But when push comes to shove, BA's crews have shown time and time again that when the digested airline meals hit the fan, they more than step up to the plate.
I have refrained from commenting on your valiant attempts to talk up the merits of BA CC but it is only possible to read so much.
I have no intention of washing BA dirty linen in public nor diverting this thread from its subject but I could personally talk about one enroute diversion and one turnback both, unquestionably, caused by cabin crew incompetence. The fall out from one is still being felt in Cranebank.
I know of many excellent CC within BA, equally I know of many who should have been sacked years ago. The result, which shows in surveys time and time again, is the inconsistency of BA inflight service. It is inviting ridicule and it is unbelievably arrogant to claim that BA CC are better than any other airline in the UK
You state stated earlier that Virgin CC allowances are paid in cash. I fail to see what that has to do with the comparison of the BA CC costs and other airlines costs. Visit the CAA website where the comparitive costs of all airline personnel are plain for all to see. BA's actual costs per CC member are roughly double that of our nearest competitor.
BASSA has progressively sold out the regional crew and the LGW crew to sustain the unsustainable. That is the archaic and expensive agreements at LHR for CC, especially those of Worldwide Crew.
Last June (bear in mind these negotiations have been continuing for over 12 months and June was the deadline for agreements to be concluded) on the table from BA was:
- New crewing Levels
- New disruption agreement
- Share scheme
- NO NEW FLEET
That was it! If you don't believe me go back through your company e-mails and read for yourself. It speaks volumes that the crewing levels and disruption agreement could account for the amount of money WW wished to save from the CC budget!
BASSA, in its true style, did what it had always done and that was refuse the offer predicting that BA's usually weak management would cave in as they have done for so many years. They have backed themselves and the CC into a corner from which there is no escape. They realise it and so does WW.
The negotiations have been quite ridiculous at times with the two sets of CC reps (CC89 and BASSA now Amicus and TGWU merged under Unite, if I have the restructuring correct) refusing to even sit in the same room let alone agree a unified position. It may interest outsiders to learn that CC89 was formed by a large group of CC previously completely disenchanted with BASSA and its style of representation. Union mergers mean they are now under the same umbrella but the animosity between the two groups is still there. The new PCCC has arisen for much the same reasons as CC89 was formed but is too new to be of much use at the moment.
Both CC ballots were accompanied by poor and inaccurate rhetoric urging 'a strong yes vote to force WW back to the table' for example. No mention of 'if you vote yes you may have to go on strike'. No mention of the seriousness of that decision. Ask 10 CC members what the strike is about and you will get 12 different answers. Most are completely unaware of what has been previously offered and rejected by BASSA preferring to blindly believe in the BASSA missives which are, at best, less than truthful.
I have several close friends who are CC and to say they are distressed, worried and confused is the understatement of the year. The CC have been badly led, badly advised and are about to suffer changes to their working lives several times worse than could have been agreed by sensible and enlightened representation.
WW is going to finish this and, effectively, finish BASSA as a union. CC should never have been led to this position. Anybody actually heeding the strike call will live to rue the day.