wish to question. This is rare but I know of two such cases.

johnoWhiskyX

16th Jun 2010, 07:30

Over on the other forum, there is a side discussion going on about lanyards, particularly from BASSA bods being told they cant wear the union ones.

I will hold my hand up here and admit i've never noticed if CC wear them during the flight or not. I presume though that uniform poilicy is sensible like in most work places, that if you are expected to come into contact with members of the public you adhere to company policy on uniform, if not like most flight deck crew (ie locked up front) that embelishments are allowed.

Personally if i saw a CC with a BASSA lanyard i would find it objectionable. In that these are the people who really don't give a stuff about the people paying their wages..us the customers.

TruBlu123

16th Jun 2010, 08:03

BA uniform guidelines policy is clear, it is the execution of same that is inconsistent.

Wearing of lanyards is but one and the violation of the policy is across all industrial groups in the airline including Bassa AND BALPA. As a retired staff member travelling as frequently as I do I have no desire to be made aware of what specific TU an employee is a member of. I am sure that sentiment applies to the paying public who are keeping/kept us all employed.

C'mon management get a grip and ban this practice forthwith!

Ancient Observer

16th Jun 2010, 12:30

RTR,
just to re-frame what the CAA can and cannot do with respect to safety.

If they have a reason to believe (and if that belief is reasonably held), that there is an issue with respect to either aviation safety, or safety within the cabin for cabin crew, customers etc, they can do what the hell they want to do.
I've seen the Inspector's pass terms for both the AviationSafety Inspectors, and the H & S Inspectors.
All the Unions concerned know this. The Unions asked for it. The H & S within the cabin did not come within the CAAs remit until about 4 years ago. The EU gave it to the CAA to "regulate/manage" at the request of the EU TUs.
Their actual powers to effect entry and to seek facts are quite draconian, and if anyone wants to/tries to, get in their way, the individual is committing a criminal offence. Not a civil offence.

The CAA do not brag about this, but when I was in Aviation I was left in no doubt about their powers which are underneath their velvet gloves. We can moan about the cost of the CAA, but no-one doubts their safety record.

PAXboy

16th Jun 2010, 13:03

Bucksbird
Wonder if The City knows something we don't?

BA share price up 7.10 to 213.20 today.
I doubt it, they are selling BP and don't know what to do with the cash - so they look around for another Blue Chip company that appears to be doing things right. Bingo! BA.
:rolleyes:

Mariner9

16th Jun 2010, 16:13

I see the ACAS talks have stalled again. Quelle surprise.

Meanwhile, over on the "official" thread, "Miss M" seems to think that strike breakers should volunteer to go on New Fleet T&C's.

Quite why Bassa should think that a group of employees who by their actions in coming to work show they accept the deal currently on the table should suddenly want to ditch that and apply for inferior terms is lost on me.

Indeed, it seems that New Fleet is only commencing thanks to BASSA's insistence on letting the LHR CSD's put their feet up again, meaning BA have to recruit additional CC staff.

But then logic does not appear to be a required attribute for BASSA supporters who post on Pprune. Whereas, blind faith in BASSA that flies against all reason appears to be mandatory :ugh:

TopBunk

16th Jun 2010, 18:05

I too, am banned from the other place, as I am a recent ex-employee, and hence deemed to have no right to comment:rolleyes::ugh::mad:.

Anyway, with regards to discharging of oxygen bottles by crew leaving the aircraft prior to a sector I would like to comment and draw a parallel.

1. Part of the cabin crew checks are to check that the bottles are full prior to departure at their individual crew station.
2. Crew not reporting a problem with the bottle are likely to dump themselves in the mire if the subsequent crew report the problem as either way they have either discharged the bottle or not done their checks diligently
3. Crews will therefore tend to report a problem promptly before departure.
4. This may delay departure (and they themselves may well have discharged the bottles in order to make the delay)

Irrespective of any the above, BA will undoubtedly record all crew names against all such incidents and be looking for trends and repeat names. They will then target checks of aircraft pre-boarding to check oxygen levels in order to determine likely timings of the discharging (ie on coming or off going crews) and follow up as appropriate with a disciplinary as appropriate.

For those crew who do not think this a possibility, would ask them to think about the rummaging campaign of 2007-8 that revealed several serial thiefs amongst crew.

I, myself, witnessed one such episode of a purser being taken off to the Heathrow police station having admitted removing 200 ciggies. Do crew really believe these rummaging episodes to have been random? I suggest not, and that the same tactics will be deployed against the serial oxygen dischargers.

Be warned, be afraid .... and stop being stupid

TightSlot

16th Jun 2010, 18:36

I too, am banned from the other place, as I am a recent ex-employee, and hence deemed to have no right to comment.

Your right to comment applies in here - you have just exercised it. You do not however, have the right to comment on a thread in the Cabin Crew forum clearly entitled "British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)",a restriction which was clearly established very frequently. On numerous occasions, you decided that your views were just too important and that the rules should not apply to you.

Those of you unable to post on the CC thread, please spare us all the hissy fit outrage, especially if you are one of those who were caught ignoring the rules. Your martyrdom is of no interest to a majority here.

BAAlltheway

16th Jun 2010, 20:53

Having had several conversations with corporate security at BA in a previous role, they have the means to install portable CCTV, including on board, if they need to get proof. This was done years back when trying to find out who was pilfering from baggage, and i believe also from onboard. Both very successful. They WILL easily be able to get a list of suspects based on who had access to the aircraft, and if they see patterns, you can bet it wont be long before they catch them..
There are actually very few people small minded or malicious enough to do such things, even though some might like to make noise about doing such things. And sooner or later, they will get caught, or someone else will turn them in.

LD12986

16th Jun 2010, 21:02

Surely in a case as serious as this, everybody who had access to the aircraft should be questioned and the equipment checked for fingerprints?

Desk Jockey

16th Jun 2010, 22:10

Wow, 2 posts that I know something about.
You can be sure that BA security will be taking a close interest in any interference with aircraft safety systems using relevant security devices.
And I'm not going to discuss them here!
Finger prints. If crew or have fiddled then fingerprints won't help. 1. Because they have to handle these items anyway as part of the job. 2. There is only one surface on the assembly suitable to take a print from, and 1. applies anyway.

Mariner9

17th Jun 2010, 08:30

Some interesting comments on the other thread from what seemed to be a very rare species - a Gatwick striker.

But is he/she reallly? :=

I noted yesterday that HAHAHAetc's location was listed as "LHR" despite claiming to be Gatwick crew. Today I note it has been changed to "LGW". If correct, it seems he/she has got the transfer he/she claims to be striking about (albeit in the reverse direction :E )

Diplome

17th Jun 2010, 09:14

Mariner9...good catch.

It seems that talks have broken down between BA and BASSA/Unite.

The Union has not commented yet...and the adventure continues.

UK conciliator says BA labor talks broken down - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GCELA80.htm)

oggers

17th Jun 2010, 10:17

FACT. I withdrew my labour and played my part in being responsible for over 150 million pounds of costs.

The more I read form the pro-strike camp the more I become convinced that we are dealing with a very unworthy bunch.

Diplome

17th Jun 2010, 10:22

oggers:

When reading comments such as the one you posted it is certainly hard to disagree with you.

What is amazing is that some of these people fail to realize that BA thought that that price was a bargain.

I suppose when you go through a failed strike and end up with much less than you started with you have to try to scavange a victory somewhere, however absurd it seems to others.

jetset lady

17th Jun 2010, 11:19

oggers,

I may not agree with the strike but the post you have quoted has been taken totally out of context, presumably in an effort to make it look more dramatic and fuel the fire. I think it's only fair that it be placed back into the context in which it was written.

FACT. BA without agreement from my representatives took my transfer right from me. FACT. I withdrew my labour and played my part in being responsible for over 150 million pounds of costs. RESULT. Neither BA nor I won. I think this is typical in any trade dispute which results in industrial action.

just an observer

17th Jun 2010, 11:19

Posted by MissM on the other thread
I have seen the list of routes and some of them are YYC, MRU, ORD, CPH and SOF. It's a very tactical move of BA to choose some of the least popular destinations for New Fleet. What were they hoping to gain by choosing these ones and not some of our more lucrative and popular destinations?

I hope someone over there answers this one. I would guess BA were trying to get CC to accept new fleet by starting with unpopular, low paying routes. What else? I daresay it is a tactical move, but why look beyond BA trying to get acceptance to the idea of new fleet? Talk about mistrust. If BA had offered popular routes to NF, BASSA would have had a field day complaining about it.

Besides, the 'lucrative' routes won't be once the MTP comes in, although I daresay, some will still be popular just because of where they are.

Snas

17th Jun 2010, 13:33

Besides, the 'lucrative' routes won't be once the MTP comes in, although I daresay, some will still be popular just because of where they are.

....which is one of the benefits of the MTP, request trips can now be populated with places that you would actually like to go to rather than just the high paying routes.

If it didnt pay so well would many actually want to go to NRT, really?

Hotel Mode

17th Jun 2010, 22:17

I hope someone over there answers this one. I would guess BA were trying to get CC to accept new fleet by starting with unpopular, low paying routes. What else? I daresay it is a tactical move, but why look beyond BA trying to get acceptance to the idea of new fleet? Talk about mistrust. If BA had offered popular routes to NF, BASSA would have had a field day complaining about it.

With apologies to Jim Bowen its another bit of "lets have a look at what you could have won". BA know full well that BASSA arent agreeing anything, so when the inevitable happens BA will transfer the routes they actually want to transfer and blame BASSA for the extra cost savings becoming necessary.

BA are getting savings way beyond what most of us expected by using the fact BASSA say no to everything and just ratcheting up the pressure each time they do. So far the strikes have cost about a 777 and a half. Pretty good value for money in comparison.

west lakes

17th Jun 2010, 22:24

There are other fractors involved with transferring routes to other staff, who have been flying them during the strikes.
It's a part of it that BASSA haven't picked upon, but has been hinted on by LGW and one of WW's statements in a BA communication.

johnoWhiskyX

18th Jun 2010, 06:32

While real news concerning the ongoing dispute is scarce the story is still interesting.

Anythining I have seen including some posters in the other thread are allmost Orwellian in nature with a soupcon of the Che Guevara's.

The few who are sticking their heads above the parapets seem increasingly concerned in defending the strike with supposition and hearsay rather than proving the barrage of questions sent their way by other posters as wrong.
Ignorance is strength.

definition Owellian wikipedia; "..It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth.."

fincastle84

18th Jun 2010, 09:38

After next week's budget when the massive cuts in the public sector will be announced, Unite will have it's' hands full organising meetings & ballots for its' millions of public service members. Any concern for Bassa will be firmly on the back burner, in fact will probably be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Bassa must surely realise that they have lost big time & should quietly get on with the task of saving BA or start looking for alternative employment.

PAXboy

18th Jun 2010, 11:54

fincastle84Bassa must surely realise that they have lost big time Probably not. Did the stevedores accept that container ships had changed their world? Did the miners accept that economics had changed? Did the printers accept that Murdoch had broken Fleet Street?

It tends to be the case that groups with an entrenched position remain convinced that they were right - till the end of their days. Some printers will admit that they had it too good and that they got away with false practices for a long time and then got on with something else - others never accepted the change. Those who are stuck in old ways of doing things are left behind.

I worked in telecommunications for 27 years and was a specialist in voice based equipment (PABX, voice networks and associated equipment) but some of the things that cost thousands of pounds and required careful set up - can now be bought for a couple of hundred from an online catalogue and arrive ready to go. So I went and did other things.

The law of averages says that some of BASSAs people will know that. Some will be holding on hoping that they will win one more time but most will be realising that it is over. The leaders however, cannot do so. They have become so involved that simple male pride will not allow them to change. Ask Arthur Scargill if he was right?

