Attention BA staff and shareholders

[DarkStar]

Can someone from CC please justify to Ppruners why 'unpopular' destination payments are given. Across the 744 and 777 network there are good and bad, I've been to many 'unpopular' destinations, but it's surely take the rough with the smooth??

Its well known that CC Manpower teams ramp up standby levels during Henley, Wimbledon, Easter, Half Terms and Christmas. Social Sickness is sadly all too common.

Like many other's I've been working for all these events at one time or another, but it's swings and roundabouts ..isn't?? :confused:

[heavy crew]

Dark I have answered this question before on this thread but as you missed it I will again.

The problem with destination payments is that people like yourself over the years have called them unpopular destination payments and assume that they are a bribe or extra payment made so that the cabin crew will turn up to work.

This is not the case.

Both back to back and destination payments came about with the advent of BEP around 1997 when the new contract was imposed by BA.

To make a long story short Cabin crew overtime upto 12 Hrs 30, MT payments and a whole raft of other benefits were swept up to make the new contact deal.

There was however some money left over in the long haul pot and obviously that could not be put into basic salary because shorthaul would get it too.

So in an effort by the management to improve attendance for unpopular things they thought up the two payments.

Back to back and destination payments.

The back to back payment was actually the one for unpopular things as back to backs were/are not very popular, the destination payment was really meant to subsidise the very poor allowance trips like HRE.

The truth of this however is that BOTH PAYMENTS are redirected money that has always been long haul cabin crews.

Now seriously, that it the total truth and as this money has always been WW cabin crew money.

why does it matter how it is paid?

Or for that matter what it is called?

[HZ123]

I see Darkstar is stirring it again from the safety and security of a chair in the Compass centre. Our crews work very hard as I see them all at Cranebank on a daily basis. They are fully committed and very professional and you must not always believe idle gossip nor rumours that are unfounded. Perhaps its time people like you took your undoubted skills elsewhere and see how you get on.

[Hot Wings]

Yeah - so hard that they manage to get 2 hours in the bunk on a CAI-LHR sector. I feel sorry for the passengers.

[DarkStar]

HZ123 - Apparently the 'average' BA employee has over 20 days sick a year. When BA was asked to highlight the average within CC they refused....why? Perhaps as a Manager in Cranebank you could enlighten us all.

:E

[Carnage Matey!]

In response to seom of the points raised by heavy crew:

Re Sickness: The 22 days sickness per year are an average figure, and the figure IFS are willing to put their hand up and admit to. Sickness monitoring is based on three instances of sickness in a defined period, not the number of days of sickness.

Re Closed Cabins: That wouldn't be necessary if yoy didn't require £400 to work one down.

Re benchmarking against Virgin: Yes, they pay a fractionally higher salary. BA crew earning a little more than Virgin crew? Give me a call when you return to planet earth. Even though I know the response to that laughable claim, I made sure I checked it at the pub tonight with a mate who's just joined BA us from Virgin. She reports earning comfortable more on BA short-haul than she did with Virgin, and we all know BA long haul earn plentymore than the short-haulers. So were left with 15 BA crew earning wads (remember a Virgin IFS earns 18K-ish, BA CSD on 40K ish), versus 17 Virgin crew on peanuts. Which is cost effective? Nonetheless, benchmarking is not just about money in pockets but efficiency as well. Even placing gross income aside, BA cabin crew are extremely inflexible, working to rule almost all the time, resulting in excessive numbers of staff and gross inefficiency which all drags your benchmark down. Perhaps if you started working efficiently you could have a salry rise with the money you save.

As for your 991 hours, I'm pretty impressed you achieved that as my friends on LGW WW are doing 3 on 4 off at the moment with an occasional back to back. Frankly I'm rather reluctant to believe your figures as elsewhere you've previously posted 'your roster' which wasn't actually your roster at all but a padded out attempt to show the maximum possible monthly working hours. Is 991 hours what you've actually done, or what you think you could legally do?


Oh and if you think you earn dramatically less than your colleagues at the low cost airlines then you really have been drinking too much crew purchase. Just flew with a skipper whos wife is a LGW WW CSD (as you are). She ain't gonna get that sort of cash at Easyjet.

[HZ123]

For BA staff across the board uncert sick is 16.7 days per annum and the areas that contribute in the main to this figure are LHR operations, which covers the ramp, Customer services and Motor Transport. The other area is CC. In fairness to the staff both areas are shift roles and in the case of the ramp the staff are out in all weathers and are permitted to do 'overtime' at will, thus they can go sick at will. CC employ 12500 staff which as one of the largest groups is no suprise that they have a high sickness level. However, if 22 (Fig from CCHR) is the figure then that is disgraceful and I can only hope that ground staff do not balance up the figure.

During the 2 week period of the £150 bonus naturally there was a significant fall in sick reporting in the LHR ops areas.

[sixmilehighclub]

Sickness related bonuses:
Yes they encourage people not to call in sick when they cant be bothered to work, but they also encourage unfit crew to fly when sick.

Management may come down on them like a ton of bricks when they go sick, so to prevent getting a dressing down they fly when unfit.

So they are spreading it about amoungst colleagues who all end up sick too, whilst making their own condition worse.

If they get a cold and cannot clear their ears they need to take say, 2 days off to clear them, then back to work.

If they fly with the blocked ears, they risk getting infections in the ears and sinuses then end up off work for two or three weeks.

Surely its better to allow a crew member 2 days sick leave than have 10 crew taking about a week off??

[heavy crew]

Hot wings OH PURLEEEASE.

If any crew managed two hours in the bunks on a CAI flight there couldn't have been any pax.

PS if a crew member had two hours in the bunk that means that the crew had a minimum of 4 hours to give to organise rest.

Get real its not possible on a CAI.

Courage yet again incorrect.

The sickness monitoring is three occasions or 20 days, not just 3 occasions, some crew have had operations and found themselves in the programme on their first occasion.

Infact some crew get upset as many who normally have good records find themselves in the programme due to road trafic accidents ect.

Any issues of sickness within cabin crew as I have said before can be improved by bringing in a fair and equitable system of rostering.

Sickness is a symptom of malcontentmant, as such by your own admission all is not well within Cabin Services.

All cabin crew within BA suffer six of the seven major work related stresses, see below the article came from ''Edge'', the magazine of The Institute of Leadership and Management, March 2004. and thanx to AB.

The seven Major Work Related Stresses.

