Is this debate about marmite? Love it - hate it.
Is this debate driven by highly successful capitalist v highly motivated socialists?
To the best of my knowledge, please prove me wrong, nobody here has actually been involved. Bassa didn't do this, didn't do that, didn't do the other. BA didn't do this, didn't do that, didn't do they other. One hundred and odd pages of opinion based on hearsay and propoganda.
I tried many moons ago to put my point of view accross as cabin crew, but was shot down, lost my rag, realised that debate on here had no affect what-so-ever on the outcome and remained silent. For the sake of balance I also got shot down on crewforum for being the only one in 30 plus pages to state that a strike until BA shuts was pathetic. There is no meeting off minds here, just steadfast opposing views, and I fear this situation is replicated at negotiations. Both sides are lead by determined Terriers snapping and gnashing to make their views dominant. Neither seem to care about the vast majority in the middle.
So to me. I want my company to continue, restart growth and succeed. But I do not want to be disadvantaged in doing so. I do not want strike action, I see it being counter productive for both unions and company, but neither do I want my long term prospects to disappear into a new fleet. I do believe that BA stalled during the summer because they knew what they wanted and they knew it would lead to industrial unrest. They also knew that BA had a terrible reputation for industrial unrest every summer, (something of a joke), and that in difficult trading summer would be our best chance to make money. So here we are. Francis talks about no new recruitment be fails to acknowledge that ex temps are no new recruits and neither are those in the holding pool who have already been technically recruited. Francis offers a monthly travel payment but fails to mention that it is pro rata. ie, should I find myself on 24hr, (which I already am), I will not be paid for those days. Consider that crew are already being rostered 24hr for upto 14 days per month and watch the travel payment half. Neither will it cover stand by duties, leave, ground duties/course or sick leave. The point is, of the figures suggested by Francis, nobody will actually earn them. This is the situation now. How will it be when work is transferred to a new fleet?
A new email quietly slipped into my in-box with a last minute paragraph which states that there is a new redeployment policy agreed by the TU reps. The TU reps say nothing has been agreed. My concern? It details where I will stand when I become surplus crew, ie as new fleet grows. And imply it will be join new fleet on a protected wage for 1 year or leave. Not as the current redeployment policy which has ex engineers, ground staff and office workers redeployed as cabin crew but with their original basic wages.
To those who state it is a good deal, I wish I could join you in your confidence, but the small long term detail is worrying. I certainly wouldn't strike about losing a crew member or CSDs on meal trollies, but what I have discussed leaves me in limbo.
Mr Walsh and Francis are correct. The current deal does not affect current crew terms and conditions, but it all means nothing if there is no work and ultimately we are driven to relinquish those terms and conditions. These men have been clever, dangerously clever from my point of view.