COLONEL WHITE,

what have I lost exactly by going on strike?

money? no,not really.I knew that 3 sets of strike might have had a financial impact but with all the overtime that we have had recently I can hardly say I have lost anything.. you win some and you lose some.

staff travel? it hasn't changed my life not to have it. I have got more important things going on at the moment than to focus on that. I have lived 30 years without it before joining BA so I guess I can live without it. don't know about you! The only reason why I would fight for it, it's because I don't agree with removing it for taking part in industrial action The ones you might refer to are commuters which I feel for if they are struggling to find cheaper tickets, but I am hoping one day they will get their money back.

I can't think of anything else, I still report to work and I have a very normal roster, I still have my days off, I still go on holiday I still have a healthy relation with my managers and with my colleagues and I do everything to see passenger leaving with a smile on their face so what should I worry about for having gone on strike? NOTHING!

most importantly I feel good with my decision.

but I am hoping one day they will get their money back.


Whether or not ST is re-instated I would take great exception at commuters 'getting their money back'.

No-one from BA pays for my petrol when I drive to and from work as it was my choice to live where I live and my choice alone. BA didn't force people to live abroad and commute, that again was their choice.

So, even if ST is given back the price of ignoring the company when they said it would go was the cost of their commuting. If BASSA persue the company for the repayment of travel costs then it will be yet another biased decision from a Union that can no longer see the wood for the trees.

If BASSA persue the company for the repayment of travel costs then it will be yet another biased decision from a Union that can no longer see the wood for the trees.

I suspect that the HMRC would also be interested in such a move, as it would prove a clear financial motive and gain for commuting. It may well change the deal as far as the taxman is concerned, provoking a tax bill that may well exceed the value of the rebate. The "statute of limitations" on tax issues is, I think, 7 years.

So, even if ST is given back the price of ignoring the company when they said it would go was the cost of their commuting. If BASSA persue the company for the repayment of travel costs then it will be yet another biased decision from a Union that can no longer see the wood for the trees.


that is if the courts decide that it wasn't legal to withdraw it in the first place for taking part in industrial action whether if we were being told or not.
Telling you that I am going to take something from you, doesn't mean I have got the right to take it.

But am not a judge or a lawyer so I don't know what the outcome might be.


obviously if the company gives it back through negotiation that doesn't come into equation.

diut,
I take it you are Eurofleet crew as you state that with all the overtime available recently, you haven't lost anything by striking. Your location is also Greece, so how has not having Staff Travel not affected you?

My point is purely that if my car breaks down and I have to use public transport to get to work then I don't expect the company to pay my bills. The company didn't tell me what car to buy or where to live, it was my choice.

If an employee is unable to use ST to get to work, for whatever reason, then the company should not be expected to pay their bills either.

If ST is re-instated then fine, but to pay back money only to those who choose to live overseas and commute is discriminatory against anyone who doesn't need ST to get to work.

Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the Company at any time.

Seems fairly clear to me, especially the bit about 'withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company'.

Seems fairly clear to me, especially the bit about 'withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company'.

it is clear to me,most definitely,and i understand there are rules for staff travel..

Am just saying I didn't agree to remove it for taking part in industrial action.

But,yeah that is my point.
I do agree that it is in the company's hand to decide whether to give staff travel or not especially if not correcting behaving while using it,etc.

I take it you are Eurofleet crew as you state that with all the overtime available recently, you haven't lost anything by striking. Your location is also Greece, so how has not having Staff Travel not affected you?

As far as this is concerned,yes I am Eurofleet and I have been living in London for over 15 years. Thanks for playing detective on me but I am free to have the location of my choice I guess!
Someone has planet moo moo on theirs..have you questioned them about their commuting:ok:!?

f ST is re-instated then fine, but to pay back money only to those who choose to live overseas and commute is discriminatory against anyone who doesn't need ST to get to work.

wimberstum,

I know what you mean but I think some of our colleagues where employed abroad and those are the ones who I think will get compensation I get if things turn around.

As far as this is concerned,yes I am Eurofleet and I have been living in London for over 15 years. Thanks for playing detective on me but I am free to have the location of my choice I guess!
Someone has planet moo moo on theirs..have you questioned them about their commutinghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif!?

It was a straight forward question from an observation, that's all. No one's playing detective 'on' you.:rolleyes:

I know what you mean but I think some of our colleagues where employed abroad and those are the ones who I think will get compensation I get if things turn around.

They were indeed but, they were told that they could use ST immediately upon entry thus bypassing the 6 months where ST wasn't available then they slotted into the normal routine.

That was the ONLY ST concession they were given. They were not told that it was a right to allow them lifelong commuting to and fro from work outside of the normal travel regulations.

Posted from Planet Moo Moo! :p

Diut,

Thanks for joining the debate.... BASSA's latest update was that they had hoped to announce a strike ballot by today, in fact by 10am on 10/10/10 but couldn't because Tony Woodley and WW were having discussions privately at ACAS - and BASSA didn't know how those were progressing..... So how can BASSA/UNITE be trying to get a better deal for the crew if BASSA aren't even at the table????

I stand by my suggestion that BASSA are going to be recommended to accept any deal Woodley agrees or else go it alone.. As has previously been stated by others come 20th October UNITE is going to have the problem on 10,000s of public sector job losses to contend with.

Having held 29 days of industrial action at a cost of £150M+ WW is really going to roll over and offer you any deal which is better than that of June 2009?

come 20th October UNITE is going to have the problem on 10,000s of public sector job losses to contend with.

I remember during industrial action,I was reading some of the posts on here and someone was always writing something along this line..

come the 13th of June they will all get sacked..
come the 10th of May they will all receive the 90 days notice..

I clearly remember that,and am sure flap33 you will remember that as well.
Nothing of what was predicted on here ever happened so maybe it is better to not make other people worry for nothing.

Having held 29 days of industrial action at a cost of £150M+ WW is really going to roll over and offer you any deal which is better than that of June 2009?

Situation has changed, we have now a major join up with Iberia and American Airlines which I don't think the management wants loomed by a strike threat so who knows what's coming!:)

As far as BASSA being involved in negotiations,we know our CEO would not deal with BASSA but only with Unite so maybe it's better for leaders at Unite to deal with it themselves.

Wishful thinking though Bassa being told to go alone by Unite..if you ever come across any of the reps or were you at bedfont you wouldn't even consider that for one second!

So it isn't that BASSA COULDNT (your word) call a strike ballot - but Tony Woodley took the decision to DEFER the announcement as he thinks he is close to a deal.

BASSA were going to announce a ballot today. They were prevented from doing so by Tony Woodley. Call it defer if you like but that is fact.

Tony Woodley has been negotiating over BASSAs heads and believes he is close to a deal. He hasn't even informed the branch what this deal may be. The chances of him un-deferring any ballot when he believes he has a deal vary from slim to none.

He and BA have given up on BASSA however the believers try and spin it.

we know our CEO would not deal with BASSA but only with Unite

The CEO should never have been involved with BASSA in the first place. That was the responsibiliy if the negotiating teams not the CEO. BASSA seemed to have had an over inflated opinion of themselves by believing they were important enough for the top man to deal directly with them.

When everything fell apart due to the ineptitude of the BASSA negotiating team and their abject inability to accept what was going on in the world around them it necessitated that the discussions be taken to a totally new level, that of the CEO and Unite, bypassing BASSA altogether.

What will be interesting to see now is if the top dogs at Unite have also had enough of BASSA as well and have 'strongarmed' them into accepting a deal. The 'behind the scenes' will never make the lught of day but I think we are all interested to see if the deal is workable and put this sorry mess behind us.

Situation has changed, we have now a major join up with Iberia and American Airlines which I don't think the management wants loomed by a strike threat

It's not a threat anymore. BA have 3800 VCCs trained and ready to fly. There are only a maximum 4200 strikers. It's just not a credible threat anymore. The press aren't remotely interested and our flights are full because our frequent flyers know they'll fly come what may.

I should certainly hope that this proposal includes return of ST without any sanctions. Unless it does I can't be bothered to even read any further what the proposal has to offer. Perhaps BA should ask themselves how those who have lost ST will vote unless the proposal includes a full reinstatement of it?

BASSA are the ones who can put an end to this dispute and will do so when they have received a satisfactory proposal. Not Unite. Not BA.

Pornpants1

I would however speculate, that in order to get New Fleet off the table, and staff travel back, the proposal may contain something along the lines of another Purser off long haul aircraft to be replaced by main crew, some of those cost saving could be used to offer VR for those disenchanted with BA

Removing another purser from WW aircraft? We are currently too many pursers on WW and still BA seem to struggle with both scheduling and getting their numbers correctly. Pursers have been offered to work down and yet you sometimes get to the briefing room only to see that several pursers are working down whilst main cabin crew on standby have been called out to operate up as a purser. It's laughable.

BASSA are the ones who can put an end to this dispute and will do so when they have received a satisfactory proposal. Not Unite. Not BA.

Unless Unite no longer agree to bankroll BASSA during the dispute which would put BASSA in a little bit of a pickle.

I feel that Unite are rueing the day that the Union rule changes removed their ability to dictate change to the sub branch. I might suggest that the fact that the branch held an unofficcial 'show of hands' to extend its tenure beyond that normally allowed without re-election might give Unite a legal loophole to enforce change.

We will see as everything is conjecture up until this point.

It's not a threat anymore. BA have 3800 VCCs trained and ready to fly. There are only a maximum 4200 strikers.

it is over 7000,and i guess the only way is to go and have that verified at UNITE OFFICES if you wished.

Talking about the VCC.. I did not fly during industrial action so I just had to take the words I read about them,claiming how easy it was,etc but I have now flown with them extensively on their supernumerary flights and it frightens me to think you count on them where safety is concerned.
They have been very apologetic on the flight and I appreciate it is not easy to remember everything -I was probably in a similar situation on my supernumerary flight but flying day after day was the key to fill those gaps.

These man/women are not flying again for another 2/3 months depending on strike action or not, so I doubt those gaps will be filled by then.

I will not go into details because it is too much but if you knew the gaps in knowledge- and not service wise- you would be re-thinking.

it is over 7000,and i guess the only way is to go and have that verified at UNITE OFFICES if you wished.

BA apparently have other figures. Don't forget that BA are not allowed to lie as they have to present accurage figures to the City...

I did not fly during industrial action so I just had to take the words I read about them,claiming how easy it was,etc but I have now flown with them extensively on their supernumerary flights and it frightens me to think you count on them where safety is concerned.

I understand your point and fully agree. I have worked with VCC during non-striking times and some of them have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

I would however speculate did you read that bit of my post?

I have heard chatter about further VR being offered but of course this has to be at nil cost to BA so therefore needs to be paid for by the Cabin Crew community.


BASSA are the ones who can put an end to this dispute and will do so when they have received a satisfactory proposal. Not Unite. Not BA.


That's very debatable and subjective! Even the self style demi-god Duncan admitted a while back he did not understand how UNITE works.

I worked for a union 20 years ago, and 2 things are king;- Membership numbers and cash generated from those members, BASSA ticks both boxes for UNITE, but who actually has the influence and purse strings will never be apparent to most of us, least of all of course it seems good old che guevara:ok:

One things for sure, where I sit, Tony and Derek have yet again pulled the rug from under BASSA, just like they did to delay strike action during the general election, and just like they have in the last couple of months since the strike ballot ran out, to think anything else is just naive:ok:

MissM,
regarding this,

"I should certainly hope that this proposal includes return of ST without any sanctions. Unless it does I can't be bothered to even read any further what the proposal has to offer. Perhaps BA should ask themselves how those who have lost ST will vote unless the proposal includes a full reinstatement of it?

BASSA are the ones who can put an end to this dispute and will do so when they have received a satisfactory proposal. Not Unite. Not BA."

Totally agree with the first sentence ,second sentence ,that's your call.The 3rd sentence ,they will have and can bear any consequences.Regarding the second paragraph ,you are wrong. The crew will be balloted ,THEY are the only ones who can end this dispute . No,I correct myself,BA can right now ,by giving anything up ,but it chooses not to ,speaks volumes does it not?
I'm terribly upset to see some fine colleagues caught in the crossfire of all this .When will BASSA get the idea that it is incredibly tough but strong to get a deal ,worts and all ,stay united (pardon the pun) and try to improve conditions in future economic "good weather"?
I fully agree with you that the removal of ST is very,very devisive and has hurt some very committed ,professional crew. It might be legal (just) but somehow it aint quite right. I still fail to grasp the concept that although ST is a concession ,I thought it was illegal to discriminate between strikers and non-strikers,any ideas anyone?

BA apparently have other figures. Don't forget that BA are not allowed to lie as they have to present accurage figures to the City...

missm I know, I have challenged that and it look as the claims were over 7000. The management has never given a figure as you know.
The only thing our CEO said on an interview is that according to him it was about 5000 at that stage that had lost staff travel. he never said people who went on strike. WHY,WOULDN'T HE?? Losing staff travel wasn't updated straight away..it was always retrospective..so maybe at that stage it was about 5000!

Bassa and Unite have used the loss of staff travel and pay claim to determine the number of people who went on strike but the management doesn't need to use that parameter..they could simply say"" the number of people who went on strike are.."" That was never the case and believe you me that if the numbers were in their favour that number would be all over the places!

I have worked with VCC during non-striking times and some of them have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

Very unpleasant MissM, everyone has to start from somewhere.
Still, practise makes perfect eh? :ok:

pornpants,One things for sure, where I sit, Tony and Derek have yet again pulled the rug from under BASSA, just like they did to delay strike action during the general election, and just like they have in the last couple of months since the strike ballot ran out, to think anything else is just naive

you really don't have much of an idea.the delays are down to making sure that everything is done right.
having been in the situation before of having a strike called off because of irregularities, from what I gather BASSA and Unite were trying to consider all the possibilities before going out with a ballot..and that takes time.
We don't want to end up in a situation like last Christmas or the Pilots one that was stopped because of wrong doings from the union.
To think it s down to anything else is just wishful thinking..:O

you really don't have much of an idea.the delays are down to making sure that everything is done right.
having been in the situation before of having a strike called off because of irregularities, from what I gather BASSA and Unite were trying to consider all the possibilities before going out with a ballot..and that takes time.
We don't want to end up in a situation like last Christmas or the Pilots one that was stopped because of wrong doings from the union.
To think it s down to anything else is just wishful thinking..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

Not really, Duncan wants to lead you all out on another fruitless strike, UNITE know this, so they wont allow BASSA to Ballot. BASSA have been excluded from talks, and don't know what the "new deal"is we are unable to report to you the details of these changes,as we have not, as yet seen them strange don't you think? BASSA "experts" not been consulted?

UNITE know that BASSA are spent, and will do everything in their sphere of influence to prevent further action, this may not be possible but UNITE will do their best! You cannot deny that UNITE deliberately delayed strike action over the General Election, neither can you deny that amongst the BASSA leadership there were calls for another ballot immediately following the end of the last strike period, that never happened, ask yourself why, and its not the delays are down to making sure that everything is done right.:ok:

Lets wait and see what the deal is that is put on the table, my bet is it won't be palatable to you or MissM, but once put to a consultative will push any chance of industrial action beyond this Xmas;)

Talking about the VCC.. I did not fly during industrial action so I just had to take the words I read about them,claiming how easy it was,etc but I have now flown with them extensively on their supernumerary flights and it frightens me to think you count on them where safety is concerned.
They have been very apologetic on the flight and I appreciate it is not easy to remember everything -I was probably in a similar situation on my supernumerary flight but flying day after day was the key to fill those gaps.