Culture (eg. long hours culture)
Demands (exposure to physical hazards and workload. Shift work)
Control (employee control over how they do their work, control v. demand)
Relationships (eg harassment / bullying)
Change (it's management and communication to staff)
Role ( employee understands role, jobs clearly defined, eg conflicting roles avoided)
Support, training and factors unique to the individual ( support from peers and line managers, training for core functions)
The most damaging effects of organisational stress are:

high absenteeism
poor job performance
low morale
low commitment
increased incidence of accidents
difficult industrial relations
poor relationships with customers and possible litigation

Not suprising that we are losing so many crew then is it really?

Now lets be candid here.

You accuse me of padding out my roster to get the maximum amount of hours, well lets look at how rediculous that statement is!!

LGW only has 9 routes all apart for BDA they are of similar length, You get 1 back to back per month and thirty six days leave.

Yes I am mainly doing nightstops with 3 MBTR.

It still will work out at around 1000 hours per year.

You can't argue the truth we only have 9 routes how hard can it be, I also state that LGW WW is considered easy within BA which it is.

I accept that I am paid OK but the Main crew I work with are not and main crew are the majority of Cabin crew followed by Purser's and in the smallest minority are CSD's, infact there are a hell of a lot less CSD's than Captains.

After all all flights have Captains not all flights have CSD's.

Now the main crew at LGW are taking home between 850 and 1300 per month and out of that they have to find money to pay their diners bill.

Don't dream that that is better than Virgin or ryan or easy because it isn't.

Genuinely if the rule to make you take your leave and also take it in fortnight blocks come in, many main crew would struggle to pay their bills.

If BA benchmarked them against other European carriers they would be shocked at the result.

All the European carriers work part time comparatively, and for better money.

The truth is that for some reason you feel that Cabin crew have is too easy, may I ask where your department is and if you work for BA courage?

[jerrystinger]

Oh what joy these postings bring! Everyone at BA seems to hate each other...........

As an ex- BA employee I feel I can truly look at the company from a different , more rounded perspective than most on here, especially when it comes to pay etc. I worked as longhaul CC at LHR for only 4 years and was on the pre-97 contract. To be brutally frank, which other company pays its employees thousands for doing what is a basically an unskilled job? None. BA was the perfect answer for me after finishing Uni and I owe the company a lot for providing me with a very sound financial basis on which to build ...and all for throwing out chicken and beef meals 3 or 4 times a month! I left BA in 1999 and look back at the 'easy money' with a little smirk - the trip allowances on top of my basic meant generally about £2,500 - £3,000 a month after tax.
A few BA engineers and managers (admin staff!) on here seem to genuinely hate BA CC and maybe they have every reason to, but who are the real silly ones? A 6 week training course compared to an engineer's/manager's X years of training and yet I earnt more than most......hhmmmm...... Maybe I did only serve chicken or beef, but who's got the bigger house (+1 in France!) and car??

[heavy crew]

Well Jerry you were lucky, well done.

Sadly those days have gone.

As you pointed out pre 97.

Also the job has become harder over the last couple of years.

A great deal of people are joining you in being Ex BA too

I think you got out at just the right time.

Unfortunately some people still think the job is still like that :confused:

Ps I think you slightly exagerated the pay but hey you always look back through rose coloured glasses.

[Paterbrat]

Could also be that Jerry is telling it as it was.

[Hot Wings]

Heavy Crew - yes 2 hours bunk rest each on a CAI-LHR. You just can't face the truth can you? Would you also like to comment on the fact that 1 in 5 cabin crew scheduled to work during the period covering last Christmas and New Years Eve called in sick?

I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax!

[HZ123]

Right about BA staff seem to hate each other or certainly unhealthy departmental dislike. As a BA employee I have to apologise to other pruners as some of you must get fed up with BA and its soap opera culture.

[Anti-ice]

Jerry , i think you are wrong...

Having been at BA over 10 years, the one thing i would say that keeps me there IS the people.

By that , I mean the crew - the main problem we have is certain quarters of the management.

They are VERY out of touch with what really happens on line - Rod's admitted that by the very fact he has arranged dozens of face-to-face meetings between managment and frontline staff:rolleyes:
He's left that one a bit late..

There are far too many managment ,even now, - fare paying passengers want plenty of attentive staff who have time for them, not 1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects...
Isn't that the point of the latest TV advertsing campaign???
We already have less than easyjet crewing levels proportionally.

They really don't care. Morale at BA is rock-bottom.
BEP (Business efficiency programme) started in 1997, the latest plan goes to 2006.
We've had over 7 years of cutbacks already with more projected....doubtless it has saved the company money .... but it has gone on for a Very long time now .
My salary is less than 97... how's that for progress??? , especially with the average property prices around £150-200,000+ .....

It will go on forever like this at BA.... this is having quite a dire effect already though, as crew are leaving in droves compared to say 5 years ago.
Instead of worrying about this demoralising effect the company are rubbing their hands with glee, as they can replace them with 'new contract' people.
The thing is though that many of these leavers are already 'new contract' , so the effect will be negligble, even negative after recruitment/traing costs:rolleyes:

I can't believe this thread is still rattling around... but you'd only understand the true meaning if you worked there and realised what it is truly like...

I still get onboard, still smile at all our passengers and treat them very well each and every day , just like thousands of others will, but the fact that many others suffer from BA's lack of duty of care and wellbeing for its employees will go long un-noticed.

Be interesting to see what the new chairman brings to the airline, though already coming from an industry that kills hundreds each day (BAT) i shudder to think :(

[loaded1]

Anti-ice et al: like you, I dont enjoy seeing BA CC trashed in this thread. The majority I meet strive to remain cheerful and do the best they can in the face of, as is well documented in this thread, fifteen or so years of cost cutting.

But, we all have to face a grim reality: conventional airlines are finished. Ryanair has it in one with their ad: "Bye Bye BA , Aufweidersen Lufthansa".

The only future is an airline with NO encumberances: no pensions, no training costs, (buy your own type rating, buy your own uniform, pay for your own medical), no on-board costs, (bring your own food), rostering straight out to legal limits, rock-bottom salaries, no customer service, no marketing expenses, no travel agents, no "on-board product", no overblown head office, preferably only one aircraft type, even the concept of the integrated scheduled carrier is finished, therefore it has to be a largely point-to-point airline with all the attendant cost savings that provides. You also need to locate in a "regulation-lite" environment where you get the most favourable FTL and oversight regime possible (i.e the one giving the lowest cost-base).

If you need proof of this go to the airport and look at the tail fins. Air Canada: all but dead, American - chapter 11 basket case, Alitalia - state sponsored monolith, US Airways - doomed, United - ditto, Delta - hanging on by their fingernails, BA - if the 10% operating margin not met then perhaps three years left, and on and on and on. At the operating level all of these carriers are cash negative in the main and so doomed.

