Hi jetset lady, yes best not turn this into a LHR vs LGW debate. That debate has been going on since 1991. We all know where it ends and is usually forgotten once said crew member has transfered to LHR, where LGW and it's plight are a distant memory. It's always been LGW vs LHR, EOG vs WW LGW, WW LGW vs WW LHR. For the record, I've always been a staunch supporter of LGW and it's where my heart is - and don't assume that I am WW LHR. I consider myself between fleets at the moment.
I'll try to explain how I see things at BA in the spirt of healthy debate. I'm not having a go at anyone or thinking that one base is better than another. I'm debating from the point of view of an observer and as an aviation student rather than a BA employee.
For a start, I am well aware that there is a premium product at LGW. I've helped deliver it myself over the years and it's a darn good one. I've also had to deal with the aftermath of the crew crisis late 2007/early 2008 when we were sub-contracting flights out to Monarch and Astraeus. We were having to downgrade many Club Europe pax and the reason given was crew shortage.
The crew shortage at the time was caused by a higher than normal attrition rate and the 900 hour rule. So why the higher attrition rate? It was the first year of the SF LGW contract (which we all know is the EOG contract dating back to the Dan-Air purchase - but with long haul) and crew were leaving because of 'mixed flying and the associated fatigue'.
Part of the 'new' contract allowed for less MBTs after long haul flights which meant not only were crew worked harder and suffering from fatigue but they were hitting the 900 hour limit quickly and then being forced to sit around on their basic for months on end. In the end, it turned out to be a HUGE false economy. People were sacked over it.
As for operating minimum crew on the 737, ok fair point, you've proved that you can do it. Does this mean that the 777 will now go out with 8 crew, keeping in line with Thomas Cook and Thomson? No, of course not, and why not?
If you think it's fair to take away terms and conditions from WW just because LGW don't have it, you may need take on board a couple of points.
1. You may well be at LHR one day, if you choose to be. With LGW finally being part of the NSP, movement will happen in bigger numbers over the next couple of years. After all these years of fighting to be part of the NSP, it would be such a shame to find that the option to transfer to WW on its current terms and conditions no longer exists.
2. SF LGW is by no means the bottom of the rung when it comes to pay and conditions. A lot of people in the company have it a lot harder than you do.
For example, as crew or ground staff, if you go sick, you at least get your basic. Go sick in any other department, you get zero. Depending on where you work, you may get SSP (£75) for 6 weeks if you've served enough time, possibly more if you've been around for a while but it runs out at some point. Get a long term illness, you're on your own and possibly out the door. How is that fair? It's not but it's in the terms and conditions.
In the end, we know why LGW is different and we know why SF LGW was created. We know why the company are trying to create a version at LHR and fair dues. I can see the business case for it, especially the flexibility aspect of it. What I don't agree with is taking away terms and conditions from an existing contract just because another airline doesn't have them, or in your case, another fleet. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on making life better at LGW and fighting for improvements there rather than bringing down another fleet who's only crime seems to be its very existance?
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I guess time will tell.