BA Cabin Crew Strike Threat [Archive] - Page 2

Rimmer

19th Jan 2007, 00:28

Hi Litebulbs

I think we probably met in the past.

What i would like to hear from the cabin crew and Bassa is they have tried many many times to negotiate and BA have refused, they have offered compromise and other solutions but BA has refused, until i hear that i am finding it hard to sympathise.

So EG300 - well its the same for the rest of us, i don't like it but what the hell if the cabin crew feel they are a special case because of colds etc then surely that applies to the pilot community as well and i don't hear them moaning ( which they like to do ), i feel the cabin crew issues are probably their local management, if i am at stage 2 or what ever of a sickie and i have been ill then let um try and intimidate me, i just show them the ramp with the snow and rain, talk them thought a typical 12 hour nightshift and at the end they are surprised its only stage 2.

As for the other issues i hope you can sort them out, one or two i agree needs resolving especially the bus driver one, i would imagine WW could sort that easily ( if your reading this Willy ) by paying up all the drivers that are going atT5 and getting a 1 year contract with someone else - its not rocket science Willy.

I support any group that's being shafted but your issues really should be easily solved, as for CSDs and maintaining them i recommend you concentrate on looking after the majority rather than the minority, as an engineer with sorry to admit some years of experience than i care to admit i know the CSD is a dead duck, face it and move on you will not win that one.

As for Captains ( blimey here we go ) many times i have had problems with CSDs and pursers over technical issue and had to push them aside to the Captain, sadly i have friends who really couldn't run a boys club that are BA captains, that aside i have to respect the fact they are the responsible person for the flight and if something goes wrong its their neck, similarly if something goes technically wrong its mine ( so if i sign its as ok its ok right! ).

The Pension issue i can go with you on as there seems very few safeguards, i am suprised the Nigels have gone for it and after 10 years BA might be laughing about it at our cost, however the deal thats offered is still better for you than i and our lot will probably accept it.

So come on guys and Girls push for a fix to this rather than hope for a fight, i am not a shareholder and i probably could find another job but i enjoy working with yourselves and the pilots, i cant say we as Engineers wouldn't go into industrial action over an issue but i know we would be clear about what had changed rather than just being unhappy with how life is, if your smart you have things to negotiate with ( that will cost you little to give up but save BA a packet ) and many of them have been mentioned in these very posts here ( working one down etc etc ) - make something positive from it and i hope you all do.

Joetom

19th Jan 2007, 08:01

Rimmer,
.
Enjoyed your last post, the point about the Pilots want this new deal, think it might just be because they getting a 19% basic pay rise, am sure that if the company offered all staff a pay rise of 19% all this pension talk would be over and all efforts could be focused on customers.
.
Good luck to the CC union today, but the feeling I get is:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: , the managers hear what is being said, but have little understanding of how it is in the real world:sad: :sad: :sad:

TopBunk

19th Jan 2007, 08:04

... the Pilots want this new deal, think it might just be because they getting a 19% basic pay rise, ...

Pilots are not getting any pay rise in this settlement, yet more lies.

yachtno1

19th Jan 2007, 08:24

TBF Top Bunk I expect it was just a slip of the keyboard ..:)

3Greens

19th Jan 2007, 08:24

JOeTOm

That is utter rubbish. There is no 19% pay rise. COuld you please quantify what you mean?
I believe you are referring to the rise in PENSIONABLE PAY to 95%!!! SOmething that BALPA indentified as a possible area to improve fthe deal for flying staff. (and yes that does incluse cabin crew too.)
Something i guess BASSA have skipped over with all the spin they are putting out at the moment.

Rimmer

19th Jan 2007, 09:20

JoeTom
Thanks for the reply and i do hope today brings something positive.

With regards to the pension ( and this is an engineer speaking ) the pilots and yourselves have a slightly better deal than i But >>>

As we are all going STRAIGHT to a 65 NRD date now ( rather than any 5 year transitions as previous ) it was identified by Balpa that the 5 years has a monetary value, what has happened to dampen the effect of the 5 years is that amount ( £15 Million i believe ) has been split between Pilots and yourselves to buffer it, in the pilots that's uplifting their Pensionable pay to 95% ( only that accrued after April 07 is at 95% ) but not sure how that is for yourselves, i know its a buffer for all those that were due to retire at 55.
Is that fair? well initially i was angry about it, however when i found out the full details and considering you guys were on a promised NRD of 55 then i guess it maybe is.

Saying that --- If the pilots stay on to 60 and a lot already want to then all it does is give them more money ( which is going to cost me loads for the same ), how will our lot see this - badly i suspect!

Flying Lawyer

19th Jan 2007, 11:07

the managers hear what is being said, but have little understanding ..... The impression I've got as an outsider reading this thread is that those who support the Bassa line appear to believe that anyone who thinks the demands are unreasonable - whether they be managers, other BA employees or employees of other airlines - must either be failing to understand or be jealous of BA CC earnings.
Is that a fair impression?

The Blu Riband

19th Jan 2007, 11:08

Rimmer
you are living proof that a little knowledge is dangerous!

Ground staff see an increase of NRA to 65 from 60; in general.
Flying staff see an increase from55 to 65!

The 15m is shared equally by contribution between pilots and cc.

You are not subsidising pilots pensions.
The individuals and their company contributions build up and accumulate interest, so that the actuaries predict the value of the individual and total pension pot.
Clearly the workforce's career progression and longevity can be very accurately estimated.
Imagine you are trying to save just enough to almost live off the interest.

The valuations and predictions are complicated and largely impartial; and I realise it is a complex subject but you are deceiving yourself and others with your naive assertions!

CFC

19th Jan 2007, 11:15

The impression I've got as an outsider reading this thread is that those who support the Bassa line appear to believe that anyone who thinks the demands are unreasonable - whether they be managers, other BA employees or employees of other airlines - must either be failing to understand or be jealous of BA CC earnings.
Is that a fair impression?

Totally correct.

Dave Gittins

19th Jan 2007, 11:48

And the impression I have got from the outside is that there are a number of demands by the BA CC, of which a lot of other people are saying "cmon get real". An attitude which is being met by the CC with absolute incredulity that they are not being fully supported by the industry, the flight deck crews, their opposite numbers in the LOCOs, the possibly to be inconvenienced public at large and other BA CCS in another union.

All I want to hear is that a settlement has been reached without another year being marked with the plans of many to fly with BA - including mine - being disrupted by another small minority. BA's reputation for not getting pax where they want to be at the right time and with all their chattels intact is getting so bad that few people can now regard them as the airline of choice, merely as one of occasional necessity.

DGG

eal401

19th Jan 2007, 11:56

few people can now regard them as the airline of choice
Concur.

Will this be the final strike that pushes BA out of business?

The Blu Riband

19th Jan 2007, 11:57

I get the impression that the cc expect all their demands to be met.

Do the cc really expect that even half their 12 demands can be achieved?

Can the company afford to lose; answer, no - not for the long term

whattimedoweland

19th Jan 2007, 12:21

Today Friday the 19th of January is the day that could be make or break fo BA management.

If no agreement can be reached then seven days from now a mild easy going workforce will withdraw their labour,something I never saw myself taking.

I hope against hope that this arrogant, aggressive slash and cut management will see the light ,talk with and not at for a change, with it's employee's Union BASSA to reach a compromise.

With it's recent industrial relation problems with other areas of the airline I thought BA may have thought about the affect on 'our' long suffering passengers and sat down and talked, but no they would rather have a fight!!.

They shut the union offices, sent managers all over the world (First Class)!! to talk at crew crew to tell them a strike would achieve nothing, they rostered crew 'in touch' days to tell them the same and at the same time crew could not get leave due to this!!.

All this and we achieved a massive 96.1% YES vote, with only 330 of returns voting No.

This dispute is not about asking for more pay or an improvements to our conditions but to hold on to what we have.

Can I just give a couple of examples of why BA employee's, not just crew have no respect or trust left in their management.

