We would all lose out on an hourly rate on Eurofleet at the moment just like our Flight Crew colleagues have - who could have predicted a one for one exchange rate with the Euro? And that is the trouble with a rate independent of the local cost of living, cheaper to administrate no doubt but would be more workable if the UK became a Euro zone.
But don't forget that we have had the advantage of living 'well' off the Eurozone for the past couple of years. Fluctuations in currency will always affect crews who 'spend' their time abroad. One must take the approach that what is reaped in the good times is sown in the bad times. Take a long term view and you will come out equal. The advantage with the 'flat' system is that it will negate the 'fat cat trips' and the problems of allocators becoming embroiled in favouritism. Flat rate encourages working principles whilst allowing trip allocation independent of seniority.
Quote:
Firstly we (FC) negotiated a while ago to have some of the allowances rolled in to our basic
Quote:
Not an option ever offered to us.
Not quite true. The issue of CC being on a similar 'deal' to flight crew has always simmered in the background. During the recent AGM where Willie Walsh was to be disposed there was a heckle from the crowd of 'Give us the same deal as the Flight Crew!' to which Willie replied 'I wish you were on the same deal as the Flight Crew.' This has been bandied about since the FC took restructuring 5 years ago. During the negotiations leading up to the change BASSA refused to entertain the idea of change to such an extent and the idea, through weak management and an expanding market, was dropped.
Quote:
There were rather a lot of pilots collecting receipts too!
There was indeed. The problem with the whole HMRC exercise was that it was a 'scatter gun' approach. BASSA produced a list of what must be spent at each destination to achieve compliance with the HMRC ruling. To be honest, under the Flight Crew allowance system the numbers were 'generous' but the CC system it was always going to be very difficult!
Quote:
Secondly we (FC) actually took the tax exercise seriously.
Followed by:
Quote:
SO DID I, in fact the weight of responsibility felt quite large for that period and I did the best job I could.
Many did and I thank those who did. Unfortunately the return from WW was too low and the HMRC will base results upon those returns. I find it sad that those who did take it seriously, and the drop in the value of Sterling has shown how important the tax benefit can be, have been let down by those who see that portion of pay as a PAYE 'top up'. Those people have failed to grasp the concept of the HMRC actions.
Quote:
you can never , ever, EVER have a sensible discussion with CC about hourly rate because they have been brainwashed by the very people who are supposed to represent them.
That quote I find a little out of order as some CC and, indeed, some FC don't realise the impact that the HMRC action could possibly have. Once the realisation is there I think most people would agree that what the HMRC was asking was 'difficult' to achieve when taken as a snapshot outside of ones normal spending pattern. The failure, as usual, was from BASSA as they failed to impress how important the 'trial' was.
Always remember, debate requires different viewpoints, the trick to 'civilised' debate is to be able to convince the other side with balanced, factual and reasoned arguments. Rhetoric rarely wins the day.
Come on flying_chick, for once actually explain (An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, and consequences of those facts.) what you mean by that. Why would it be so disastrous?
why i will tell you why. EX lgw and I can tell the difference between earning allowances and hourly pay on trips and flights. Like to see the difference in payslips??
No I think I can see the difference but it is exactly that difference that the company is talking about.
Why does a crew member at Heathrow earn so much more than a crew member at Gatwick for, essentially, the same job?
If the working conditions are so dire then why has BASSA allowed such conditions at LGW but baulks when they come to LHR?
Cost cutting started when BA rationlised LGW and BASSA, by allowing it to happen back then, has shot itself in the foot. BA cannot continue to operate in this century with pay deals rooted in the last.
Change is coming, BASSA LOST the injunction, otherwise crew wouldn't be working the new routines from the 16th. They have a hearing in February but that was always going to be the case based upon the fact that the injunction was a 'rush' due to the time frame as the imposition was about to take place (after 9-10 months of fruitless negotiation). Whether or not BASSA win the hearing is a long shot that I wouldn't take a punt on.
Unite/Bassa 100%? As long as you don't take into account your LGW colleagues who you have ostracised years ago.
Edit:
Please explain WHAT, exactly, makes LHR crew worth so much more than LGW crew? Please?
Errr, yes it would. The initial hearing, according to the court records it was an initial hearing, was 'fast tracked' due to the short time limits available pertinent to the case.
I.e. If they didn't get the case heard at the court by the 16th then the case would have been moot.
The judiciary decided that the case required greater representation than was available within the given time frame. Therefore they didn't pass judgment and couldn't declare the imposed working practices 'illegal'. Coupled with that decision the 'costs' cannot yet be attributed as, within a legal framework, the case has not yet been 'heard'. That comes in February.
The purpose of the injunction was, therefore, to stop the imposed changes, which it failed to do. The case hasn't even been tested yet merely delayed and BASSA claim victory?