Well, it doesn't frighten me one bit. Ok, so it may take a while to find out what's stowed in which canister, but I have no worries at all about their level of SEP knowledge. The ones I worry about are the ones who have been flying years and turn up for SEP each year absolutely bricking it because they really don't know their stuff.

diut (http://www.pprune.org/members/340337-diut) wrote: it is over 7000,and i guess the only way is to go and have that verified at UNITE OFFICES if you wished. Do yourself a favour, stop believing and repeating figures from Unite and BASSA, do some research. The figures can be found in my post here.

Do yourself a favour, stop believing and repeating figures from Unite and BASSA, do some research. The figures can be found in my post here

the day the management will give us those figures through the intranet or cabin crew news then I will happily go with it.
But when a crew member asked on a forum about the number of striker..the answer was that they didn't feel comfortable in giving out the numbers as this would have not made any difference on that particular forum and they didn't feel it was right to give out the numbers.
Am sure it is still on one of the forums.

Well, it doesn't frighten me one bit. Ok, so it may take a while to find out what's stowed in which canister, but I have no worries at all about their level of SEP knowledge.

I repeat,it is not about canister at all or service.I didn't even consider that.

I repeat,it is not about canister at all or service.I didn't even consider that.


So what exactly are you worried about? They've undergone the same SEP training as you and been in your briefings where SEP is covered? If you're genuinely worried about one then surely it's your responsibility to speak up and discuss your concerns with the SCCM before take-off?

The company are getting worried with court cases coming up and Xmas fast approaching added to this merger alliance etc etc another strike would see the demise of the little man. Other airlines must be laughing at the company with traffic growing yet still they can't find peace with a large section of it's workforce beyond belief. Others airlines are aware of how cabin crew at the company have been treated with regards to sackings,suspensions and staff travel add to that the vcc scheme they no longer respect the good name the company once had. Time for peace in all this dispute but not under unfair terms.

I am wondering what is the point of Unite negotiating without representatives of the CC unions? They may be experienced negotiators but they presumably know diddly squat about CC agreements and aspirations. If they press on regardless, how can they have any idea that what they are negotiating will be acceptable to the 8000 crew who pay for their representation? Although I have not been a paid up BASSA member since 1997 I still don't like the idea that all 13500 of us could end up with whatever deal Tony and Derek come up with, whether we like it or not! Scary!

I know it's only because the other two forums are indisposed but it is really great to see new CC joining PPrune from both sides of the debate. It's good to hear your thoughts whichever side of the fence you sit on and Miss M can certainly use the support.:)

Ottergirl

You have hit the nail on the head. It is blatantly obvious that with a show of hands at Kempton Park, rejection of bonuses, shares and free tickets without putting it to the members and equally the out of touch Unite leaders now negotiating on our behalf, our community is getting poor, if any, proper representation.

There are too many political forces at play here: BASSA fighting Unite, Unite joint secretaries vying for the top job, Unite funding political parties, BASSA fighting Amicus, and last but not least BASSA fighting BA.

We have to take control of our futures by first of all getting rid of all these power crazed individuals and representing ourselves. Cabin crew know what works and what won't, we know what we can afford to give up and what we can't, and we are, contrary to popular belief, capable of negotiating, collaborating and achieving great things for the company, the crew and the
customer.

Together we need to rid our community of the politics that is ruining our lives.
Time for the community to get it's voice back by having true, independent,
professional representation. What could be better right now than an independent council, run by cabin crew representing the needs of our community?

Now, where can we find that?:hmm:

Okay you've convinced me. But I still need to know who is going to represent me. I really want to sign up, in fact I have got as far as opening up the website to see what I have to do but when it comes to the crunch, I have to know that you are not all nutters who are going to be as bad as the last lot. I was quite happy to join CC89 when I knew the people involved because I trusted them to do right by me. I'd love to have to same trust in the PCCC but the cloak of anonymity which you say is needed to protect you from harrassment also has the effect of undermining your cause. Is it not time to give your Council a public face?

I very much doubt any deal will be that much different from the agreement one thousand of us have already signed.
I also doubt that Mixed Fleet has been removed from the equation. They have already promoted and nearly trained up lots of CSMs. It would just be far to messy to reverse all that now and the savings are far too attractive for BA to give up also.

But who knows for sure? None of us until later this week. Maybe!!

funny how the moment the two union branches, who have "been at each other's throats" for years, start working together, a "council" appears to throw a spanner in the works.


ba are at fault for the talks not happening last year as they are the ones guilty of playing one union off against the other.

as soon as they realise that they have been suckered and start working together, ba panic and instigate this "council" thing.

If Mixed Fleet was to be intergrated like SOME RUMOURS state - I and many crew would probably be thrilled!!! The Mixed Fleet may have some initial savings but will it work??? Also for us current crew who have more than 5 years left and definately 10 plus years it is a worry. I did believe the 40% in 10 years at one point, but now I am believing it less and less every day!

The savings they could do in other ways could still be enough (let's please not forget that we are not REALLY in a fight for survival!) Mixed Fleet crew working alongside us - maybe to different agreements. Maybe they could still do Mixed flying.

As for the whole ''well they would be doing a nighstop whilst current crew would be doing 2 nights'' - well as people have said - there are trips already where there may be a 777/747 where crew join another crew/itineries. Also on shorthaul with A319, A320, A321 trips each day there are extra crew, ''joiners'' the crew on the last flight out may be on a A319, 3 crew, bringing home a A321 with another 2 crew on top, those 2 crew may have been on 2 A320s the previous day or even on a ''billy no mates Standover'' etc etc! Needless to say crew do not always stay with each other for a whole trip at the moment - wheres the difference.

Or if this is really confusing, how about a compromise that will still save money? Mixed Flying crew work to our agreements whilst on a trip. On days off they work to MF agreements? May not save as much money, but still will save money.

Basically the kind of compromise as stated above would be win-win. I don't like the pay new crew will be getting, and that's why I do think future crew should also be able to join a union. It is still a basic human right to have a say on your working conditions. A company does not owe anyone a living it's easy for people to say - but come on we are not all robots! I also find that the people who say this are often well to do themselves! If every form of employment starts doing a race to the bottom - where will all the well paid jobs be? Why is it a crime to be well paid anyhow?

Anyway militant hat off - I sincerely hope that this settelment comes to end this bitter dispute once and for all. It has caused real stress to many crew. So comments about us being overpaid etc etc are very insensitive. Which we are not anyway.

Dear SlideBustle, have you been flying with pro-union people again? I understand how it's difficult for you when you do fly with pro-strikers, but you must be exhausted from changing your mind. I really don't mean that in a horrible way, honest - I come in peace. The things you've written in your latest post is like reading bits from another place. That's ok, as you're not offensive in any way. I'm just concerned that some people might be pushing their opinions on you and "forcing" you to believe what they say.

The thing about MF flying alongside WW/EF: It will make it very difficult, manpower and scheduling wise, as scheduling (esp for WW) is rather labour intensive already. I understand you would feel more comfortable having MF working alongside you, but I don't think it's going to happen. It's a shame in some ways, as I'm sure a bit of "fresh blood" (so to speak) would be very welcome. If, and it's a big if, MF were to work alongside WW/EF, can you imagine the atmosphere on the aircraft? Considering how it is at the moment (sometimes), some people would try to make the MF crew's lives hell.

I don't know what's going to happen this week, but I seriously hope the end is nigh, whatever happens. I'm so over this whole strike issue now, and I'd just like to get on with things.

Interesting to see new posters on this evening, let's hope for a constructive debate in the next few days.

PS. SlideBustle, I hope you don't feel like I was picking on you, as that wasn't my intention at all.

MIDLGW,

No offence taken. Rest assured though I do have my own mind and do make my own decisions, it is prone to change it's mind aswell as I am a very balanced person (infact sometimes I am too balanced - like with this situation... to be honest I can see both sides. I am not really pro anyone anymore. I can see BAs side and points of view. But I can also see BASSAs point of view. I also don't agree with aspects on both sides.

I know what you mean, you may think I am just being influenced by pro-union/striking crew. Maybe in some ways - as yes I have flown with many strikers of late. But I am also looking at issues with my own mind.

With regards to Mixed Fleet working alongside us the main reason this would be good for all of us - is that Mixed Fleet will be no more of a threat than post 1997 (and MF) and pre-1997 contracts. They wouldn't be able to legally starve us of work or transfer routes over. I would also like to see new blood flying alongside us, it is a real shame that new entrants will never fly with us again.

I have many years left, whether I choose to stay at BA flying or not is something I will decide later, however I am not sure I would be able to afford £2.40 an hour. The 40% in 10 yrs is something that I used to believe however in fairness, if this grew further the city will not complain (BA would save more money) and besides, I have more than 10 yrs. Also, what about CPH nighstops - I will miss those!!!! :ok: Joke!

I don't see why there can't be a compromise. Usually they want less than they ask for and the Union and them reach in the middle (BA only really wants/expects half what they ask for) but it does seem BA wants their cake and eat it - at the expense of many existing crew. Also we do need a Union, to represent us, without that we wouldn't have a decent working life as we do now.

I respect everyones opinions and decisions as this isn't necassarily all black and white - I do hope with more people joining this forum, there can be a balanced debate from both sides. As there are so many opinions on this topic and I do respect them as like I said at the beginning of my post - I can see both sides of the argument but also disgagree with some.

SlideBustle,

I'm glad you understand what I mean. The last thing I want to do is pester you, for the lack of a better word. I've read all your postings before, so just wanted to make sure you're not getting "pushed around".

In regards to pre-97/post-97 and MF, there are differences this time. The pay structure and rest being two that spring to mind. At least both pre- and post - 97 crew get the same allowances, it's the basic etc that isn't the same. The pay structure between current WW/EF and MF is so different now that I doubt it will be allowed for these crews to fly together - as nice as it may have been if it happened.

Before you dismiss the £2.40/hr, don't forget your "cousins" down the road who've been on that hourly pay for a looong time (although it used to be even less when I started). Yes, it's low, but it's up to each person whether they want to apply/accept the job. In fact, the only difference in pay between MF and LGW is that we get ONA, OT and breakfast in some hotels. However, MF get performance related bonus. The difficult thing at the moment, is that none of us know what the bonus looks like, how and when it'll be paid, who is eligible for it and how it's decided who gets what. That's up to the MF crew to find out about as and when it's appropriate. MF basic salary is actually higher than the starter basic at LGW! Considering how many people are applying for the jobs, there could be two main reasons as to why: The job market is pretty rubbish right now, and very few UK based airlines are recruiting and people may not think the salary is that bad when they take everything into account. Time will tell, I suppose. For the record, I didn't even consider MF for myself, as I'm happy at LGW, but I wish good luck to those who go for it.

Also, you mentioned earlier that MF deserves union representation. That's up to them (again). They'll have to get together between themselves and set something up. I doubt very much that they'd get represented by Bassa - and I doubt they'd want to. There are other options though, such as direct via Amicus/Unite, GMB or whoever else would be willing to give them backing.

It is quoted on here that around 1000 crew has signed BA’s last and final offer.


If that is so, and by the other figures quoted, around a minimum of 3000 crew are non-unionised.


Why was the take up of this offer not higher?


Are the others waiting to see what the union (they are not member of) can negotiate for them?


This is not me having a dig, I am genuinely interested in what these people expect to happen.


To be honest if I was not in the union and believed BA, I would have taken the offer.

The other 2000 left the union after 25 June, the cut off date that you had to have not been a member of Unite on, in order to sign the agreement. Many of them live in hope that it will be offered again.

Betty Girl said

Many of them live in hope that it will be offered again.

You can say that again!!

What i find a mystery is why so many crew who came into work, cannot stand Bassa, and some who have been publicly humiliated by their fellow crew, still stay in Bassa. I've met quite a few recently, and a number say its to vote NO in the next ballot. As I've said, 'who cares how the next ballot goes' There is a big part of me that actually wants another ballot/strike, just to see where we all stand in this situation now.

I truly believe that this weeks 'talks' are another stalling tactic by TW. Is it true he is retiring in 4 weeks? If so, he's delaying this until he goes for sure. I'd love to be a fly on the wall if TW speaks to DH this week to tell him its 'take it or leave it' I also the best ST offer from WW will be the return of it without seniority. If he gives it back in full, Duncan will see it as a win, and will then move the 'dispute' onto the return of the suspendees/sacked crew. This could go on for ever if that happens

Hiflyer14 said

This complete lack of understanding of UK Employment Law by BASSA and its reps explains why we are in this mess.

Under UK employment Law, consultation is all BA have to do with regard to MF, crew complements and anything else other than pay, pensions and leave. BASSA SHOULD know this, and SHOULD have consulted as best they can. They SHOULD have agreed the crew complements last year and in return agreed an integrated MF that would have secured all our jobs.

The sad thing is Hiflyer14 is that Bassa DO know all of this. Its just that it seems they became so powerful in the Joy Hordern years that 'in Bassa's eyes' everything was now up for consultation. As soon as WW appointed Simon Talling-Smith, it changed, but not according to Bassa. They just arrogantly carried on regardless, and I believe presumed that with the usual one trick pony methods that have worked before, would smash WW into history. Its just the bluff didn't work this time. They only have plan A. Nothing else was needed before.

The other 2000 left the union after 25 June
That is nonsense. The membership of BASSA has been well reported by others on here on an almost daily basis at some points. Membership of BASSA declined by 3000 over 6 months. About 1200 of these could be accounted for by severance. It is simply not true that 2/3 left after the end of the Industrial Action.
If we have a debate can it at least be focused on reality and not spurious propaganda from either side of the divide please.

Unlike the BASSA leadership I think TW does have the interests of his members at heart.

I think he realises that he needs to salvage as much as he can from this mess - he knows another strike is unwinnable and will destroy the livelihoods of 4500 of his members - so has approached BA for a couple of extra sweeteners which he can recommend over the heads of BASSA.

If I'm right it will be very interesting to see how BASSA spin this as a 'victory'.

Juan,

The problem is that BASSA are still living in to Colin Marshall era along with a minority of their members. Whilst the world has moved on drastically from that period BASSA appear to have decided that was their 'golden years' and that is where they are going to stay.

Back then many, many people expressed concern at Colin Marshalls approach to IFcE and many predicted that artificially inflating the value of the department above all others would come back to bite in the future. How correct they were. Still we see some of the 'quotes' coming from that time on this board today.

If someone from the pro BASSA argument could just elaborate, succinctly, truthfully and without rhetoric as to why BASSA believe that they are the only workforce within BA who should stay on broadly similar terms and conditions to those from the late 80's, who should not accept changes to their pay structure and should not accept changes to their rostering and allowances, who should not accept that the economic environment the business operates in has changed when all others in the company have done so?

""I should certainly hope that this proposal includes return of ST without any sanctions. Unless it does I can't be bothered to even read any further what the proposal has to offer. Perhaps BA should ask themselves how those who have lost ST will vote unless the proposal includes a full reinstatement of it?"" quote from previous poster. So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike. :hmm:

"someone from the pro BASSA argument could just elaborate, succinctly, truthfully and without rhetoric as to why BASSA believe that they are the only workforce within BA who should stay on broadly similar terms and conditions to those from the late 80's, who should not accept changes to their pay structure and should not accept changes to their rostering and allowances, who should not accept that the economic environment the business operates in has changed when all others in the company have done so?"