ChicoG

18th Jun 2010, 11:57

They have become so involved that simple male pride will not allow them to change. Ask Arthur Scargill if he was right?

There's a slur on Malone I haven't heard before...

:}

ExecClubPax

18th Jun 2010, 12:13

It seems UNITE/BASSA have written to its BA CC members announcing another 12 weeks of strikes from 3 August through to the 25 October. This is yet another attack on the average family holiday. Not being able to damage them at Christmas, they seem hell bent on ruining summer trips to Europe.

I expect we'll see a response from BA fairly shortly now.

OSAGYEFO2

18th Jun 2010, 13:54

Another ballot--Anyone know what the question is?:*

Neptunus Rex

18th Jun 2010, 15:38

I'd love to be a 'fly on the wall' in the BASSA lawyers' chambers as they try and formulate a strategy that will convince the Courts that the next strike has nothing to do with the last one.

R Knee

18th Jun 2010, 16:14

ChicoG:

Quote:
They have become so involved that simple male pride will not allow them to change. Ask Arthur Scargill if he was right?
There's a slur on Malone I haven't heard before...

Funniest post in a long time.:D Many thanks.

BTW don't ask Arthur - we haven't got the time to listen to his response.

TrakBall

18th Jun 2010, 16:19

Some suggested BASSA ballot questions that would not be in any way connected with the previous IA.

1. PIMMS or Lager?
2. Burgers or Sausage Rolls?
3. Bouncy Castle or Petting Zoo

All vital questions because they might be spending a lot of time at Bedfont - maybe even permanently.

TB

R Knee

18th Jun 2010, 19:45

Quote: BASSA reps were happy to accept that each case should be viewed individually by ACAS, neutral, and an assessment made. From what I've heard, heresay I give you, some people deserved their suspension or dismissal but many others didn't. Case by case by a neutral party seems appropriate to me.

It appears to me when you look at previous historical input from PC767 that PC767s colours are nailed firmly to the BASSA mast, and current responses should be viewed in that light.

Therefore I ask... Why, bearing in mind Unite agreed the current disciplinary procedures with BA, and that there are laid down procedures to appeal against decisions made within these agreements, should Unite wish these procedures to be disregarded? Aren't there already sufficient safeguards within their agreed system?

Edit
It appears it took me so long to write that this is now superfluous to the arguments on the other thread.....

LD12986

18th Jun 2010, 23:11

So here we go again.

Soundings are that Tuesday's Budget is likely to result in very deep cuts to the public sector and tax increases for all.

This should illustrate just how severe the state of the economy is and how irrelevant this dispute is.

johnoWhiskyX

19th Jun 2010, 06:21

R Knee

I found there request rather puzzling as i believe that they allready have independant review available to them as part of the disciplinary procedure appeal.

Another comment I was astounded at was from MissM. that she would accept a previous proposal put forward by BA. But her union didnt even put it to the members to accept or refuse..they ( give us names for public derision) just decided it wasnt good enough.

Any Union member whining regarding imposition should have those facts tatoo'd (sp) on their foreheads so they can see it every morning in the mirror.

So, The union doesn't doesn't like imposition, but when BA negotiated and tabled a proposal that could have been accepted it was dismissed out of hand.

They dont trust BA regarding disciplinaries and want an independant body to review them..errr you allready have that at appeal.

This leaves us with staff travel?

19th Jun 2010, 12:29

So, The union doesn't doesn't like imposition, but when BA negotiated and tabled a proposal that could have been accepted it was dismissed out of hand

To BASSA its imposition, in any other department of BA or any other company it would be called managing your employees.

Unions are necessary to protect poor downtrodden employees. In this case did the cabin crew really need defending against a malevolent employer whose original offer they would now love to accept.

fincastle84

19th Jun 2010, 15:02

I see that BA are advertising for more employees to volunteer for CC training to provide cover in the event of further IA to help maintain a 100% long haul service.

This offer has been extended to include US employees. The noose is tightening around Bassa's collective necks.:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

fincastle84

20th Jun 2010, 05:29

We've always found BA's US employees to be most friendly & professional. I suppose that it helps that they suffer very little exposure to the Bassamentalists!

Mrs Fin returned yesterday NCE-LHR & she & her boss both remarked on the extremely friendly CC on both flights. Thanks BA.

dilldog01

20th Jun 2010, 07:29

I am inclined to think that this dispute will feature in future Unite union rep training seminars for many years to come as an example of how absolutely not to conduct a dispute with an employer

ChicoG

20th Jun 2010, 08:17

call100

20th Jun 2010, 16:42

I am inclined to think that this dispute will feature in future Unite union rep training seminars for many years to come as an example of how absolutely not to conduct a dispute with an employer
No need. Believe me, there are many within Unite that would not conduct themselves in the manner of BASSA. Many of us would have had this done and dusted moons ago and with a positive outcome for both sides.
One of the down sides of the 'Super Unions' (I'm no fan) is that one Union gets the blame, no matter what sector they are representing. BASSA fell in from the old T&G camp. They were always known to be militant in their make up. More noticeable now that militancy is so yesterday. Unions should work in partnership, not conflict with employers.
That does not mean disputes won't occur. It just means there will not be any confusion as to what the issues are and that you will probably have your membership with you.....
As I've said before...Both sides have little to be proud of in this particular dispute...

AA SLF

20th Jun 2010, 18:20

CaptJ

20th Jun 2010, 19:51

AA_SLF

Yes and well might you wonder about a union that appears to believe that it can with-hold the right to manage a company.

But no the "i" word is now being bandied around by a number of weak-minded individuals who are trying, desperately, to make sense of the mess that they have gotten themselves into.
Individuals that -
1. Ignored important briefings from their employer.
2. Trusted BASSA to look after the best interests of the union rank and file.
3. Believed that they could hold out indefinitely against change.

Painted themselves into a corner. Now, they try to rationalise the situation they find themselves in. Try to find someone else to blame for their own lack of foresight. (or Stupidity as we know it in the real world)

widebody69

20th Jun 2010, 20:22

Been reading the "CC only" thread since back last Oct-09. I am just amazed about this "so very British" concept of "IMPOSITION" - the idea that Company Management can NOT BE ALLOWED to manage the Company without the approval of the employees. "Imposition" - the British concept that Unions are the ONLY ALLOWABLE Managers in a British company.

I am also amazed that BASSA supporters are still going on about "imposition" being illegal - this after a Court ruling that THIS imposition was LEGAL. What is it about the British mentality that denies the FACT of the Courts ruling making THIS imposition legal?

I think this point would have a huge impact in any legal challenge to the removal of staff travel. We're not talking about a 3rd world employer here, we're talking about a respected and much sought after employer, who has already agreed similar terms with the vast majority of its employees, an employer for which a court has already ruled that their actions which led to the strike - imposition etc. - were actually correct and legal.

You couldn't imagine the same court saying the removal of a perk was vindictive and wrong, given the reasons for the strike were against the courts ruling.

wowzz

20th Jun 2010, 21:43

I am not allowed on the BA crew forum [quite rightly as I am only SLF] but there have been a number of threads about cc upgrades on staff travel, although I admit to being a little bewildered as to how this impacts on the current industrial unrest [although on reflection, does anyone still know why some cc are still wanting to strike?]
Anyway, my point is this -when Mrs Wowzz and I flew back from TPA earlier this year, we were checking in at the same time as a gentleman and his wife on the adjoining desk. He stated that he was BA staff, flying on staff travel, and was wanting to know if he could be 'upgraded' from economy.
I have no idea if he got his request, but my point is this - Mrs Wowzz and I paid extra to fly WTP - why should this gent and his wife ask for an upgrade purely because he works for BA. In my travels I have always believed in the adage that you get what you pay for - if you want to fly Club, pay for it! If you want cheap staff travel, you sit at the back!
I have no issue with this gent and his wife gettng a cheap flight, as a perk of the job, but in my opinion all full fare paying customers should be first in line for upgrades, not BA employees.
[And just to make this clear, this applies to all airline workers, not just BA]
Sorry Mods - thread drift!

Hartington

20th Jun 2010, 22:05

Wowzz, while I agree with you you only have to look around forums to find people asking how they can find a free upgrade - usually paying passengers.

As an aside, it was once suggested to me that WTP was created (at least in part) to provide an upgrade for economy passengers. The feeling apparently being that the enormous difference between economy and club was genrating demands for upgrade and that if the upgrade was "only" to WTP it might dampen demand.

I think it's also appropriate to point out that some staff travel is undertaken on the basis of an economy booking with upgrade on departure if available; is it possible that's what you heard?

TrakBall

20th Jun 2010, 22:37

As a former employee of a US airline, our tickets were always on a standby basis. It was not usual to be placed in a higher class cabin than we had originaly requested because of space availability. However, we always paid the higher service charge for that cabin.

Conversely, I was denied boarding on flights because they had not catered with enough meals - even though there were available seats.

Staff travel was a wonderful thing and it allowed me to see and experience people and places that I would not have had a chance to do otherwise but like life itself, there were no guarantee you'd get a seat on the plane.

Sorry mods if this is too off topic but with the discussion both here and the CC thread about staff travel, I thought people might be interested in some background.

TB

Litebulbs

20th Jun 2010, 22:40

No need. Believe me, there are many within Unite that would not conduct themselves in the manner of BASSA. Many of us would have had this done and dusted moons ago and with a positive outcome for both sides.
One of the down sides of the 'Super Unions' (I'm no fan) is that one Union gets the blame, no matter what sector they are representing. BASSA fell in from the old T&G camp. They were always known to be militant in their make up. More noticeable now that militancy is so yesterday. Unions should work in partnership, not conflict with employers.
That does not mean disputes won't occur. It just means there will not be any confusion as to what the issues are and that you will probably have your membership with you.....
As I've said before...Both sides have little to be proud of in this particular dispute...

Absolutely fantastic post.

JackMcHammocklashing

21st Jun 2010, 00:00

As SLF not allowed to comment in CC forum

They question the removal of ST and state no other company can do it
Miners strikes only lost pay etc (wrong they lost free coal every month)

My company, you get to use the company car for personal use, Yes you do have to pay tax on your P11D for it but it is still a perk, and often has been removed for many reasons,
The same with the company Vans pay tax on P11D but a perk that can be removed and again has
(of course the tax obligation stops on the date it is removed)

The good guys get the van home pay the tax and run a thriving lift and shift service
The car drivers get personal use of the car just pay fuel for private travel
(abused as taxi service at weekends) or just the joy of a car and just pay the fuel
The offenders lose the perk, they park the vehicles up in the work compound, and make their own way home, in some cases sixty miles, on top of having to return to the work after the shift, not just as before adjusting your trip to finish near home

The above perks are good, but worth nothing like ST with BA and even more significant when the average salary is £17k py

If SLF could only post over there and show them where their bread is well buttered

Fully qualified ARTISAN £17k pa working shifts over weekends and evenings use of company vehicle,which can be removed at companies discretion, the high light an evening in Methil Docks, and the annual holiday screwed by Militant CC

Jack McH

AlpineSkier

21st Jun 2010, 06:06

@Litebulbs

You seem to be sliding into using a standard BASSA tactic here : namely continuing to repeat a claim after it has demonstrably been proven wrong ( BASSA's 63 million pnds offered cost-savings being pre-eminenent ).

The imposition being discussed has been judged by the High Court to be non-contractual, so why do you apparently seek to ignore this by raising the red-herring of contract law when responding to AA SLF ?

johnoWhiskyX

21st Jun 2010, 06:50

@JackMcHam..

Exactly, the strikers seem to be putting their fingers in ther ears going " lalalala" when their very cushy terms and pay are looked compared to real people.
The governments cuts on Public Service will make BASSA's crying seem even more ridiculous. Civil servants on free pensions and huge wages are not the same as public services, emptying your bins, fixing your roads.

scotbill

21st Jun 2010, 07:05

Contract law. Do you have contracts in the colonies?