Given that BASSA had ample opportunity to contest the 'changes' (and no one is even sure of they are contractual changes yet given that the company should, with reference to the MEL and CAA, be able to decide how many CC it needs on a service) the result of the court hearing in Feb is a difficult call.
So, as I said before BASSA LOST in their attempt to get the changes nullified.
Instead of just 'crowing' others post please, give us all the benefit of your expansive knowledge?
I can contemplate many things, one of which is that BA, as seen by the eyes of the investment community, will take on outdated practices.
The BASSA (as many of the CC don't agree with the actions of their own union) actions are potentially damaging the lives of many, many other individuals. That is why these actions are of great interest to many others who don't tow the BASSA line.
If you have good, factual reasons to back up you asinine one liners then please share them otherwise continue with your rantings. I have no 'cage' to rattle, just a different viewpoint.
Actually, reading back through the myriad of posts, I do actually wonder what some posters on here agendas are? If you're BA flight crew, you've had your consultation with the company - I wouldn't comment on it but good for you.
This being a cabin crew thread, why do so many of you who clearly aren't cabin crew make it your mission to try and have your views heard? It won't affect any future outcome and just serves to widen any divide between BA flight crew and cabin crew (of course, that's assuming some of you actually are flight-crew and not wannabees)?
We would all lose out on an hourly rate on Eurofleet at the moment just like our Flight Crew colleagues have - who could have predicted a one for one exchange rate with the Euro? And that is the trouble with a rate independent of the local cost of living, cheaper to administrate no doubt but would be more workable if the UK became a Euro zone.
I've seen this argument quoted on CF, that the hourly rate is a bad thing because the pound is weak. But have you ever stopped to question the 'Bassa received wisdom' and analyse the option yourself? Would you be surprised to hear it would mean you'd be better off today had the system been introduced on 1 Jan this year?
No? Thought not, so I'll do it for you.
For starters, on day 1 of the introduction of the system you will be provided with exactly the same spending power that you have with allowances. The pot for the year is divided into an hourly rate, as BF suggested for non-food allowances, and as was done for the pilots.
Then, the only time you lose out on any subsequent exchange rate fluctuation is when you actually spend any foreign currency. (If you spent no money abroad in the whole year, you would receive your hourly rate in your salary, and the exchange rate could double or treble with absolutely no impact on you.)
Most of the food allowances aren't actually spent, so lets say you spent as much as 30 Euros on food and drink on every nightstop. (Highly unlikely?) Lets say you had 10 nightstops /month (optimistic again), then you'd be spending 300 Euros/month maximum on food + drink.
Based on historical exchange rates, (source x-rates.com)
on 1 Jun 08 that would have cost you £245/month.
on 1 Jan 09 that would have cost you £285/month
on 1 Jun 09 that would have cost you £260/month
today that would cost you £267/month
So, in these very turbulent times with the very weak pound, fluctuations on a year on year basis have been at worst £40/month and that's assuming lots spent on food and drink and optimistic rostering of nightstops. You'd be better off today than at the beginning of the year. Also, actual likely spending will result in less fluctuation than this.
Also note that as Bassa suggests we are coming out of recession, surely the pound should strengthen, and then the exchange rate will actually work in your favour! You'd actually be better off each month! (I don't agree with Bassa here)
So, look at how much you actually spend on a nightstop, look at what the exchange rates are likely to do, and ask whether it's really such a hardship to switch to a guaranteed hourly rate, with all destinations having a similar value.
Having tried both systems, I'd go for hourly rate every time.
Last edited by midman : 8th November 2009 at 18:43.
This being a cabin crew thread, why do so many of you who clearly aren't cabin crew make it your mission to try and have your views heard? It won't affect any future outcome and just serves to widen any divide between BA flight crew and cabin crew (of course, that's assuming some of you actually are flight-crew and not wannabees)?
My bold.
This is why many posters get 'annoyed' at some, albeit a minority, of the posts in this thread and attempt to bring the real world into the 'lala lady' world of BASSA.
If you go back through this thread you will find several incidents of 'Bring BA down',' I would rather see the company fail than work for this' etc.
THIS makes it the interest of not only Cabin Crew but everone who works for BA. THIS makes it important that everyone has the option to make their opinion heard. BASSA does not have the power nor the right to bring the company down and 26,000 other employees have the right to jobs.
Until that changes discussion will continue. Remember that CC training, as required by the CAA, only takes a few days, the service might not be 'slick' but the company will continue.
edit:
Quote:
It won't affect any future outcome and just serves to widen any divide between BA flight crew and cabin crew
There only exists a divide between those who wish to push and promote it. I, personally, get on very well with the CC I meet but, as the old idiom goes, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
The Judge decided that it was up to BA to run it's business, and ruled that the proposed changes were unlikely to be contractual, but a full hearing would be required. So he dismissed the injunction and also refused to entertain any of Unite's submissions about New Fleet. How is that a victory for BASSA, lol? Steve Turner was heard on the BBC saying that the day in court, so far, had cost into 6 figures! Brilliant - I think the accountants at Unite will quickly tire of that, lol!