The only future is a low wage, no-pension, legal limit workload, absolutely rock-bottom sweatshop. Why? Because an airline seat has become a commodity like washing powder. Despite herculean efforts at product differentiation the only real determinant of success in the industry now is price. The phenomenal growth of the low fare, lo cost carriers worldwide proves it.

The industry model, the much vaunted SouthWest of the USA, had a reputation for creating value by valueing its staff, but even that is now seen as unsustainable and Ryanair's far more aggressive approach is regarded by Cranfield University of the UK as the true model of the low cost approach. If a company is to survive it has to adopt this methodology or perish. The most aggressive will win in a last-man- standing-takes-all contest, which the industry now is.

Either all of us in the business can and will adapt to this or we had better plan an alternative future. Nothing will change it. Consider this: Ryanair = interest positive cashflow from cash on deposit at the bank, BA owes 3.5 BILLION pounds, not including liabilities to the pension fund.

Its a no brainer.

If anyone out there can dispute this view I am a willing listener, but I dont think they can. Consider also that Ryan plan to GIVE away a vast number of seats this summer, that they are on record as being "happy to see yields fall", that they make so much on selling drinks etc etc that they hope to move even further to a business model where fares are incidental as a way of making a profit.

I dont think the market segmentation argument can stand this approach and hence I maintain that the conventional airline, shorthaul first but then longhaul too, is finished and we just have to live with it (or leave).

[NM163]

Although the LCC's are growing globally, they are not carrying globally they are still mainly regional.

Some major flag carriers have behaved a little like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand and others out of necessity but this will not have been done without envoius glances at the LCC's with their preferential new start terms. Don't forget that the Flag carriers (EU) inherited their operating conditions and obligations from in the main state monopolies funded by the taxpayer. Take a look now at anything state run and you will see crisis point in respect of T&C's and pensions has been passed it isn't even goming anymore, its long gone Social Services, Health, Defence...most fire brigades sold their equipment for a lump sum and now rely on leasing out of cashflow and they are still short on the pension. Nobody working for a state service can get those returns, how can you expect a private or publicly qouted company to maintain these conditions without the deep pockets of the taxman?It will take a long time for those restraints to be exorcised

Sure the LCC's are providing a service that is useful, but p2p, not the H&S operation that is also necessary. H&S will always be a requirement of aviation, the spokes are simply becoming the p2p. There simply isnt the demand for global p2p in every city pair. Who could make a profit on Lpl to RSM? so there will always be a need for a hub. Man/JFK on a flag carrier and JFK/RSM on jet blue...

Dont forget also what the SLF expect from a carrier. They dont expect the same from an LCC that they do of AA or BA.

look at another form of tavel........the automobile. flag manufacturers like bugatti/maybach fell by the wayside in favour of the LCC renault/ford/nissan/volkswagen models, but people were always able to make a choice, so Mercedes/BMW survived, and after rationalisation/diversification prospered. People will always strive to be different, they will always want more, and although the demand may diminish, if run effectively like BMW/mercedes there is no reason any airline could not transform itself accordingly. We're all SLF in automobiles, do we expect the same from ford as we do from Mercedes?

That is why the polarized opinions expressed here are of concern.. that they should develop or represent anything more prevalent than a minority of views at BA is concerning. The future of the company rests in the hands of its employees, the aircrew, management and maintenance all together will decide whether this airline becomes the merecedes/BMW of airline transport not rolls nor bentley being sold off for their name value, not ferrari as a part of Fiat nor Lamborghini as a part of Audi. or the Ford Nissan/renault LCC It took ford a long time to own mazda/volvo/aston martin/jaguar and renault a long time to own nissan. It is entirely possible that an LCC could mount a hostile bid for a flag carrier, and a convincing case they could put forward too, but if the employees (all of them) at BA realize whats happening, the airline, after some more tough times ahead could quite easily come out as the worlds premier. Its not that long ago that DCX parent Co of mercedes posted record corporate losses....but people still buy Mercedes over renaults

[loaded1]

I agree that the LCC's are a regional phenomenon, for now. But at what point does their ability to drive down yields, as they so successfully do, kill off the hub and spoke carriers who have proven themselves unable to deliver an economic return on capital employed in recent years?

It is sooner than we want to think.

The LCC's will still be standing long after United has sunk and Air Canada died, and, yes, BA slides under. Why? Unlike consumer durables, such as cars as mentioned in the previous post, a so-called "fast- moving consumer good", (FMCG), such as an airline seat, can not bring enough added value to the marketplace to sustain the wide price differential between a full service product and a low cost one.

Nor can a full service seat generate enough return on the capital employed to create it to sustain the company who brings it to the market. All the so-called "legacy carriers" are, to a greater or lesser extent, in this position as their operating cashflows show when compared to the low cost operators.

As the legacy carriers are choked-off by their own unprofitability the LCC's will expand to fill the former legacy carriers markets too. Even Boeing sees this as inevitable and is building a point-to-point aircraft for longhaul, the 7E7.

There is a further phenomenon at work, so-called "core pricing theory".

This states that, in a rational market, even the most full-blooded competition will lead over time to each player in that market setting a broadly rational price for their product, such that the price has bears some economic resemblance to the cost of creating the product itself.

An example would be the newspaper price wars in the UK where the Murdoch press sold The Times for a cover price that undercut the established broadsheet rivals by over 50% for a substantial period of time to seek to drive out competitors from the marketplace.

Eventually, however, a rational pricing model reasserted itself and the paper now sells for a price broadly in line with its competitors and reflects the true cost of production. Competition between players in the market returned to the added features of the product that differentiate it from competitors, (in this case, the way it covers news), and each player in that market set a rational price that covered production costs.

This might be expected to be the way the airline seat market would stabilise over time, but it has not.

Given that the "cost of production" of another airline seat is relatively low: a little more fuel, another drinks can etc, there is both a tendancy to excess capacity in a given market and a compelling urge to sell a product that has a totally finite shelf life, (i.e. once the plane leaves on a given day with an empty seat that product is worthless), for almost any price to generate some cash for it. The problem is that excess capacity is such a feature of this marketplace that a rational pricing model, (a so-called "core price", hence the name of the theory), never establishes itself.

The only way to "win" is to establish the lowest seat mile cost of all the operators in the arena, sell for the lowest price because the seat has become a commodity sold on that primary criteria, and sit back and wait for the results.

And what results they are. Ryan is now "Europes favourite airline" in terms of emplanements, total numbers carried. It has torn the heart out of BA's European model, which haemorrages money. And then there is easyjet to contend with, who fly to city-linked airports as well.

As we retreat at LGW the orange tails multiply.

As Ryan's cash postion solidifies it is expanding across Europe. The leisure product is theirs, so do we have a big enough business market to sustain us? In the absence of a player like easyjet who fly to "proper" airports, (i.e. near the citys they serve), perhaps. But in the face of them too, no we don't.