1. They ask for savings, then should lead by example do you think?
No, they award themselves a very nice £76 million in share bonus payments, with Roger Maynard, head trustee of the pensions getting 1.25 millon!!.

2. They want cabin crew to save £37 million and have already lost £40 million plus in lost forward bookings!!.

3. They want to cut senior grades,1 at the moment with and I stress the rumour of 3 by the end of 2007,a saving on 1 is £3 million per year.These people are the one's who deliver your service and their experience is your safety.At the same time we are currently recruiting a further 44 managers to manage crew!!.

These are just three small examples of what BA staff face.

In the papers today Willie Walsh rightly says he wants to cut sickness and so he should.He states that we have reduced cabin crew sickness from 22 days per annum to 12 but the national average is 7 days.

We work in a pressurised cabin all of our working live's,with the germs of all on board being circulated round.Poor air quality due to the air exchange not being worked to full capacity to save fuel and constant jet lag.I'm sure most of you know how that last one alone affects you.

BA in court a couple of years ago at a hearing in which crew asked for the right to work beyond 55 years of age stated 'it did not want it's crew to work beyond 55 for health reasons as flying for a prolonged period has been proved to by bad for the human body'.
Yet two years on it is insisting that if you want the same pension you will have to work a further 10 years for it!!.

I would never change my job and love every day of it,because as a senior crew member of 23 years service I always have great crew working with me and the pleasure of meeting so many interesting people in the form of you our loyal passengers.

After 23 years of loyal service to BA and you are passengers it saddens me that for the first time I will have to and I am willing to take industrial action.
Yes this will affect you and I am sorry for this but if I don't it will affect my remaining 22 years in the job I love and enjoy.

Please can I ask you not to point the finger of blame at what I believe is a mild,non militant group of loyal cabin crew but the arrogant,incompetent group who have the cheek to call themselves management (word used very loosely)!!.
Their only aim is to reduce costs to fund their fat bonus payments.The one's who suffer are you the passenger with lesser quality product and service and we the crew with lesser conditions,which I refuse to accept as we make huge profits year on year.

Cabin crew management and senior management should ask why are 96% of those crew who voted so unhappy?.In my mind their incompetence should lead to and only be rewarded with their dismissal or resignation.

They are a disgrace to the company and all it's employee's.They must go.

WTDWL.

Rimmer

19th Jan 2007, 12:32

Blu Riband

Maybe but £9 Million to the 3500 pilot and £6 Million to 12000 Cabin crew is hardly equal.

Besides who ever said the pilots and cabin crew retiring earlier than other staff is a fair situation to start with?

It could also be said that because you have a greater involvement with NAPs ( by BAs contributions and amounts ) that you should share a larger part of the deficit problem, i don't see other FTSE 100 companies with £2.1 Billion deficits and i wonder why that might be?

So although your right a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing it can also be the truth as well!

Quote " The valuations and predictions are complicated and largely impartial; and I realise it is a complex subject but you are deceiving yourself and others with your naive assertions!"

Such as what assertions?, i see nothing i have commented that's remotely naive, you just didn't like hearing it.

Sporran

19th Jan 2007, 12:47

Flying Lawyer.

There is nothing to do with being jealous of cabin crew or failing to understand their demands. Their union is 'old school', like the days of Arthur Scargill, with all the militant aggressive attitudes associated. If you make unrealistic demands of an employer, can you be surprised if they are rebuffed?:ugh:

A VERY large number of cabin crew DO NOT understand what they are voting to strike about, aprticularly as most of their demands are rather trivial. (Please see my previous post where I itemised the cabin crew demands.) They seem to have been carried along on a wave of euphoria and a lot of them seem to almost 'want' to go out on strike to teach BA a lesson - without realising that strike action is akin to using a nuclear weapon.:sad:

Eddy

19th Jan 2007, 12:53

I don't want to get too involved in this one, but the reason we're cheering is NOT because of the prospect of going on strike, it's because we have just seen unity in our community like we've never experienced.
We are a diverse, distant workforce and getting us all to agree on something is very, very difficult. We're celebrating the fact that IF a strike comes, we have a huge amount of support out there - support that will make the strike a success. We are NOT FOR ONE SECOND celebrating the prospect of walking out.
I'm hugely anti-strike and it's the last thing I want to do. I can't afford to strike - I've got a hefty mortgage, massive council tax bill and loans/ccds to pay off..... Three days without a wage is going to be a killer, but a lifetime on what my bosses want me to earn would be just impossible. I love my job. I adore what I do. I don't want to leave. If the cost cuts BA are imposing get through in their entirity, I'd be forced out because I wouldn't be able to live on what I'd be earning.
I'm not just fighting for money (infact, I'm not fighting for money at all, just to keep what I've already got), I'm fighting for my career.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and those who say that we as crew at BA earn too much may (in some peoples' opinions) have a point, but that's not to say we deserve to have our pay slashed while the company continues to make massive profits.
Not getting a pay rise is one thing - you can struggle your way through as you've managed in the past.... Getting a pay cut, however, is quite another. We've all built lives based on what we currently earn and we don't want any more - we just want to keep what our lives have been built around.
Cheers

P.S. May I add a quick question? If anyone here slagging off BA crew for their earnings were to come to BA for a job (just IF, it's hypothetical), would you ask them for a reduced benefits/salary package or would you delightedly accept what was being offered to you as it was better than you were getting at your other airline?

Answers on a postcard - I'll pay for the stamp.

Eddy

19th Jan 2007, 13:27

If you make unrealistic demands of an employer, can you be surprised if they are rebuffed?
NONE of the demands we're making are unrealistic.... None (or very few) of the demands we're making are for anything in addition to what we've already got. All we're really asking for is to keep what we signed up for in terms of sickness, pensions and earnings.

Unrealistic? Naaah.

I do hope you're never faced with a similar situation.

3Greens

19th Jan 2007, 14:00

Eddy, you sum up what i have myself found out on the line. You aren't really sure what you are voting to strike upon. Let me take your post fror example in no particular order.

Pensions - BASSA decided to ballot BEFORE the talks were concluded and there is NO WAy you and everbody else in NAPS is going to get what they signed up to as you say.
Sickness - i assume you will be handing back the cash that you were happy to take when BASSA recommended you sign up to EG300?
Earnings - Errr, i assume you mean the transfer of new CC onto Old rates after 7 years(i think?). So if this isn't wanting more then i don't know what is.

Will you be happy if BA agree some changes but not all. What if a few minor points are agreed such as preferred DF? There is absolutely NO WAY BA are going to cave on all 12 of the wish list so i hope you and all the CC have got a few quid tucked away as a strike fund. Oh and the commuters will have to get used to life without staff travel for a while.

If the nuclear option is taken then BA will be very hardnosed and most of the crew i fly with have no idea what will be involved.

Eddy

19th Jan 2007, 14:29

3Greens, I know exactly what we're looking to strike over. You have no cause for concern there.... I know what's going on. I'd GLADLY give back the EG300 money to the company if things went back to how they were. We were offered that money to accept a policy with certain terms that are now not being adhered to.

With regards to salaries, I'm talking partly about the payscales but also about the hourly rate situation that was put on the table but promptly removed. This is an important issue for us and we're fighting to get the company to agree to leave it off the table for a set number of years. We can't live with the threat of having this proposal being re-addressed regularly. We need to get rid of it once and for all (well, for a few years atleast until we get a chance to re-adress our situation).

As I said, I don't want to really get involved in this one. There's a lot of narrowmindedness shining through in this thread, a lot of jealousy and a lot of selfishness being aimed at people who don't deserve it.

And mate, yes, there are some things I'd be prepared to give the company. I'm not a union rep, though, so have no real say in what's going on behind the coffee stained walls at Waterside. I'm also not prepared to discuss publicly what I'd offer if I were leading the negotiations for Bassa - that would be a thoroughly pointless excercise.

All the best

BlueQ

19th Jan 2007, 15:06

Oh and the commuters will have to get used to life without staff travel for a while.