And the court date has been set for February because Unite/BASSA agreed to BA's requirement for no strike to affect Christmas business!
I'd say BASSA has been well and truly done over, hah hah!
Actually, reading back through the myriad of posts, I do actually wonder what some posters on here agendas are? If you're BA flight crew, you've had your consultation with the company - I wouldn't comment on it but good for you.
This being a cabin crew thread, why do so many of you who clearly aren't cabin crew make it your mission to try and have your views heard? It won't affect any future outcome and just serves to widen any divide between BA flight crew and cabin crew (of course, that's assuming some of you actually are flight-crew and not wannabees)?
The same could be asked of the Bassa reps in offering a pay cut - instead of consulting with its members, suggesting a target saving and costing out the impact on its members, resulting in a calculated percentage cut, what did your intelligent sophisticated reps say?
FTW - Understandable really as nobody seems to be able to have an actual debate on here, all you get in return is BASSA 100% and "we shall see who is right".
I used to be CC so I know it is an intelligent and diverse community so why is that not represented here with some quantifiable facts and reasoned arguments as opposed to "I am keeping my double breakfast so there".
That argument is made even more nauseating given you haven't been asked to give up any money just to work harder to keep the company afloat, so you'll excuse me when the self righteous attitude some (not necessarily you) display when "supporting their representatives" annoys me a little.
I agree with your appraisal of the overall view of the Cabin Crew.
Sadly, those who try to promote the BASSA position have only rhetoric to fall back on. There are few facts that uphold the position that BASSA holds. Anyone who looks outside of the company to see the position that the global economy is in and, with it, the position of the long haul aviation industry, would be unable to justify the lack of change that BASSA advocate.
Change is needed. It was needed post 9/11 and it is needed even more now.
If BASSA can, with facts and accountable proof, give an alternative then, please, post it. Let the nay sayers hear the counter argument to the cuts that BA wish to make. Put, in black and white, changes that will allow the savings that are required to keep the company trudging on.
Otherwise don't, please, keep plying 'BASSA 100%' without explanation.
WTP, as I said earlier, I wouldn't question you (if you are flight crew???) on Balpa's settlement and no, I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of what Bassa are up to.
I do, however, believe one of the Balpa reps has very recently suggested that you (that's a general "you") , keep your opinions about cabin crew negotiations to yourself.
That sounds like sterling advice so maybe a good time to take a few steps back and have a reflect? Peace.
I do, however, believe one of the Balpa reps has very recently suggested that you (that's a general "you") , keep your opinions about cabin crew negotiations to yourself.
That sounds like sterling advice so maybe a good time to take a few steps back and have a reflect? Peace.
Well, as the Crew Forum and the BASSA forum are full of how 'BALPA rolled over', 'The pilots gave in because they get their money back later', etc. I feel that trying to silence someone on a public forum with 'BALPA advised' is, somewhat, ironic.
BASSA is advocating industrial action that could severely damage the company I work for. What I fail to understand is what BASSA are gunning for? What I would like to know is what, casting aside BASSA's rhetoric, BASSA are acceptable to change over? What will the Cabin Crew Union do to assist the company to change for the future? How does BASSA, in the public eye, justify retaining the over inflated payments that LH pays?
Surely, as an employee of the company you, as a Union, are so hell bent on destroying, you owe the rest of us 'roll over and take it' dogs an explanation as to where we went wrong?
Quote:
WTP, as I said earlier, I wouldn't question you (if you are flight crew???) on Balpa's settlement and no, I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of what Bassa are up to.
The forums described above have been alive with opinions as to what BALPA/Pilots should have done, some of which have been neither pretty or physically possible. BALPA negotiated within the time frame available and thus had influence on what changes/savings were made.
BASSA have neglected to take the same opportunity. Now, when imposition comes, BASSA cries foul.
So, again, what gives BASSA the right to think they can dictate the futures of all those working for BA who are not in BASSA?
Oh, and I think I can make my own mind up as to whether or not I wish to discuss this matter on a public forum. Sorry, but educated discussion will continue.
FTW: if such a suggestion was made I think it was probably to do with not discussing it with crew at work. You will have a hard time stopping people posting on this forum, it's up to the mods to decide what is acceptable, not you, IMHO.
However this is one of the few forums where crew can read opinions other than "yay, BASSA 100%, you lot have got it coming next etc" ('we lot' have already 'had it', BTW)
So I expect the thread will chunter on as BASSA carry on down their default path....
And also if the win they will have to compensate from November 16 and December 1st. 
Linear Mode
