Still mystified by this one. The extent of the interaction between FD and CC is us sitting in the front of a pretend aircraft reading from a script prepared by the SEP instructors. As far as I can see the SEP day involves no opportunity to utilise CRM skills in their true form, as opposed to the cabin crew 'CRM means you must be nice to me form'. As for doors, well some people may find them tricky but as we only open them once a year at SEP it's hardly surprising now is it. Describing that as 'appalling' is pushing it a bit don't you think?
I think you used the word appalling in your post first matey (and it's a fairly strong term), do you feel you were pushing it a bit? I'd be quite happy to back my claims up with evidence. I did also say it was both at SEP and online. You were the one who said opening a door wasn't "rocket science" but it's great to see you defending your colleagues. It is possible for cabin crew to only open a door once a year if they only work in certain positions all year round. So I guess you'll defend these individuals as well?
Because you know as well as I do thats not the way negotiations work. There may well have been a win-win scenario available. You'll never know because BASSA didn't negotiate. They could have walked away at the end if they didn't like what was on offer, but it was easier to just say no from the start
Of course I do. I would say that BA knew this was going to be a tough sell, so another approach could have been tried. If adding it all up and then dividing = big savings on admin costs then why not just be transparent and sell it like that? A win/win scenario is the best deal all round, and it could have been pretty painless. What it would have showed is the disparity between the LHR and LGW hourly rate. Then the unions would have nailed BA down to raising the LGW rate to match. Not such a win for BA after all
. we'll never know now will we?
How do you know they are protecting their members if you don't question their methods? If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Perhaps you'd be better protected if they acted smarter?
I agree, that's why I belong to AMICUS my friend.
Then don't level expert criticism then fall back on the line 'I'm no expert'. Everyone else in the industry has had to take a hammering on their pensions because the numbers don't add up. I don't wish the cut on them but if the pension fund can't be funded somethings got to change. FYI I voted for the change in pension in BA because I'm a realist.
I don't think saying BALPA shafted it's employees makes me an "expert", just a casual observer with an opinion (to which I'm entitled). Would you say BA "shafted" it's employees by changing the pension scheme? If not what word would you use? FYI I also voted for the change in the pension scheme as I am also a realist. What I find hard to understand (as I'm sure BALPA's employees do) is BALPA's initial stance on the BA person was "no change" (wasn't it NO WAY BA?). You'd think that after having to give ground to BA that they'd at least look after their own? Were BALPA (the sensible, educated, and respected union they are) really in the dark to how bad the whole pension crisis bubble was before BA came along and told them? Or is it a case of everyone else is doing it now, so we'd better jump on the bandwagon and do it too? I guess as a member you've seen the figures so you know better than I.
Wow, never used the quote button so much.