There is a prolific rumour that BA will be able to impose punitive action against anyone who strikes e.g. by suspending staff travel for a period or by holding striking against those seeking promotion in the future. Even dismissal!

As I understand it, BA will not be doing any of these things as it would be illegal to impose punitive action against any BASSA member exercising their legal right to strike.

Flying Lawyer

19th Jan 2007, 15:16

Sporran

Just in case there's any misunderstanding, I wasn't suggesting that people who've been critical of Bassa's demands are either jealous of the cabin crew or failing to understand their demands. I got the impression that's what those who support Bassa believe (or claim). CFC agrees that impression is "totally correct."

'You don't understand' seemed to be an underlying theme in many responses to criticisms of Bassa's demands, and the 'jealousy' allegation was made unambiguously in some posts with such comments as:
"Am sick of all these jealous crew talking about the real world outside of BA." "all the sarcastic/ patronising/jealous and downright rude comments about BA crew"

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 15:30

Maybe but £9 Million to the 3500 pilot and £6 Million to 12000 Cabin crew is hardly equal.
My pension is going to be a lot bigger than the average CCs too. Thats hardly equal. Nor is the fact I get more salary. The fact is it costs £9 Million to fund the pilots arrangement and £6 Million to fund the cabin crew, and those arrangements are equal.
Besides who ever said the pilots and cabin crew retiring earlier than other staff is a fair situation to start with?
A contract is a contract. The world isn't fair but if we start tearing up the contracts and redistributing the cash we'll all be in trouble. Still I'm sure some impoverished urchin in Lesotho would be pleased to receive lots of your cash in the name of fairness.
It could also be said that because you have a greater involvement with NAPs ( by BAs contributions and amounts ) that you should share a larger part of the deficit problem
It could be said that because we have greater involvement in NAPS we should recieve a larger part of the spoils too. How would that sound to you? I think it's more equitable if we all contribute towards our own share of the deficit, which is what this proposal does.
i don't see other FTSE 100 companies with £2.1 Billion deficits and i wonder why that might be?
Perhaps their managers adequately funded their pensions funds. Take a look here (http://www.lcp.uk.com/information/press_release.asp?ID=149).
So although your right a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing it can also be the truth as well!
Yes it can be the truth as well, but in your case it is not.

Blue Q - The BASSA lawyers also said you couldn't be sacked for taking lawful industrial action. That was wrong too.

Rimmer

19th Jan 2007, 15:55

BlueQ and Carnage

Pensions and Staff Travel are non contractual, that means for pensions you are invited to join the scheme, you cannot take BA to court for breech of contract as the wording of it is exactly that, i defy you to show me any contract that says you will retire at 55 any more than mine says 60.

On the staff travel front again that's non contractual and BA reserve the right to suspend or cancel it at will, any person taking industrial action will immediately have it suspended.

Quote "It could be said that because we have greater involvement in NAPS we should receive a larger part of the spoils too. How would that sound to you? I think it's more equitable if we all contribute towards our own share of the deficit, which is what this proposal does."

Well i thought you did receive a larger part of the spoils, i think we should all contribute towards our shares fairly, however that's a bit biased when one group then gets given a part of that contribution back under the table!

Quote "Yes it can be the truth as well, but in your case it is not."

Depends where you look at it from, i am open to being convinced but all i have seen and read hear and previous still have me convinced my previous comments stand

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 16:14

OK, pensions are non-contractual but we really are getting sidetracked into semantics here. Perhaps we should say "agreements are agreements"?

Well i thought you did receive a larger part of the spoils, i think we should all contribute towards our shares fairly

Fine, I'm with you on that. A 10 year increase to NRA for all, thats fair isn't it? What more could you ask for?

that's a bit biased when one group then gets given a part of that contribution back under the table!

Nothing under the table about it, it's all out in the open. Everybody knows about it. You can probably have it too if you want, all it will cost you is an extra five years working for BA? Do you want that?

The Blu Riband

19th Jan 2007, 16:23

Rimmer
Of course the £9 Million to the 3500 pilots and £6 Million to 12000 Cabin crew is equal.

Firstly your figures are wrong.....................
There are approx 2750 pilots in NAPS and 5500 cabin crew.
Many of the cc are part time; and do not work / contribute for a whole career

Then of course there is a significant salary difference

So it is easy to see how the 15m has been split equitably!

Understand???

The Controlller

19th Jan 2007, 19:02

Cabin crew and flt crew are the most mercenancy breed I have have even known. All they are interested in are themselves and they have no interest or any part in any other part of BA. They will be the death of BA with little thought of the the true supporters of BA who have carried them for years. WW should sack them all all and offer contracts that suit them ? and start again and rejoin the real world. Please remember the staff that have to mop up and keep the programme going. Forget the money grabbing crew and get some real crew ??????
Get a real life

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 19:07

and flt crew are the most mercenancy breed I have have even known. All they are interested in are themselves and they have no interest or any part in any other part of BA. Get areal life

Yeah, not like those selfless check-in staff or ramp handlers with their wildcat strikes. They were really interested in the other parts of BA. Perhaps you would like to get a real life?

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 19:08

Lets hope nobody puts you in the flying seat, as I think we would nosedive very quickly with an attitude like yours. Do you really think comments like that help?:*

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 19:10

Anyvody know what the outcome was of todays talks?:bored:

The Controlller

19th Jan 2007, 19:15

Crew are only interested in themselves and have NO thoughts for the rest of BA staff. We believe or not have family and friends who depend on BA to live so DONT for whatever shortsighted reasons spoil it for the real BA staff who have a true feeling to keep BA going. Not the """""""" crew

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 19:19

I didnt think you had the intelligence to work for BA yourself, so please reserve judgement of BA employees!:=

The Controlller

19th Jan 2007, 19:21

Sigmond

Please wise up ?

speedmarque

19th Jan 2007, 19:22

BASSA have posted on website that talks are over. We will know what/when action will be taken on Sunday 21st.

The Controlller

19th Jan 2007, 19:25

BASSA/Cabin crew 89 will be the DEATH of BA and a great many of GOOD/True staff will suffer for crap cabin crew

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 19:34

can you go to sleep please mate...

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 19:36

Well the game is on. Apparently not only have BA rejected all 12 of BASSAs points, they have told them they now want more from the crew. The official announcement is scheduled for Sunday.

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 19:43

carnage do you have any more info? any specifics on the bassa response to the company's rejection?

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 19:47

The above info comes from BASSA sources. They are meeting on Sunday to announce the plan, and I would presume announce the first strike. They wanted a chance to give the company a bloody nose, they might be about to find they have woken the sleeping giant.

Sabre-Rattler

19th Jan 2007, 20:16

StiffLittleFingers

19th Jan 2007, 20:48

I don't know what was said in the previous meetings - in fact, I don't know what was said in today's meeting. But what I've heard makes me think that the management didn't exactly go into today's meeting with the intention of reaching agreement. I understand that the decision to activate the disruption centre, which mans the 'hotline' for disgruntled pax, was taken even before today's meeting had kicked off. From what's been said here, sounds like BA went in with their approach being to tell BASSA to poke it!

Sigmond

19th Jan 2007, 21:06

Lets hope these BASSA members can afford to have days off for strike action, I know certainly that December and January are long months, and with all those pressie's the credit card bills will need to be paid! I know I couldnt afford to strike, I think after the third 3 day walk out BASSA will see their members going against them and blame them for a badly handled dispute....

Joetom

19th Jan 2007, 21:17

Looks to me like the company have got the unions fighting with each other just as they (the company) wanted, well done to the managers, one-nil.
.
By offering different deals to various sections of staff was odds on going to start this bun fight.
.
If the company had wanted any pension changes to go well and keep staff happy, they could have done the following.
.
1. Shut down NAPs.
2. Offer all staff a new pension deal based on Career Average Earnings.
.
This would have been Fair and all the unions could have worked together to get the best possible Career Average Earnings Pension for all staff, but as we can see, the bun fight will cause a lack of focus for both staff and unions, the result will be that the company will force these changes through at the cheapest cost and as a general rule, most staff will get a very very raw deal.
.
In the long run, when various sections on different deals, unions will not be able to work together to increase the various pension deals, the result will be further reductions to each and every deal year on year saving the company loads of cash and making Pension Value look a Joke in the future.
.
The company have picked a bad time to try such changes, many many staff are very unhappy with the way things are going and have been for a while, I think the feeling is either fight now and get it fixed or it's gone forever, 96.1% want to get it fixed, am sure they will do a good job, good luck.:ok:

Sabre-Rattler

19th Jan 2007, 21:28

The company did not get the unions flighting eachother.