Easyjet also compete using low price as the primary "uniqe selling point" and, on short stage lengths, it is now the primary selection criteria for buying an airline seat as businesses seek to trim more and more costs.

Where does this leave BA? As the shorthaul market is lost we lose feed to longhaul, the leisure element of which is becoming a price driven market too, (witness the planned creation of 'Backpacker Air', a longhaul outfit to fly the leisure traveller on the Kangaroo route for rock bottom prices). As longhaul becomes a price driven market we lose market share and the yields on what we do have falls to the point of unsustainability.

We have to change totally as an airline. Far from being a businessman or woman's airline we must slash our cost base to the bone and out Ryan air ryanair, as it were.

Staff must get used to the idea of losing literally every aspect of the compensation package that made them join BA in the first place, because we will have to pay FAR lower wages than Ryanair to pay-off all our existing corporate debts, which they and easyjet do not have.

The LCC's have a stupendous head start by being pretty-much debt free in comparison to ourselves, and the only way to catch up in terms of financial performance will be to massacre our cost base. And yet Good Old "Mr. Grumpy", as I hear Mr O' Le@ry is called, has stated publicly that whatever his competitors try and do to "out low cost" him, he will undercut.

Do any of us see a collective "vote for Christmas" amongst all the metaphorical turkeys on the BA farm, i.e. are we all going to see a reduction in non-frontline headcount to that approximating on the employe- to-passenger ratios that we see at a typical LCC? Er, no.

Sell your house and go into rented, get rid of every financial encumberance you have that you possibly can, and hang on for the ride of your life. The banks will insist on the massive wage and benefit cuts to come as the price for "saving the company" and if you dont hand it over the company is, it would seem, doomed anyway, ("We're doomed, DOOMED", etc etc). Look at what's happening at Air Canada.

Either that or leave now and try and establish a new career outside aviation.

Its as simple as that. If someone can provide a COMPELLING alternative thesis I'd be fascinated, but I cant see one.

[swiss_tonni]

And the whining continues................

I suggested a long while back, that if anyone could identify surplus positions or roles, they should email RE. There are still posts like "1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects..."


Has anyone identified any, and emailed RE? I think not.

Anyway, I have only posted fact, so here is a bit more, which should make our ground engineers, check-in and other staff particularly chuffed.

Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here, get a substantial uplift from their allowances. Here is a peek into their world:


For CSD Purser Main Crew respectively:

For doing a "Back to Back" trip, where they stay in a hotel at BA's expense: 175.95 each

Those oft discussed Unpopular Destination Payments, 65.71 each, from LHR, and 52.48 each from LGW

On "Long Range Sectors" after 12:00hrs: 42.42 39.97 37.56 each respectively, per hour.

On "Long Range Sectors" after 15:00hrs: 54.77 48.46 42.42 each respectively, per hour.

And those "Box Payments" I asked about earlier:

Box 1 (1231-1300/night1201-1300) 138.10 124.27 100.81
Box 2 (1301-1400) 193.34 174.01 139.47
Box 3 (1401-1529) 225.08 208.52 160.18
Box 4 (1530-1730) 283.10 251.33 202.99
Box 5 (1731+) 372.83 317.61 247.19


...................and still they ask the pilots to fly or taxi slowly so that they can "make the next box". Should give the Engineers a warm glow next time they are changing a wheel assembly in the rain.

And people wonder why BA is losing money.

Swiss_tonni

One of those faceless "suits" who makes sure you get paid, or makes sure we have bums on seats, or makes sure that we are in legal compliance, or makes sure that aircraft are leased, or makes sure that crew are rostered correctly, or makes sure that engineering checks are done to the manufacturers specification..............

[loaded1]

Hi swiss toni. No whining from me - just the bald facts.

I have absolutely nothing against ANY other BA employee and will not join in the fractious mud slinging, (OK - I regret the Turkey analogy), however the serious point remains that the LCC's operate with a staff to passenger ration that is exponentially lower than ours.

How do we compete with them if we carry on as we are?

I know we need aircraft leases and staff hired but somehow we have to out-do the LCC's at costs or we are finished. We may be dying in slow motion, but we are still dying. Look at the financials.

Your thoughts?

[Asynchronous]

19 pages of mostly negative stuff about cabin crew!
Not nice to be part of a such a despised group. :(

First of all, I'd like to say what good posts those were from loaded1 and NM163...............didn't make for very pleasant reading but they were written well, and were thought provoking.

Can't say the same for Swiss_tonni though.

Swiss_tonni wrote <<<<<<<<<<<Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here>>>>>>>>

Why should we? I was always under the impression that salary / pay was a very private affair, not to be discussed in public. What makes you think our salaries are for publicising in this way?
What about posting your own remuneration package? As you obviously can't be earning as much as cabin crew, it would give us all a good laugh if nothing else.

May I just add, that the ''boxes'' and other payments you see fit to show to the rest of the world, are actually overtime Lots of people, especially manual workers (you'll like that bit) get overtime.
The back to back payment (as I'm sure has already been explained on here) was actually our money anyway. Under BEP, payments were shifted around, and this was left over in the pot (as were what is now ''destination payments''). It was decided to retain it as a B2B payment.

Time this cabin crew bashing came to an end eh? Please? Before you do even more damage to our already battered morale. :bored:

[Skylion]

Hmm. Interesting rates for "overtime". Anyone any idea what short haul cabin and flight crew get?

[Hand Solo]

Flight crew don't get overtime. We just continue to get our £2.50 per hour until we finish.

[loaded1]

Well, as predicted, the end of the existing remuneration package has begun, but it alone wont be enough.

BA are looking for Direct Entry Pilots now, with their own type rating to hand, to join without the benefit of NAPS, the existing, (but closed), final salary pension scheme, but instead on a money purchase scheme described as "one of the worst in the industry".

We cant afford to offer ANY pension scheme: Ryanair don't so how can we?

We pay less than they do to pilots overall IF you take out the pension element, and, perhaps, with BAMPS,( the new pension scheme), our overall package is in fact less than Ryanairs'. If so GOOD - the first steps to survival.

This is excellent news because it should put the rest of the pilot workforce within NAPS on notice that it will soon be closed to existing entrants once enough new-joiners are on BAMPS and the deficit is closed enough to pay off the NAPS members.

I can only assume that cabin crew are headed the same way, in fact the WHOLE airline HAS to be if we are to survive AT ALL, and according to everything we are told survival is very much in doubt.

Just to reiterate numbers: Ryanair has an operating ratio in the twenties to high teens whilst we at BA muddle along with around 4 to 5%. It is totally unsustainable, and Mr. Tarry, the well-regarded aviation analyst, has said that access to capital, i.e. the will of institutions to lend to an airline, will determine the survivors in the clash of the dinosaurs that passenger airline flying has become.