1013 (approx) cabin crew left the business last autumn/winter. this saved ifce £127,000,000.

the new crewing levels save ifce £60,000,000 PER YEAR.

why should we accept further cost saving measures, a la mixed fleet?

bassa and the ba negotiating team spent weeks banging out a deal that would find the £60,000,000 last winter.
this deal is the one put to the membership, who voted reluctantly to accept it.a bassa rep mentioned that it would have been laughed out of the room by the union in the recent past. but bassa "accepted that the economic environment the business operated in was changing".

but the ba negotiating team, who had helped thrash out this deal, didn't count on little dubya dubya. the deal wasn't making the PERMANENT changes he wanted and he threw it out.


as for your claims that we are on similar terms as the '80's- pah.

i joined in the mid 90's. some of the antiquated practices we gave up in '97 include-

-overtime after 9 hours.(split duties were incredibly popular then!)
-travel to work allowance (29p per mile i think)
-if you are rostered a trip on two a/c type, you must only operate on one of those type in one trip, and position the other sector(s)
-16 crew on a 747. 13 crew on a 777. 9 crew on a 767 longhall.
-giving up a bid system if on midfleet and reverting to "autoroster"
- a "money back guarentee" that we would not lose out in the new system, which lasted 3 years, was negotiated
- the allowance system was re-structured, giving us payments such as back to back, or destination, to make up for our overtime losses.



how many other jobs can you work a possible 19hrs 15 mins with no overtime? thats what mixed fleet will be doing. outrageous.

Any news from Court 74?

Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm)

Syndegate9,
It is two Bassa supporters that have said Bassa membership is:-
1) Down to 8000+ quoted by Duit yesterday afternoon.
2) 3000 not in union Quoted by Hubert Davenport today in his question.

As Ba said that only aprox 1000 were not in the union as of 25 June. I can only go by the figures quoted by, you, Bassa members, because the running total of members was removed by Bassa from it website because it was dropping daily and obviously causing them some embarrassment.

i joined in the mid 90's. some of the antiquated practices we gave up in '97 include-

-overtime after 9 hours.(split duties were incredibly popular then!)
-travel to work allowance (29p per mile i think)
-if you are rostered a trip on two a/c type, you must only operate on one of those type in one trip, and position the other sector(s)
-16 crew on a 747. 13 crew on a 777. 9 crew on a 767 longhall.
-giving up a bid system if on midfleet and reverting to "autoroster"
- a "money back guarentee" that we would not lose out in the new system, which lasted 3 years, was negotiated
- the allowance system was re-structured, giving us payments such as back to back, or destination, to make up for our overtime losses.

But if you "gave up" these things only to get the money back with other payments it's not really "giving up", is it?

The money back scheme finished because crew were found not to be losing out overall.
Nothing "given up" just a little less admin and complexity.

Oh and finding almost £60m of savings only to get it all back with interest in two years is not really "giving up" either is it?

Or am I just being picky?

Lets just remember that BA is NOT asking any crew to take a pay cut.
I think some posters are just trying to be provocative. They are also not making anyone take a job on Mixed Fleet. BA would certainly not be giving Mixed Fleet crew a pay rise even if they had have been suggesting a pay drop for current crew.

747girl wrote....new business plan to be adopted by heritage crews and such could be about whether THEY can be flexible enough to adopt new working practices - ie: fare rostering for All, and a permanent pay cut for heritage crews, so the new MF/CC crew are not on dire wages. After all, that seems only fare dont you think - A FARE WAGE FOR ALL AND A FARE WAY OF WORKING FOR ALL

747girl has an excellent point, there is lots of talk on here about how poor the T's and C's of MF will be and how they could join your trips but have less days off after (how nice).

Perhaps heratige crew could indeed ask BASSA to look into changes to their agreements and allowances to "even" out the disparity.

Just a thought.

Especially considering Labour ideals, Socialist worker, equality for all, anti fat cats and all that. Isn't that what UNITE stands for?

I think FARE should read FAIR - at least then it might make sense.

BG,
I was quoting a number made by someone else.
I did not come up with 3,000.

In the interests of a fairer society any cabin crew in the 40% tax band will no longer receive allowances. This money will be redistributed to the crew on MF. :D

1013 (approx) cabin crew left the business last autumn/winter. this saved ifce £127,000,000.

the new crewing levels save ifce £60,000,000 PER YEAR.


Surely this is the same saving, and while on that subject, how does 1013 heads save 127m thats 118,460 per head. Surely they wern't all WW CSD's??? :)

Just more BASSA rubbish

In the interests of a fairer society any cabin crew in the 40% tax band will no longer receive allowances. This money will be redistributed to the crew on MF. :D
Since the top of the CSD pay scale is just below the 40% tax bracket, with no allowances there will be nothing to redistribute to MF. Thats one of those stupid statements designed to irritate us without any substance. :=

Sorry flapsforty, I've edited it a bit.

Like it says in the title people, BA CC industrial relations.

Not pilots.

So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.

Should they not I wish best of luck to management putting an end to this dispute.

Moving onto a different issue. Claiming that BASSA membership numbers have dropped by thousands is rubbish and nothing but wishful thinking. Between June and September this year the numbers dropped by approximately 270. Before the calculator was removed from their website the membership was a bit above 9.000 members.

The dispute is effectively over. You can't strike effectively and Unite won't let you ballot. BASSAs wishes are irrelevant. And didn't BASSA ballot about 10700 members a year ago?

What makes you say that?

Quote:
So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.
Should they not I wish best of luck to management putting an end to this dispute.

From the noises coming from the upper echelons of Unite, I suggest that BASSA will be told the deal that Tony Woodley has struck with BA and given an ultimatum. At the end of the day BASSA is a branch of Unite and is bound by Unite's rules. If BASSA choose not to follow those rules, Unite is at liberty to expel the branch from the union. Given that over the past year the union has seen membership drop by close on 20% and still falling, that suggests that BASSA as a branch has a life span of another two years before it is likely to be derecognised, at which point it becomes an irrelevance.

I feel for Tony Woodley. He's tryng so hard to do a deal knowing that BA are all the time pointing out that he has to be able to deliver it. BA will argue that they could offer the moon but BASSA might still turn it down because they want the moon and Mars as well. I suspect that the final deal offered is likely to be the same as that put forward in June, but with a couple of variations. Firstly, the company will push for monthly payments to replace allowances. Second, staff travel to be returned but with seniority only applicable after probably April 1st 2011 and conditional on no further IA for 2 years. Should an individual default, it will be removed in total, never to return.

Litebulbs.

Judging from the latest noises, it does look like BA management hold all the aces. If Unite really thought they had a moderate chance of success, they would have balloted before now so that they could have called strikes in the run in to and over the Christmas period. Leaving it so late nullifies the effect, Most passengers will have made their travel plans for the festive season by now, so Unite have no chance of making any impact on forward bookings (assuming they did in the first place) Moreover, a ballot now would yield a result by late November. That means the 12 week period runs into Jan and Feb, two months when load factors tend to be light anyway. Unite will think long and hard about reballoting anyway as they need to have a reason that is in no way connected with the previous stoppages. You can bet that the BA legal eagles will go over every single word on the ballot paper. Unite cannot afford to go back to court and have yet another injunction slapped on them. Kinda dents the credibility. Equally, the union cannot afford to leave members open to dismissal because BA are able to establish that the strike is linked to the previous dispute. No new grievance has been registered. End of story.

I suspect that the final deal offered is likely to be the same as that put forward in June, but with a couple of variations. Firstly, the company will push for monthly payments to replace allowances. Second, staff travel to be returned but with seniority only applicable after probably April 1st 2011 and conditional on no further IA for 2 years. Should an individual default, it will be removed in total, never to return.

I think this is more a hope that a likelihood. There is nothing in it for UNITE, there is absolutely nothing in it for BASSA. UNITE will have very big issues to deal with after 20 October, the last thing they need is to go into the near future having suffered a humiliating defeat. It matters not how they spin it, such a settlement would be widely recognised as a BIG defeat, and it would embolden the bosses who will be negotiating with UNITE in the near future. UNITE need to clear the decks but not at any cost.

betty gorl
As Ba said that only aprox 1000 were not in the union as of 25 June. I can only go by the figures quoted by, you, Bassa members,.
I've said this a dozen times before. I'm not cabin crew!
Despite what you say, according to someone else's figures posted above there were 3,000 people who were and did not belong to the union at that time, of whom1 in 3 voted to accept BA's offer. In earlier posts someone, maybe you, declared that this was because 2,000 people left the union at the last minute and therefore couldn't vote. I simply pointed out that this was ridiculous and didn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
However I am constantly irked why you and others constantly make the erroneous assumption that anyone who doesn't wish to see BASSA members burned at the stake must be a militant Unite member. I may be in a minority but I claim to speak for no-one but myself.
I want to see peace but one that is fair and that will last. To do that the company has to bring back into the fold the huge section of its work force that it has demonised and alienated.

Colonel White,
Not an awful lot I can say to that, although Unite could easily afford to go to court financially. The Law Lords did find in their favour too. It is not the financial side that will be worrying them though, in my opinion.

London news last night was reporting that BASSA had lost their appeal over the right of the company to decide crewing levels on the companies aircraft.


What a surprise.


Seems BASSA have launched an immediate appeal (again) though stating that 'quote' 'The judge was wrong.

Seems that BASSA know all about corporate law as well as every other detail in every other department in BA.

Are you correct in your assumption? After a lengthy search all I could find was this below, perhaps you could provide a link to your information?

BA crews appeal over cost-cutting plans
(UKPA) – 16 hours ago
British Airways cabin crew, based at Heathrow, have launched an appeal after losing a High Court bid for an injunction preventing the airline from imposing cost-cutting proposals.
BA won its argument in February that it was entitled to reduce cabin crew complements on board its Worldwide and Eurofleet flights as these are not terms of individual cabin crew members' contracts.
John Hendry QC, representing the cabin crews based at Heathrow, told three judges at the Court of Appeal that High Court judge Sir Christopher Holland was wrong when he ruled that an agreement on minimum crew numbers was not incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
He said the judge had found that the level of crew numbers had a material impact on the working conditions of cabin crews and the reduction in numbers had led to "harder work and increased stress".
The crewing levels had been agreed between BA and union Unite as the minimum required under a productivity deal, he said.
Mr Hendry said an injunction should have been granted and a future hearing set to decide on damages for the cabin crew.
The case continues on Tuesday when judgment is expected to be reserved.
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Crew numbers. My guess.

A total of 12,500.

Let's sat 9,000 in Bassa.

3,500 not in Bassa.

2,300 ICCs and temps - ineligible to accept new deal.

1,200 eligible to accept, of whom 1,050 did.

Pornpants1,

Sorry I can't provide a link as it was a quick throwaway story on the BBC London news last night at 22:35. It just stated that BASSA had launched an appeal against the result of the appeal because the learned judges were wrong (in the opinion of BASSA of course)! :ugh:

Clutching at straws it would seem.

It all looks akin to the Tesco's checkout workers trying to demand from the management that a certain number of checkouts are manned irrespective of customer demand. If they had 15 manned and had a drastic change to impose a reduction to 14 then their stress levels and workload would go sky high.

:oh:

Colonel White

Unite will think long and hard about reballoting anyway as they need to have a reason that is in no way connected with the previous stoppages. You can bet that the BA legal eagles will go over every single word on the ballot paper. Unite cannot afford to go back to court and have yet another injunction slapped on them.

Why would BA bother seeking injunctions or visiting courts? The big problem Unite have is that if (whatever appears on the ballot) BA says it is linked to the previous one - therefore any action is unprotected, strikers would face dismissal. BA would not need to seek injunctions beforehand - they would let the strike go ahead and sack anyone who walked out - and if that is what they stated I don't suppose many people wouldn't believe that BA would follow through. I don't suppose that our legal system works in such a way that Unite could announce a strike and subsequently unilaterally ask a court to rule whether it is legal before the action is taken. I imagine BA would need to take the initiative.

With the threat of dismissal from BA balanced against the promise from BASSA that BA couldn't sack you, I doubt even MissM would withdraw her labour. I suspect Unite have already figured this out so are securing a deal.

Yes! I have to agree with plodding along and with 747girl also, everyone was being so patronising and saying how auful the new contract is for MF CC but it seems its a case of 'I'm alright Jack and its up to them if they want to take the job'. Well no, actually, some people are badly in need of a job and they dont have that choice.

I think LHR WW CC would achieve a great deal more understanding and sympathy if it took a genuine concern for CC MF.

It seems to me that if someone has a different way of thinking then it must be provocative - you should here yourselves sometime.

The court hearing is not over as yet Wirbelstrum.(see below)
So , I am hoping for the appeal to be officially denied to end this constant visit to the courts.. (Also having been at the original court hearings conmpletly agreed with Sir Christopher Hollands original ruling...re crewing levels)..however you have implied that this may not be the case!
I am sure the Judges QCs and co, must be getting fed up!
COURT 74
Before LORD JUSTICE WARD
LADY JUSTICE SMITH and
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
Not Before half-past 10
APPLICATION
A2/2010/0578(Y) Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Application of Claimants for renewal of lower court part refusal of permission to appeal. Part Heard.
APPEAL
From The Queen's Bench Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A2/2010/0578 Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Sir Christopher Holland, dated 19th February 2010, filed 10th March 2010. Part Heard.

The court hearing is not over as yet Wirbelstrum.(see below)
So , I am hoping for the appeal to be officially denied to end this constant visit to the courts.

So, would you say if Unite balloted for industrial action in response to the dismissal of some of it's members, BA should not be able to seek an injunction, to prevent the said action, if they wanted to? Or are you suggesting that the Union cannot appeal?

I am sure the Judges QCs and co, must be getting fed up!

I doubt this very much. It's what Judges and QCs do for a living. QCs in particular Mr Hendy are probably quite gleeful at the current situation - the more litigation there is, the more money they earn.

QCs in particular Mr Hendy are probably quite gleeful at the current situation

Why pick on the Union Barrister? If anything BA has been in court on many more times than the few occasions with BASSA - it's BA's legal team who are full of glee :rolleyes:

London news last night was reporting that BASSA had lost their appeal over the right of the company to decide crewing levels on the companies aircraft.

What a surprise.

Seems BASSA have launched an immediate appeal (again) though stating that 'quote' 'The judge was wrong.

Totally and utterly untrue - then again I suppose if people want to spread 'rumours' this is a 'rumour' forum :rolleyes:

If you read the further post from the OP upperdecker you will see he stated it was a quick story on BBC London news last night...prehaps complain to the BBC for spreading rumours

Although this has not been mentioned recently, just a thought (and relevant please note Mods)

I saw a BBC Question Time programme recently and one of the hot subjects was Public Spending cuts. Near the end of the programme a London Firefighter (cannot remember the borough) stated that they had been given 90 days notice. Their job would no longer exist in its' present form after the 90 days. Obviously the new contract offered was less desirable than the current contract and saves the borough money.

So fast forward to this current Cabin Crew dispute. Many prophesies of CC being given the 90 day notice have not arisen in fact. I put it to you though, that if it is accepted the company will not give the 90 day notice, on CC that struck, for accepting the MF contract (which I personally would find unfair to said crew) there is no reason why the company cannot invoke the 90 day notice for the striking BASSA crew to accept the contract that has been accepted by non striking, non union crew. This I would find as a fair solution to the dispute.

And before you shoot me down in flames, this dispute is at an impasse. I am certain the company do not really want it to drag on much longer. As much as the striking crew have made their point it is time to put up or shut up and move out.