Mike Conroy and his band of stupid half wits did that with their blatant lies a week last Friday, then subsequent attacks on people they are not fit to lick the boots of.

So be it. Come on

Joetom

19th Jan 2007, 21:49

SR,
.
If a reduction in T+Cs is being forced on the staff, only Fair that all staff should get the same deal, lets get NAPs shut and Career Average Earnings offered to all staff(including any new and newer staff on BAMPS), the word Fair was used a lot last year, appears Fair is a bit thin on the ground now.
.
I think many managers looking forward to this bun fight, after the buns are done, most staff will be very unhappy and that will ensure loads of managers are needed to try and coach staff back on-side, the coach will need much refueling.
.
Hats off to the CC.....:ok:

Sabre-Rattler

19th Jan 2007, 22:16

Lunatic alert.

Carnage Matey!

19th Jan 2007, 22:52

Yep. He's bonkers. All he wants is a fair scheme, as long as we pay more than our fair share for it.

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 08:24

I am absolutely disgusted (and hurt) at the shocking level of disdain a lot of people here have for cabin crew within British Airways. It's horrible. I don't know what the problem is.

Three years ago, about a week before I started my training with British Airways, I attended a Pprune Do where I met some of this forum's biggest and brightest. Pilots, cabin crew, ATCs, members of the public. It was an enjoyable evening and the sense of unity amongs the attendees was great. I suppose this industry, more than any other, has always had a close knit feel about it.

If you ever see another airline's staff flying on your flights, you'd do all you could to look after them. That's admirable but that's aviation. We're like one big community split between different companies. Now, sadly, it looks like times have changed.

The days of that close knit community feel in this industry seem to have long gone and it's turned in to a very depressing place to be.

I note that the majority of the anti-cabin crew comments on here are from flight crew, and I'm hardly surprised. There has always, despite what I said above, been a lot of tension between these two communities and I'm not scared to admit that most of it stems from the cabin crew side of the door.

We're not all like that, though. I visit the flight deck on every flight I take. I make sure the guys up there know what the cabin crew have planned for the trip and I ensure that, during the flight, the guys know they can call me for things they aren't being offered by their 'designated' crew.

Threads like this which highlight the ill-feeling between our two communities, however, make me question why I make such an effort - certainly when I cast my mind back to the time an FO almost beat the sh*t out of me in Singapore.

Yet, I know, I'll get on my next flight and things will be normal. I couldn't bring myself to joining the ranks of anti-flight crew cabin crew out there. It's unhealthy.

I remind everyone that the flight crew were ready to ballot if they weren't happy with the result of their own negotiations with the company. What would the reaction have been had the pilots been set to walk, too? Not quite as offensive and not quite as insulting, I would expect.

Striking is a terrible prospect and I'm sick inside at the thought of it. That said, I know I have little choice. It's either accept a pay cut of some 40%, sell my home in Scotland, move to a flat share in London because I couldn't afford the commute and never leave my room again on a nightstop OR fight to keep what the company is already giving us AND profiting every year while sustaining, enjoy the ability to head out on trips and enjoy the destinations I'm visiting, keep my home and continue to live in Scotland where my friends, family and ill mother are.

I don't want to, guys, but I'm going to fight. I have no real alternative.

747 Downind

20th Jan 2007, 09:10

Very interesting thread indeed, will be intrigued by the actions taken by BASSA and BA management over the next few months. I will say as an outsider I do not know a great deal about remuneration packages and the furore over crew sick leave. It is obvious, however, that WW wishes to cost cut at the expense of crew allowances and this makes sense when BA crew (cabin crew in particular) are earning well in excess of the industry standard. (ref: CAA statistics). This should not distract us from the reality that many new cabin crew are on moderate salaries.

As flightdeck I have been watching BA closely, deciding whether a move would be a good think for the long term future. The company has its pro's and con's.. some of the con's being the classics; time to command, loop hole in the pension scheme etc. However, from a social aspect one of the most powerful deterrents is the alleged tension between flightdeck and cabin crew. At my previous employers there has always been one or two individuals who seem to fit this description (mainly cabin crew but flightdeck also), but no where near the extent I have heard of at BA. I have been warned repeatedly of the antagonism and tension shown either side of the dead bolt door, admittedly by ex-BA flightcrew but also others who have never worked there.. how much truth is in this? Some of the stories are horiffic, but they always come down to older experienced SCCM (I believe BA refer to them as cabin services directors:yuk: ). Are these fair assumptions or am I receiving information from a biased prospective.

I value the interaction between flight and cabin crew.. teamwork is paramount to success. As a young social individual what I don't want is sh1t from some old miserable disgruntled individual who earns more than me (that I can just about handle), thinks there above me in rank and tries to tell me what to do.. please tell me these are horror stories that contain no real substance:ooh: . Cathay P is looking more and more tempting by the minute.
I hope this issue is resolved amicably for all parties concerned.. it's the loyal customers that suffer in the end (always the way).. tragic for an airline with such a well established history, sorry for creating a tangent to this thread!!

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 09:35

747, mate, despite my post above, I have to say that I LOVE WORKING FOR BRITISH AIRWAYS and so do most of the other people here. The company has it's issues like any other, but in general, it's a great place to work.
Join us.

3Greens

20th Jan 2007, 09:36

Apparently talks didn't go well at all yesterday..oh dear it looks like willie is going to take you on.

wiggy

20th Jan 2007, 10:40

In my experience the vast majority of BA Cabin Crew are great to work with. However I do fear for the future following the recent spat between some of the BALPA and some of the BASSA Reps. That has already filtered down to the "troops" and has, apparently led to some interesting conversations downroute. If things turn really ugly for the Cabin Crew and BASSA then no doubt it'll be spun by some as being the pilots' fault - what price CRM then?

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 10:48

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 10:53

Ok crack open a beer and watch the sport begin.
Long time coming for these overpaid prima-donnas but WW is going to get you now.
Onwards and upwards. After BASSA's bullsh1t and attacks on our hard working, intelligent and honest reps I can't wait.
Now we will see what your stupid half-illiterate BASSA leaders are made of.
Bring it on.
Oh what an intelligent post....think you might be on the beer already.
FYI Amicus are now one step closer to issuing a ballot for further action, and that from 'the more level headed and sensible union'.
Might just give an indication to how bad the talks are going are behind the scenes.

4468

20th Jan 2007, 10:59

There are some pretty gobby anonymous pilots on here!

Wonder if they're so gobby in the flesh? :rolleyes:

Nah! :8

The Blu Riband

20th Jan 2007, 11:03

Another intelligent post??!!?
are you BA cc?

4468

20th Jan 2007, 11:33

My profile gives a hint!

Airbus Unplugged

20th Jan 2007, 12:28

I do find it rather puzzling that the same people who were quite ready to consider a pilot strike with support from the other unions, now seem to be taking umbrage that the cabin crew might have the audacity to consider that course of action themselves?

Is it that the same 'I'm alright Jack' fringe that has so critically undermined the status of flight crew in the last 15 years is still alive and well in the top third of the seniority list?

BALPA may well have conducted a campaign that makes other campaigns look less professional, but we did so against a background of general support from BASSA. I think we would do well to remember that before we vilify them.

M.Mouse

20th Jan 2007, 12:29

I remind everyone that the flight crew were ready to ballot if they weren't happy with the result of their own negotiations with the company. What would the reaction have been had the pilots been set to walk, too? Not quite as offensive and not quite as insulting, I would expect.

