Originally Posted by MissM
I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.
We all readily understand that the strike is about
imposition. What many amongst the crew don't seem to understand is that the imposition occurred
because BASSA failed to deliver meaningful savings. I'm pretty sure you can understand that if BASSA just say 'No', then BA are left with no option but to impose because an indefinite impasse is not an acceptable outcome to them. Sadly many of your colleagues don't seem to have grasped this concept and cannot see that the imposition is a consequence of the unions own behaviour.
Firstly, in five years Mixed Fleet would have grown a lot, why would BA still pay us the same amount whilst we operating fewer routes? Secondly, I have never heard of another airline in the world offering this sort of package which itself makes it a bit strange.
There are many peculiarities in BA which are probably unique to BA cabin crew. B2B payments, telephone allowance, early report allowance, CAT payments, refusal to operate fixed links through home base and so on and so forth. Mixed Fleet is going to grow and it's up to 'legacy' crew to make themselves relevant to the BA operation. Why should BA continue to pay top whack for existing crew if they strike at the drop of a hat and wilfully obstruct the efficient operation of the airline at any opportunity? Again, it's a concept that few crew seem to grasp but BA doesn't owe anyone a living - you have to earn that living, and that invariably means evolution in the way we all work.
A bidding system? It should have been introduced years ago, not when we are working on a shrinking fleet losing destinations almost every month.
One can't help but think that that statement could apply to many, many practices within the CC community. Had the former happened the latter may have been prevented.
If BASSA withdrew the facilities agreement, why is almost nobody talking about it?
Everybody
is talking about it. Everybody except BASSA, who much prefer to portray themselves as the victims of BA rather than their own stupidity.
I don't think the union is asking for any operational or strategic decisions or having the last say about which routes should be transferred. They only want to be part of discussions to avoid BA pulling the rug from under our feet and taking all of our routes.
Sadly a no negotiation stance pretty much ruled them out of any meaningful discussion with BA. DH and LM thought they could strongarm BA but their bluff has been called.
Let's have a small look at what we have lost over the years.
We have lost 2 purser positions in total on every longhaul aircraft. How long before they will begin assessing on removing the purser from First is probably only a matter of time.
Please bear in mind we used to have 5 supervisory positions for 10 main crew on the jumbo. That's an extravagance that simply can't be justified in comparison with our competitors.
We have gone from 16 to 14 cabin crew in only a few years time with no chance of ever having the crew complements increased again. As we are a world globe carrier our crew complements are low compared to many other international airlines.
Our passenger numbers have dropped from nearly 400 on a 747 to as low as 291 on occasion over that period. A 25% drop in passengers for a 12.5% drop in crew complement. You haven't done that badly really - Iberia operate a 340 seat A340-600 with 11 crew. And you still generally leave base with a full 14 crew, even if the aircraft is lightly loaded both ways. All this costs money. What do you think is more costly, 14 BA crew on a jumbo or 20 Singapore Airlines crew on the same aircraft?
We are working 5 years longer before retirement.
As is everyone in the company I'm afraid.
We have agreed to 15 hours rest after a LR diversion inbound LHR. This will save the company a lot of money as opposed to two local nights. The diversion agreement was formed using the LR Agreement which was the easiest way at the time when it was negotiated.
That is good and common sense, but it does hark back to my earlier point. If this sensible measure had been implemented three years ago your union wouldn't have drawn so much attention from the management.
We have also offered a two year pay freeze.
Again, good, but it all has to add up to your savings targets. Individual items are less relevant than the total saving.
BA have introduced their long wanted Mixed Fleet. There's definitely no chance, or a very little chance, of stopping it. They have been planning this fleet for many years which has caused great worry amongst many of us. Some of us are not here for the short run. Many of us have created ourselves a career with the company and would like to stay.
Then for Pete's sake, those who would like to stay have to act like it. Striking at the drop of a hat, sticking inflexibly to agreements, trying to bring the company down, none of that endears you to the customers, management or your colleagues.