If you are so venomous in your comments against the company then why are you still working for them? The answer I come up with is money for old rope! The easy life etc. etc.

upperdeckpsr
Why pick on the Union Barrister? If anything BA has been in court on many more times than the few occasions with BASSA - it's BA's legal team who are full of glee :rolleyes:But BA generally win. It's the BASSA QC who keeps picking up fees for failed challenges, each time pushing on to the next court layer.

If thats what you think - he's getting another days pay then isn't he :rolleyes:


COURT 74
Before LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010
At half-past 10
APPLICATION
A2/2010/1444 Allen -v- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Constabulary. Application of Appellant for permission to appeal.
Before LORD JUSTICE WARD
LADY JUSTICE SMITH and
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
Not Before half-past 10
APPLICATION
A2/2010/0578(Y) Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Application of Claimants for renewal of lower court part refusal of permission to appeal. Part Heard.
APPEAL
From The Queen's Bench Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A2/2010/0578 Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Sir Christopher Holland, dated 19th February 2010, filed 10th March 2010. Part Heard.

Why pick on the Union Barrister? If anything BA has been in court on many more times than the few occasions with BASSA - it's BA's legal team who are full of glee
But BA generally win. It's the BASSA QC who keeps picking up fees for failed challenges, each time pushing on to the next court layer.
The rules under which they operate say that a barrister must take on a case they're offered if it's within their area of expertise and they're not otherwise engaged.

Funny how things happen at the same time. A new deal and a court case.

See BASSA.co.uk

Litebulbs

Think it's pure coincidence, although Unite lodged the appeal some time back and it also sounds as though Unite instigated the latest talks. Last time we were in this situation, it was the court case that is now the subject of the appeal and Unite were balloting for industrial action.

I note that BASSA seem to have kept the blinkers on, judging from their latest missive. They say, and I paraphrase, that members have the choice of voting to accept the deal if they think it addresses all their concerns, but intimate that should the deal put forward not have a majority, that they will ballot for strike action.

Am I alone in having a degree of unease about the way in which this consultative ballot will be conducted ? I just get the impression that the previous one was possibly poorly managed with insufficient time allowed to ensure that all ballot papers were received and members given a reasonable opportunity to cast a vote. The strike ballots gave four weeks from papers being sent out to close of voting. The consultative ballot allowed about half that time. Maybe that was why under half the membership voted. Given the timescales, I can see that BASSA would want to hurry through any consultative ballot so that they could have the four week period for a strike ballot in time to walk out at Christmas. I reckon that BASSA will only allow three weeks maximum for the consultative ballot as this will then give them the opportunity to call a strike by December 13th for the Christmas week.

I get the feeling that the BASSA leadership want another strike. The tone of the comments coming from them in recent days suggests that to be the case. Which makes me wonder if they have the best interests of their members at heart, or whether this dispute is now becoming a personal crusade for some to try and cause maximum damage to British Airways. I would have thought that if the membership reject the deal on the table (when it finally materialises) the next steps should be to go back to the negotiating table and try to secue a better offer. Striking is the last resort, not the first option.

If it was you, what would you be looking for? If it was me (moderate), I would be looking at an ACAS binding arbitration solution for the dismissed employees and a full reinstatement of staff travel (over time maybe?) and concede that if any further action was to take place over this issue, then a signed agreement that staff travel will be removed permanently. I doubt if Mr. Walsh will go that far however, but we shall see.

Most on here will not agree with that, because the common thread bias is about punishment and destruction of the BASSA branch.

Litebulbs

A little unfair. The vast majority of posters on here over the last few days have said they wouldn't mind staff travel being returned.

What I think most would hate to see is a group of flag waving, Willie Walsh mask with red eyes wearing lunatics cheering on tv claiming a huge victory.

Now if staff travel seniority were to be phased back in over time with a clause that any further strike action on this issue would lead to total loss of staff travel permanently, then that would probably bevagreeable to most

Ps, can you really blame a lot of people for wanting to see the end of BASSA in its current form?

I want people to think twice before going on strike next time - be they pilots. cabin crew, loaders, check in staff or whatever. Standing firm on staff travel is a good way to ensure this, and so I do not want to see it returned. They were warned.

GS-ALFA

There is a time to settle this dispute and this is it.

Being vindictive never gets anyone far in this life -its time for everybody to move on.

I want people to think twice before going on strike next time - be they pilots. cabin crew, loaders, check in staff or whatever. Standing firm on staff travel is a good way to ensure this, and so I do not want to see it returned. They were warned.

Am I correct in thinking that you want to blackmail people into not striking by threatening them with loss of Staff Travel, even though it is enshrined in employment law that one has a legal right to take part in Industrial Action?

Staff travel and a legal right to industrial action are not the same thing. The fact that the company chose to take staff travel away from strikers is entirely within the company's remit, as has clearly been explained here dozens of times. I hope the staff travel situation remains as it is - the strikers should not get the seniority back. :D

It's not a case of black-mailing anyone. The right to strike is still there. Remember that staff travel is refered to as either a perk or a privilege - defined as an employee benefit. Why should anyone receive benefits for causing the company harm? (whatever the situation).
It is also defined as an incentive, this is given if you do something. That something could be "do not damage your company by striking". You have therefore not achieved the conditions required for the incentive, therefore you don't receive it.

It is not contractual so the removal of it is in no-way black-mail.

Storminorman and upperdeckpsr, I agree. It's historic with BA that staff travel has been reinstated when a period of time has passed after industrial action. I didn't go on strike, but I don't see any point in the endless punishment of half a group of employees. The commuters are finding it very difficult to get in to work, and there's no point in saying, "But they knew what would happen!" They did know, and it happened. But our cabin crew community needs to get back to normal, and and it never will while half of us are treated differently. There will be a permanent rift that's underlined everytime someone sees staff J42, or similar, on the passenger list. Everyone in the bar last night said they were just sick of this, and half of us were strikers and half not. The strikers know now that, in the main part, the union totally messed up. We have to move on from here.

The other problem, of course, is what do they do about Duncan Holley and Lizanne Malone? No one wants this situation arising again because of reps who can't negotiate properly. Does DH even have to be re-voted in anymore, or is he a permanent boil on BASSA's backside now? I don't want to remain de-unionised, but I'll never rejoin while he's holding the reigns. I'm not sure about the effectiveness of CC89 and no disrespect, but crew council are totally untested and inexperienced in industrial negotiation.

It is not contractual so the removal of it is in no-way black-mail.

I never said it was contractual.

In effect then BA are saying that if you disagree with us and enter into a dispute, we will punish you (even though the dispute is lawful) - if you comply with us and do whatever we say we will not punish you.


Hey that works in this modern age doesn't it?

As the title says, it's a perk (and as such can be withdrawn at liberty if the situation warrants it, eg being sick) - if it were contractual then BASSA would have had it back in the famous "5 minutes"....

If a retailer were to remove an employees discount due to industrial action that damaged the shop, would that be wrong?

BA grant ST as a privaledge, perk - call it what yhou like. They warned on numerous occassions that it would be removed if you took part in IA that damaged the company - YOU WERE WARNED..... I would think twice about striking (and, yes, I do work for BA) if the threat of ST removal was on the table.

I think the whole issue of ST has been blown up by BASSA, they recklessly claimed that WW wouldn't do it, or if he did then it would be returned in a jiffy. Since we are now 6 months down the road with ST still being witheld the BASSA leadership are trying to heap the blame on WW, the High Court or anyone else who they think they can in order to deflect the blame away from themselves.

There are lots of folks on here who feel that ST should be returned either in its original form or the new zero seniority version. I personally think that it should be withdrawn permanently -warnings were given. We are all aware that actions have consequences, why should this situation be treated any differently?

BA are not blackmailing anyone over ST. Strikers chose to loose it by accepting the BA statement that 'striking would loose it.'

ST is a 'perk' and if you damage your company to the tune of many millions of pounds, you deserve a sanction.

I totally disagree that those who chose to strike should lose their Staff Travel either permanently or in any way with less seniority - why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?

Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.

When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.

BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.

I totally disagree that those who chose to strike should lose their Staff Travel either permanently or in any way with less seniority - why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?

Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.

When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.

BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.

Incredulous!

Nothing to do with the intransigence of BASSA, and maybe, just maybe a CEO who for once, decides to stand up to them in an economic downturn, with the backing of the MAJORITY of staff to keep us solvent???? The staff, who too have 'had enough', more so after accepting many changes prior to the downtown to their working practises!

If you have an issue that you really feel strongly about, the loss of staff travel is going to be the least of your worries and is therefore not a deterrent. It is however, a deterrent to anyone going on strike over something stupid such as was the case here. Practically everyone I have spoken to says that they went on strike because BA imposed. Well I am sorry, but if you refuse to negotiate, that is what is going to happen! What else could any business do? The other option was SOSR and 90 days notice. Would you really have preferred that?

If the removal of staff travel was hindering your freedom to strike, you will get it back through the courts. So you don't have anything to worry about do you?

I stand by what I said, and I hope Mr. Walsh does too.

Flaps 33, negotiation is exactly that. To reach a resolution, which one way or another, will come soon, both parties will re-negotiate their position to a certain degree. The successful settlement of any industrial dispute doens't take personal feelings into account. I'm sure WW isn't thinking "I'll get those bastards!" He wants a solution too, but in the age old tradition of having won more than he's lost. He's a businessman, and if he achieves what he wants in the main part, he'll give back staff travel with bells on if he chooses. Or maybe he'll choose not to. We'll have to wait and see. One thing's for sure - he won't be taking the personal opinions of you and me into account. He'll do what he believes is in his and the company's long term best interest. I'm not sure if nurturing bad feeling in large groups of permanently disgruntled employees will be high on his agenda. 6 months has been a prolonged punishment financially and mentally. It could well be over a year until it's returned if it is returned.

This is the latest from the BASSA front page (public domain). Looks like BASSA members may not even get a chance to vote on the proposal with the militant leadership reserving the right to go straight to a strike ballot. Who said it looked like the leadership wanted a strike?







http://xxxx.bassa.co.uk/xxxxwednesday.gif

Upperdeckpsr....

A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?

Your view of staff travel and it's removal is quite definately the work of the BASSA propaganda machine.....

Allow me another analogy...if my 4 year old is naughty we threaten the use of the naughty step... If she continues in the same manner then she is sent to the naughty step (we chose to carry through with the threatened punishment).

Can you see any similarities?

As was previously said, until now the BA CEO (there have been a few) have never actually gone through with taking on the union, they've always caved in. this time it's different.

What a nonsense! If the militant BASSA reps don't like any proposed settlement, it won't be put to the vote.
Incredulous after all this time and loss to BA.

So you'd go in to any negotiation with the attitude that you're dealing with a 4 year old and will threaten it with the naughty step? I have a 6 yr old, and the naughty step had its place and and time. I won't be using it on my friends and family, and certainly not when dealing with non-compliant strangers.

Yes, and don't get me started on that BASSA statement. That attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. When I was paying my subs, it was my right to know what was going on. Easter was a farce and got them precisely nowhere. Will they ever learn? This has DH and LM written all over it.

Incredulous!

Nothing to do with the intransigence of BASSA, and maybe, just maybe a CEO who for once, decides to stand up to them in an economic downturn, with the backing of the MAJORITY of staff to keep us solvent???? The staff, who too have 'had enough', more so after accepting many changes prior to the downtown to their working practises!

Incredulous!

That somebody actually genuinely believed that BA was actually in a "fight for survival" - pure smoke and mirrors

Upperdeckpsr....

A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?

What do you mean? Its a username just like yours :rolleyes:

Allow me another analogy...if my 4 year old is naughty we threaten the use of the naughty step... If she continues in the same manner then she is sent to the naughty step (we chose to carry through with the threatened punishment).

Can you see any similarities?

I cant see any similarities whatsoever between your parenting skills and a dispute costing millions - can you expand?

TW had to take the initative to meet with ACAS and our management. So much for WW wanting to reach a settlement.

Incredulous!

That somebody actually genuinely believed that BA was actually in a "fight for survival" - pure smoke and mirrors

Maybe you were on long term leave when we announced our RECORD losses. However, MOST staff have done their bit, who knows how much WE have saved, despite BASSA costing us!

MissM
TW had to take the initative to meet with ACAS and our management. So much for WW wanting to reach a settlement.Really? But there was a meeting, wasn't there, and significant progress made? Would there ever be any progress, if you always waited for the other party to make the first move. I seem to remember WW approaching BASSA first with a proposal at Easter which BASSA ignored. This is an industrial dispute, not a playground argument. Thank goodness TW has the sense to negotiate properly. If it were up to DH and LM then BASSA would still be waiting. And doesn't it speak volumes about how TW feels about another ballot???

Miss M

"I went on strike because of imposition". You have never answered the question, what else was management meant to do with a union leadership which refused to negotiate, indeed, made it their mantra?

Incidentally, have you ever met DH, or more importantly heard his views on how he viewed industrial relations with BA management?

PS. Please, whilst addressed to Miss M I'd be delighted to hear any other views.

A simple question, originally it was about IMPOSITION - about the way in which BA reduced crew complements in the name of saving money. BASSA only ever offered "loans" to the company, vastly over-valued ones at that.

The newsletter at the weekend from BASSA (or it may have been Unite) confirmed that crew complements were no longer an issue. So if it isn't crew complements is it staff travel?

IMPOSITION was threatened by BA in February 2009 when the cost savings targets were set, WW said that if the 30th June deadline was not met he would have no choice but to impose changes. In October he did, your union got 4 months grace....

During your "negotiations" you had spats within BASSA with the two merged factions refusing to sit together let alone negotiate - then of course there was the car park incident.

Previously, BASSA has always thrown the toys out of the preverbial pram whenever change was asked of them, we've had 3 strike ballots since 1997 which have resulted in action being called off at the eleventh hour.

BASSA only knows how to stir up the troops, and in the past it's worked but now that you face a new adversary with a different attitude you are like fish out of water. What's really worrying is that this whole dispute has become very personal, DH is on a mission to land a fatal blow to BA for the way he's been dismissed - the crew are merely the foot soldiers in all of this.

UNITE appear to want to settle this dispute, BASSA don't.

WW threatened Imposition and he did it, he threatened removal of staff travel and he did it - I hope that next time he threatens something you take him a little more seriously, next time it could be P45s and a tribunal next year.

Upperdeckpsr,

There are issues that I would be prepared to strike over, but these issues and the knowledge of the consequence of IA are so huge that the issue of ST pales into insignificance.

The problem here was that many CC took the issue of IA way too lightly. This is shown by the "send Willie a message" crowd who voted for IA. This was not a militant minority, let's all remember the 80 and 90% votes for IA among the vast majority of CC. The bulk of CC did not realise the huge step that striking is, some thought it would never come to it, some thought it was a bit of a lark and some had no intention of carryimg out their mandate.

Striking is the nuclear option. If it gets to that stage then it's no use whining afterwards at something so relatively trivial as the removal of a perk.

....... why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?The dispute, lawful or otherwise, was not brought on by BA - that was entirely BASSA and Unite. BA requested that all workgroups enter in to meaningful discussions about permanent savings - the only lot not to do so were the cabin crew, hopelessly led by BASSA.

Result? A hissy fit and refusal to entertain anything that interfered with the cushy life of those at the top of the heap. Dispute was entirely BASSA.

Result? A hissy fit and refusal to entertain anything that interfered with the cushy life of those at the top of the heap. Dispute was entirely BASSA.