The difference being that BALPA's stance and handling of the pension negotiations were not of the type 'give us what we want or we strike' but more of a balanced, AFFORDABLE and reasonable JOINT solution to dealing with the deficit caused by Robber Brown.

BASSA's vote timing, their disingenuous attack on BALPA and one individual in particular, coupled with the unrealistic demands listed in their ballot paper and the plain scaremongering to ensure a resounding yes vote have reinforced in my mind what I have always suspected - BASSA is led by aggressive, unpleasant individuals with a hidden agenda. They have led their members down an unwinnable path and the results are not going to be pretty.

They have backed themselves, and more importantly their members, into a corner. Any strike will not be solid (witness the last one!) and although the day of reckoning for BASSA and CC is long, long overdue it will weaken all staff groups within BA and make the already appalling excuse for management in BA almost unbearable.

One outcome at least will be that when disruption occurs I will be given the tools to get our long suffering passengers to their destination without some jumped up little squirt telephoning 'the union' to find out what time they reach their industrial agreement hours limitation in order to tell me what time they are walking, despite LEGALLY being able to continue using Captain's discretion.

stormin norman

20th Jan 2007, 12:43

Well said M Mouse.BASSA is in need of a reality check (so are the cabin crew management for that matter).If the strike does go ahead i know of many cabin crew who will go in and tear up there union cards.

The big losers are the passengers who pay the wages-again!

If the cabin crew management didn't see this coming (as STS says)their heads must truly be in the sand.

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 13:17

Megaton

20th Jan 2007, 13:26

Unrealistic demands? How about re-opening Man base? BA is a business, not a welfare organization, existing solely for the benefit of its employees.

ps Flew two sectors today. Crew on both sectors were operating one out or one home. Not that it happens often I know!

Flying Fred

20th Jan 2007, 13:27

4468

20th Jan 2007, 13:35

One outcome at least will be that when disruption occurs I will be given the tools to get our long suffering passengers to their destination without some jumped up little squirt telephoning 'the union' to find out what time they reach their industrial agreement hours limitation in order to tell me what time they are walking,
Are you still carrying your laminated card, provided by YOUR union, spelling out when your industrial committment ends. Are you one of the many pilots who feel less than keen to go into discretion when you can't get your 'status' issues resolved to your satisfaction?
Maybe the decision making process is another 'perceived' status issue?
i know of many cabin crew who will go in and tear up there union cards.
How odd then that 96% of them voted to support their union! :rolleyes:
Guys your fellow workers behind the flight deck door are NOT the enemy! You are taking your eye off the ball, and causing HUGE damage to working relations.
On my flight yesterday I asked 3 cabin crew what they were striking about and nobody could come up with a sensible answer. I have no problem at all with you voting to strike but only if you base that decision on truths and facts.
I find this attitude a little disingenous. Over on the balpa website the commentary is very much along the lines of 'trust your reps'. If they call for your support, give it. Why shouldn't cabin crew do the same?

Carnage Matey!

20th Jan 2007, 13:52

M.Mouse, I'm up for civilized discussion on this and would welcome your input. Let's try and block out the inance ramblings posted by many of the previous participants on this thread and talk about FACTS or, atleast, facts as we see them.
You say Bassa has made some unrealistic requests. What are these in your opinion? What do YOU feel should be taken off the table ?
Cheers

Unrealistic requests:

Reopen the MAN base (why not add BHX GLA and MAN BAR, or BFS Shuttle)
Transition of new contract pay to old (who's going to pay for that)
Fixed links (standard practice at any other scheduled airline)
Purser/Junior swap (too many chiefs, not enough indians, plus it's only 1 in 7 longhaul purser positions lost, not all promotion prospects for the future like BASSA claim)

The rest of your requests could probably be achieved by negotiation. The problem is BASSA do not believe they have to negotiate seriously. Even yesterdays release, that they were "willing to move a little bit" (my emphasis) suggests that they are out of touch with the real commercial environment. Just to put the cherry on top of the icing on the cake they then walked away from the best pension deal yet, accused BALPA (their closest allies so far) of selling them out, attempted to steal all the credit for the deal then launched a personal attack on one of our reps.

The problem with this whole situation is that it's one huge dust up that has been orchestrated by BASSA to flex some industrial muscle and they have misjudged the mood. If we turned the clock back to October and asked crew if they could see a strike in the next 4 months how many would say yes? 10%, and I'd hazard a guess they'd think it was over pensions. BASSA has cobbled together a huge list of minor grievances and a couple of major ones then gone on a scare-mongering mission to persuade people to vote yes without bothering to mention the consequences to their members. Now they are surprised that BA haven't buckled and they'll have to lose cash and go out on strike.

Carnage Matey!

20th Jan 2007, 13:55

Are you one of the many pilots who feel less than keen to go into discretion when you can't get your 'status' issues resolved to your satisfaction?

Discretion and industrial agreements are entirely different things. It's been several years since I've not gone beyond my agreements, but I have set limits on the amount of discretion I have used in the interests of safety. This is rarely an issue for CC who ring BASSA and get off the aircraft before they get near to requiring discretion

Megaton

20th Jan 2007, 13:56

Difference is that we knew what we were fightin over!

I asked a CSD why they were considering strike action. His answe was that it was to support the union. Support the union? Shouldn't it be the other way round. As a CSD and member of BASSA I expected a slightly more coherent answer than that from him.

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 14:17

Eddy,
Nice post. I am not one of the flight crew who rant on about cabin crew and I think that the vast majority of BA cabin crew do a great job.
However, what concerns me is the spin BASSA have put on a lot of the issues involved in order to whip the troops up into a frenzy. The worst excess of this was the now infamous 'diary of a stewardess' in the last BASSA newsletter.

On my flight yesterday I asked 3 cabin crew what they were striking about and nobody could come up with a sensible answer. I have no problem at all with you voting to strike but only if you base that decision on truths and facts.

The reason I say this is I have a real problem with this part of your post:-
Please can you tell me which one of the 12 items you have voted to strike over (and I have looked at all of them) involves you taking a 40% pay cut and having to sell your house? I have looked hard and cannot find it. Please don't interpret this as having a pop at you, I genuinely want to know what this pay cut is.

Don't pay too much attention to all the anti cabin crew rants on there. Forums like this tend to attract some quite outspoken individuals!
ATB

Hello Fred. I spend quite a bit of time with the reps and there's a lot more being discussed at the moment than just the twelve points that are being outlined. Things like, as I previously mentioned, hourly rate. It's been a thing of distant memories for a while until last month it was thrown on the table only to be promptly removed.

What the union are trying to arrange is for the issue to be taken from the table for a number of years. Failure to secure this will leave a heavy, dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over the crew community's heads. A timebomb, if you will, with uncertainty as to when it will go off.

There's also the removal of the Purser from the upper deck (more specifically, the removal of a Purser - the upper deck bit was, I understand, a decision made by Bassa though I'm not entirely sure).

I've been flying for three years and am already nearing the top of my payscale. While I'm satisfied with what I earn now, I'd love to have the opportunity to increase this in the future. Taking away the Purser will mean my 10 year wait for Purser will be extended to, well, goodness knows. With people retiring later now, the chances of promotion will be cut drastically. I'll be sitting on 14k for life.... Not a prospect I relish.

And, of course, we have the reduction in report times at base. I understand that Terminal 5 will mean we need less time to get to the jet, but if things at LHR went to schedule all the time (which they seldom do), our current report times are already cut to the bone. I've seen myself finishing security checks just minutes before the passengers arrive for boarding - they've often been kept waiting at the door before the final nod is given to begin.

Reducing these report times means things like LAX, SFO and JNB trips will become nightstops and we'll also lose valuable 'box payments'.

I understand that if we're not working the same amount of time, we shouldn't be paid for doing so. I agree with that notion. My worry, though, is that we're having our already fairly stingy report times reduced to a level where we might not have enough time pre-boarding to perform truly adequate security checks.