Being patronising or even (as here) actually offensive is not a legitimate form of debate.

Basically this dispute has been about who runs the airline - the Board or BASSA.
BA shareholders (and apparently most of the staff) want it to be the Board.

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 08:29

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 08:37

Contract law. Do you have contracts in the colonies?

Being patronising or even (as here) actually offensive is not a legitimate form of debate.

I note that you made no comment about the content of the original post. So very British probably stems from colonial times.

LD12986

21st Jun 2010, 08:40

Litebulbs - The court had to rule on the contract law issue because it was put forward by Unite! The High Court had no difficulty in (as expected) finding in favour of BA. Unite's appeal to the Court of Appeal on this issue is yet another complete waste of time and money. BASSA and Unite would do better to accept that they've learnt a hard lesson not to stonewall the company.

42psi

21st Jun 2010, 08:53

As someone who has been a manager involved in the removal of "perks" from employees in the past I'd like to make the following observation:

Perks are an employers method of demonstrating it's appreciation of "goodwill" from employees.

The employer reciprocates this "goodwill" by allowing easements or additions to the strict requirements of the working relationship.

The provision of these "perks" is not contractural and is subject to removal at the whim or choice or either party ....... for example, no-one is compelled to actually use staff travel concessions when flying !

I've been involved in the removal of some perks from some staff when they refused to flexibly work in a manner that was normally done but was beyond contractural requirements.

The perk was removed only for those staff who had refused to work flexibly and who made it clear they intended to continue with that approach.

They were informed that in doing so the company considered they were withdrawing their goodwill from the working relationship and so the company would not continue to allow them to benefit from the perks which were the return of that goodwill.

The employees and the union tried to claim that this action was breaking an unwritten contract and was also discrimination against those individuals.

They got nowhere on both of these claims.

It's my understanding that their legal advice was that:

"perks" are not contractural (sound familiar?)

if an individual or groups clearly act in a way which inconveniences or costs their employer then the employer is at liberty to withdraw it's goodwill (perks) from only those who have acted in such way.

It is not discrimination to continue offering perks to employees who continue to demonstrate their expression of goodwill towards the company.

In my case it was made clear to the group that the company would be prepared to return the perks, but only after a period of time when the company considered they had seen sufficient examples of goodwill being demonstrated.

To me it seems that BA have done the correct thing with staff travel, the strikers clearly have no intention/wish to give BA their "goodwill" ... the company should not (you could argue cannot!) reciprocate .....

Equally, once these staff return to work and have demonstrated their goodwill to the company then the perk gets returned.

Should they return to work but continue to "work to contract" then there would be no obligation for the company to return any perk as "goodwill" would clearly still not being demonstrated.

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 08:55

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 09:00

Looking at what you have said, it would appear that the people involved were carrying out unofficial action short of a strike, which could have all sorts of consequences, especially if flexible working was either an express or implied term of their contract.

Boxkite Montgolfier

21st Jun 2010, 09:09

Litebulbs

May I enquire as to whether you are are current BA staff?

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 09:17

No I am not.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 10:10

This back and forth...and then back and forth discussion about staff travel can be interesting but there are a few absolutes in play.

Can BA remove Staff Travel from striking cabin crew members? Yes. The proof is in the fact that they have done so.

Was BASSA correct in telling their members that they would have Staff Travel back in "five minutes" if it was removed. No. My watch says they missed that call.

Will the removal of Staff Travel stand an examination of a Court hearing? No one knows because the only party that has an interest in such a hearing has failed and/or refused to bring an action forth on behalf of their members.

The fact that neither BASSA or Unite have done so should be of concern to those Cabin Crew who have lost staff travel due to their reliance upon their Unions' representations.

Any member deciding to participate in future IA should do so with the sure knowledge that BA can and will withdraw this perk and it will stay withdrawn for more than the "five minutes" BASSA represented.

fincastle84

21st Jun 2010, 10:11

For those who have asked - No, Litebulbs is not cabin crew, or serving BA staff. However, he is employed by an airline, as an LAC and is therefore eligible to contribute to this thread.

This is a response from a Mod on the CC thread.

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 10:28

Absolutely agree with all of your last post.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 11:09

BA may receive notice of another strike ballot today.

Unite plans third holiday strike, blaming 'vindictive' British Airways | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/20/unite-plans-third-holiday-strike-british-airways)

I'm not sure that this is the best way of protecting their members as the issues are:

1. Use of Temporary Cabin Crew;

2. Disciplinary procedures against BASSA members;

3. Demand for return of full Staff Travel privileges.

Rather than demand that their members, following one lengthy round of strikes, undergo another with the associated loss of income, staff travel, etc., why isn't Unite/BASSA asking for a Court to rule regarding the use of temporary crew and staff travel?

Both issues could be heard on their merits without undue pain being felt by members.

As for the disciplinary procedures they have a built in appeals process that can be applied as needed.

It seems as if BASSA and Unite may have lost sight of the end goal, which is to GAIN THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULT FOR YOUR MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE. Rather than continuing to try to inflame the emotions of a militant minority with ancillary issues that can be solved in other arenas the priority for BASSA should be trying to gain back as much of the positives as possible that were contained in the initial offer of last year.

TrakBall

21st Jun 2010, 11:35

Diplome,

Rationally you are correct that BASSA should be looking after the best interest of all their members but that has not been the case for over a year now. What seems to be the driving motivation of this union is to maintain the power they have OVER their member's lives by maintaining their grip on the operational structure of BA IFCE.

Unfortunately since that lies at the heart of the dispute, I don't see any resolution is ever possible. You are completely correct that they are balloting over issues that should and could be litigated - except of course they would probably suffer the same defeats of previous court appearances.

Even a failed ballot won't resolve the issue because the union has vowed to wage guerilla war on the company.

TB

Tigger4Me

21st Jun 2010, 12:14

A very interesting post Baggersup and a point that has me baffled too. OK, so membership is decreasing and sits at 9811 today according to the BASSA website. But why is it decreasing so slowly? Why are these people hanging on in there and what do they honestly hope that BASSA could ever do for them in the future?

According to an article in the Guardian today, Unite will soon be balloting it's, "11,000 members." Am I correct in assuming then that the balance of 1189 are members of Cabin Crew 89?

Snas

21st Jun 2010, 12:18

Rationally you are correct that BASSA should be looking after the best interest of all their members

If their members keep voting overwhelmingly in support of their ballots I think they would argue that they are doing just that.

TrakBall

21st Jun 2010, 12:29

Snas,

If BASSA had negotiated starting a year ago now, then the members would never had to vote on IA. That would have been looking out for their members.

TB

Snas

21st Jun 2010, 12:33

I’m not defending BASSA, far from it.

My point, perhaps clumsily expressed, is that it is the members that are equally responsible for dragging this lunacy out for they can put a stop to it at any time.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 13:01

The above comments all, in my opinion, contain some very valid observations.

At the beginning of this saga I had significant sympathy for Cabin Crew regarding the conduct of their leadership. At this point I'm rather of the mind that at times "You get the leadership you deserve".

For all the rhetoric from BASSA regarding Mr. Walsh he is actually one of the few in a leadership position who has conducted himself appropriately. Disagreement may be had regarding his decisions, but he has made and enforced those decisions in a respectful and businesslike manner.

Unite and BASSA on the other hand have been a virtual cornucopia of missteps.

We have all observed the failure of the Unions to properly negotiate on their members' behalf, the botched ballot, Ms. Malone's inappropriate postings, pornographic websites, text messaging during meetings, use of the term "guerilla tactics", and a Public Relations approach that selected horrendous images and messages to be put out to the public.

Significant damage has been done to the Cabin Crew's reputation by their own advocates and it is met with silence by many of BASSA's members. If someone who had considerable control over my employment terms behaved in such a manner I would be livid...yet so many of them seem to accept it as a matter of course.

I know some may object to this observation but its almost as if there is a core "Chav" culture in BASSA where professionalism and results matter less than noise and talking rough. Fascinating.

ChicoG

21st Jun 2010, 13:39

BA should actually start requiring university graduation as an entry level qualification (Before you bite, I can think of at least one flag carrier that mandates this). We're always hearing, after all, that the job is more difficult than we think.

In the current climate, I'm sure they would find an ample supply of unemployed graduates gnashing at the bit for a job.

And people with a better education may be better placed to understand the external factors that affect the well-being of their employer.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 13:40

...and as a timely example of how logic gets lost in the way of emotion Miss M posts this on the CC thread:

HiFlyer14

Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work. When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London. When language speakers were recruited from all over Europe, they were told that they could use ST. We could debate this as much as you like. You will still be insisting that they have not. I will be insisting otherwise.
(My husband has a company car. He is told that he can use it to drive to work. That does not mean that, if its non-contractual, it cannot be removed.
I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later. I don't think it will help once the dispute is over and everything has gone back to normal. As you are backing BA, you would probably get the support needed from them. And, no. I don't always feel proud of BASSA but they are also responsible for my terms and conditions, some of the best in the industry, which YOU are also enjoying at the moment. BASSA are not all bad. Why did you choose BA? You could have gone to BMI or Ryanair surely?
(I don't believe that the PCCC is looking for the "support" of BA. They are working towards forming an organization that can produce results for Cabin Crew. While it would be my preference that they step forward given BASSA leaderships' endorsement of "guerilla tactics" safety concerns are reasonable.)

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days.
(This is rather like a teenager saying to his parents "If you would just give me the car keys we wouldn't be arguing". They parents don't want the child to have the car....and the VAST majority of BA employees did not want BASSA to win the strike.)
Instead, we see that WW are desperately trying to break the strike by using any means possible. Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance. WW does not want to negotiate. It has never been part of his agenda. Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it. He has spent hundreds of millions on a strike which could have been easily avoided if he had wanted to. Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?
(This statement makes no sense. There was an offer on the table that contained a share scheme, extra ticket, etc..BASSA refused it. If BA didn't want you to have it they wouldn't have offered it.)

WW is responisble for this mess. Don't blame us for trying to protect our jobs and what we have. He won't be here forever whilst the rest of us are intending to stay here and create a career until we retire. WW has created such a misery in this company and we would be better off without him. IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.
(BASSA has not protected "what you have"...the offers now are less, BASSA has taken you backwards. BASSA has lost this strike and the imposition remains. As for Mr. Walsh not being "welcome in BA" the numbers say something quite different. A small group of militants may not like him but a significant majority have supported his actions. Agreement with BA and Mr. Walsh's actions is why the strike was lost and why BA kept flying.)

Reasoning like that used above is now why BASSA is forced to ballot over issues that ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

JuliaHayes

21st Jun 2010, 14:01

Longtime lurker. SLF not CC - hence here.

MissM also states "No-one wants to strike..........."

On the contrary, my dear, the fact that certain people wanted very much to strike seems to me to be at the heart of this. The fact that those self same people haven't a clue what to do now makes it even more painful to watch.

:ugh:

call100

21st Jun 2010, 14:21

rowan11

21st Jun 2010, 14:27

Apologies for going a little off thread, but I must correct you to the fact that Civil Service Pensions are free, they are not, it is little publicised but staff do make contributions, and there are 3 schemes operating, Classic, Classic Plus and Premium, and depending which scheme you are in determines what you pay in contributions.

Most Civil Servants around the country are youngsters not earning much more than £15K gross, and some not even that, they don't receive any perks, and have much the same difficulties to deal with each day as anyone else who has 'customers'.

Sorry to intrude on this thread, but having read a few references to free pensions in this debate, thought it time to enlighten - some of us were stupid enough to try and enhance our civil service pension by way of equitable life!!!!