I disagree - this dispute was brought on by BA - you have your opinion, I have mine

Maybe you were on long term leave when we announced our RECORD losses. However, MOST staff have done their bit, who knows how much WE have saved, despite BASSA costing us!

Just a year or so after after record profits!! Net net etc

RadarIndent, there is a small group of employees - less than 10% of the workforce who bleed this company dry year after year, all in my opinion of course

Well you're entitled to your prejudices, but if said employees are paid the market rate then you really have no grounds for complaint. Some skills are just expensive.

The warning in the staff travel issue is, in my view, neither here nor there. I can't imagine any judge saying 'well you warned them that you were going to "kill them" "steal their wallet" "remove staff travel" therefore, you had the right to do it.'

However, BASSA are claiming that ST is "contractual". By doing so, they are dismissing their own case. Pay, which most definitely is contractual, is stopped when someone strikes. The only relevant point to consider therefore is: do BA have to provide anything (pay, perks, union offices, etc) to people/unions conducting IA? Due to precedent, it seems it is legal to stop pay during IA, therefore it must be equally legal to stop ST, regardless of whether it is contractual or not. For example, if a striker had private medical benefits, would a company be expected to pay that? If they had a company mobile phone, would the company be expected to pay that? The answer must surely be no. Staff travel was offered to be returned very quickly after the strike, albeit without seniority. BASSA should have taken it, and then fought for the seniority back. If commuters are struggling financially to get to work, it is BASSA's fault for not accepting it back when it was offered. An ID90 with no seniority is still an awful lot cheaper than a full fare ticket.:rolleyes:

That the BASSA leadership STILL feel that they have the right to decide on behalf of the members what action to take summarises quite succintly why we are in this mess. Ask any cabin crew member what a new strike ballot will be about, and they will be unable to tell you. I can't tell you, and believe me I follow this closer than most! You have asked Miss M - she can't state it either. Surely, if a community is to be led down the strike path, it should be because they are "outraged" "disgusted" "have no other option" etc due to the way a company is behaving. If we can't even state what it is about, how could the company be behaving in any way that would justify a strike?

Bridchen - you are right that the Professional Cabin Crew Council have not yet experienced negotiations with BA. But people don't vote for future Presidents or Prime Ministers on what they HAVE done, but rather what they say they WILL do. That's the nature of electioneering. The PCCC say that we will collaborate with BA, and we will conduct business with them in a productive, sensible way that benefits not only the crew, but the company and the customer as well. Many, many, many cabin crew colleagues agree - and have left BASSA and joined the PCCC to help us regain a voice for our community. I hope that you will too.:ok:

The fact that DH and LM speak of Tony Woodley as just Woodley speaks volumes as far as their relationship is concerned.

I fear whatever he comes up with, DH and LM will give it no consideration.

Seems to me HF14 you have a mountain to climb. Last time I checked your membership figure it stood at a pretty paltry 300 give or take. Interestingly, there’s no commitment required from supposed members than the ability to draw breath and complete an online application form. So hardly representative of a community close to 11,500. By my reckoning (and it is quite elementary) in order to achieve the 40% necessary to achieve a shot at being recognised it will take the better part of 15 years at your current rate of recruitment. But then again, maybe that reflects how well you are actually aligned to the views of the community you claim to represent. Time will tell, as with all predictions that have been made on this professional (and I use that term loosely) rumour network, many increasingly fail to materialise.

HAHAHAHAHAH (http://www.pprune.org/members/324264-hahahahahah) I should imagine most people, like me, who've left BASSA are hesitant to commit themselves to a union in financial terms, as we all got so ripped off by our last one. If I wasn't paying for them to negotiate, which they successfully refused to do, then what for? The only thing I ever required them to do was negotiate or tell me about proposals. Instead they just lost them for us. Genius! If BASSA doesn't sort itself out and continues to employ skill-free negotiators like DH and LM, the PCCCs membership will increase proportionally with the loss of faith in BASSA. If the PCCC is effective, subs will be paid. Do I get a refund for BASSA's job not done, by the way? I'm not so wealthy I can afford to chuck away the hundred odd quid I paid in subs, while BASSA reps were refusing to sit at the table that they were paid to sit at. Did these same reps still take the time off that they were derostered for when they didn't turn up for meetings? Did they take their money from the BASSA coffers for their missed trips? These and other sticky questions to be sidestepped by your BASSA reps shortly.

As far as I was aware the BASSA committee acted upon the wants and wishes of the community as represented by the crew members who attended the many branch meetings and duly voted by show of hands. I don’t recall any abstentions, or no votes at any branch meeting. If you can’t be inclined to attend to cast your vote, can you really reasonably complain that your, seemingly isolated opinion, be representative. This is of course not to mention the rejection of both an online and postal consultation regarding two documents. After all, we are all members of the union, we all enjoy the freedom to attend branch meetings, listen and vote according to our personal views. Secondly, I reject your assertion that BASSA did not negotiate. I clearly remember many concessions made on my behalf. Indeed many documents produced in way of concession. If I’m honest, I feel that BASSA actually gave to much away. It’s clear as the crystal to me whom was the party refusing to be reasonable in my view. I suggest you review the settlement documents released by BASSA in order to resolve this dispute, concession after concession were made, none of which were acceptable to company. In €€my view, my reps offered more than I would have been prepared to offer, however I recognise they did this in good faith. If you don’t believe this, please explain why BASSA offered the company Mixed Fleet contracts, as they requested, only integrated with current crew in order to ensure career protection for current crew.


Can I suggest, the next time you fly to ask your flight crew colleagues one question. If they were to be denied the right to transfer between fleet and base, would they accept that imposition. Of all my flight crew colleagues I’ve asked, the answer has always been no. Therein lies the answer to why I decided to stand up for my rights and why I will continue to support the individuals increasingly victimised, to represent me.

As for the remainder of your post, can I suggest an element of considered caution. Allegations that you imply are incredibly serious and would be considered slander/libellous. I imagine you have actual proof of what you intimate, otherwise you wouldn’t be as confident as you seemingly are to identify individual reps.

All the above doesn’t negate the fact, which you have failed to address and the point I was clearly making in my original post, that your council only has 300 members as per the councils website. Therefore I submit that your views are wholly held in a minority view vis-à-vis our community.

HAHAHAHAHAH (http://www.pprune.org/members/324264-hahahahahah) I ask questions of them. That isn't slander. Check your dictionary. They are free to answer, but don't. So you have to go to a branch meeting to be represented? Then thousands aren't represented, are they? I lived 5 hrs from LHR and work full time. That didn't leave me much time to doss around waiting for a meeting. And I'm not alone, so maybe it's you who should be doing some asking around.


The proposal put forward by BA at Easter (I can't believe I'm having to repeat this again) was rejected because of the announcement of strike dates when the union KNEW that was part of the deal. So they tossed it away without consulting us. It's in court papers that BASSA had to admit to, that the reps refused to turn up for meeting after meeting. Were you not aware of this? (Question, not slanderous statement!)

Yes, and that Easter deal was later put to the membership for consultative review. And guess what.....

It

Was

Rejected.



Accept it, as put simply, the majority of your colleagues do not share your view. As unfortunate as that news is to deliver. Its the truth. There is nothing personal intended in this message. Just a statement of facts.

For further clarification. The Easter Deal that you refer to has been worked and reworked. That doesn’t deny the fact that is was rejected by the membership. Therefore not acceptable to the majority.

PS I'm not in the Crew Council, so it's not my council. But you should be wary of thinking that because the PCCC only has 300 members, that the rest of the cabin crew community agree with you. You've edited your post to remove your statements about things being voted on at branch meetings, which was grossly unfair to the rest of us anyway.

It couldn't be rejected as it wan't on the table anymore. I was still with BASSA then and keeping a very close eye on things. That deal was not voted on. It was the next load of tripe we were offered after the strike. Were you actually paying attention???

I've edited my posts for spelling. Which parts do you refer to?

It must have been a reloading error, as it's all back up now.

I'm beginning to see why crew abandon this discussion as an alternative to sitting through it.

If you insist in continuing this line of argument, could I please ask you to examine the Easter document and past settlement documents and indeed the additional published documents and please explain the differences between them. What I'm asking for is a critical analyse of all the proposed Unite settlement documents and what you felt were lacking in them. But please be prescriptive and reference your submissions.

Seemingly you have a sound grasp, so please feel free to educate the remainder of the rumour community.

I await you submission for consideration.

It wasn't what I thought was lacking in them that mattered. Independent analysis found that the figures didn't add up for savings, if that's the UNITE proposal you mean. The sticking point as far as the union was concerned was mainly the reinstatement of ST after the strike with seniority. I couldn't see much wrong with the rest of the BA proposal, but it wasn't an option anyway. It became void after the strike dates were announced, so why any analysis was done at all beats me.

I've never understood why ST had to be part of the settlement. It wasn't in '97 and it was quietly reinstated. Such a hoo ha was made about it this time, that that option was impossible. I've seen the glee with which that's been noted by some of the non-crew staff on here, and it wasn't a pretty sight. Absolutely revelling in the ST being revoked. WW couldn't be seen to be publicly caving in. I'm not a fan of his by any means, so don't take it that way. It's an observation.

If this isn't relevant to what you want to know, please elaborate. I'm signing out now, so not avoiding the questioning, just working.

hahahahahaha

As far as I was aware the BASSA committee acted upon the wants and wishes of the community as represented by the crew members who attended the many branch meetings and duly voted by show of hands. I don’t recall any abstentions, or no votes at any branch meeting. If you can’t be inclined to attend to cast your vote, can you really reasonably complain that your, seemingly isolated opinion, be representative

Whilst accepting that the crew community as a whole STILL voted to strike in a secret ballot, the "show of hands" to which you refer was hardly a free vote was it? Would anyone really have dared raise a dissenting hand? We only need look to the public outing of a certain CSD by DH to see the fate that would have awaited them.


Secondly, I reject your assertion that BASSA did not negotiate.
Simply an opinion. The courts disagree with you. "Meaningful discussion" would be a more relevant phrase to use - and BASSA didn't do this either. I asked one of our Reps what the plan was at the start of all this. "Say 'No' until the recession is over. Wait it out" was his reply. Bluff was duly called by WW.


If I’m honest, I feel that BASSA actually gave to much away. It’s clear as the crystal to me whom was the party refusing to be reasonable in my view. I suggest you review the settlement documents released by BASSA in order to resolve this dispute, concession after concession were made, none of which were acceptable to company. In €€my view, my reps offered more than I would have been prepared to offer, however I recognise they did this in good faith.

Again, the problem was that the changes were temporary and simply a "loan" to get BA through the worst. NOT permanent and NOT meeting the cost-saving target. The "Ah but we were only £10m short and shhhh, but it's only temporary" argument was why BA said "No". Quite simple, if you strip it down.


Can I suggest, the next time you fly to ask your flight crew colleagues one question. If they were to be denied the right to transfer between fleet and base, would they accept that imposition. Of all my flight crew colleagues I’ve asked, the answer has always been no. Therein lies the answer to why I decided to stand up for my rights and why I will continue to support the individuals increasingly victimised, to represent me.

No rules regarding this were changed in the first proposals. BA wanted permanent cost-savings from us, that's all. Allegedly we were striking against the "imposition" of working with less crew, NOT against MF (which didn't exist!). As of now, the courts say that BA were legally entitled to impose such a crewing change. The introduction of MF and the barrier that prevents us transferring came later - as a direct consequence of failure to negotiate meaningfully. You were NOT striking over this and it's quite worrying (yet common) that you believe you were.

We are where we are due to BASSA leadership and the ill-advised voting by it's members. We'll all suffer for that though! :ugh:

I'm beginning to see why crew abandon this discussion as an alternative to sitting through it.


This seems to be a common theme amongst those who can't or don't want to accept that there exists a different perception of the current dispute than that commonly accepted on other forums. That others exist who don't hold to the values accepted by those supporting the BASSA action seems to be greeted with incredularity that they 'can't see the light'.

The current BASSA stance of 'well, look hasn't the current situation got better as we said it would' is akin to a patient being told by a doctor that they don't need surgery. The patient then goes away and has the operation anyway and when the doctor next sees them 2 years later and say's 'I told you so'.

The rest of the company took the decision almost 2 years ago to accept that change was required. BASSA have provaricated for so long now that the rest of the company (37000 odd accepting the losses BASSA have had) have passed them by.

Unite, through Tony Woodley, has been trying to convince the BASSA board to accept negotiated agreements as even BA has seen the futility of trying to deal with BASSA, to no avail. The BASSA board won't even put deals to the vote unless they contain the requisite triggers and then only those with the least to lose vote leading to an apathetic and hollow victory for yet another round of useless strikes.

This is no longer, nor has it ever been about impostition or new fleet. This has never even been about the impact on the average crew member. BASSA have lost the grip of fear they had on the management and are desperate to wrest back whatever they can. Unless they can achieve a full U-Turn from either Willie Walsh or Kieth Williams they will not be happy.

HAHAHAHAHA

The statement that the PCCC has only 300 members is as accurate as the BASSA savings proposal. :oh: The "around 300" mark was the number of members on our forum, within a couple of weeks of the forum being set up. :ok: Not all our members choose to join the forum, and as this number was being confused as being our total membership numbers, we have now removed it from our forum. Hope this clarifies for you.

The only thing worthy of note regarding membership numbers is that the PCCC members are going up rapidly, whilst BASSA are losing members at a rate of knots.:)

You state "The Easter Deal that you refer to has been worked and reworked. That doesn’t deny the fact that is was rejected by the membership. Therefore not acceptable to the majority".
Please can you tell me when BA's offer of last October (the Halloween deal ;)) was put to the members and rejected? For clarity, this is the one that offered shares, bonuses and an extra free ticket.

HiFlyer,

With numbers increasing and BASSA floundering, surely you must be considering making yourselves public pretty soon?

I fully understand the reasons for the anonymity at the start, but I think if you want to make the final push towards recognition you need to have a public face. At some point you are going to have to stand up and say who you are. Leave it too long and people may start to write you off as too timid to be of use to them.

Just a thought, and good luck by the way.

I agree, The PCCC would do well to go public this week, if not BASSA will put the new proposal to the vote and just like last time most crew won't even vote as they are either fed up or won't want to betray the union.

If they had a public alternative they could confidently vote to accept the proposal and then "run" to you guys for support and protection.
They would at least have a public place to feel safe and away from the intimidation of BASSA.

This will be even more important should BASSA decide to go straight for a strike ballot, probably once again getting a majority yes vote from a minority of members.

This will go round and round in circles until crew actually find the strength to leave BASSA, they never will however, unless they have a viable alternative.

Time to step up to the plate. What's the worst that can happen?
You already wear backing BA lanyards and you can safely park your cars in a CCTV coverage area.

BASSA reps might be militant but they are not completely stupid.

Any news on an outcome from the courts yet?

The PCCC needs 40% of crew to join to be able to secure negotiating rights. 300 won't do it and neither will 3,000. I'm afraid they have a long way to go yet. Their main problem is that most crew identify them with BA. For some that is not an issue but for moderates who still think they need a union rather than a bunch of sycophants it is a poisonous image.
The PCCC also promises it is open to everyone. I already know of two cabin crew members who told me that they simply had their membership terminated without any reason being given but their view was that their forum postings asked some uncomfortable truths. That makes it 298. ;)

The PCCC needs 40% of crew to join to be able to secure negotiating rights.

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.