I will, of course, perform my check to standard every time, but it makes more sense for the company to just keep things as they are instead of changing them, resulting in the amount of UN-SCHEDULED overtime (which is paid at a higher rate) claimed, increase.

Guys your fellow workers behind the flight deck door are NOT the enemy! You are taking your eye off the ball, and causing HUGE damage to working relations.

4468, you're so right and I work tirelessly to spread that message to my colleagues in the cabin. Perhaps it's because I'm aspiring flight crew that keeps me so pro-pilots, or perhaps it's just because I look beyond the stripes and see that we are ALL one team in BA working to the same common goal - to see this great company succeed and prosper long in to the future.

Cheers, chaps.

Sporran

20th Jan 2007, 14:27

It is sad to say "I told you so", but it was always going to happen that WW would take on BASSA. I am sad for the huge majority of cabin crew that I have had the PLEASURE of flying with over the years I have been flying in BA. The blame lies fair and square with the BASSA 'leadership'!:mad:

The BASSA leadership over the years have been more intent on flexing their muscles, knowing that past bosses would not take them on. The answer is NO, but what was the question style of 'negotiating' is not the way to conduct yourselves. Handing in a huge list of demands and then using various shifty tactics to get people to vote is shameful. Sad to say, the losers are going to be the decent hard working cabin crew who were 'loyal' to a bunch of BASSA reps enjoying their £100/day and the power trip.

When BA cabin crew are good THEY ARE GREAT, but too often for their own good the poor ones let everybody else down. This is the 21st century, but some of BASSAs agreements would be more at home in the days of Queen Victoria!!:ugh:

For all the hard working cabin crew worrying about the next few days - I wish you well. Just do not let some power hungry reps lead you over the edge of a cliff.:}

Flying Fred

20th Jan 2007, 14:29

I find this attitude a little disingenous. Over on the balpa website the commentary is very much along the lines of 'trust your reps'. If they call for your support, give it. Why shouldn't cabin crew do the same?

I'm sorry if you find my attitude 'disingenuous'. I don't beliew we should blindly trust any of our reps, BALPA or BASSA. Over on the BALPA website, the reps are subject to some pretty intensive questioning and their responses are equally robust. I agree with you that the cabin crew are not the enemy.

Please can you read and respond to my post as a whole. What I am worried about is that none of the crew seem to know what they are striking about. One of my crew yesterday said "to support the union", the other 2 weren't that bothered. Why does Eddy seem to think he is going to get a 40% pay cut and have to sell his house? I'm mystified.

BASSA has, for its own reasons, chosen to spin some of the issues way beyond what might be deemed sensible and seem to have a love of the word 'imposed'. After the Friday night pensions deal, out came a text/forum post saying BA were imposing a pensions solution yet on the TGWU website, front page news was that the TGWU were going to recommend acceptance. Look at http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/News.asp?NodeID=93026 if you don't believe me. So which was it, the BASSA or the TGWU version?? Aren't they the same union?
BASSA were saying that they were excluded from the meeting but also said that at the meeting all other unions acknowledged their role in achieving the deal - how could the other unions do that if BASSA weren't there?

Please don't interpret this as having a go at cabin crew. You do a great job and are a pleasure to work with. I just think you are being let into an unwinnable dispute and there will be a lot of blood on the floor. A good commander picks his fights carefully and IMHO this is not it.

Flying Fred

20th Jan 2007, 14:32

IFor all the hard working cabin crew worrying about the next few days - I wish you well. Just do not let some power hungry reps lead you over the edge of a cliff.:}

I agree entirely. To all the hard working CC, good luck. You are going to need it.

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 14:38

I agree entirely. To all the hard working CC, good luck. You are going to need it.
:D Fred, Sporran, thank you.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about crew (however wrong many of those opinions are) but the fact is, none of us are delighted about the challenged we're facing.

We'd love your support, but we'd settle for your tollerance. Tollerance of the fact that we're fighting for our livelihoods at the moment. Tollerance of the fact that we're going out on a lim to protect our futures. It's going to have an impact on everyone else, sure, and for that we can do nothing but apologise.

It's not a decision any of us have taken lightly, though.

I'm a great believer in everyone at BA being part of the same team - I've helped in the terminals before when disruption has been caused due to terror alerts and weather. I've done this on my days off, against my manager's better judgement and for no reward - other than the knowledge that I've helped my colleagues through a challenging time.

Our ground colleagues can't come on the plane and help us during the flight so this, right now, is the time for them to show us the same support that many of us show them when times are hard.

M.Mouse

20th Jan 2007, 14:53

You say Bassa has made some unrealistic requests. What are these in your opinion?

There were 12 items tabled (shown in blue).

1. PENSIONS

What are BASSA asking for? They haven't stated. From my information the GMB and BASSA are posturing over the issue and know that the pension proposal is as good as it is ever going to get. They deliberately claimed (far from the truth) that they were excluded from the final pensions meeting to, in my opinion, garner support for their strike ballot. The meeting of January 4th was notified to all concerned on December 22nd.

2. BUSES (commuting cabin crew)

I believe that the removal of the bus service was causing some difficulty for commuting crew. Valid grievance but a strike issue?

3. GATWICK BREAKFAST ALLOWANCE (Gatwick cabin crew)

BASSA want the existing Gatwick shorthaul breakfast arrangements to be applied across Gatwick longhaul flying.

Another minor issue and didn't BA offer a 4% increase in the hourly rate at LGW to 'buy off' this issue?

4. EG300 (all cabin crew)

The new absence management policy was agreed with BASSA and Amicus in October 2005. CC received £1,000 each upon signing up. CC don't like its implementation, nothing to do with the fact that it HAS dramatically reduced the still high levels of CC social sickness. BASSA have tried to make the policy unworkable by insisting that every return to work interview was attended by a BASSA rep as well.

What are BASSA actually asking for on this issue?

5. DOWNROUTE REPORT TIME

Report times are generally set so that crew arrive with sufficient time to enable an on time departure. If times become too rigidly controlled you watch the opportunity to quickly visit the duty free shop disappear. Again a small issue not worthy of a strike ballot.

6. 900 HOURS annual flight time limit.

BASSA wanted guarantees that when cabin crew reach 900 flying hours they will not be used for any duty, e.g. training.

The EU working time directive says that an employee cannot be rostered to work more than 900 flying hours, or 2,000 duty hours, in a rolling 12-month period.

Heaven forbid that BA want to utilise previously available working time
instead of giving it as free time off.

7. MANCHESTER BASE (former cabin crew base)

BASSA wanted the operating base in Manchester to be reopened for both shuttle and MAN-JFK operations.

Prior to the closure did it not require around 90 crew to operate the flights between Heathrow and Manchester whereas that figure is now around 24 LHR based crew?

Commercial reality BA is not the CC benevolent society.

8. PREFERRED DUTY FREE SELLER

This issue is about maximising revenue generation onboard from High Life Shop and, I believe, was about the best person for the role of bar operator, as opposed to a seniority-based selection process, operating the duty free trolley.

So let everybody have a go at duty free sales at the cost of selling less and reducing BAs income stream?

9. FIXED LINKS for shorthaul cabin crew

BASSA wanted a guarantee that fixed links would not be introduced without their agreement and that any associated cost savings would be retained for the benefit of the crew.

This is about CC not being bussed off the aircraft to either the CAT lounge or the reporting centre instead of doing what everybody in the real world does and that is operate out again after the normal aircraft turnaround time.

The payments for reduced turnaround time (less than 1hr 45 mins at reporting centre) are about £50 per crew member are they not? (My facts might be incorrect on that one so please correct if I am wrong).

Absurd and outdated practice.

10. SINGLE SUPERVISORY GRADE (CSD Eurofleet)

BASSA wanted BA's proposal to remove the CSD role from all 757 aircraft to be withdrawn.

Remind me again how many supervisory roles their are on the 757? Also
BASSA, presumably, agreed for the removal of the CSD at LGW in longhaul and have just two supervisory grades on the B777 at LGW.

Double standards? And why do we need so many chiefs in the cabin?