BA will be able to borrow, but at very uncompetitive rates, and when we need to borrow £3.5 BILLION that means a lot. Especially when our main competitors are all but debt free, (Ryanair cash POSITIVE from money on deposit at the bank).

Further problems are that Ryan is based for regulatory purposes in Ireland where the Flight Time Liimitation Scheme (FTL) is far more generous about allowing multiple early starts, which are critical to a shorthaul operation, especially one that does without the expense of nightstops, (that are currently part and parcel of the BA way of life, but all-but unheard of in the LCC's).

So, we must lobby the company either: a) to locate to Ireland, or b), lets face it the more likely option, to lobby the CAA for a change in CAP 371, the UK document for FTL, allowing us to compete on a level playing field with other operators.

We must also do as they do: no bidline, no crew meals, no tea, coffee, or H20 aboard that is not paid for by the crew, buy your own uniform, pay for your own licence renewal, no loss of license insurance, rostering straight out to legal limits, (and, as discussed, those limits MUST be increased to allow fair competition), 25 minute turn-arounds, no nightsops in shorthaul, longhaul crew to minimum rest downroute and locate to the cheapest hotels available, no minimum base turnarounds, (i.e time off), once back at LHR, multiple back-to-backs ( i.e straight in from a transatlantic and then straight back out on another the next day), to legal limits.

A lot of this is couched in "pilot" terms, but it applies to the cabin crew too.

Will this be enough?

NO!

The MASSIVE competitve advantage enjoyed by the LCC's in being debt free has to be faced. BA is like a person with too big a mortgage. The only way to address this is deep wage cuts too. This will enable BA to try and pay-off our stupendous debts.

Lets face it, a seniority based promotions structure means that people just cannot "leave" and go elsewhere without HUGE financial disadvantage. Its like a tied worker in his or her tied cottage on the master's estate: leave? Sure! But where will you live? Who is seriously going to leave and go to the bottom of another seniority list? CC work a seniority-based system too.

At a back of fag packet guess we need to following salary structure:

CC = only 2 grades, "cabin crew" and "senior". CC = £15000 a year, "senior" £20,000.

Pilots: only 2 grades, FO and Captain. FO £30,000 a year, Captain £48, 000.

ALL of these salaries to be without ANY pension entitlement and applicable to ALL fleets. Dont forget the massive reduction in National Insurance contributions that the company will gain from this bold but essential move.

Like it or not, swiss toni, the ratio of staff to passengers in BA must become BETTER than the existing Lo Cost Carrier ratio if we are to do more than survive but actually gain competitive advantage. No good asking the frontline where those jobs are - we dont know- but they too will HAVE to go.

With all of this we just MIGHT survive, but it doesn't look good from any open source you care to look at.

The party's over and its time to recognise that a career in civil aviation is just like any other service sector job, low pay, long hours, ferocious competition, few prospects that this will ever change.

If you think I am being too negative consider this: EU enlargement. What's to stop an operator in one of the new Eastern accession countries from starting point-to-point services within the EU from one of the smaller western airports where slots etc are easy to come by. They can and will pay a crew significantly less in dollar amounts than what I have quoted as the necessary salaries in pound terms above. We will HAVE to compete with them too.

Its "beggar my neighbour" in the new de-regulated aviation world we live in, and I will bet a large sum of money that the gloomy predictions posted here will not only come true but WORSE.

The competitive environment assures that this will happen and , as the saying has it, "you can't buck the market"!

Best of luck to all.

[heavy crew]

Swiss its the same ol cr@p again and again.

I have been over the facts surronding B2B and destination payments a few times yet again we have them posted.

The overtime as I said starts at 12hrs 30 mins and only LHR WW get it really.

Truthfully we would like to go onto the same system as the pilots and therefore not have overtime.

Swiss how many times have you been at work for say 17 hours?

If you did would you not require payment?

Hotwings, you are a little upside down with your thinking regarding BA and Virgin you posted
I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax

Firstly you have to realise that it is more manpower intensive to look after a premium customer hense if we were working with the same config as Virgin we wouldn't have use for a galley person.

Effectivly if we changed the config to match Vigins we would have less crew not more IE only 14.

Your arguement is upside down

:uhoh:

The other posts are at least original if not frighteningly to the point about our LCC competitors.

Does anybody have any Ideas about how many managers per aircraft BA has versus Ryan or easy?

What a shame that we have getting on 20 pages of dislike aimed at BA cabin crew, hardly any suprise that so many are leaving then is it?

[gps117]

I read this post with great interest, a wry smile and an odd tear! Having left BA two years ago i am astounded that this sort of carry on still goes on - people from different departments being wound up by ‘how come there getting it and were not!' and yes i was an engineer, and yes i was at Manchester and yes was forced to leave.

The irony comes that when i applied for cabin crew, they wanted me for interview and when speaking to cranebank on the they were pretty certain i would @ walk it@ in his terms - what put me off - the childish rantings that still seem to go on!

So what if a small percentage of cc will be paid a supp if they have to work one down - from my experience in eng - we work one down then the aircraft tended to go out a little late - cc could hardly decided to serve to pax a little slower or evacuate them in over 90 sec cos they were one down - they will have to work harder so yeah, they should get rewarded.

Were does the fault lie - hate to say it mangers and the unions - cabin crew; you have managers on your side (majority of the time) and a bloody strong union that backs you up. If you don’t get want you want, you strike, the airline grinds to a halt. Engineers or any other tech ops department threatens strike they get threatened to be sold off to a third party or the managers suddenly get there licences reinstated - the airline carries on!

I have come across 1000's of cc as an eng 95% were fantastic, friendly helpful, funny - 5% were rude snotty and though i was beneath them (tended to be about 21, blonde and clueless) - the same goes for engineers, check in staff, mt, it, staff travel the whole board.

Eng go through years of training, have tonnes of responsibility but get a little more time to do their work and make sure the 400 people on the 747 arrive at JFK safely

CC go through threes weeks, are the face of the airline, work un-sociable hours and get paid roughly the same - and oh yeah between 15 off them have to evacuate 400 people from a burning 747 that crashed on approach to JFK in a storm

So come on people - stop bitch slapping each other and accept it - tech ops departments have s**t managers who look out for them and don’t give a s**t about their staff (not even mentioning the unions)

cc are bloody lucky to have unions that are strong and mangers that are scared

Its a simple case of jealousy and if you don’t like it then leave - i did and I’ve never looked back... never went for that cc interview
, I earn enough in my new job to see the world from a pax (and sometimes j) seat ;-)

[Hand Solo]

Are you sure you're not Michael O'Leary loaded1, 'cos you certainly sound like him. Anyone would be a fool to not to realise BA is in a bad way, but they'd be equally foolish to swallow your hyperbole about the future. You seem absolutely convinced that Ryanair are on the road to world domination, that their business model is the only viable one and they spell the end for BA. Well I see the world as a little less black and white. For a start, the UK market has virtually reached saturation point for LCCs, as even O'Leary recently admitted. Ryanair has just got itself thrashed in the Low Cost market at BHX and had to relocate to EMA. O'Leary even let the door hit his a*se on the way out by claiming he had to go because BHX had raised its landing fees, which BHX pointed out it hadn't.