Their main problem is that most crew identify them with BA

Based entirely on the lies and spin of BASSA. There is no secret shadowy link between the PCCC and BA, there really are some cabin crew who think BASSA are doing such a poor job that anything else has to be better.

Not what the BASSA hardliners want to hear though.

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.

You are totally correct - also the BASSA membership figure has to fall below 50% of the workers employed in the bargaining unit before BA can de-recognise BASSA as the trades union acting on behalf of Cabin Crew.

BA could also go down the route of Statutory derecognition of BASSA owing to lack of support for bargaining arrangements. They would have to make a request to a BASSA to end collective bargaining arrangements on the grounds that the union no longer has the support of the bargaining unit. The union can decline the request.

However, if the union declines a request after three years of statutory recognition, BA can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to hold a secret ballot.

The PCCC also promises it is open to everyone. I already know of two cabin crew members who told me that they simply had their membership terminated without any reason being given but their view was that their forum postings asked some uncomfortable truths. That makes it 298.


Complete claptrap. Anyone who reads our forum will know that you are lying. There are all sorts of questions on there - and people from all fleets, including Mixed Fleet, with varying views. Additionally, there are several threads asking for cabin crew views on certain subjects. Now, when have you ever seen that on CrewForum, or BASSA forum?:8

The forum is not "open to everyone". It is open to BA serving cabin crew only. One person, who has been sacked from BA, is no longer a member of our forum, by virtue of the fact that they no longer work for BA.

Unlike CrewForum, we feel that only the views of serving cabin crew are what count in this situation which affects us all. Getting retired CSDs (or even sacked employees) who have an axe to grind to put in their two pennuth is unhelpful and unnecessary. It simply serves to inflame the situation.

I guess, in a nutshell, you could say we have principles, and we abide by them. Cabin crew are enjoying the "freshness" that it brings.:D

Spindoctor and Plodding - thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Watch this space.;)

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.


That may be true Litebulbs but since 1989 we have traditionally had two unions in our community - CC89 and BASSA. The merger of the two into Unite has proved the undoing of our community, with BASSA dictating terms. Had CC89 been seperate today, they would have undoubtedly come out of this with virtually 90% of the workforce.

Our community is crying out for moderation - and BA has already recognised this by taking the historic step of offering a deal to non-union members. The suggestion that they wouldn't recognise a moderate union with a sizeable number of members is therefore somewhat unrealistic.

Amicus had, I believe, in the region of 3000 members and they had full recognition from BA. Point to note, Syndicate9.:ok:

I am BA cabin crew and this is my viewpoint and not that of BA.

I agree with Highflyer.
But would also like to add that even if BA is unable to recognise the PCCC as an official negotiation body, I am sure they will be willing to listen and take on board how it's members feel about different issues.

I notice in the absence of Bassa, BA have taken to having focus groups with Pursers and CSDs about the future role of both groups in E/F. I have been to a couple of these and it was great to get my opinion over direct to BA instead of having Bassa put it's slant on things.

So I don't see any problem with the PCCC being able to talk with BA on behalf of it's members whether it is recognised or not. At least the PCCC actually asks it's member for their views on matters which is something that Bassa does not do.

That may be true Litebulbs but since 1989 we have traditionally had two unions in our community - CC89 and BASSA. The merger of the two into Unite has proved the undoing of our community, with BASSA dictating terms. Had CC89 been seperate today, they would have undoubtedly come out of this with virtually 90% of the workforce.

Believe me, I agree with you on the local level benefits of the merger. I also think that if you get a sizable proportion of the workforce, you should approach BA to see about a voluntary recognition deal. It is what is best for you, not the parent union. It will be very interesting what comes out of this negotiation and how both parties (union) react.

So I don't see any problem with the PCCC being able to talk with BA on behalf of it's members whether it is recognised or not. At least the PCCC actually asks it's member for their views on matters which is something that Bassa does not do.

I notice that you say the "PCCC members" - and these are real questions and not trying to catch anybody out !!

Do you have to physically join by signing something?
Is there a constitution?
When you say the PCCC asks it's members for their views, is this done by ballot, online poll or some other way?

Genuine questions from somebody curious how it all works

I am a "BA Backer."
That's just a label. I back my family so crossing the picket line suited us and I suspect they suited the best interests for everyone else who crossed the line. Proudly or with a heavy heart.
However whilst the posts argue for and against why is nobody putting the spotlight on BASSA? Its quite clear they have no idea how many members they have so whats happening to all the contribution money? These union representatives are getting serious paper. They keep themselves in power and do not allow dissenters. What have they done for their members lately? BA are running things and BASSA is a dead parrot using rumour and lies to justify their existence. Its time for BASSA to have a complete change at the top. New leadership and a diffrent approach. Anybody on the BASSA side know how much they get? Are you getting value for money?
By the way give me a vcc over a xxxx any day of the week!

Do you support independent binding arbitration for the dismissed from your department? When I say binding, I mean reinstatement?

Let me get something else of my chest!

To HAHAHAHAH and all the other postees who make comparisons between flight crew and cabin crew to support their argument...STOP, STOP, STOP.

Do I really need to explain why?

To litebulb

I support what puts food on our table.

However as someone who has been through the diciplinery process and was allowed back to work (many years ago) I believe the process works. I can say that it is very difficult for BA to fire someone unless they shoot themselves in the foot at the diciplinery interview or bang to rights guilty. I strongly believe that any settlement should not involve any of these diciplinery cases.

Thanks for the reply. I would normally agree with you about "bang to rights". It is just surprising that so many (21?) have been dismissed in a year or so. If Ba has nothing to fear and it believes it has a robust procedure, then surely an independent body would agree?

The difference between a tribunal and an ACAS arbitration is that a tribunal would not examine the case but the process itself. As long as the case was investigated and all stages of the disciplinary process were followed, then the actual case content would not matter. The tribunal is not there to decide whether the decision was right or wrong, unless there is the potential for discrimination in one of the protected characteristics, i.e. sex, age, religion etc...

If you follow my argument then it makes sense that the sacked do whatever they have to do to get back on the gravy train. They just will not have my support.
Furthermore everybody who enters the diciplinery phase will spin the details to make themselves the innocent victim....Everyone!
The only truth is what happens in that diciplinery interview room and that should be separate from this dispute.

I cannot argue that the defendants will try to fight as hard as they can to be reinstated, as most people would. I would imagine that a percentage of the dismissed, would still be dismissed post arbitration, maybe all. So what is the risk, other than the possibility than at least some were tactical dismissals?

Personally I blame BASSA for allowing crew to think they can take the controversial soundbites of their literature and think they can use it on BA premises, BA time and against BA employees.

Why should We tolerate BASSA lanyards as some kind of political eye poke or those ridiculous xxxx key rings. Is taking things like that to the next level worthy of any sympathy?

BASSA is the school bully that picked the wrong fight and tried to get their followers to join in without warning them what the rules of engagement are. Everyone in the dock must must face the consequences of their actions and should ask themselves is it the union or BA that got them in this position.

21 dismissals is not excessive, Litebulbs. From my personal experience, at the height of the 'falling out', all the nastiest bully boys were full of voice. It is unfortunate that all we hear is BASSA's bleating about how their thugs have been singled out. I would stake my mortgage on the fact that every one of these sackings is warranted. There were bullies in 'peacetime' who were unacceptable. This situation just provided the empowerment for their victims.

If you would stake your mortgage on it, then ACAS arbitration should not worry you at all. Do you believe BA will reinstate the dismissed employees arbitrarily; I don't. BASSA are demanding full reinstatement. How do you negotiate a settlement? Do you think an independent is going to reverse every decision?

BASSA is the school bully that picked the wrong fight and tried to get their followers to join in without warning them what the rules of engagement are. Everyone in the dock must must face the consequences of their actions and should ask themselves is it the union or BA that got them in this position.

But wouldn't it be fair to be in an impartial dock? UK employment law means that you could be tried and sentenced by your accuser, your appeal is with the same entity and if you win the first impartial stage of due process, your accuser can still refuse re-engagement.

I have stated before, as a union member if anyone of us found ourselves in the disaplinary process then the first point of contact would be my union. I would also expect, unless I was "guilty a charged", to have the union at my side at every stage defending me.

Therefore i can therefore only assume one of the following:

1. Individuals were "guilty as charged".
2. Union misrepresented them in the process.
3. Individuals did not get any union help.

In any of these cases, I see no reason why their situation should form any part of a settlement going forwards. If Members and their union feel wrong doings by the company then there is a legal process to follow to resolve this.

The reason for any individual acting in a manor that places them in the disaplinary process is not relavent, ie industrial action, the consequences of their actions must however be expected.

Litebulbs
ACAS arbitration wouldn't worry me - no. Why should it? Have I missed a big point here?

I know, through a 100% credible source, of one of the recent sackings. It involved intimidation, endangerment of aircraft and threats of violence. Are those acts acceptable and do you feel ACAS would disagree?

What I sense here is whilst BA are hamstrung by the legal obligations of employment law and have to remain silent, BASSA (or should I say DH) seems to think they can publish the skewed testimony of those who have been sacked. Perhaps there are 1, maybe 2 doubtful cases but BASSA's portrayal of this group is that they are all entirely innocent. They aren't - You know that.

There comes a time when one has to say 'It's a fair cop, Guv' - False martyrdom, when it is proved to be that, will show retrospectively how low BASSA stooped over the last 18 months. Bring on that day of grim realisation.

Therefore i can therefore only assume one of the following:

1. Individuals were "guilty as charged".
2. Union misrepresented them in the process.
3. Individuals did not get any union help.


1. That is a possibility

2. You can fight as strong a case as you want, but the decision is the employers, even if a tribunal decides in favour of the employee. This is because the employer still does not have to reemploy.

3. Now I agree with you, in as much as going on strike as the first action in this dispute, removes the threat of industrial action to protect employees who have been dismissed unfairly, because of the dispute.

I am sure that if Unite come back to the dismissed and offer them a shot at ACAS arbitration, there will be a fair percentage that will not bother; as you say "fair cop guv". However, there will be some that see this as a lifeline. But would BA take the risk, if one or more dismissals are overturned?

"You can't touch me, I'm part of the union" has been long gone throughout the industry and no doubt many in this dispute are only just realising this now.

If you knowingly break the rules you get sacked.

Its very simple.

If you knowingly break the rules you get sacked.

Its very simple.

I would imaging that it is a little more subjective than that.

If you knowingly break the rules you get sacked.

Actually, in law, ignorance is no defence. Whether you break the rules knowingly or not is irrelevant, pleading that you did not know that murder is illegal does not excuse the crime. So, you break the rules you get sacked would be more to the point.

Litebulbs said,
"You can't touch me, I'm part of the union" has been long gone throughout the industry and no doubt many in this dispute are only just realising this now.Based on personal experience, most of the crew I fly with, are sadly still of the opinion that their Union will save them which is why some 8,000(a random figure) are still members. I agree, it should and that has always been my view as well when I belonged to BASSA many years ago.
They failed me, and they've failed their members now and look at the mess we're in. The problem with BASSA is that some of the reps got too big for their boots and it is BASSA who thought "BA can't touch me." This dispute would have been long over if BASSA hadn't thought they were the UNTOUCHABLES.
When Colombus leaked, BASSA should have been intelligent enough to collaborate with BA and work with the company, but they they didn't. Instead, they panicked and simply lost the plot.

PS:Chesh01, I agree with most of what you've posted, disciplinaries should not be part of the settlement.

Chesh01 posted
"Why should We tolerate BASSA lanyards as some kind of political eye poke or those ridiculous xxxx key rings."

So is the wearing of a BALPA lanyard also an "eye poke" which should be dealt with as a disciplinary matter...lets face it they dont conform to uniform regulations either?

Personally I think that the only suitable lanyards for all staff are the plain navy ones then all the debate is unnecessary. Advertising for union affiliations, airline manufacturers, charities and random other businesses should not be on a corporate uniform where the key word is "uni-form" or of one form i.e. all the same.

If it is such an effective form of advertising then perhaps we (BA) should sell the space and generate revenue. The passengers spend a lot of time looking at our backs so we could also sell the space on our ******!;)

BA pilots have been informed as of Nov 1 BALPA lanyards, or any other no issue, must not be worn.

As a current BALPA lanyard wearer, I cannot disagree with the policy.

"Why should We tolerate BASSA lanyards as some kind of political eye poke or those ridiculous xxxx key rings."

So is the wearing of a BALPA lanyard also an "eye poke" which should be dealt with as a disciplinary matter...lets face it they dont conform to uniform regulations either?

It's hypocrisy. Regardless of your department either you should be allowed to wear your union lanyard or not.

I was asked, or should I say ordered, by a lanyard police in the CRC some time ago to remove my BASSA lanyard as it was not uniform standard. A couple of feet away were three pilots standing (I hope you had a good look because it looked like your eyes were about to pop out) with their BALPA lanyards around their necks.

BA pilots have been informed as of Nov 1 BALPA lanyards, or any other no issue, must not be worn.

Great news. That'll make it a lot easier for us SCCM's to manage the BASSA lanyards! Hopefully we should be able to get rid of all of them by Xmas!

A Genuine Question
Quote:
So I don't see any problem with the PCCC being able to talk with BA on behalf of it's members whether it is recognised or not. At least the PCCC actually asks it's member for their views on matters which is something that Bassa does not do.
I notice that you say the "PCCC members" - and these are real questions and not trying to catch anybody out !!

Do you have to physically join by signing something?
Is there a constitution?
When you say the PCCC asks it's members for their views, is this done by ballot, online poll or some other way?

Genuine questions from somebody curious how it all works

Posted over 24 hours ago and no answer from the PCCC - anybody care to answer genuine questions?

Great news. That'll make it a lot easier for us SCCM's to manage the BASSA lanyards! Hopefully we should be able to get rid of all of them by Xmas!
I agree, Ottergirl and those equally ridiculous orange 'Vote Yes To Strike Action' luggage tags are not allowed either. Lots of Pursers/CSDs seem to want to make a deliberately statement with them. A good move on the part of BALPA and it should be plain navy and nothing else.

upperdeckpsr,
You'll find genuine answers to all your genuine questions by logging on to the Professional Cabin Crew Council website at mypccc.co.uk.:)

You'll find genuine answers to all your genuine questions by logging on to the Professional Cabin Crew Council website at mypccc.co.uk.

Why the sarcasm?

upperdeckpsr

If I were you I would not bother with the PCCC. Nobody knows who they are and there's a strong rumour that this council has either been set up by BA or it being funded by management.

If they keep insisting on remanining anonymous, how are they going to offer representation?

What do you think would be reasonable with regard to the sacked staff? Do you want full reinstatement, regardless of the dismissal reason, or an independent review, if requested by the affected individuals?

I have never demanded full reinstatement of dismissed crew. An independent review of every individual case sounds fair.

Ref the PCCC - I was trying to find out some answers I guess.

What is a bit disconcerting is that they seem to be self-elected and they are embarking on a 'recruitment' drive for people to be on their committee. Of those who are interested, they will be contacting and interviewing prospective candidates over the coming weeks apparently - I assume the self-elected committee will then chose who can join them on their self-elected committee!

So no democratic election process? No letting members vote for their preferred candidate? And a self-elected committee who choose who can be on their committee?

Sound more like a dictatorship than a democracy to me.

Litebulbs,

The disciplinary process was agreed jointly between BA and Unite. The fact that 20 staff have been sacked as a result of the process is neither here nor there. You cannot have a mutually agreed procedure that is immediately subject to external arbitration as soon as the results don't go the way you want.