Thank you for your indulgence.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 14:41

Hotel Mode

21st Jun 2010, 15:37

BA should actually start requiring university graduation as an entry level qualification (Before you bite, I can think of at least one flag carrier that mandates this). We're always hearing, after all, that the job is more difficult than we think.

May I disagree?! :) Some of the most rabid militants in our cabin crew are those who have such qualifications.

They are paid similar salaries to those they would get with their qualifications elsewhere but for a vastly better lifestyle. They are very much overqualified for the actual job, often only intended to do it "for a couple of years after Uni" but stayed. They have no chance of promotion/change, with the result that several years on they are now thoroughly sick of being treated as just another steward/ess by the airline and passengers when they think they are something better.

They are often the ones who think that BA crew are the best in the world, that LGW crew are of a lower grade entirely and wouldnt deign talk to a loco crew member.

Cabin Crewing (or indeed piloting) does not require a degree level qualification. Many do have one and many make the best use of their talents with businesses etc outside BA. Most dont and are frustrated or just plain bored.

call100

21st Jun 2010, 16:17

Call100:

I don't believe ChicoG was showing an "elitist " attitude. Not at all.

Though I am not sure I agree with his/her proposal I can see that in certain circumstances it has merit for an employer.
Sorry, but I see his implied logic of those with a degree would be the only ones to see the bigger picture as elitist. Happy to agree to disagree though.
It would be wise to look at the disputes in areas where a degree is held by a majority of employee's before making such an assumption however.
:)

Neptunus Rex

21st Jun 2010, 17:40

Looking at the number and frequency of her posts on 'The Other Forum,' does anybody else share my suspicion that 'Miss M' is not a person, but a group or committee of Bassamentalists? The consistency in style could be accomplished by using an editor (unemployed Arts graduate, perhaps) to keep it all in kilter.
I think we should be told!

johnoWhiskyX

21st Jun 2010, 17:42

I hope the posters on the other forum don't scare MissM away. She is the best weapon BA and working CC have in showing up the attitude and position of the stikers to members of the public.

Neptunus Rex

21st Jun 2010, 17:46

After the drubbing that Unite has had in the meeja of late, thanks mainly to their inability to control the wayward BASSA, they now need a victory to satisfy their supporters and their bruised egos.
The Unions' reaction to tomorrows cuts in public spending will be all the more vindictive as a result.

Thanks a bunch, BASSA.

fincastle84

21st Jun 2010, 20:11

The Unions' reaction to tomorrows cuts in public spending will be all the more vindictive as a result.

Disagree old buddy. With the loss of the patronage of their Labour puppet, Unite were always going to thrash around like a wounded animal just as they did when Maggie came to power.

Fortunately the Bassa dispute has served to warn the British public just how malicious & stupid the union movement can be. Bassa have done us a great favour in preparing us for the march of the dinosaurs.:ugh:

No doubt they will soon be joined by the rest of the rabble. Maybe I'll plan a vacation on some distant scented isle!

AlpineSkier

21st Jun 2010, 20:25

Tigger4Me

21st Jun 2010, 20:41

HiFlyer14 in post 156 over on the other thread is wondering of Miss M is actually Lizanne Malone. That could explain a lot. :ooh:

Lou Scannon

21st Jun 2010, 20:53

If it is Miss Malone, perhaps she can answer the oft repeated but not answered question about how many, if any, of the BASSA council actually went on strike and lost ST and income.

At the moment it sounds as if none of them did!

jetset lady

21st Jun 2010, 21:04

I think you are all seeing conspiracy theories where there are none.

As a non striking member of cabin crew for BA, I may not agree with Miss M's point of view but she comes across as pretty genuine to me. In fact, it's actually quite nice to have someone from the other side of the fence that doesn't just throw out the one liners and run.

But then again, what would I know with my inferior education! :rolleyes:

Landroger

21st Jun 2010, 21:08

I guess most of you also read the cc forum and will thus have read the offerings of Miss M, who is currently the major proponent of BASSA.

Having read all of the thread, I am astonished at how blatant a liar he/she is.

Many times this poster has been pulled up over either the amount of savings offered by BASSA or if they were permanent or not and he/she simply sails over them and drags up the same figures TIME AND TIME AGAIN at a later date ( as now see CC forum ).

He/she is apparently indoctrinated to full-cult level. KEEP your children at home.

Unusually her replies are reasonabaly literate - unlike most of the UNITE rubbish - but even so, one gets the impression that there is a schedule of BASSA posters for MIss M, WWW, and from times past A lurker and others I have forgotten.

Irrespective of the background personae, until this poster acknowledges that the BASSA initial "savings proposal " was misleading" and offered nothing lke the savings required they are a BASSA Trolll.

Just when I was beginning to wonder just why Miss M was so blinkered that she can admit of no failure by BASSA whatever, AlpineSkier posts the above which rang bells for me. Then, on the other forum, Highflyer14 appears to become rather exasperated at Miss M's constant reiteration of BASSA soundbytes and little substance.

............................................................ .................

............................................................ ............................

...................You also claim that the rest of us "enjoy" the achievements of BASSA. Wrong again. In the last 20 years or so, all the key agreements - long range agreement, midfleet, BEP 97, CSD talks, have all been negotiated by CC89/AMICUS. BASSA have either been on strike over them or refused to sign the relevant documents, even though they operate on them.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this "debate" when one side of it merely insists on repeating, parrot fashion, infathomable, unjustified statements.

Miss M..... Malone, I presume? Could that explain why you're so concerned about the Professional Cabin Crew Council? PCCC – Professional Cabin Crew Council (http://www.mypccc.co.uk)

The last paragraph appears to 'out' Miss M as Lizanne Malone, which makes so much sense, I am surprised the suggestion has not been made earlier. Events will probably prove me wrong, but it seemed to me "a hit, a palpable hit."

Roger.

MissM

21st Jun 2010, 21:26

Let's set one thing straight.

I am NOT Lizanne Malone.

Mariner9

21st Jun 2010, 21:30

Well Miss M has now denied that she's Ms Malone, but one might question her honesty given that she again repeated the £10 million saving lie in the same post. (Edit: in the official thread, not her post above)

Interesting that she posts nearly every afternoon until very late at night (UK time). Can't be working much at the moment. I wonder if she could be a BA CC off on long term sick based somewhere with a suitable timezone for her posts such as in the US? (perhaps LA?)

Litebulbs

21st Jun 2010, 21:33

Well Miss M has now denied that she's Ms Malone.........

And you could be Mr Walsh?

Mariner9

21st Jun 2010, 21:36

LOL Litebulbs, I wish I was!

Well Miss M seems adamant she's not Lizanne - fair enough, I'll accept her word on this.

Chuchinchow

21st Jun 2010, 22:18

Originally Posted by Mariner9 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/417709-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-ii-9.html#post5766746)
Well Miss M has now denied that she's Ms Malone.........

And you could be Mr Walsh?

You've all got it wrong.

"You are Lobby Lud and I claim the Daily Herald prize of £10"!

[Explanatory note for les jeunes:

'Lobby Lud' was a man hired by a daily newspaper to prowl along the promenades of British seaside resorts. A "photoshopped" picture of him appeared in the paper.

If someone went up to him, carrying that day's edition of the newspaper, and challenging him with the exact words quoted above, he/she would be rewarded accordingly.

Many men were startled to be accosted in that manner.]

Landroger

21st Jun 2010, 23:09

You've all got it wrong.

"You are Lobby Lud and I claim the Daily Herald prize of £10"!

[Explanatory note for les jeunes:

'Lobby Lud' was a man hired by a daily newspaper to prowl along the promenades of British seaside resorts. A "photoshopped" picture of him appeared in the paper.

If someone went up to him, carrying that day's edition of the newspaper, and challenging him with the exact words quoted above, he/she would be rewarded accordingly.

Many men were startled to be accosted in that manner.]

I believe the newspaper was the 'Western Gazette' and you sir, are showing your age! :eek: This was way back when I was a kid and thus early fifties!

Sorry Mods, off piste for a second. :uhoh:

Roger.

Diplome

21st Jun 2010, 23:54

Truly gentlemen (and ladies) is the issue really Ms. M's true identity?

Isn't the real issue that her/his statements are so easily refuted by the simple facts of the record?

I could care less if Ms. M is Ms. Malone or the Grinch that stole Christmas. The reality is that he/she's arguments are simplistic and without foundation.

Ancient Observer

21st Jun 2010, 23:59

It's late at night for me, so maybe I'm not reading properly.
Over on the CC thread, there was a flurry of contributions suggesting that the "striking" BA CC appear to be upset that not only can they no longer receive ST, they can now no longer vote themselves an upgrade.
If they want an onboard upgrade, only the Captain can authorise it.

These people really are a very long way from understanding Customer Service and the Paying Customer.

They really do not understand much about PR, either. My caricature picture of a BA CC CSD is becoming more and more like a caricature of a nineteenth century slum landlord, lording it over 2 sets of peasants - 1. The worker ants, who pay his salary from the union, and 2. The customers, who pay his salary from the Company..

Litebulbs

22nd Jun 2010, 00:13

The thing is Diplome, there still is a very large amount of employees that need to be convinced that they will only be worse off, by the same proportion as other groups.

Too much has been made about the T&C's of current LHR crew, when compared to other airlines. They have a contract, that was signed in good faith. Mr Walsh has said that no one will loose money. It seems such a simple statement, but people are not convinced. Why is that?

If the collective forces of pprune have not managed to convince one person, then another approach is needed. He/she has stood up to a barrage of criticism, but still maintained a presence to answer questions from anonymous posters. No doubt, this will not be an infinite presence on here. What purpose will it serve if MissM retires to the comfort of the BASSA or Crew forums? Unless people just want to rant. If that is the case, then you will just be talking to yourselves.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 00:16

Ancient Observer:

(By the way, I thought of your management opinions and smiled earlier today. They would have been quite appropriate).

I'm going to have to go back over posts...I may have missed your observations.

As a regular First customer I'm will admit to being a tad amazed to be learning through this dispute that the reason I may be waiting for service is due to a few Cabin Crew's friends, relatives, whatever...being invited to join the party.

Somehow that takes away a bit of the "special" experience.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 00:51

Litebulbs, in response to your post:

The thing is Diplome, there still is a very large amount of employees that need to be convinced that they will only be worse off, by the same proportion as other groups. (perhaps its my cocktail but I'm not sure what you are speaking of in this statement. What large amount of employees need to be convinced, about what issue?)

Too much has been made about the T&C's of current LHR crew, when compared to other airlines. They have a contract, that was signed in good faith. Mr Walsh has said that no one will loose money. It seems such a simple statement, but people are not convinced. Why is that?
(perhaps, its because BASSA has created an environment of "them against us" that they are unable to engage regarding the positive points of offers put on the table from BA. If one side of a situation has made the decison to demonize their opponents it makes it hard for any offer to be viewed as anything but a manipulation "coming from the enemy".)

If the collective forces of pprune have not managed to convince one person, then another approach is needed. He/she has stood up to a barrage of criticism, but still maintained a presence to answer questions from anonymous posters. No doubt, this will not be an infinite presence on here. What purpose will it serve if MissM retires to the comfort of the BASSA or Crew forums? Unless people just want to rant. If that is the case, then you will just be talking to yourselves.

(MissM is quite free to give her opinion regarding the ongoing dispute. However, simply because she represents BASSA's viewpoint, and there are few that will come on the board to do so, does not mean I should genuflect and say your ungrounded opinions are suddenly worthy. When facts can be refuted by history, statistics, etc., you don't get a pass simply because you are on the board spouting party (i.e. BASSA) lines.)

I'm quite ready to engage, but I am not willing to disregard reality in my opinions...nor am I willing to give someone a pass simply because they are giving a rather "the earth is flat" assertion when all knows that that is not the case.