Secondly, BA don't need to borrow £3.5 billion pounds. They've already done that, and when you owe that much money it's as much the banks problem as it is yours. Unlike someone with too large a mortgage, the banks can't sell this house and get the money back, and they are in no rush at all to foreclose on BA.

Thirdly, relaxing FTLs. Its not FTLs thats making BA uncompetitive. Few competitors are flying significantly more hours, Easyjet certainly aren't and they're making money. You also mention no bidline (which actually allows BA to roster you up to 900 hours, it just stops them dicking you about), no water, no anything on board. Well I wonder how much that costs each year? Probably a drop in the ocean. Then you go on about no nightstops, as if that was some sort of luxury retained for crews. Its evidently escaped your attention that nightstops exist as part of the fundamental competition strategy in Europe of being first into London in the morning. Even seen the Club loads on that flight. Think we could sustain a profit if we cancelled the nightstop and flew an empty aircraft out to pick up those pax at 2 am (not to mention we couldn't get a night slot at LHR). 25 minute turnarounds. Remind me again where our main base is, and where our customers want to fly to/from. They want punctuality, and you aren't going to get it planning a 25min turnaround at LHR.

The party's over and its time to recognise that a career in civil aviation is just like any other service sector job, low pay, long hours, ferocious competition, few prospects that this will ever change.
You've not really seen many service sector jobs have you. Been down to the City lately? Lots of effective service industry jobs there, hard work but huge rewards. Premium pay for premium products. Haven't seen many Goldman Sachs customers rushing of to TSB lately.


What's to stop an operator in one of the new Eastern accession countries from starting point-to-point services within the EU from one of the smaller western airports where slots etc are easy to come by. They can and will pay a crew significantly less in dollar amounts than what I have quoted as the necessary salaries in pound terms above.
But they'll still pay the same for everything else. There's more to a business than just paying peanuts wages.

Your prognoses are not only excessively doom-laden but also over-simplistic. In your world their is no consumer preference, cost is the only driver. The real world is somewhat different, or we'd all be driving Skodas, shopping at Lidl and taking our holidays on the Costa Blanca. Ryanair are big, they're succesful, but, as you pointedly failed to mention, they don't compete directly with BA. STN aside, they go from small airports to other small airports. They don't fly to the big hubs that some customers want, they don't offer through-ticketed connections, they have no appeal for the business traveller. You can't force people to travel and fill your aeroplanes, you have to entice them on-board, and cost is not the only factor. BA can't compete for the bargain bucket travellers and it's never really tried to, but it certainly compete for the discerning traveller which Ryanair can't. Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits. There is enough business in our core market to sustain us if the costs are kept under control, the bulk of Ryanairs future growth will be intra-continental europe, hammering at our competitors. Europes not as open a market as you think and Ryanair will have a hard time matching their success in the UK as they will in Europe.

One more tip - if Michael O'Leary offers you a big vat of Kool-aid, don't drink it.

[Skylion]

Er... just watch Easyjet or FlyBE boarding one day. Any idea that business travellers are a captive market of the traditional carriers is a myth. Companies are under just as much cost pressure as the airlines and if they can get a good quality cheaper deal they will increasingly go for it. Perception of service is about style as much as anything else,- maybe more than anything else,-and the low costs crews are usually cheerful and friendly. Dont under- rate them or what they mean to the future of BA etc..........
... and dont forget that Ryan is the only low cost to rely on secondary airports. Easy are in the big ones, except LHR of course, and the LGW early morning lineup is looking distinctly orange.

[Hand Solo]

Well thats rather my point Skylion. Loaded1 has gone on about how Ryanair will be the end of us all, but it's Easy who compete with BA from LGW and to all the main airports. They are the low-cost competition BA need to be watching. BA can also compete on price with Easyjet and are often cheaper (I know because I've tried booking with them!). FlyBe are something of a quirk as they are a traditional airline trying to turn themselves into a low cost. They've made their presence felt in the regions but they've got minimal presence at LHR at the moment and have actually sold off some of their slots.

[loaded1]

No, I am not Michaeal O Leery and I dont want to fly for him either. But I am right about the LCC phenomenon and what it means for EVERY established operator.

Hand Solo you said:

"Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits."

You have, I respectfully suggest, missed the point. There is nowhere near enough profit to sustain the business if we carry on as we are. It is finished. Look at the operating ratio and compare it to a LCC.

I wrote my last post before reading today's FT (1) and Flight (2):

1) Boeing says:

"the 7E7 is being studied by LCC's who wish to expand their business model into new markets".

2) EU accession countries wish to emulate the low cost model and OUT low-cost it, (using their below rock-bottom salary structure).

A guy from Latvia is quoted as saying he will make the cost of flying more competitive than using buses and ferries. There is no reason at all to confine that model to the borders of the origin country alone, after all Ryan don't and nor does Easyjet.

I repeat: sell your house, go into rented, take your kids out of private school, (if they are there), get rid of every and any financial encumberance you have and stand by for permanent DEEP pay cuts as a way of life.

The market wants more of a social good - air travel - and it wants it at the lowest achievable price. I repeat YOU CANT BUCK THE MARKET. Competition, already murderous, is going to get HELLISH. Watch as Alitalia and Air Canada go bust. Marvel as US Air sinks out of sight. I am not being glib: there is TOO MUCH capacity in the market, which also means too many pilots, hosties, engineers etc etc. There will soon be 000's of type-rated, experienced pilots on the market: face it - salaries and conditions are heading for the floor.

As for comparing the City to Flying: for goodness sake!! If you can get in and get one of those jobs : bully for you, but for the rest of us flying is heading on down to the level of bus driving as regards the respect and remuneration aspects. The BA engineers have been taken there already, we are next, and then the CC too.

The real irony is that if we dont go there, then there wont be a BA anyway.

Old adage number one thousand and ten:

"Just because you're busy, it doesnt mean your getting rich!".

BA's planes are full but to get them there we are selling at prices that are UNSUSTAINABLE against costs long term. We are not even close to the operating ratios of the LCC's and until we are we are in a slow motion free fall to extinction.