If any of the sacked or otherwise disciplined people has a grievance about their handling then they and their union should take legal action under unfair dismissal legislation. The fact that the union is deciding not to persue this course is in itself interesting. There should be no way that the disciplinary process should be part of any sort of block trade off.

You'll find genuine answers to all your genuine questions by logging on to the Professional Cabin Crew Council website at mypccc.co.uk
Why the sarcasm?

upperdeckpsr,
Unfortunate that you see it that way, that wasn't my intention.
I genuinely believe that all your questions should be answered and they will be, on the PCCC forum and if you direct them to PCCC admin.
The PPrune moderators have been generous to allow the PCCC to form part of the debate here but I think your questions willl be better placed on the PCCC forum.
So why not log on to mypccc.co.uk and give it a go. If you don't like it, you can always remove yourself from the membership. You have nothing to lose by joining and you may be pleasantly surprised.:)

upperdeckpsr

It sounds a bit strange that they are recruiting people to become part of their committee. As to your questions, surely they should be able to speak outside of their forum instead of asking you to become a member with the intention of raising their membership number.

Miss M said,
As to your questions, surely they should be able to speak outside of their forum instead of asking you to become a member with the intention of raising their membership number

Where please Miss M? Can you give us any ideas? Every time we put up posters, leaflets, they are ripped up by BASSA members.

Miss M said,
If I were you I would not bother with the PCCC. Nobody knows who they are and there's a strong rumour that this council has either been set up by BA or it being funded by management.

Miss M,
If only that was true, it would be so much easier on all fronts.
It has been said endlessly, that we are BA MANAGEMENT/PILOTS or god knows who else. We are BA cabin crew of all grades using our own money to fund everything including our own time. Not a penny has come from anywhere else, not even from our members as yet. We all have laptops, printers and paper is cheap enough to buy, that's all that is needed for the time being.
It's a small sacrifice to make so that our voices can heard on a platform where crew with like minded views can discuss and debate so we can protect our terms and conditions and save our jobs. We all have a common goal, Miss M. The only difference is we are doing it by listening and talking, not by striking.

If any of the sacked or otherwise disciplined people has a grievance about their handling then they and their union should take legal action under unfair dismissal legislation. The fact that the union is deciding not to persue this course is in itself interesting. There should be no way that the disciplinary process should be part of any sort of block trade off.

Why would it be unreasonable to have an independent review? BASSA appear to be claiming that the dismissals have been part of the process, rather than individuals misconduct. I doubt very much if that is the case for all, but it might be a possibility for some. What if that was the case?

One thing I have learnt from this dispute and recent training, is that do not agree to any policy that could lead to a dismissal!

do not agree to any policy that could lead to a dismissal!

So you would say that no union should ever agree to a disciplinary process as these must have the ultimate sanction of dismissal. The unions and any company will therefore be in perpetual conflict and that is not healthy. What is healthy is for a company to agree with a union a mutually acceptable process for grievances. That is what happened between BA and Unite. It is no good whining when this process goes against you.
If there are individual cases where it is felt the process has gone wrong, fine, take legal recourse and go to tribunal. It is simply farcical to say that all cases are suspect and need looked at again. This is simply a smoke and mirrors ploy and I personally find it disgusting that supporters of rights in the workplace back moves whereby someone who had been sacked for bullying and harassment had another bite at the cherry.

Where please Miss M? Can you give us any ideas? Every time we put up posters, leaflets, they are ripped up by BASSA members.

Perhaps on here? Questions have been asked yet you keep refering to your discussion forum for answers. Why the mystery?

It's a small sacrifice to make so that our voices can heard on a platform where crew with like minded views can discuss and debate so we can protect our terms and conditions and save our jobs. We all have a common goal, Miss M. The only difference is we are doing it differently, by listening and talking, not by striking.

Protect our terms and conditions? What do you think BASSA are trying to do? Best of luck trying to talk to our management who gives the impression that they don't want to reach an agreement. TW had to approach BA to resume talks and BA have refused to de-roster our chairman so that she was not able to attend a briefing held by TW to view the proposal.

If there are individual cases where it is felt the process has gone wrong, fine, take legal recourse and go to tribunal. It is simply farcical to say that all cases are suspect and need looked at again

So you take it to tribunal and you win, you could still be out of a job.

That is the legal system that ALL employees exist under - why should any sacked CC be a special case. Independant arbitration of the procedure would also not ensure that anyone got their job back.

Just so I can give this up and go to the pub could you please explain why CC are a special case and should not be subject to the standard disciplinary process as agreed by BA and Unite?

MissM,

This

Protect our terms and conditions? What do you think BASSA are trying to do?

Gets to the root of the problem. The world has changed. Protecting your terms and conditions does not mean accepting permanent and significant changes. Every other work group at BA have accepted this except BASSA. The company is moving on and it is now doing so without you.

Because they are suggesting that there is a possibility that the dismissals were not fair and an independent review prior to legal action could help. But as you say, unless it is binding arbitration, agreed by both parties, it will not matter.

We shall see what comes from the talks.

Miss M said

Protect our terms and conditions? What do you think BASSA are trying to do? Best of luck trying to talk to our management who gives the impression that they don't want to reach an agreement with us as it was TW who had to approach BA to resume talks.

Protect our T/C's. Are you serious and I'm not being sarcastic. The problem is that ALL Bassa have tried to do in the past is PROTECT, PROTECT, PROTECT. We have moved on from that 'way' of negotiating many many years ago. Its all about evolvement amd involvement now, and being proactive in trying to move things forward for both ANY company AND the employees. Unfortunetely Bassa have always been a one trick pony and have now lost out. The problem is that ALL crew have lost out, thanks to Bassa. As for TW, I said last week that he is stringing this along to avoid an xmas strike just like he did over the general election. There will be NO 'significant progress' IMO

Plodding along said

BASSA reps might be militant but they are not completely stupid.

The jury is still out on that one I'm afraid!!

Litebulbs said

It is just surprising that so many (21?) have been dismissed in a year or so.

Actually its not. All that has simply happened is BA have had enough and are now thank goodness taking control. A lot of the sacked crew have deserved it for years but have got away with murder because Bassa have protected them. Its like the Mafia literally. If things have been unfair, I know of a female CC manager who was verbally abused in a disgraceful and personal way. The guy got a 3 year written warning despite being a known troublemaker for years. So I would suggest BA could have sacked even more perhaps. Also remember not all have been sacked for 'strike' events - just most.

Do you think it was reasonable not to de-roster the BASSA chair, to meet with the JGS of Unite, to discuss the previous weeks talks?

As expected, an offer has been made....

BASSA - Latest News TALKS UPDATE Oct 16th, 2010

We were hoping to update you today with details of the completion of talks between British Airways and UNITE.

These had been expected to conclude on Thursday night, however these discussions, including involvement of ACAS and the TUC, continued into Friday, and finally concluded late on Friday night. Unite General Secretary, Tony Woodley held a late night briefing session that finished during the early hours of this morning, for the small number of reps that were released by BA to attend.

We do now have details of the offer and also a reasonable understanding of its detail; as you would expect, it contains both good and bad. Some points have legal implications and so require additional legal opinion; we need to secure that as quickly as possible.

We must all carefully decide our next step.

To reassure you all, Tony has committed that the decision will not be taken by him but will, quite rightly, rest with your elected reps. We in turn, as is our duty, commit to you that decisions will also ultimately not be taken by us, but directly by you, our members.

We understand your frustrations but please be aware that there is no hidden agenda or anything more sinister going on than careful thought.

We have most of the information that we need but it still needs to be shared and considered with a lot of the people that represent you. BASSA chair, Lizanne Malone has also not as yet seen it as Bill Francis declined her de-rostering to attend the briefing held by Tony Woodley.

We ask for your patience just a little while longer, while your union’s formal response is formulated.

We stress again that there is no need for any anxiety, as any - and all - decisions taken, will be yours.

Do you think it was reasonable not to de-roster the BASSA chair, to meet with the JGS of Unite, to discuss the previous weeks talks?

Fax? Conference call? Or should the BASSA Chair receive a rolling de-rostering so she can be ready the very moment BA and the JGS thrash out a deal?

Fax? Conference call? Or should the BASSA Chair receive a rolling de-rostering so she can be ready the very moment BA and the JGS thrash out a deal?

Yes she should, she is the senior rep.

Perhaps after this is all over, if it is so vital that BASSA have their chairman available at all times to negotiate or discuss things, they could change their constitution to make the chairman post a salaried position funded from union subs. That way BA could not refuse to de-roster, as the chair would work for BASSA not BA.

Hmm, the most senior member of Unite, ACAS, TUC and BA in discussions to end one of the most public disputes in recent times, is not an every day occurrence. It wasn't too long ago, Unites two bodies at BA were openly criticised for not sitting in the same room, now the most senior is prevented from attending. How times change.

If I were you I would not bother with the PCCC. Nobody knows who they are and there's a strong rumour that this council has either been set up by BA or it being funded by management.

It's not a rumour. It's a lie put out by BASSA and is as ridiculous as the one about PWC. Do you really think that anyone, outside of the BASSA strikers who are so far stitched up through loss of pay and loss of staff travel they have no choice but to continue on with BASSA, believe this? Shortly, Miss M we will prove to you and the diehards that we are crew and we are independent. What excuses will you come up with then?:ugh:

Flaps62 has put the point very succinctly about disciplinaries. Arbitratration should not be allowed. Has it ever been asked for before or has the process always been robust? If not, then why do BASSA suddenly feel the need now? If it is granted, how would that affect any other previous dismissals? Would they then too gain the right for arbitration?

We have employment law, and as employees we would be quick to invoke the system if we needed to. We must therefore respect the system and abide it.
If BASSA were a union worth their salt :ooh: they would invoke the process and take BA to tribunal for unfair dismissal. They have not presumably because they cannot.

Litebulbs with regard to the time off, remember it is for REASONABLE time off. Given the nature of our job, if it was, for example, for a day in the middle of a trip and prevented her working for several days, would that be reasonable? Things are not always as straight forward as BASSA would have you believe.:rolleyes:

OK, lets try it from another angle. If at tribunal, BA are found at fault, would you insist on reinstatement?

Hmm, the most senior member of Unite, ACAS, TUC and BA in discussions to end one of the most public disputes in recent times, is not an every day occurrence. It wasn't too long ago, Unites two bodies at BA were openly criticised for not sitting in the same room, now the most senior is prevented from attending. How times change

The bargaining unit for cabin crew in BA is Unite, not BASSA. The negotiations are now taking place between BA and Unite, not BASSA. Malone is not party to the negotiations and so is not required for immediate attendance. There is no urgent or imminent deadline which must be met for the resolution of a dispute which has rumbled on for nigh on 18 months now, so again, no requirement for Malones immediate attendance. This is more a case of BASSA overestimating their own importance due to their desire to sit at the top table. I doubt there's anything new in the deal that is so important it can't wait a couple of days for Malone to return from whatever duty she's on. If Malone was so crucial to the process I'm sure Woodley could have secured her presence, he and Walsh get on very well behind the facades.

The bargaining unit for cabin crew in BA is Unite, not BASSA. The negotiations are now taking place between BA and Unite, not BASSA. Malone is not party to the negotiations and so is not required for immediate attendance.

I very much doubt that this is the case, but I have no evidence to back this up, so I will have to bow to what you know.

I've just been reading the latest on CF, after the BASSA update, and it seems (bearing in mind the lack of understanding that the BASSA chair is not actually a required presence at talks between Unite & BA) that some of the members want a strike over Christmas regardless of the offer or the issues at stake!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: !!!!

Do you think it was reasonable not to de-roster the BASSA chair, to meet with the JGS of Unite, to discuss the previous weeks talks?

If it was deemed so essential by TW that LM was de-rostered for attendance, then I think it safe to assume that he'd have made a public noise about it by now.

But he hasn't, has he?

This bit of bluster by bassa goes further to highlight how little they have explained to their members (and indeed, how little their members have researched or questioned the issue) about the relationship between bassa and Unite.

Bassa can pontificate all they wish, on this and any other matter they might choose, but until members are prepared or indeed allowed to openly question and challenge their leadership, it's all so predictably pointless other than serving to highlight the injustice that is practised by the upper echelons of bassa ... an organisation that patently fails to do what it says on the tin.

And to quote (just for a bit of fun) a loyal, striking, lanyard wearing, baggage tagged bassa member I mentioned Lizanne to yesterday: "Who's that?". :ugh:

I notice that you say the "PCCC members" - and these are real questions and not trying to catch anybody out !!

Do you have to physically join by signing something?
Is there a constitution?
When you say the PCCC asks it's members for their views, is this done by ballot, online poll or some other way?

Genuine questions from somebody curious how it all works

Speaking as a PCCC member:

You join (for free) via the website: www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) giving your name, staff number, base and rank, and stating whether you are permanent or temporary BA CC. You can then go on to register for access to the forum, choosing a username and password.

It seems to me that the PCCC is just floating the idea that things might be different and better in the future. I can go along with that for now, and am so relieved that an alternative to bassa seems possible, if enough people sign-up. So it seems, can all of the people I chat to on the PCCC forum. I guess that a constitution will come if and when it's needed.

Members varied views and opinions have been discussed on the PCCC forum. And when I joined, there was an online questionaire about various things that members wanted the PCCC to be, or not to be.

If it was deemed so essential by TW that LM was de-rostered for attendance, then I think it safe to assume that he'd have made a public noise about it by now.

But he hasn't, has he?

It may very well have been confidential terms to the meeting.

It may very well have been confidential terms to the meeting.

But if it was SO important to TW that LM was available, he wouldn't agree to it being confidential would he? Surely, if it really was that important, he'd hold-out and speak-out about it.

Or in other words: TW possibly considers LM's attendance to be detrimental to the proceedings.

You knock em when they meet, you knock when they don't........

But you may be right.

You knock em when they meet, you knock when they don't........

But you may be right.

Well yes, I do ... because bassa fail in both instances ... meet, and they waste opportunities ... don't meet, and they try to big themselves up.

Well yes, I do ... because bassa fail in both instances ... meet, and they waste opportunities ... don't meet, and they try to big themselves up.

I can see the PCCC are going to have their hands full with you:ok:

I can see the PCCC are going to have their hands full with you:ok:

LOL. I think it's known as "engagement", "involvement" and "empowerment" ... things that I had previously thought were offered by a union, but was sadly disappointed to find lacking during my membership of bassa.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply

Many thanks for taking the time to reply

No probs .... I know that the PCCC people are all crew, and as such, are not always around 24/7.

Reading between the lines I suspect that TW has laid down the law and told the BASSA reps that they have to put the offer to members. The huff and puff about the 'negotiating committee' being able to dismiss it out of hand was pure hot air. It will be interesting to see what the details are. I'm betting that there is a 'no strike' clause in it somewhere and that is one of the things that BASSA want legal advice on. The dilemma that Unite now face is if the bulk of members remain apathetic and a vocal minority succeed in getting the deal thrown out. In such a situation the union would be foolhardy to go for a strike call but would also have limited negotiating power to get a better offer. So a stalemate.

BASSA will need to provide adequate time for a consultative ballot on the proposal, so a Christmas strike is a complete non-starter now. What is critical is for the union to ensure that a credible majority of the membership actually turn out and vote this time. Given that we are moving towards the festive season this means allowing a clear four weeks from the date that ballot papers go out to the end of the ballot process. BASSA and its members are truly drinking in the last chance saloon. The fat lady is warming up her tonsils.