Litebulbs

22nd Jun 2010, 01:11

I'm quite ready to engage, but I am not willing to disregard reality in my opinions...nor am I willing to give someone a pass simply because they are giving a rather "the earth is flat" assertion when all knows that that is not the case.

That is your prerogative and who am I to change that? My point is that what are you trying to achieve by your debate? Does it matter to you whether BA are successful in their restructuring programme?

At the end of the day, they are a service provider to the travelling public, nothing more. That is the same with Unite for me. If you have invested, then OK, but as a former employee, BA have my money too.

As you travel in First, then we probably will not play at the same golf course, so we are fundamentally different people. There will always be at least one cabin between me and you, if we fly together.

Reading what the CBI have stated today, will probably please you and definitely concern me. I am no flag waiving socialist, but I am not rich enough to not be concerned with developments in employment law. This dispute will be a game changer and I am on the wrong side of the mahogany desk.

Still, I do enjoy listening to opposite opinions and I am only too willing to learn.

etrang

22nd Jun 2010, 01:59

It hardly matters if "missM" is miss Malone or just someone who sounds like her. The fact is that she is one of a steadily dwindling number of BASSA extremists who will shortly be signing on (or whatever the appropriate term is in the US).

Willie Walsh has won all his battles and will soon end the war. Its all over, bar some shouting and crying.

johnoWhiskyX

22nd Jun 2010, 07:17

"It is not OUR fault that the public is against us. Blame WW and his so called management." from MissM.

Well as a member of the public, I would like to take this oportunity of telling you how deluded, petulant and childish that comment is. I am not attackng you personally, describing you in the same manner, but break down the comment and please tell me (the public/customer) why it isn't your fault, and why is it WW's and his management?
Is that the shareholders btw who tell willie what to do or management under Willie? and all of it or just a small section? and to what level?
I look forward to you alienating even more of your collegues with groundless ranting.

ChicoG

22nd Jun 2010, 08:13

"It is not OUR fault that the public is against us. Blame WW and his so called management."

It is COMPLETELY BASSA's fault that the public are against them. The public know they are paid very well, the public know they were not asked to sacrifice much, the public know they tried to screw passengers over Christmas, and are trying to screw up their summer holidays, for nothing more than MACHO PRIDE.

Oh yes, we blame BASSA alright!

Hipennine

22nd Jun 2010, 08:49

I don't belive that Miss M is Ms Malone, but on the basis of what he/she has said previously, IIRC:

- joined as CC straight from school, over 10 years ago, and saw BA as a "career" for life
- benefits from being on a part time contract
- can afford the expense and time of commuting from Dover to LHR

Attempting not to be patronising, I feel this points to a person whose only work-life experience began at an impressionable age, being inculcated into the BASSA parallel universe, and has never experienced anything else. The influence of that BASSA universe has been strengthened over the years by the inablity (for whatever reasons) of management to assert the influence of everybody else's earth-bound values, ethics, "normal" work environment etc within IFCE. Miss M is definitely more able to express the virtual reality of BASSA world better than many of his/her colleagues who live in the same world.

Unfortunately, for this dispute, there still seems to be too many who live in that world. They are not necessarily evil, ill-motivated or whatever description you might choose. They just cannot see that there is a different world that the majority of non BASSAmentalists actually live in.

BAAlltheway

22nd Jun 2010, 08:50

Not sure if i am going to regret this or not!

I am going to stick my nose above the parapet a little here. I am one of the much maligned "management" troops at BA. I cannot comment on how crew and crew friends/family behave on staff travel when upgraded. I do however, as a part of my package, get just two tickets a year with a First class priority- ie, if there are seats available in First on that flight, i can be moved to them, through purely official channels. Yes it is an amazing perk, and i totally do realise how much it is worth. It kind of makes up for the fact that i am probably earning somewhere between £12-£20k less than market rate for my job. That is why it is offered, to sweeten the deal. But sometimes there are no seats available and if so, no second chances on another day. If i am fortunate enough to be seated up front, i am very very mindful of the other customers there who have paid for their seats. The staff rule book is strict on dress code, and we are never to accept something that another customer might want. So no amenity kits, no sleeper suits. And when asked for my meal choices, if there are other customers yet to be asked, i ask for whatever wont be run out of, and leave it to the crew, and ask to be served last. If the wine i want isn't opened yet, i have something else. These things are pretty usual throughout the management community and are part of our rules.
So i hope that if i was ever on a flight with you, you would never be kept waiting on my account. In my book, the customer always should come first..

marchino61

22nd Jun 2010, 09:01

This pax allocates blame for the strike as follows:

BASSA - 100%
BA Management & volunteers - 0%

JuliaHayes

22nd Jun 2010, 09:33

MissM says she is not Lizanne Malone.

I want proof :ok:

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 09:45

BAAlltheway:

My post was poorly constructed...my apologies. What I was trying to convey was that I was (and am) surprised at the number of perks available to BA Cabin Crew...including all of these upgrades I keep hearing of.

It sounds that at times the paying customer must be in the minority on some flights.

It amazes me that so many feel so abused by BA when it seems to treat its employees pretty darn well.

ExecClubPax

22nd Jun 2010, 10:30

It is muted that today's emergency budget will contain measures to change airline passenger tax from a per seat to a per aircraft basis.

This could have major ramifications for BA and any other "full service" airline operating out of the UK. Clearly, the tax element would have to be passed on to the consumer as is the case now. No matter how full, the stated rate of APT for that aircraft will be payable. So, the amount of tax payable by a passenger on an aircraft operating in 4 class mode (many BA long haul flights) with low density seating could be much higher than that paid by a passenger flying with an airline operating a single or two class aircraft of the same type. So at a time when BA is struggling to increase its "premium" product, the Coliation Government is loading the ticket price such that J and First Class travel becomes unaffordable. So where does that leave BA which is already facing continuing IA and the prospect of no additional runway capacity at EGLL.

Perhaps this is another reason why UNITE/BASSA should wake up and consider the implications. If it intends to maintain the current cabin class structures, BA will have to ensure it operates its long haul flights with the highest possible load factors in order to minimise the impact of APT on its customers. In turn, it could mean the axing of some multi flight per day destinations such as KLAX for instance which gets 3. Reductions in services means less cabin crew required and in turn that could lead to composary redundancies.

The combination of an aviation-phobic Government, disaffected work force, cheaper working practices adopted by main competitors and no room for expansion at EGLL, makes it's hard to see a future for BA and its blinkered cabin crew.

Perhaps to offset this, BA will have to transfer its centre of operations to a European airport where APT is not so high, if payable at all. Again, the impact on UK based support industries and would be profound. I will be looking very closely to fly from Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt etc in the future in order to minimise the impact of this tax. At least EHAM, LFPG and EDDF can be reached by train.

winstonsmith

22nd Jun 2010, 11:12

Do you honestly think Lizanne Malone would have chosen such an obvious username as MissM on an open forum as this?

fincastle84

22nd Jun 2010, 11:12

Perhaps to offset this, BA will have to transfer its centre of operations to a European airport where APT is not so high, if payable at all.

In the light of the Iberia merger, may I add MAD to your list?

winstonsmith

22nd Jun 2010, 11:14

- joined as CC straight from school, over 10 years ago, and saw BA as a "career" for life
- benefits from being on a part time contract
- can afford the expense and time of commuting from Dover to LHR

I think you will find that MissM joined BA over 15 years ago! :ok:

Most of the crew who joined before '97 are on the old contract and usually on part time too - they earn more money than those who joined post '97 and are full-time.

But - that's the way it was!

TightSlot

22nd Jun 2010, 14:57

Enough already with the "is She, isn't She?" thing with MissM. You will never know for sure in an anonymous forum - Move on please

Snas

22nd Jun 2010, 17:15

Unite has today notified British Airways that it intends to open a ballot for strike action among Heathrow cabin crew. The ballot will open on Tuesday June 29 and close on Tuesday July 27, raising the prospect of strikes at Heathrow during the busy summer period.

A question for those more informed than I...

Is such a ballot lawful? Excluding the Gatwick crew like this?

PAXboy

22nd Jun 2010, 17:42

marchino61This pax allocates blame for the strike as follows:

BASSA - 100%
BA Management & volunteers - 0%
Not quite so fast to exonerate BA mgmt.

Yes some of this BA mgmt are now fixing the problem but there will be some of the old school still knee deep in Waterside.

Then there is 30 years of BA mgmt AND Boards of Directors AND Chairmen who failed dismally to prepare the company for the future. They are retired (some dead) some have knighthoods and most have a goodly amount of money to see them through to the grave or the golf course. :*

Mariner9

22nd Jun 2010, 18:02

Absolutely agree Baggers.

I'd thought that perhaps LGW BASSA members had been hanging in there to vote the next idiotic IA down. But now they're being excluded.

They really should resign en-masse.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 18:04

Is Gatwick crew a separate entity from Heathrow in terms of their representation by BASSA?

Is BASSA allowed to cherry pick who can vote? Interesting.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 18:34

Baggersup:

Good post.

If I was a BASSA member at Gatwick right now I would be absolutely infuriated with my union. How are BASSA going to defend their actions to these members?

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 18:42

Baggersup:

The problem I see regarding the PCCC relates to this line:

Gatwick crew urgently need to sign up to the Professional Cabin Crew Council at www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk/) so that they can once again gain a voice in all of this.

Unfortunately they, as I understand it, would gain no voice as PCCC aren't speaking.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 19:19

An interesting excerpt from the article in the Telegraph

Should the ballot endorse further walkouts, Unite is set to switch tactics and embark on guerrilla action aimed at disrupting BA without hitting its members’ pockets.
This would mean a series of sporadic one-day strikes which, in some cases, would then be called off at the last minute.
Privately union sources have admitted that their members cannot afford a series of prolonged stoppages such as the series of five-day strikes earlier in the summer.

BA faces fresh strike threat - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7847614/BA-faces-fresh-strike-threat.html)

What Unite and BASSA fail to understand is this sort of threat is exactly why BA cannot deal with them with any sense of mutual trust.

They aren't speaking of striking...they are speaking of using the threat of the strike to damage the airline.

LD12986

22nd Jun 2010, 19:36

Unite still has to give 7 days' notice of any strikes. Giving notice of a strike and then calling it off would be futile. The company would have to make contingency plans and cabin crew would still lose earnings from allowances for cancelled trips unless trips were reinstated at the last minute, thus reducing their willingess to engage in further action.

BASSA is in denial. It's game over.

johnoWhiskyX

22nd Jun 2010, 22:27

I would certainly be happy to sport "backing BA" luggage tags ect in whatever form.

Whilst crew might not be able to, i see no reason why a passenger can't.

Diplome

22nd Jun 2010, 22:29

baggersup:

I agree it was a good post. I will admit to some frustration as I believe having a reasonable face put on BA Cabin Crew through someone in PCCC would create much goodwill and assure the public that not only haven't all BA Cabin Crew gone crazy (so to speak) but that the majority wish to operate with the customer as the priority.

It would go a long way in helping to restore the BA brand.

That being said I do understand the risk they are undertaking and it seems they are doing much to provide a positive direction for Cabin Crew even now.

marchino61

23rd Jun 2010, 01:42

Baggersup

Why not suggest that PCCC gets merchandise made up for non-CC to purchase?

That would allow pax to contribute in a small way without the dangers you referred to if outsiders donate cash. It's a purchase, not a donation.

ChicoG

23rd Jun 2010, 06:06

Regarding BASSA's supposed exclusion of LGW from the ballot: It strikes me (excuse the pun) that by excluding a large sector of membership who could sway the vote, they are in fact manipulating the ballot. On this basis the following may be useful to LGW BASSA members who are disappointed in this action:

The law also gives union members a statutory right to restrain their union from inducing them and others to take any industrial action without the support of a properly conducted ballot. This statutory right is described more fully in the section Industrial action ballots of Industrial action and the law: a guide for employees and trade union members - Regulatory Guidance.

