Originally Posted by WeLieInTheShadows
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?
Not really. When a group of crew cannot between them construct an adequate LRBL, conduct a thorough cabin search, secure a cabin adequately for a ditching or numerous other safety critical tasks I think appalling is an appropriate description.
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?
But they sit next to a door on most flights and one should reasonably expect they'd know what to do if they were required to do it, especially in a controlled environment such as SEP where they have plenty of time to plan and prepare. I won't see an engine failure from one sim to the next, or a bomb threat for example, but I'm expected to be able to handle it as well as I would in the air. Is that too much to ask of our crew?
I agree that's why I belong to AMICUS my friend.
It shows (that's a compliment!).
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.
I'm not sure I'd use the word shafted. If the numbers no longer add up then it's no good stamping our feet and complaining. If people have been doing some shafting then it's been successive governments. We are not alone in out pension predicaments.
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?
HM has already mentioned I don't think no change was ever a position of BALPA on the pensions front. The reality was that the pension was underfunded and something had to change. In an ideal world the BALPA staff would have kept their pensions the same but we live in the real world. Their deficit was 50% of BALPAs resources and growing. How do you make provision to fund an open-ended and growing commitment like that in an organisation with a modest income?
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?
BA didn't tell us, the pension fund actuaries did the auditing. Then we got our own actuaries to check the figures and our own accountants to check BAs figures so we could see whether BA's claims were realistic.Thats why BAs position moved so far from their original start point. It also helps that one of our reps is also a NAPS trustee, so he gets exactly the same information as BAs management trustees get.
Originally Posted by Tea Coffee or Me
Before Carnage comments on the performance of cabin crew it is worth noting that on this forum, he spends nearly all his time discussing the "appalling mistakes" of his colleagues, which usually amount to a huge loss of life and millions of $'s worth of damage.
Nearly all my time? I've not commented on any major accidents for some time, and I am always careful to avoid levelling accusations against crews, so the idea that I am discussing their 'appalling mistakes' seems to be another of your fabrications. The reason you don't recall cabin crew being destructive is because their mistakes get caught by the professionals at the front end. I can think of two incidents within our own airline that could have caused a hull loss (one nearly did) which were attributable to the poor standards of the cabin crew on the day and were mitigated by the performance of the flight crew. Can you remember what they were?