[ECWK]

Well, with all the rhetoric it is difficult to make a start. It seems to me that an awful lot of people have had to put up with the indifferent self-service, cheap culture that has developed over the last 20 years.
People realise now that if they can afford to pay then life gets better for those who pay and also for those who get paid to do what the rest don't want to do (as they get paid more). No one wants to sit in seats where previous passengers have relieved themselves and it is also more fun to enjoy travelling rather than have to grin and bear it.
The LCC will suit some, the tradtional carriers will suit others. People will eventually work where they are happy and contented - paid more and working hard, or paid less and taking life easy. Or, in between, changing careers because the grass is greener. As you get older it gets harder but don't hang in there because of the pension - it may not be there when you want it.

Have fun, enjoy your job if you can and if not - there is another life out there. Better to work at NCP having once cruised the skies than working at NCP wishing you had.

Am I bitter and twisted?

[Anti-ice]

Well 20 pages on , and it is sad to see it come to all this, but i think on balance swiss_tonni hasn't had much support over his sad little vitriolic attack :rolleyes:

One thing thats blatantly clear at BA, and you can't ignore facts, is that we are still way too top heavy, yet crewed at LCC levels , while offering a premium service.

So if you're REALLY looking at ways to save money, take a closer look around you. It seems strange you have to pick on crew.
Have a good look around Waterside and report back.

I don't know what his little problem is, maybe spurned by a crew member, but he has failed to point out the following ....
That many of the cabin crew have been there 10yrs,20yrs,30yrs +.....
Naturally with a corresponding payrise each year their salaries will climb in due course.
Most of the incomes are very average ........

If you are that unhappy then just go swiss_tonni - or apply to cabin services and become a crew member on this remarkable salary you imagine there to be.
Then you can get up at 4am every morning / wipe sick up / serve 120 passengers drinks on your own in 50 minutes / be harangued by 'C' passengers constantly / have no break on a 12 hour duty at all / .......... or is that too far removed from nursing your little latté for hours in a calm & serene oasis???

I've stated my salary on here before,nothing amazing after over 10 years service ...... as i said before my car is almost 10 years old too, v high mileage and i have no hope of replacing it.......

A friend of mine was recently seconded to a management department, and they were shocked at the level of total inactivity that was evident.
If the same were to be found onboard one of our aircraft , the crew would be instantly dismissed.

Then again, you can't hide from 400 passengers in the same way that you can hide behind a PC . Can you? :rolleyes:

[NM163]

Loaded, you forgot the proposed sterling£66 transatlantic fares :) out of Deutschland.

Swingeing cuts you propose that although a step in the right direction and probable ultimately necessary will do nothing other than engender more ill feeling in the company.

Instead of such drastic cuts as you identified directly affecting the "front of house"staff that made the airline "the worlds favourite, you will need to take an educational approach to try to rationalise to those company employees what is needed. Unfortunately that would invovle the unions who traditionally have little capacity for forward knowledge, their leadership long since forgetting what work is lke in favour of a desk job and the perks of being a union boss.

In any company, to increase shareholder value you need to make profit. there are only two guaranteed ways of doing this....cut costs. which BA has, and will need to continue to do, but you mustn't neglect to increase sales for an increased income, and you will need to work towards this also.

It is patently unfiar to base any comparisons between any long haul flag carrier with any LCC. Bottom line, yes both types of operator both carry passengers,but that is (currently) it :
There are offcosts and on costs associated with LH that the LCC's havent historically had to provide, when they begin these operations they will see their costs increase . Perhaps the operating cost savings offered by the 7e7 will contribute towards reducing the net impact of this increase, but the 7e7 will not be available in sufficient numbers until well into the next decade to satisfy this demand. insofar as aircraft provision, Boeing have to market the 7e7 as a p2p aircraft as an alternate market for buyers who are looking for the 380 which has been based on a 30 year economic model proven by boeing itself with the 74 series. It is a long time until the 7e7 is available, but conversely, the 7e7 is not providing anything, other than operating economies that the 767/777, dont already.

The threat of new eastern european start ups with lower on costs isn't an new threat...think of the eastern carriers and their labour advantages. If we werent the only EU nation to acknowledge the EU legislation BA wouldn't be disadvantaged. Every other eu legacy carrier gets support in some form or another. Think KLM AF northwest tie ups as anticompetitive at europes only 5 runway airport....why cant BA tie up wioth someone without surrendering some of the most profitable slots at LHR..

Concessions to the regulators need to be made to make some ground back. retreat fully from LGW, surrender all slots there but maintain LHR fully. Use T5 as the H&S operation for mainline and rebrand CitiX as the LCC side of the airline using a hub out of Man, and other P2P in exchange for the slots given up at LGW. Mainline and CitiX are already run as separate operations. a little fleet consolidation/rationalisation would be required. Mainline an eintirely 777 fleet. You have the benefits of LCC model for the premium service. Use CitiX with a newer fleet.

In respect of your management, take the time and trouble to find out why you need so many managers. Yes you are slightly top heavy, but only becuase of the cuts imposed over the last 3 years. Anyone calling for management cuts to LCC levels needs to take a look at the operational requirements of the airline and what is needed behind the scenes to make this happen, then factor in the other legacy operations that go on and the services provided that are not pax oriented.BA holidays, BA credit cards......one world.......payroll....pensions.......planned maintenance management........a/c procurement property acquisition and disposal......accounts....... christ I could go on for ages. Management levels will fall too.

Loaded & Swiss T are both right, you will need to change, you will neeed to cut costs further, try not to focus on a single group within the company but across the board. Better to do it in a cooperative organised fashion where you can negotiate the phasing out of benefits and trade off for some element of profit related pay than to rely on the liquidator going balls out for TUPE when someone steps in,

must go now. work beckons

[Anti-ice]

I think it's high time this thread was locked.......

It's like a perpetual see-saw, and is now totally counter-productive.

Everyones had their dig, dragged BA c/c's morale down to even lower depths . . .and its just going round and around......

If things were that amazing , then there wouldn't be an all time high of cabin crew leaving.....

I think everyones had an opportunity to make up their own minds.

I just pity 'swiss_tonni' for feeling so vindictive as to start all this up in the first place - - it's ok, we know who you are :8

Perhaps the next similar thread will be about the likes of you....

[loaded1]

Well, the fun's started.

New pilots to be recruited without a Final Salary structured pension but a Money Purchase Scheme instead. No doubt new Cabin Crew are already on the same deal.

Guess how much money you need in a money purchase "pot" to buy a pension of £30,000 a year with an inflation proof element up to 5%?

Answer, at recent annuity rates:

£1.3 million pounds.