Regarding the ballot itself, the following may also be helpful:

Notice of the ballot and sample voting paper for employers

The union must take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that any employer who it is reasonable for the union to believe will be the employer of any of its members who will be entitled to vote receives certain information in advance of the intended opening day of the ballot (i.e. the first day when a voting paper is sent to any person entitled to vote), as follows:

* Not later than the seventh day before the intended opening day, written notice

o stating that the union intends to hold the ballot;
o specifying the date which the union reasonably believes will be the opening day of the ballot;
o provides a list of the categories of employee to which the affected employees belong, figures on the number of employees in each category, figures on the numbers of employees at each workplace, the total number of affected employees; together with an explanation of how these figures were arrived at. However, these lists and figures do not necessarily need to be supplied in full in situations where some or all of the employees pay their union subscriptions by deduction from pay at source e.g. through “check off” or “DOCAS “ systems. In such circumstances, the notice must contain either:
1. those same lists, figures and explanations as set out above; or
2. such information as will enable the employer to readily deduce the total number of employees affected, the categories of employee to which they belong, the number of employees concerned in each of those categories, the workplaces at which the employees concerned work and the number of them at each of these workplaces.

The “employees affected” are those whom the union reasonably believes will be entitled to vote in the ballot.

Which begs the obvious question: Why do BASSA think its members at Gatwick are not entitled to vote? Or is it simply punishing them for their lack of support over "imposition"?

And another little nugget that might come in handy later:

An employer may re-employ a worker dismissed during strike action on whatever terms the employer chooses, providing the same terms are offered to all the employees who were dismissed. During the 3 months following dismissal, an employer cannot selectively re-employ some workers and not others but after the 3 months are up, the employer has the right to choose who he/she re-employs if necessary.

wascrew

23rd Jun 2010, 07:47

What I am struggling to understand now is how BA can continue to operate and expect passengers to have confidence in the brand (basically have trust to book seats knowing their flight will not be affected by strike action) and continue to allow BASSA/UNITE to sow this cloud of uncertainty again.

So why no closure by BA?

When is the time for WW to go down the SOSR route?

Surely it must be soon!

ChicoG

23rd Jun 2010, 08:24

It's very simple. BASSA have to give a week's notice of any strike. BA can simply roster non-striking cabin crew for those days and not roster those people they know are likely to strike. If the strike is cancelled, they will still have adequate cover, and the would-be strikers will still lose out on the allowances they could have earned.

They will fly 100% of LH services, strikers will lose yet more money, and eventually the will to keep missing out on both your salary and lucrative LH trips will reduce the number of strikers until Bedfont is Holley and the few remaining idiots that believe in him and MAYBE some of his BASSA rep cronies (many of whom will be off sick or flying because they don't want to lose their staff travel, oh no!).

ExecClubPax

23rd Jun 2010, 11:18

WasCrew. Mr Walsh has no need to take any precipitive action.

Tactically, he doesn't want to give UNITE/BASSA any fig-leaf to hide behind by issuing new contracts under SOSR. All he needs do is keep the profit making side of the operation going with those who don't strike, volunteers and soon a host of temps. This way, we makes good on his pledge to operate 100% or long haul, most of the short haul and 100% of flights from Gatwick and City.

In doing this, he keeps faith with his customers and builds confidence in future bookings with the airline. By sidelining the strikers he also keeps faith with those cabin crew members loyal to BA. This would provide good PR for BA. UNITE/BASSA, straved of the oxygen of confrontation have no where to go.

Those who strike this time around will probably be de-rostered for the duration of the strike period losing out on flying allowances etc. BA would have to fork out basic pay but the airline can claim with justification the needs of its customers come first and these employees cannot be relied upon to turn up when rostered for flight. Afterall, UNITE/BASSA's words regarding the taking of guerilla action will come back to haunt them. Many of those striking are "hobby-jobbers" on reduced contracts so the overall cost would be reduced commensurately.

On another issue. It interests me to see the basis upon which UNITE/BASSA intend to strike this time - partly, because the airline used other staff to keep the flights going whilst Union members were breaking their contracts to strike. Is it really the case that the union feel their members can withdraw their labour with impunity, and their employer is not allowed to protect itself by taking emergency measure to keep flights in the air and serve its customers? I doubt that argument will garner much support in the current economic climate.

Neptunus Rex

23rd Jun 2010, 12:02

Back in the '70s, there was a NATO 'Paper War' exercise with the scenario of a confrontation with the Warsaw Pact forces. It had got to the stage where a massive airlift of men and materiel from the USA had been 'implemented.' The arriving aircraft and their cargo had to be handled by Germal civilian labour. Some bright spark Staff Officer from Camberley sent an exercise input that the Germans had gone on strike. Within minutes the reply came from German High Command:
"The ringleaders have been shot; the rest of the labour force is back at work with renewed vigour."

Boxkite Montgolfier

23rd Jun 2010, 12:04

I think the time has arrived to lance the boil of industrial militancy more aggressively. Surely by now BA have identified likely strikers for the next bout of industrial action. Why not roster these people on a selective basis and provide reliable backup for their non appearance?
The strikers will experience a negative financial impact both for pay and allowances and the customer can expect a proper service which pro BA staff are wishing to provide.

bizdev

23rd Jun 2010, 12:27

This might be a complete red herring but under the "Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003" Regulation 7 - an Employment Business (Manpower Agency) may not provide a temporary worker to replace an individual taking part in industrial action.

Now this applies to employment agencies but I do not know how this applies to individual companies sourcing their own temporary labour whether internally or externally (if at all).

bizdev

Neptunus Rex

23rd Jun 2010, 15:37

From that other forum:
Tiramisu
if you do move to Mixed Fleet, you cannot be a member of BASSA/AMICUS.Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea to exclude the BASSA epsilon minuses from Mixed Fleet, but how does it work?

Dawdler

23rd Jun 2010, 16:46

I think there is now statement from Bassa (on the other forum) that Gatwick is now to be included in the ballot. Still not sure what the question will be thought.....

Ancient Observer

23rd Jun 2010, 16:47

Bizdev,
That's a red herring.
BA can deploy their own staff as they think fit. They can employ anyone they like extra on any basis (eg temp or perm).

On the new mixed fleet, I really do hope that they get the management of this right. Like - NONE of the existing managers with their failures over 30 plus years. Get some Tesco/Dulux/Asda managers in.

fincastle84

23rd Jun 2010, 17:01

The introduction of mixed fleet proves the utter contempt that BA now have for the Bassa mob. They are obviously considered as being irrelevant to BA's future progress. I can't imagine why Unite are wasting money on yet another useless ballot. Save it for your next wasted conflict against public sector job cuts, another battle that they will lose.

LD12986

23rd Jun 2010, 18:07

So will the launch of Mixed Fleet push BASSA into agreeing a deal with BA to secure agreement with the company on its implementation? Or will BASSA use this to push any voters thinking if voting No in the next ballot to vote Yes?

Desk Jockey

23rd Jun 2010, 18:43

From that other forum:
Tiramisu
Quote:
if you do move to Mixed Fleet, you cannot be a member of BASSA/AMICUS.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea to exclude the BASSA epsilon minuses from Mixed Fleet, but how does it work?

It doesn't

Direct.gov

Refusal of employment for trade union membership reasons

In order to start work, no employer or employment agency may require you to:

join a trade union
leave a trade union
be a member of a specific trade union
become a member of a different trade unionNor are they allowed to advertise a job with a requirement that you do any of those things.

kenhughes

23rd Jun 2010, 21:47

DJ

But the advertisement was for internal transfer to mixed fleet, so the "In order to start work" aspect of that paragraph would appear to be null and void?

Pohutu

23rd Jun 2010, 22:01

The Direct.gov site that Desk Jockey quotes goes on to say

Other unfavourable treatment for a trade union membership reason

Treating you unfavourably includes, for example, refusing you promotion or training opportunities, or withholding a pay increase.
If you are a trade union member your employer must not treat you unfairly in order to deter you from:

joining a trade union
taking part in its activities
making use of the services it provides to its members
leaving itwhich seems to cover the point. I wonder whether the truth of the matter is that, whilst an employee of the new Mixed Fleet could be a member of BASSA / Unite, there will be no union recognition and therefore no collective bargaining rights.

slf22

24th Jun 2010, 05:56

I wonder whether the truth of the matter is that, whilst an employee of the new Mixed Fleet could be a member of BASSA / Unite, there will be no union recognition and therefore no collective bargaining rights.

That quote specifically says BASSA/Amicus and doesn't mention Unite. Are BASSA/Amicus trade unions in their own right? Or are they branches of Unite? If the latter is the case then BA are saying you can't be a member of the branch. Which would get around the TU discrimination point.

I was also wondering if this wasn't something to do with the collective bargaining agreements that are already in existence.

call100

24th Jun 2010, 07:34

Amicus is the other Union that joined with T&G to form Unite........Bassa are from the old T&G camp.:sad:

johnoWhiskyX

24th Jun 2010, 07:38

It could be a ploy to open the door for PCCC as the negotiating body for mixed fleet.
I don't know if PCCC could be and affiliated branch like BASSA is. WW is an old union man and i wouldn't be surprised if some advice was forthcoming on the ins and outs of union affiliation. WW doesnt want unions destroyed..just the bassa loonies.

Someone on the other forum asked a question about the new recruitment for mixed fleet. Specifically why ex temps did not have to make an application, but were being invited back for assesment, but existing temps had to apply.

Err, am i thinking the obvious, that inviting back for assesment will be for those ex temps who were outstanding and allmost certainly not contaminated by bassa, and any bassa bod's currently emplyed can be weeded out by the application process.

But of course that would be discriminatory and wouldnt possible happen:ok:

Desk Jockey

24th Jun 2010, 10:06

DJ

But the advertisement was for internal transfer to mixed fleet, so the "In order to start work" aspect of that paragraph would appear to be null and void?

BA will not only recruit internally for new fleet will they?

ChicoG

24th Jun 2010, 13:57

Maybe it's only me, but if BA can recruit cabin crew at these much reduced rates, it ought to send a message to the old hands on inflated salaries that they need to justify their much larger packages.

I'm not doubting or criticising for a minute the added value that comes with experience. There will doubtless be many long serving cabin crew whose experience is vital to the smooth running of the operation.

However, not everyone chooses to learn from experience, and certainly it's my belief that there are plenty that benefit from the rewards of "seniority" when all they've really done is hang around doing the same average (or worse) work and benefited from a structure that rewards them just by being there for another year.

What news of these new entry level positions should do is encourage the long timers to amply demonstrate why their years of experience are of extra value to the organisation and justify their packages.

What it will do to many of them is make them look over their shoulders and go running to BASSA for protection that they don't deserve.

Perhaps there is a correlation between the number of strikers and the number of surly, unhelpful BA cabin crew reported on many forums, and which appears supported by many people here and elsewhere who have reported an enjoyable flying experience when they are not around?

jetset lady

24th Jun 2010, 14:33

If the latter is the case then BA are saying you can't be a member of the branch. Which would get around the TU discrimination point.

I don't know for sure but I suspect it's far more likely that Unite have said that they will not represent anyone from New Fleet rather than that BA have said there will be no recognition.

Thunderbug

24th Jun 2010, 15:21

BA have said that New Fleet will be represented by a different set of Reps to those which represent Worldwide & Eurofleet. So this could be BASSA, but different elected reps, a new union under the Unite umbrella or a completely new outfit such as PCCC.