11. PURSER/JUNIOR SWAP (B747)

BA want to reduce the number of pursers on a B747 from four to three.
So we need 1 x CSD and 4 x pursers for a crew of 16 - 18?

Speaks for itself!

12. POST-1997 CC PAYSCALES

BASSA wish the current £15,000 p.a. BASIC pay cap to be removed.

These were the pay scales agreed for the new entrants after the debacle of the 1997 strike. BASSA now want to change what they agreed to increase BASIC pay levels above £15,000?

Show me one major item above that justifies threatening to bring the company to its knees. Show me one major item above which justifies screwing our passengers again.

Are you still carrying your laminated card, provided by YOUR union, spelling out when your industrial committment ends. Are you one of the many pilots who feel less than keen to go into discretion when you can't get your 'status' issues resolved to your satisfaction?
Maybe the decision making process is another 'perceived' status issue?

That card was introduced after pressure from a few militant pilot's who wished to behave in the best traditions of trade union militancy and obstructiveness.

I have never read it, carried it or operated to it, only to my legal limits.(edited to correct error)

I endeavour to continue trying to keep the operation going whenever necessary and to the extent that it is both safe and legal.

Most flight crew are of similar mind.

I find this attitude a little disingenous. Over on the balpa website the commentary is very much along the lines of 'trust your reps'. If they call for your support, give it. Why shouldn't cabin crew do the same?

BALPA have only ever asked for support after furnishing us with the full facts, they also know that it is in our nature to discuss, dissect and analyse the issues before pushing the nuclear button.

Good luck with your hopeless cause.

Edited to correct where I said '.......only to my industrial limits' when I meant '......only to me legal limits.'

TopBunk

20th Jan 2007, 14:55

It's not a decision any of us have taken lightly, though.

Eddy, I beg to differ The decisions that have been taken so far (to support a strike ballot) have been taken lightly without much thought by many. The next decision to actually withdraw your labour (or not withdraw, equally), will be the big one. The decisions made to date were on the back of BASSA spin, suggesting to crew that they would be ok, a strong mandate would be all that was necessary.

There will be much angst and tears amongst crews when, as looks likely, the strike call is made.

I suspect that the dispute list has been engineered by BASSA reps to protect their own interests as old-contract crew. They are getting grief from the new contract people who now number over 50%? of cabin crew, and their short-sightedness back in 1997 and over LGW is coming home to roost.

My concern is that you are being led lemming-like over the cliff by un-reconstituted leftwing activists on a personal glory trip. You will need all the luck possible in the coming weeks.

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 14:56

Good luck with your hopeless cause.
I was under the false impression that I was going to be able to enter in to civilized conversation with you. Wherever did I get that thoroughly misguided impression from ?

You disappoint me, M.Mouse.
Eddy, I beg to differ The decisions that have been taken so far (to support a strike ballot) have been taken lightly without much thought by many. The next decision to actually withdraw your labour (or not withdraw, equally), will be the big one. The decisions made to date were on the back of BASSA spin, suggesting to crew that they would be ok, a strong mandate would be all that was necessary.

There will be much angst and tears amongst crews when, as looks likely, the strike call is made.
Everyone I've spoken to has given their wholehearted support to strike action. If we need to take this step, all but a few of those who voted yes will be right there on the picket lines.

I, too, hope it doesn't come to it. It will damage our company. It will hurt our passengers. It will inconvenience our colleagues. It's a terrifying prospect.

That said, even as a fairly staunch Bassa member, I didn't put a cross in the box on the paper as soon as it arrived at my house. I sat and I thought about it for a couple of days. I didn't want to make that decision based on what I'd read on the Bassa website and what I'd heard from my reps. I wanted to make the decision based on ALL the information available to me from ALL sources. I made a point of having a coffee with a manager to hear the company's side of things one-on-one.

She made excellent points. Valid ones. At the end of the day, though, I made my decision and I have to live with it. I will, as will the majority of my colleagues.

You say these decisions were taken lightly, and I assure you that in most cases, they weren't.

I like to think I'm a fairly well respected member of the crew community and, for many, I'm one of the first points of call for people who have had questions about this situation but didn't want to bother a union rep. Again, I assure you, from the conversations I have had I can catagorically state that most people took a great deal of time when making their final decision to vote yes.

There's already angst and there have already been tears. The mere prospect of walking out is frightening. I'm petrified. We understand though that we need to do it to protect our terms and conditions AND to protect our union for the future.

Flying Lawyer

20th Jan 2007, 15:17

Eddy

20th Jan 2007, 15:21

Eddy

If you're going to side-step points, you have to do it better than that. (I don't literally mean 'have to', just that it would be less less obvious.)
M.Mouse has made some detailed points about the items tabled. Why don't you answer them?
Just a request from an interested outsider - your choice obviously.
Mate, good point. I will take time to disect them and reply to atleast some of them.

I didn't do so initially as I was somewhat disappointed by the tone in which Mouse chose to respond to me. His earlier post seemed civil and mature enough - the kind of person I'd be able to talk to about these issues without things getting petty or personal - sadly, I was shown his/her other approach in the subsequent response.

wiggy

20th Jan 2007, 15:21

[COLOR="Blue"]
That card was introduced after pressure from a few militant pilot's who wished to behave in the best traditions of trade union militancy and obstructiveness.
I have never read it, carried it or operated to it, only to my industrial limits.

I'm confused, you've certainly have operated to "that card" since it's just a precis of Section 10 of Bidline - are you saying you would be quite happy to junk Bidline in total and be rostered to industrial limits every working day?

Fly380

20th Jan 2007, 15:33

As a retired NAPS member I wonder if any of you read Gullivers Travels by Jonathan Swift. Showed what a shallow lot us humans are. FD vs CC and vice versa. The management must be laughing their heads off. Its a tough world although I bet Jane Goody finishes having the last laugh. She has a good agent. The thread seems to be running out of steam. When will common sense prevail??? CC - how do you rate your union/s ? We all have to keep up with the times - even pensioners! :bored:

L337

20th Jan 2007, 17:12

Wiggy:

The card is a precis of industrial rather than the CAA legal flying hour limits. So in the event of a disruption most people work to the legal limits to get the job done. And indeed BA expect the pilots to work to those legal limits. If they do not, they had better have a valid reason.

We are rostered to our industrial agreement. We work on the day to legal CAA limits.

Quite what that has to do with junking bidline is beyond me.

TopBunk

20th Jan 2007, 17:33

Eddy

I don't doubt that you personally thought long and hard about your decision.

Anecdotally, people are reporting that cabin crew don't really know what the issues are, but voted as instructed by BASSA. Also, BASSA's own propaganda states that the '300' who actually stuck in 1997 were not sacked. Industrial law has changed since then, but never mind. So in 1997, 300 took strike action, yet 8000+ voted for it. That just backs up my post where I suggest that the 'easy' decision has been made; the 'hard' one is now imminent.

wiggy

20th Jan 2007, 17:45

Thanks for the explanation, but since I've already filled in a couple of Commander's Discretion report froms this year I didn't need it..but then I'm sure you knew that :)
. If they do not, they had better have a valid reason.

And the "valid reason" can be quite simply that Section 10 is the limit of your contractural obligation...as for "junking Bidline", nope, just strikes me that if someone thinks people fulfilling their contractural obligations "wish to behave in the best traditions of trade union militancy and obstructiveness" then you sure as heck should not be using the self same rule book to your own advantage on a monthly basis. ( Mouse, if you only ever Bid for Blind lines and never volunteer for Draft I apologise).
Frankly whilst, like many, I find BASSAs tactics bewildering, IMHO we pilots have to be very careful about trying gain the moral high ground here We will, I am sure, be looking down the barrel of Willie's gun at some point in the future, perhaps over pay or DFW shaping. We will then have the pleasure of justifying issues such as the Heavy captain, or even the provision of the heavy at all on some sectors.....but then we know all our agreements are reasonable and defensible, don't we:ooh:

L337

20th Jan 2007, 17:51

And the "valid reason" can be quite simply that Section 10 is the limit of your contractural obligation.