The stock market's gonna have to go some to do that, even if you join at 18! Most observers reckon that the market is in for another FALL due to excess valuations in the USA, and that the long term outlook is for very modest growth in the future.

Can BA keep the existing Final Salary Scheme, NAPS, for existing members?

You have two employees doing the same job. One costs circa 20% more than the other due to being in a FSS.

It's a no-brainer again. As soon as the deficit in NAPS has been reduced to the point where it is possible to pay-off the obligations accrued to date by the members of the now-closed to new joiners scheme, then that too will be shut down.

Pensions are dead. It's nigh on impossible to save enough in a Money Purchase Scheme to buy an annuity to retire on.

So: we have to lobby for another thing besides a new FTL regime and a move for the company's AOC to a "regulation lite" (read low-cost) environment.

We MUST lobby for a raise in the Compulsory Retirement Age to WAY above 60! Retirement will not be an option!! And anyway, if we do secure a pensions deal that keeps existing members in NAPS within the scheme then the company will go broke trying to meet its obligations!!

Massive salary cuts or the company is going under! There is no alternative. Do ANYTHING but accept it and the company is finished anyway.

As for swiss toni: why the hatred of cabin crew? Those payments you posted are incredibly tax efficient for BA compared to salary because

1. They aren't paid unless the crew member flies.

2. They dont attract National Insurance.

3. They are'nt pensionable.

Its CHEAP money. C'mon s toni, with the greatest of due respect, what kinda manager are ya?

Like I say, the CC I see strive to remain cheerfull in a demanding and often hostile environment and I salute them for it.

[BOAC]

Like I say, the CC I see strive to remain cheerfull in a demanding and often hostile environment and I salute them for it.

Seconded, L1. Certainly the ones I work with at LGW shorthaul, anyway - my only experience.

I gave up BALPA a while back, but when I quit I understood that the fiery statement had been issued (now, was that from our 'closet' BA manager/BACC chairman, perchance:{ ) that when the FIRST new BA pilot entrant was placed on a MP pension scheme, it would be war!

Have the call-up papers gone out yet?:D

[loaded1]

Yesterday's FT pretty much sums up the hopeless cause for all of us in "legacy carriers". I'm insufficiently "techie" to know how to link to an online version but under the "Companies and Markets" section is an article about us all.

For a start, US Air is deemed "a basket case", in so many words. United is alive only due to Federal loan guarantees, American = walking wounded. Alitalia only afloat because its an election year in Italy, Air Canada the same - its election time.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRBUS delivery is going to a legacy carrier in North America this year - its ALL to LCC's.

I worked incredibly hard to get where I am in the industry but have to face the fact that there is NO HOPE AT ALL of retiring on a pension from my current employer outwith the measly rights I've accrued to date.

Like so many "manufacturing/service" jobs, (factories/call centres), my job, with all the responsibility and effort required to get to even sit in the seat where I am, has been effectively "off-shored" to a lower cost centre of production.

In reality I see this as just the first stage, and that even O'Leery will be challenged by wages that make us all look like princes. Wages make up 27% of BA's costs. Less perhaps for Easy and Ryan, but still a very significant sum.

I bet a pound for every dollar that an operator will produce a business model based on the accession EU countries labour rates that provides EVEN Easy and Ryan with a major costs headache.

Its incredible to my mind that this has happened, but thats modern life and I know I'm lucky to have done the things I have.

Given the JAR self-regulation type environment I see standards heading south all the time too: look at our rail networks recent performance for a vision of the future if we are all not very careful.

Its all a great shame, but there it is.

[jerrystinger]

BA and its pension for its "beloved" employees............How many millions is the current pensions deficit?! Hhmmmm..... or ouch!

[loaded1]

Hey jerry, we KNOW. Games over: no more FSS pension and very likely no more airline either, at the rate we are going.

Question is: who'se next?

[Blackball]

"War", BOAC well if BALPA have declared it then you can bet your 1% it was done with a white flag in the other hand. Just remember George Orwell's Animal Farm "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" in the books case they were pigs who uttered those comments.

[swiss_tonni]

Well here I am again.......this is depressing.

I am saddenned that few people on PPRUNE actually read other peoples post. Its more like a noticeboard, as individuals mention others, but nearly always fail to answer the points raised.

I ask again, if anyone knows of a position, function, job or duty which is unnecessary, email Rod with the details. Has anyone done that as yet?

Now, Loaded 1, I dont hate cabin crew, I just raised a few items concerning the amount of training they receive, the amount of remuneration they receive compared to other jobs, the way they are paid, and how they are viewed outside their own community.

You also say "what kinda manager are ya?". This is one of the big problems in BA. Anyone outside the flight crew and cabin crew community seems to be deemed to be a "manager".

As I stated earlier, I wear a suit. I am one of the "suits". I have to wear a suit because that is accepted business wear. Not all people who wear suits are "managers". Get that into your heads please.

Some of those people in suits make sure that flight plans are filed, and on which routes, that people are paid, that numerous tasks required by JAR-OPS are complied with, and also run those "additional" "nice to have things" such as SESMA. We are not all "chiefs". Most of the "indians" are also required to wear suits.

Anti-ice, I wasn't being vindictive, I was merely posting an item which had been faxed around BA, and the world. It is, and was at the time, fact. It shows how some groups have BA over a barrel. I subsequently showed how complicated the cabin crew pay structure is. That complexity needs administration. People to input data, check it etc. People have spoken of the impact of low cost carriers. Their operations are simplified, from the way tickets are bought, to the way passengers check in, to the way staff are paid. We need that sort of simplification at BA.

You say "look around Waterside" to see the surplus staff. Sorry, but in the bit I work in, we are flat out. And so are others. We all, yes all in BA, are working harder than we have in the past. We need to, we want to stay in our jobs, and to see BA survive and prosper.

Now, to just stay alive, and even to improve, BA needs its staff to be happy, to work together, and to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We must simplify the way that we do the things which dont impact on our passengers.

And to the correspondent who says "we know who you are". I dont think you do. I do not post, or access, PPRUNE from any work PC's. To prevent any "unwanted or undesirable" email, I have asked a couple of friends around the world if they could post the messages I send them via email. This is done at internet cafe's. Prevents my kids, seeing, or reading anything unsavoury.

toodle pip

swiss_tonni

.................who knows, I really could be RE himself!

[Paterbrat]

Swiss_toni, whoever you are, however you send your messages, and despite the vituperation some of these have recieved, they do appear to make sense to some of us who have followed with dismay the hostile and hardline unionist approach taken by others in BA.
Unfortunately as in most cases, though thankfully a minority, they still manage to cause disruption, dismay and economic damage out of all proportion to their numbers.