Basically it is an effort to get new blood and stop the old militant BASSA from infecting New Fleet. Can you imagine Miss Malone & Duncan Holley represented New Fleet? You can that they have done such a good job at LGW and the regions! :ugh:

air pig

24th Jun 2010, 16:07

Just spoken to someone who went to Madrid and back a couple of weeks ago by BA with a group of people. No flight from MCR to LHR so was transfered by coach to LHR, even worse on return from Madrid, two hour delay to LHR missed MCR connection, transfered to LGW by coach for MCR flight> Nightmare experience both ways. Another couple of people last night BA lost their luggage on tranfer at LHR, very poor staff service and communication, and you wonder why BA is losing money. Comment from first person " WILL NEVER FLY BA AGAIN."

Emirates made last year the same amounts in profit as BA lost, BASSA need to wake up or see their employer die and their jobs with it.

F3G

24th Jun 2010, 16:39

I'm back under a slightly different handle, due to problems with my old account, which works for all fora, bar three.

So my comment on the previous point

BASSA need to wake up or see their employer die and their jobs with it.

Not just BASSA, for they are not the sum of all evil, just part of it.

I spent quite a lot of a client's money on a one way LCA to LHR flight in Club Europe last week and have to say it was a shocking experience.

700€ and .....

No priority boarding
An aircraft (767) that was like a museum piece, e.g. flickering overhead CRT screens
No pre flight drink
No hot towels
Horrible 'canapes' consisting of small pieces of bread with topping (why not nice nuts like EK?)
33" seat pitch (compared to 40" and foot rests on the CY JED/RUH/LCA segments
Lousy meals, I declined mine and so did a number of other people
A CSD who never spoke to me and seemed to prefer to talk with BA staff travellers
Very inattentive service - e.g. no drinks, not even a water round for 2 hours after the meal (had to use the call bell and it took 10 mins to answer, even though several CC were about - belt sign was on, so I had to rely on the bell)
Remote stand arrival at LHR, total circus with C and Y crammed into a coach
The behaviour of some of the groundstaff was really unprofessional, whooping at their friends 'Oh My God, is that really you......." It's nice to see your friends, but is this the way to behave in front of the customers?All in all (even though it was not my money) I felt ripped off.

As other forum members will know, I have gone out of my way to balance attacks on BA ground service by complementing the Club World service, which has never disappointed me.

But after this experience, no more Club Europe for me, I could have bought a discounted economy ticket for 120€ - next time I'll buy 2, take my own food and water and pocket the difference.

One cannot blame BASSA for the product.

Ancient Observer

24th Jun 2010, 17:00

I've just had a quick skim through the BA CC thread to look for some ideas for a very serious ballot.
As long term readers will know, I've been making my opinions known about this set of issues for over a year now.
I think we're at a point where there are some real crunch issues.

A big ballot is required.

"Are you prpared to go on strike over the following issues?

1. That Chateau Lynch Bages that we liberate from First is just too heavy. We need a lighter wine for our sojourn at the BFC later this Summer.
2. The quality and "spare" stock of Champagne has gone down since 1973. It must be restored immediately.
3. I am no longer entitled to give my mates an upgrade to First when I feel like it. I have to ask the Captain. Seriously, who is running this airplane, darling?
4. BA now expect Reps to turn up for work. This is disgraceful.
5. BA now expect very experienced people like me to push a trolley. In 2007 I earnt £80,000. You really do not expect someone on £80,000 to push a trolley, do you?
6. For 30 years or more, BA have never meant what they said. Especially when it came to discipline. Now they do, and it really must stop. Now.
7. Last year, once, BA made me stay in a 41/2 star hotel in Central. That sort of slippage is the thin end of the wedge. We demand 5 star hotels.
8. That nasty Union Unite only lets us stay in 3 star hotels when we go to their dreary Conferences, or go to their awful courses. BA must fund us for 5 star hotels when we are on Union business.
9. BA want us to take shorter breaks. How on earth are we to take shorter breaks? I need my 8 hours sleep on my lovely NRT trips. Stop this nonsense now.
We look forward to your Vote in favour of Industrial Action."

PAXboy

24th Jun 2010, 18:43

ChicoGHowever, not everyone chooses to learn from experience, and certainly it's my belief that there are plenty that benefit from the rewards of "seniority" when all they've really done is hang around doing the same average (or worse) work and benefited from a structure that rewards them just by being there for another year.
Since this is what happens in EVERY line of work, commerce, trade, profession, govt and commercial that I have ever seen and worked in (30 years of it since I left college) then you can see why they think that they should be allowed to get away with it too.

Diplome

24th Jun 2010, 22:04

PAXboy:

Being married to the head of a rather significant entity here in the U.K., and owning my own business in the U.S., I can assure you that simply because you have managed to maintain pulmonary functioning in your position for a time certain is NOT going to bring you promotion in my world.

If New Fleet brings anything to BA, one of the issues I hoped to be addressed is the promotion of "common" simply because common has been there longer than capable.

JackMcHammocklashing

25th Jun 2010, 00:02

Are you aware, that among the 3 Million unemployed, there are around 80.000 attractive under 23 year olds, who would be more than happy to work for less than £12k per year, and staff travel would be an extra delight, After doing UNI getting a 2:1 degree Now flipping burgers, or indeed no employment at all

Indeed add another 200 thousand unemployed, who have left education,and would give anything to flip burgers, let alone travel the world and recieve payment for doing so, Would be more than happy to be given an extra tenner, for a fish supper in a foreign land whilst sleeping in a youth hostel before the flight back
They would not even attempt to ask for extra as the lock was broken, indeed many of the accomodations did not even have a door

Many work for coaching companies, and provide hostess service for 36hrs whilst traveling to Italy, or Croatia in return for an afternoon on the beach, and a lunch before starting the 36hr return journey on the same coach all for £10k per year and a suntan (10k as minimum wage not applicable outside the UK)

If the Royal Navy can teach an uneducated 15yearold, to fight crash on deck fires, and tween deck fuel fires, save lives and rescue, then I am sure you can do it to 21year old graduates (perhaps not today no CDF) Before they push the trolley up and down offering tea coffe, you fu coffee and duty free (though maybe need a little more training as on my last flight the CC had a problem that two pens at £12.60 each was not £30.30)

ie:- BA crew are not speshul anyone can do it, Visit brewers fayre, or wetherspoons, or cheap airlines, You WILL find quality people working for minimum wages

All these people are proud keen and clean, more than willing to work a hard shift, even more so for the prestige of working for BA

Offer the BA experience with EASYJET OR RYANAIR CREW and your fortunes are made

Jack McH

PAXboy

25th Jun 2010, 00:44

DiplomeBeing married to the head of a rather significant entity here in the U.K., and owning my own business in the U.S., I can assure you that simply because you have managed to maintain pulmonary functioning in your position for a time certain is NOT going to bring you promotion in my world.Sure, I'm not saying that I support people loafing around!! When I was a telecomms consultant in the 1990s/early 2000s, I was very frustrated by seeing people being paid high sums of money when they knew very little about their job! They had just hung in there long enough, not upset anyone and bumbled along. As long as they did not make any major foul ups - they stayed in place.

It's not how it should be but it's how it often is. The larger the company the more difficult it is to trap time servers and wastrels. If those staff are often away from base (almost any travel company but you can include drivers of vehicles for delivery who were only restricted when the Tachometer began law and other workers away from base) then you have a major managerial problem. Many, many, many companies fail in that task.

F3G

25th Jun 2010, 04:50

Being married to the head of a rather significant entity here in the U.K., and owning my own business in the U.S., I can assure you that simply because you have managed to maintain pulmonary functioning in your position for a time certain is NOT going to bring you promotion in my world.

In my world, I absolutely agree with you, Diplome, it's a meritocracy combined with a slippery pole - one wrong move and you can slide down a long way.

However, the concept of seniority is the curse of the airlines :ugh:

If mixed fleet will offer promotion based on merit, then that is a good thing.

But we will see.

Winch-control

25th Jun 2010, 05:14

So in light of the latest job offers from BA, is anyone else wondering why?

Why have BA not ended this? Why can they not end it?

ChicoG

25th Jun 2010, 08:48

So in light of the latest job offers from BA, is anyone else wondering why?

Why have BA not ended this? Why can they not end it?

Winch,

The fact that they can now do this with nary a murmur from the witless union lackeys is evidence to me that to all intents and purposes they already have.

:}

Papillon

25th Jun 2010, 09:03

Paxboy:

Sure, I'm not saying that I support people loafing around!! When I was a telecomms consultant in the 1990s/early 2000s, I was very frustrated by seeing people being paid high sums of money when they knew very little about their job! They had just hung in there long enough, not upset anyone and bumbled along. As long as they did not make any major foul ups - they stayed in place.

It's not how it should be but it's how it often is. The larger the company the more difficult it is to trap time servers and wastrels. If those staff are often away from base (almost any travel company but you can include drivers of vehicles for delivery who were only restricted when the Tachometer began law and other workers away from base) then you have a major managerial problem. Many, many, many companies fail in that task.

There may be a link in that telecoms is another privatised industry in this country. It certainly isn't the norm across the private sector. I arrived at BA from another airline some years ago, and both watching from the outside, and then from the inside, was completely aghast at the freeloading culture within. It wasn't and isn't just a question of cabin crew, it was throughout the company. I can distinctly remember looking around on a Friday afternoon and wondering where everyone had gone - it simply doesn't happen in most companies. They do have inevitable inefficiences, but Tesco (for example) absolutely do not tolerate this kind of thing.

Trying to change that culture is difficult to say the least. Truth is, BA don't help themselves in the long run with their determination to offer voluntary severance packages. The best staff are the ones that leave, the freeloaders tend to stay.

Tigger4Me

25th Jun 2010, 09:41

It does seem that Unite are only balloting LGW crew who took part in strike action:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/MESSAGE...W_STRIKERS.doc

Quote:
MESSAGE FOR ALL LGW STRIKERS

If you are a Gatwick crew member from either the BASSA or Amicus sections of Unite, and you took part in the recent industrial action, losing your staff travel, but, you have NOT YET claimed strike pay or have only claimed within the last 7 days, please email: ** ASAP.

This is to ensure you are included on the list of members to be balloted over the coming weeks

This has appeared over on the other thread. Now if you follow the link you will see that the email address mentioned is at a website 'lipstickandlaw.com'. The owner of that site claims to be a 34 year old 'air hostess' working 'for a very big airline, flying to wonderful destinations around the world. I am also studying for a Law Degree...'

If this is the person that has been advising BASSA throughout the dispute, perhaps she should consider another choice of degree. :}

Any suggestions?

Diplome

25th Jun 2010, 10:22

Ancient Observer:

Thank you for the smile. :)

..and ChicoG, I agree.

The only objection I'm reading from Unite regarding New Fleet is that they do not wish it to be separate, they want the crews integrated. BA is adamant they will not be mixed.

BA's position makes sense to me, especially after considering the difference in enthusiasm between Gatwick and LHR.

LD12986

25th Jun 2010, 11:31

New Fleet operating separately from the EF/WW fleets is essential to realise efficiencies. Otherwise, New Fleet will be hamstrung by legacy inefficiencies.

I can't help but wonder whether BASSA have got BA to exactly where it wants to be. As soon as New Fleet gets to a reasonable size, BASSA (if it still exists) will have to start playing ball with the company to avoid crew being starved of work. Something of a "win win" for BA.

It is almost tragic that whilst BASSA has been throwing its toys out if the pram over imposition, two of the most fundamental changes to crew (pensions and New Fleet) are going ahead with no input from crew and agreement with BASSA.

Ancient Observer

25th Jun 2010, 11:57

Duncan Holley has an unerring ability to shoot himself in the foot.

In the Times to-day, he is quoted as saying -
It will be like getting on easyJet,” said Duncan Holley,

Well, as I am nowadays only a customer/passenger, Mr DH needs to know that the Easyjet experience on board in Europe is nowadays far superior to the BA experience on board. It has been so for some time, way before the recent changes in BA manning.

The Easyjet crew know that they are going to work for the whole journey.
Simples. They expect to work for the journey, and they do.

Many (but not all) BA crew from lhr, (not lgw) make it all too clear that the SLF are not customers, they are freight, and are simply preventing the CC from getting to their eat/rest positions.

If only the BA experience on board was as good as Ezy!! (As to getting on Board, that's a different story).

fincastle84

25th Jun 2010, 12:21

Well I'm going to disagree. Mrs Fin had 2 brilliant BA flights last week LHR-NCE-LHR & was served by friendly, polite CC members who couldn't do enough to please.

And she didn't have to pay extra to check in her luggage & she didn't have to join a rugby scrum to get to her seat because it was prebooked.

We're backing BA.:ok:

Diplome

25th Jun 2010, 12:37

fincastle:

I must agree. The boarding procedures are enough to scare me away.

My husband I were exposed to a similar boarding procedure on an emergency connection flight in the States...and I can only say "never again".

Ancient Observer

25th Jun 2010, 16:29

I don't fly as much now as I used to, but I stand by my view on the onboard Ezy experience.
It is good.
Like you , I wish they would issue seat numbers, but once you get on the crew do want to serve you, and do work at it.

DH is part of the 1970s brigade who want BA to stay in the 1970s. It can't.

Ancient Observer

25th Jun 2010, 16:37

A little history lesson about TUs.
In the 50s and 60s, most TUs were pretty much autocratic set-ups. What the "Executive" said was the rule.....in some cases, an iron rule. The ETU (electricians) and then the EETPU (electricians combined with plumbers) were very much centralised. The Exec ruled.

In the late 60s, Jack Jones became the Gen Sec of the T & G and set about democratising the T & G. He wanted local Works Cttees of the T & G and shop stewards to hold more power, and the Central Exec and Full Time National Officials to have much less power. he drove this through, offending many in the centre, but pleasing some in the factories.

His model lead us to British Leyland situations, where the Trots and Anarchists of BL took the workforce out on strike with no control whatsoever from the T & G.

Unite have inherited the Jack Jones T & G local autonomy model - so the central folk in Unite have little choice other than to back the wierd and wonderful demands of the Champagne Charlies running bassa.

That's enough History for now.

ExecClubPax

25th Jun 2010, 19:31

Don't forget there is no intention of replacing the 184 crew on long haul flights when one down working was imposed last November. Neither is there any mention of the return of staff travel allowances to strikers. Moreover, there is no mention of any relenting on the disciplinaries.

Mixed Fleet will reduce costs and because salaries are not so generous, it will take us all back to the 1960s and 70s when cabin crew jobs were not seen as a career. Rather, they were taken by youngsters for a few years before marriage. So, holding down the pay rates might generate great resource turnover but it could also result in more energetic and committed crew members than some within the current complement.

Diplome

25th Jun 2010, 19:33

Courtesy of VSOPFables on the CC Board, and in reliance upon his/her representation, this part of the offer is quietly brutal:

Crew who are not members of Unite are being invited to accept the offer on an individual basis. Members of Unite who want to accept the offer are being urged to express their views to the union.

Individuals who have asked if BA was going offer protections to those who kept the flag flying now have their answer.

BA has made the decision to deal with their non-BASSA staff on a one on one basis. I have no idea what this means regarding BASSA's rights as a Union representative, but a shot has clearly been fired across BASSA's bow.

The previous offer to partially reinstate flight crew is off the table, NO movement regarding Staff Travel or Disciplinary Procedures, hats off to BA.

Makes Mr. Holley's reports of cakes and alcohol look even more juvenile.

(my apologies for the bold in the rest of the text. I don't seem to have the skill to delete it)

LD12986

25th Jun 2010, 20:27

The full text of the offer has been posted on the CC thread.

I believe Unite threatened to start a new ballot on Tuesday. Will they now go ahead with this, I wonder.

johnoWhiskyX

25th Jun 2010, 20:37

Superb manouvering. From the other forum I see a trend of " hey it"s not that bad a deal" "lets hope the union accepts it".

However, the union is going to look damned silly after publishing its grievances and what this next ballot will be about.
Bringing staff in, disciplinary's and staff travel. None have been addressed in this new offer and BASSA will likely have no choice but to ballot.
It will ineveitably lead to some CC saying enough is enough from these clowns and resigning from the union to be then able to take up the offer of signing up to the new agreement individually.

BA will not improve the offer to BASSA, it can only get worse and I think a lot of CC are realising this now.

617sqn

25th Jun 2010, 21:36

Too late!
You can only sign up to the individual offer if you weren't a Unite member today.
As the message was sent to cc late this afternoon there was no time for last minute union resignations.

Mariner9

25th Jun 2010, 21:38

The latest BA offer is superb in the circumstances.

But....

It doesn't allow the BASSA CSD reps to put their feet up again
It doesn't return ST to the strikers.
It doesn't reinstate the bullies and skivers.

Does anyone think BASSA are likely to recommend acceptance just because its a great deal for 99.9% of their members?

harrypic

25th Jun 2010, 22:26

Excellent strategy by BA.

Maybe they missed a trick though by stating "you can only accept if not a member of Unite on 25th June".........imagine extending that date to 1st July and see how many Bassa/Unite resignations there would be in the next few days so they can be eligible...?

May have seen Bassa down to 1500 members or even 1250.....!

Diplome

26th Jun 2010, 00:47

harrypic:

After giving it some thought I believe that BA's approach is actually appropriate. They have given the non-members of BASSA the ability to make their own decisions and have a binding agreement with their employer, and they have served notice on BASSA members that a very reasonable offer is on the table.

This is an excellent signal for the non-militant members of BASSA that it's time for you to communicate your wishes to your leadership. It is the members call.

Would be interesting, and almost amusing, if non-BASSA members ended up with a better agreement at the end of this dispute than those letting themselves be dictated to by individuals best qualified to give food and alcoholic beverage reviews.

johnoWhiskyX

26th Jun 2010, 05:26

By making the Union membership date the same day of release is even better. As Diplome said, it now forces BASSA members to stand up and tell their union they want ths deal.

If BASSA don't put this offer to their members I predict a large number of resignations. The offer is there for everyone to see, no cloak and dagger theories or room to create conspiracies.

It would indeed be funny if none union members had better working contracts than none union members..and they would only have themselves to blame.

F3G

26th Jun 2010, 05:38

If BASSA don't put this offer to their members I predict a large number of resignations. The offer is there for everyone to see, no cloak and dagger theories or room to create conspiracies.Not so sure about this, although I am only speculating.

A number of people have resigned, but the floodgates have not opened yet, despite BA making offers.

If non BASSA members accept the deal and have superior T&C's, this will just add to the sense of martydom.

I take the view that there are probably quite a lot of CC who strongly dislike the management of BA and are prepared to "stick it up them" by voting for IA and then come to work out of necessity.

Their 'payoff' is seeing the company finances hit.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a BASSA supporter.

Pohutu

26th Jun 2010, 05:51

I think that BA had to put the union membership date as 25 June. They are prohibited from offering a benefit to employees to induce them to leave a union. Making an offer that is capable of direct acceptance by non-members would - as shown by the comments on this thread - clearly be a potential inducement.

Winch-control

26th Jun 2010, 10:06

How on earth as a society are we going to be able to cope in say 50 years time when most of the population have been squashed onto these minimum wages and not made any pension provisions. While some in our society are getting richer and richer. It is almost like we are going backwards as a society and the general worker is getting poorer and suposed to be grateful that they have a job.

Anyway as you probably know I did not agree with the strike, I'm not a militant or left winger either but comments about people should be happy or feel lucky because there are lots that would like their job etc. just seem short sighted. As a society we should all be striving for everyone having a good living and a comfortable life. Not actually enjoying others misfortune.

Well Betty girl, welcome to the real world, 10 years of Nulabour (supported by Bassa and Unite and the majority of the UK population led you to this situation). No immigration policy? No financial policy? No tax policy? The list goes on as to how the voters are now learning the error of their ways over the last decade.

As an individual though in employment, with a well respected employer, I would be gobsmacked if you have the individual means to manouvere, that you did not take up this offer. As an individual, what is your alternative? If you are tied to Bassa... Who knows where you might end up.

Teessider53

26th Jun 2010, 12:02

Isn't it about time that the strikers got real.
I have been watching developments and it seems to me that most cc just want to get back to work and provide the good service that is normally provided.
An offer of an annual increse (even if only for 2 years) is more than most people will be getting. Many people in the public sector will not even have a job in 6 months and even if they don't lose their job pay will be frozen.
My wife works in a call centre for a major bank and has just been told along with several hundred others that her job is going to India - this will cause real hardship to many - not so bad for us as I have retired but my wife has not. How is that for a kick in the teeth - we bail out the banks and they ship our jobs to India. This makes BA look like employer of the year.
Sorry for that rant .
If this keeps on much longer all of the respect that has been built up over the years for cc will be lost, I know it is not all of cc but it is hard to be reasonable when the holiday you have saved for all year is being affected . It is also obvious that the timing of IA is meant to cause as much misery as possible.
I am due to fly with BA for the first time in September and was really looking forward to it but there is still a worry that IA might affect it. The flight was booked last October befre this all kicked off. I would probably have flown Virgin if I had known.
Just do what is right and end it asap.:sad:

fincastle84

26th Jun 2010, 12:23

The CC on the other forum are acting like public service workers, sqabbling over meal allowances & payment guarantees, even when they're stuck at home on their fat backsides.

I don't think that any of them are living in the real world. It's time they woke up to what the rest of the world is suffering.

Diplome

26th Jun 2010, 12:27

Teesider53:

If your flight is a long haul I wouldn't stress too much. BA is stating they will accomplish 100% of their long haul flights in the event of another strike and so far they have delivered on each of their promises.

BA seems to be attempting to handle this in the most productive way possible while still not leaving the airline open to threats from a small militant band of light thinkers. The latest offer shows that they are trying to address concerns of staff and I for one am not willing to withdraw my support when the airline is doing the right thing.

Hope all works out well for your flight.

Teessider53

26th Jun 2010, 13:19

Thnks for that Diplome - we are going long haul but there is also a connecting BA flight from Newcastle.
It's nice to see that people still care enough to offer information ,help and advice to total strangers. I hope for all the decent cc that the issue is soon resolved and that BA can get back to normal.

Diplome

26th Jun 2010, 15:37

It amazes me that some individuals think that they can dictate terms. From the main CC board by Ava Hannah:

Unless Staff Travel is given back, I am not bothered with this new proposal. They can stuff it. I commute from JNB and I can't wait for years until the Staff Travel issue appears in the European Courts.

They have replaced MTP with a 'top-up payment' which includes a no strike clause. That itself indicates that you will lose a huge amount of your pay if you take industrial action. A two year pay rise? Are BA trying to bribe us to accept a proposal? They have also based the top-up payment, which is £1500 less than the MTP in previous proposals, on last year and this year's schedule which includes three industrial actions and the ash volcano incident. Either way, MFH is going to take all of our lucrative routes and we will have to rely on a silly top-up payment. I don't even want to think of how long it is going to last before they rip that up.

Why did they send out the proposal on a Friday night? And individual offers? BA are trying to divide us even further. Nice try. Sorry Bill Francis and Willie Walsh. Unless you give my Staff Travel back with my original seniority, which I think I have earned after 17 years of continuous service with BA, I am not interested. You could offer me all the money in the world, I still wouldn't take it unless Staff Travel is given back.

The objection to the individual offers to non-BASSA members is interesting. Could it be that BASSA is feeling some heat as they no longer control the fate of their non-members.

Does this individual truly think that BA is going to come to a halt if her staff travel is not returned? Does she truly think that her staff travel with seniority is going to be returned? Perhaps she would be wise to apply with other airlines that will cover her commute from Johannesburg and have no problem with her attempts to bring her airline down.