I suspect that the deal ticks more positives than negatives and it will be a take it or 90 days notice, but said nicer than that.

I suspect that the deal ticks more positives than negatives and it will be a take it or 90 days notice, but said nicer than that.

Quite possible I imagine. But will bassa bother to explain the consequences of the 90 days notice issue if that turns-out to be the case? Based on past performance, I think that doubtful.

The flip side to it, is that where the crewing level issue has so far been seen as non contractual (pending appeal), this would most definitely be a contractual issue, not linked to the first dispute. You know what would happen then.....

The flip side to it, is that where the crewing level issue has so far been seen as non contractual (pending appeal), this would most definitely be a contractual issue, not linked to the first dispute. You know what would happen then.....

Hmmm ... bit of a worry isn't it, waiting for the outcome of the court case, and at the same time the ins-n-outs of the TW/BA talks?

I imagine that a (IMHO unlikely) positive outcome for Malone & ors could quite possibly scupper any possible positives resulting from TW/BA.

I thought we would have heard the outcome from the appeal by now ... does anyone have any idea when we might do so?

I suspect that the deal ticks more positives than negatives and it will be a take it or 90 days notice, but said nicer than that.

Not so sure about that. Why would BA offer Unite a significantly better deal than the last one ? Nothing has got worse since the last offer and in fact BA are now in a stronger position to rebuff any strike attempt. I would not be surprised if the deal that has been thrashed out is a reworking of the offer put forward in June. Bear in mind that the only reason Unite felt unable to recommend the June offer was because it did not see an immediate return of staff travel with full seniority. So based on that BA don't have to offer any more cash, manpower levels etc. All they need to do is agree a position on whether or not to return seniority and when this would be effective from. I would think that the likely offer would be return of staff travel with immediate effect, but seniority to be returned over time and with 'no strike' strings. It could be that the company opts to return seniority from the start of the next leave year - i.e. April 1st 2011.

Or maybe a phased and relative return of ST seniority?

Stike for 1 day = seniority dated wef settlement of dispute.

Strike for 2 days = seniority dated wef settlement of dispute + X days/weeks/months - the "X" bit shoud have some appeal to bassa?

And so-on and so-on?

The trouble being that bassa seems unable to contemplate/consider anything other than total and complete ST restoration, which IMO, just isn't a possibility .... a price DOES have to be paid.

You may very well be right, but I think it is more than just a rehash, else it would be out in the public arena already. It doesn't matter that BA are in a stronger position, through due process, I imagine almost all of the BASSA members will be looking for an out, not a win. What is the point of grinding them into the ground? They will still be employees with a job to do. The damage will have to be repaired, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on.

It's not listed yet for next week. Could take up to 8 weeks to arrive at a ruling. Be interesting to see which way the judges jump. Lady Justice Smith was one of the appeal court judges who heard the previous appeal by Unite and found in their favour. I do feel sorry for her as whichever way she goes this time, there will be someone who may suggest that her reasoning was coloured by the previous decision. What will be lost entirely will be the legal arguments one way or the other.

Litebulbs

Agree with you that there is little point in grinding them into the ground. I think the crunch now is that there are still a fair number of BASSA members who did not go on strike who would want a quick settlement. If BA are seen to offer a better deal than the June offer, then BASSA can claim a victory. It will be seen as a vindication. For that reason alone, BA can't agree to a radically improved deal. Moreover, if BA are perceived to have the upper hand, then the way in which any return of staff travel is treated has to be with utmost caution. An immediate return with full seniority would be taken as capitulation. The only other cards that are potentially in play are the various appeals and tribunals. It may be that as part of any overall package, Unite have to agree to dropping any outstanding court action. I stick by my guess that the package will be the same financial deal as offered last time, but with tinkering around the staff travel seniority. It would not be grinding crew into the ground, it would be aligning them with what others have already accepted.

Well, we will all see soon enough.

colonel white and litebulb.....

BASSA are doing a good job grinding themselves into the ground on their own!
I personally see no change on BA's position with regards to staff travel and with BASSA's hand looking very weak why should BA go soft now? I could tolerate something for commuters to help them return to their home airports only but other than that BA have to standby by their words. You strike you lose staff travel.

By the way I would rather a vcc than a xxxx any day!

Chesh01, I can understand the point you are making, but I do not completely agree. The majority of crew will still be at BA for many years, after this is concluded. Industrial relations will have to be repaired when both sides have left the field. Obviously the fight for survival has been won and there is going to be thousands of strikers still in employment post settlement.

Chesh01 - BA cannot sustain their position for too much longer as BASSA can not either. Working relationships especially onboard the aircraft are close to breaking point. This isn't healthy in an industry like ours where CRM should always take priority.

What is it going to take before some major happens?

Lets hope the BA proposal does include the reinstatement of staff travel with out any loss of seniority etc and that a deal can be done sooner rather than later.

The last thing any of us want (or should want) is a prolonged dispute and cases being heard in the courts.

By all accounts its was UNITE that initiated this latest round of talks, not BA. From that it is reasonable to conclude that UNITE feel more pressure (for whatever reason) to settle this dispute.

BA has already signalled that it is willing to return ST, albeit with restrictions on the effective date of joining. UNITE (TW) have stated that the last deal was acceptable with the exception of ST and the disciplinary issues.

It is again reasonable to conclude a few things from this. The main parts of the deal are unlikely to be significantly different from the last deal. The areas of negotiation are likely to be over ST and disciplinary issues. it is also likely that UNITE would wish to secure bargaining rights for MF and perhaps some mechanism to gain some input into route transfer to MF.

I believe that ST will be returned with a phased return of date of joining. I think that there may well be an independent review of the disciplinary system perhaps done by ACAS, but I see no way back for those sacked recently. I think UNITE may secure negotiating rights for MF and the right to be consulted over route transfers. There may be some other sweeteners in the deal from BA but they will be tied up in a no strike deal for a number of years. I suspect there will also be a clause that includes some loss of ST and or other things should there be a strike in the future.

It will be interesting to see what the deal is as it will define industrial relations for the next several years.

Working relationships especially onboard the aircraft are close to breaking point.

I dispute that totally. Relationships are respectful and tolerant. Where are you getting your info? My experiences have all been positive recently. I'm a pilot (not VCC!) and I don't recognise what you say.

You know what would happen then.....

Yes. Tony Woodley won't authorise another strike ballot and it'll be game over for BASSA.

Industrial relations will have to be repaired when both sides have left the field.

Very true and I have no doubt it won't be any easy job. However, industrial relations between BA and the rest of the employee body won't be helped if BASSA is allowed any sort of crowing victory.

Strikemaster - I am BA cabin crew. The atmosphere in my opinion is far from
respectful and tolerant. However you view it from one side of the flight deck door and I view it from the other side.

Strikemaster - OzzieO is absolutely right. The longhaul CSD's say that the atmosphere on long-haul flights between the different factions of Cabin Crew is often difficult. What may seem 'respectful and tolerant' on the bus is actually simmering resentment, mistrust and almost a 'gang' culture. Fear of saying the wrong thing seems to suppress a lot of the outward signs (and tempers the relationship between cockpit and cabin) but the underlying strain is ever present. The atmosphere on short-haul is better on most days because so few crew took IA but it only takes a couple of strikers to change the whole mood.

Lets just hope things get sorted out sooner rather than later. I hate working in this vile atmosphere.

The atmosphere on short-haul is better on most days because so few crew took IA

How many took IA then? Or are you guessing - or are you going to say that every crew you have flown with have all been non-strikers?

but it only takes a couple of strikers to change the whole mood.

Yes but you have already said on a previous thread how you treat those that went on strike haven't you?

Lets just hope things get sorted out sooner rather than later. I hate working in this vile atmosphere.

Easy. If you hate it that much, leave.

Easy. If you hate it that much, leave.

Coming from someone who, as a majority of a minority, advocated ill thought out strike action, based on a surmise of illegal imposition which was subsequently legally proven, even at appeal, whilst advocating the demise of the company rather than accept change and all along waiting for 'acceptable' VR conditions, I find your comment somewhat rich.

Take all sorts I suppose.

Personally I rather hope that Tony Woodley presses BASSA on the reasons for taking whatever olive branch BA hold out or accept that this time the companies patience might well be exhausted and that contract termination might just happen. It would seem that BA have been extremely reticent to use this option but might not be left with any choice.

All of the options seem to be with BA at the moment.

Miss M thank you for your well thought out helpful reply.

I don't want to leave but thank you for your advice.

OK. I accept that from behind our door things can only seem as they are presented to us.

Strikemaster82,

Things are most certainly NOT all rosy on S/H and I certainly believe my cabin crew colleagues when they talk about the strain in L/H.

I find it particularly sad, and rather pathetic as well, that a number of cabin crew have been really miserable and rude to me - people that used to be friendly and pleasant. Too many people are making huge generalisations and pre-judging colleagues based on pure speculation and what uniform they wear and what job they do. This kind of behaviour belongs in a primary school NOT in BA.

The atmosphere is certainly strained and I think that a lot of that is down to the fact that nobody is willing to talk about the situation - even off the aircraft. Some of the complete rubbish that I have heard spouted by militant cabin crew members is sssssoooooooooo completely nonsense, but when you have someone as completely deranged as DH 'feeding' information.......:eek:

the bassa 'leadership' have a lot to answer for regarding the lies and damned lies that they have spouted throughout this sorry saga. Their SOLE remit was to represent their cabin crew colleagues. The fact that all they were interested in was in preserving their own personal power is an appalling mis-use of their position.

I feel so incredibily sad and disappointed for the majority of decent cabin crew members who have been so dreadfully let down by such a distasteful bunch of complete self-serving muppets.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Coming from someone who, as a majority of a minority, advocated ill thought out strike action, based on a surmise of illegal imposition which was subsequently legally proven, even at appeal, whilst advocating the demise of the company rather than accept change and all along waiting for 'acceptable' VR conditions, I find your comment somewhat rich.

Have I ever said that I'm waiting for acceptable VR conditions? I have said that should BA offer it in the future I would consider taking it. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm waiting for it to be offered because I'm not.

Miis M we have all read several of your comments about wanting BA to give you a pot of money to go so yes it is easy to have formed an impression that you are waiting for VR. We have also read your comments that you will strike for "as long as it takes" ( what for exactly I'm not even sure you know) and some of us even read your comment that you would like to see BA go under.... before you deleted it.

All of that aside Miss M, what would it take for you to be happy to come to work and to join us in pushing BA back to the top?

Sporran,
As a CSD on Eurofleet, I completely agree with you regarding the atmosphere on shorthaul.
The 'gang' culture as described by Ottergirl is also spot on. This is typical on on shorthaul particularly where you see crew on standby who sit in groups at the Baggage Drop entrance in CRC.
The 'gangs' sit there flicking their Yellow Pens to make a statement as to which side of the fence they are, and as a non striker enters CRC, the intimidation starts. It's a Chinese whispers effect with the staring and dirty looks which is very uncomfortable if you are starting a trip.
You could ignore it, but it's intimidating however thick skinned one may be, and especially if your fellow crew on the trip are influenced by these sad tactics which affects CRM on the day.:sad:

The 'gangs' sit there flicking their Yellow Pens

Yeah it's getting a bit tedious now!:*

If anyone was in any doubt that BASSA is now a personality cult rather than a union I'm told people are saying they won't look at any proposal from BA because they refused to de-roster Malone for a meeting with Tony Woodley. Well that's a sensible approach!:ugh:

I'm told people are saying they won't look at any proposal from BA because they refused to de-roster Malone for a meeting with Tony Woodley. Well that's a sensible approach!:ugh:

I agree, it was stupid not to de-roster the chair of BASSA for the meeting.

The Flying Nunn

Interesting interpretation as I have never said that BA should give me any money. I have only said that I will not leave this company voluntarily and should BA offer another round of VR package I would consider it. There's the difference.

I know exactly why I have gone on strike which I have stated numerous times. I don't want BA to go bankrupt. What I meant was that I would be willing to go on strike for as long as it takes even if it meant that BA would go under.

What would it take to make me happy to come to work? What gives you the idea that I hate it? Because I went on strike and despise the behaviour of all the strike-breaking crew and VCCs?

Have I ever said that I'm waiting for acceptable VR conditions?

Followed by:

I have said that should BA offer it in the future I would consider taking it.

Ummmm? Is that not the same thing? If you would consider taking something at an acceptable point then surely you are waiting for that point, no? Semantics aside are you perhaps actually on the negotiating team of BASSA as the above bizarre example would indicate you are? :eek:

To leave voluntarily would be to resign; to accept VR would be dismissal. To different concepts.

Ummmm? Is that not the same thing? If you would consider taking something at an acceptable point then surely you are waiting for that point, no? Semantics aside are you perhaps actually on the negotiating team of BASSA as the above bizarre example would indicate you are?

No, it's not. I'm not WAITING for them to offer any VR.

Am I on the negotiating team of BASSA? No!

I agree, however, to go off thread a little, the entire imposition scenario was generated by the company allowing VR for a large proportion of the CC community rather than face the rather more unpleasant CR.

Miss M has stated

Have I ever said that I'm waiting for acceptable VR conditions? I have said that should BA offer it in the future I would consider taking it.

Which would seem, effectively, a double negative.

Anyway, to enable future VR there would need to exist a productivity increase which would, if BASSA were still sulking, probably require further imposition. The wheel turns!

Litebulbs,

LM is 'part of the problem' regarding this dispute. She, and a lot of her fellow reps made this personal - at the expense of the membership. Having her, and even worse the main muppet DH, at any kind of talks would have rendered any talks totally pointless.

Untie is the negotiating union now, not bassa. bassa have shown themselves to be purely interested in the vested interests of the reps - who we all know to be over 90% CSDs and pursers, and mostly WW. The moment they made it personal WW won! WW has kept the whole process as a business proposition.

There is not a 'snowball in a very hot places chance' that WW and BA would remotely bother having any direct contact with bassa - what would be the point as they are not interested in any outcome that would lose THEM their power. A power that has led to this confrontation!!

TW and most of the senior people at Untie are at least professionals and look at the big picture. They must be sick to the back teeth of the dysfunctional branch called bassa and are trying to ensure that BA cabin crew do not get screwed by the very people that were supposed to look after their interests.

I would not be at all surprised if Untie deal directly with BA in the future and further marginalise the power hungry bassa shower.

BA cabin crew need, and deserve, decent union representation. bassa in it's present dysfunctional and mis-leading state do not appear to be that union!!!!!

Points well made. I do not know the make up of the BASSA top table, but if it is as you say, it would be unusual with respect to any committee that I have seen, either inside or outside of BA.

notlangley provided a link to uniteba for me on the SLF thread. The tone is somewhat different to the BASSA forum, but I might be a tad biased.

I do not know the make up of the BASSA top table

After all this time supporting Bassa and their"point of view" you have never bothered to find out the names, personalities and agendas of those representing you.

Did you vote for any of them?

Bit harsh BluRiband as Litebulbs isn't cabin crew, isn't represented by BASSA and has been rather moderate of late regarding their actions.

Blu Riband,

Got to agree - bit harsh, as Litebulbs is not cabin crew.

Litebulbs,

Credit where it is due - to you!!:p
You used to really naff me off with some of your 'arguments....', but you appear to have matured - like a nice wine!!:p
Nowadays, I think you come away with a lot of sense!:D

We must both have mellowed!!!:ok: