It's also amazing how well the crew and BASSA manage to keep so many of these unbelievable incidents quiet.
A few posts ago we see a BA ground staff member convinced all "restrictive practices" stopped with the move to T5 and now a BA captain unaware of the famous (or so I thought) Denver diversion.
My two personal favourites (happened to me and not rumour) was following a bomb evacuation of Terminal 4 three years ago we arrived in Copenhagen to have the CSD insist on 18 hours off. It's not as if the operation had suffered enough already was it? Why not cause a bit more chaos and cancel the next day's flight aswell.
How about a diversion due fog in Islamabad, Return flight cancelled because of the 30 hours in 3 days rule (???!!!), would have been 30h 20 mins and BASSA said no alleviation.
Return flight via Dubai to change cabin crew, we did both sectors!!!
Restrictive practices are alive and well at fortress LHR and are the whole reason for this "assault" on terms and conditions.
If the operation was well paid and efficient or low paid and inefficient the assault may not have happened, alas LHR is expensive AND inefficient.
Something has to give.
Perhaps a few more examples of waste and inefficiency would help peoples' understanding........
Edited to add.. just seen the above post and yes lots of stories are untrue or do infact have a valid reason, many however do not, take the 18 hour rule for example,(shorthaul industrial rule) crew will more often than not take the full 18 hours rest, not because they need 18 hours sleep but because they believe "use it or lose it".
BASSA's own proposal has valued the disruption agreement at £60 million, they are thus admitting that they think crew agreements cost the company on average £60 million each year!!! If they didn't then it wouldn't be a saving would it???
Last edited by plodding along; 12th Jul 2009 at 16:50.