And the last person to try that line, is no longer a trainer.

wiggy

20th Jan 2007, 18:06

And the last person to try that line, is no longer a trainer.
Really L337? Had a look at the Status list lately?

Carnage Matey!

20th Jan 2007, 18:14

And the last person to try that line, is no longer a trainer.

And I believe the issue was of refusing to offer 3 hrs discretion (as opposed to the 90 minutes he'd suggested) departing to the most dangerous place on our network with a forecast of CBs for the arrival time. He's now had a full apology from the management and has been reinstated.

M.Mouse

20th Jan 2007, 19:10

Eddy

I am sorry you dislike the tone of my posts for that I apologise. The reason is because I am so intensely angry that this mindless state of affairs is happening when I cannot for the life of me see any valid cause for a strike to be called.

If you care to respond and, presumably, justify the 12 issues at stake I promise I will avoid making snide remarks but enter into civilised debate.

wiggy

Bidline rules are there for all our guidance and the framework under which we operate. I have the privilege of being considered intelligent enough to decide when it is beneficial to our passengers and the company, which of course benefits me ultimately, to operate to the, usually, greater legal limitations. It is not everyday, it is nearly always due to external factors and I am paid a rate commensurate with my responsibilities and a rate which expects me to act in the interests of others even when that requires to work longer and harder than I am contractually obliged to.

The reason some choose to work purely to industrial limits is to retaliate over the many small issues which daily irritate flight crew. I prefer not to take that course.

As it happens I am mainly on blind lines and have not volunteered for draft for many years (been force drafted 3 times in the past 8 months though).

How about this little gem from the BASSA website members forum:

NO!!

YOU CAN NOT BE SACKED

Can we state once and for all for all you can NOT be sacked if you participate in lawul industrial action

BASSA's proposed action is LAWFUL

If any one from the flight crew community or even BA's managers, says otherwise please take their name and staff number and report them to BASSA.

Also feel free to inform them that their intervention and comments are bullying and harrasment, and ask them to keep their opinions to themselves.

This rumour also happened in 1997 and even though only 300+ went on strike NO ONE was sacked.

Please trust your union, BASSA, and listen to no one else, THEY have other agenda

Remember YOU CAN NOT BE SACKED

Nothing like healthy debate and free expression of opinion eh?

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 19:44

M.Mouse - are you insinuating that strikers can be sacked??

scottydog

20th Jan 2007, 19:51

CFC- Of course they can, the rub comes if it is legal or not! and then you bring in the question of compensation etc.

Someone, somewhere will have worked out if it's worth it.

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 19:56

CFC- Of course they can, the rub comes if it is legal or not! and then you bring in the question of compensation etc.
Someone, somewhere will have worked out if it's worth it.
The strike (if any) has been sold to crew that it is legal and all 'letters of the law' have been adhered to - so what are you saying in plain English please.

kaikohe76

20th Jan 2007, 19:57

CFC, Perhaps they should be!!

Anyway, if there is a long drawn out strike & the airline has to largely, cut back on it's operations, as I said before, no worries, the pax will have long gone & BA will therefore not need so many staff!!

Do remember the pax folks, they may well be absolute `T Pots` at times, but they do put a lot of dosh into the airline's coffers & thus into your pay packets & pension funds.

M.Mouse

20th Jan 2007, 20:04

M.Mouse - are you insinuating that strikers can be sacked??

No, just drawing attention to the strong arm bully boy tactics advocated by BASSA should I have the temerity to state what the law actually says about striking and being dismissed.

i.e. they wish to try and have anybody bold enough to debate the issues frightened to say what they believe for fear of falling foul of BA's anti bullying and harassment code.

4468

20th Jan 2007, 20:07

I doubt many of the cabin crew community will read this. In a sense, I hope they don't! However...

For what it's worth; It sounds like wiggy and myself (and hopefully many others) are of a similar mind. We may have reservations about BASSA, and their tactics, but there have been periods in BALPA's (not so illustrious) history when pilots have been led by donkeys!! Remember?

Pilots are told that the current (well one in particular!) bunch are pretty hot. Time will tell! But...

If ANY of the previous donkeys had balloted for industrial action, with a recommendation to strike, WHATEVER the justification, they would have achieved what they wanted wouldn't they?? As far as I recall, whenever my union has recommended ANY course of action, they have ALWAYS spelled out the CATASTROPHIC consequences of not towing the party line!!

How is BASSA different in this regard?

Some here think BASSA's requests are so unreasonable as to be a joke. I would say a fair number are not.

For example, how many pilots are happy with the workings of EG300? (The attendance management policy) Not many, judging by the comments on the BALPA website!

Another example is the MAN base. The cabin crew are simply trying to protect their jobs in the regions. There is a JFK 767 every day from MAN which is opoerated by BACON cabin crew. How would the pilot community feel, indeed, how would they want BALPA to react, if the company said the pilots would be BACON too??

Keep a lid on it guys! As I said: The cabin crew are NOT the enemy! You are taking your eye off the ball, and it is 'guffaws' all round amongst those who have just cashed in a million pounds worth of share options!

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 20:15

[QUOTE=M.Mouse;3080311]No, just drawing attention to the strong arm bully boy tactics advocated by BASSA should I have the temerity to state what the law actually says about striking and being dismissed.
So M. Mouse answer the question - what does the law actually state...?

M.Mouse

20th Jan 2007, 20:33

My understanding is that within the first 12 weeks of a strike if you are dismissed it is AUTOMATICALLY regarded as unfair dismissal.

Your recourse is through an Employment Tribunal. The compensation is (I think) similar in calculation to the calculation for statutory redundancy pay.

The maximum is something over £50,000 but the maximum is rarely awarded and the amount is supposed to reflect lost earnings.

An employer can be ordered to reinstate the employee. If the employer refuses to do so one goes back to the ET and a further award can be made again, I believe, with a ceiling of around £50,000 and that is the end of it.

So can you be dismissed for striking? Yes.

Can you be compensated? Yes.

Can you definitely get you job back? Not definitely.

When the pilots last ballotted for strike action during the Ayling disaster BALPA clearly spelt out the risks associated with striking.

BASSA does not appear to wish to do so.

CFC

20th Jan 2007, 20:36

Thank you.

OzzieO

20th Jan 2007, 21:17

TAKEN FROM BASSA WEBSITE AS POSTED BY BASSA.

NO!!

YOU CAN NOT BE SACKED

Can we state once and for all for all you can NOT be sacked if you participate in lawul industrial action

BASSA’s proposed action is LAWFUL

If any one from the flight crew community or even BA’s managers, says otherwise please take their name and staff number and report them to BASSA.

Also feel free to inform them that their intervention and comments are bullying and harrasment, and ask them to keep their opinions to themselves.

This rumour also happened in 1997 and even though only 300+ went on strike NO ONE was sacked.

Please trust your union, BASSA, and listen to no one else, THEY have other agenda

Remember YOU CAN NOT BE SACKED

L337

20th Jan 2007, 22:25

Really L337? Had a look at the Status list lately?

No. But I guess I should.

Thumperdown

20th Jan 2007, 22:44

You will definately not be sacked - but the company might go bust - not much difference really :)

Flying Fred

20th Jan 2007, 22:50

Hello Fred. I spend quite a bit of time with the reps and there's a lot more being discussed at the moment than just the twelve points that are being outlined. Things like, as I previously mentioned, hourly rate.

Thanks for the reply Eddy. However, I don't believe you answered my origininal question which was:-

Please can you tell me which one of the 12 items you have voted to strike over (and I have looked at all of them) involves you taking a 40% pay cut and having to sell your house?

Or perhaps you have. I believe the answer is none. So why are you potentially striking? This is exactly the point I was trying to make. BASSA have got everybody worked up and telling of destruction of the union but they have balloted on the wrong things. None of the BA proposals/issues will cost you a dime in the immediate future and promotion prospects will only come from an expanding and vibrant BA, not one brought to its knees by strike action. You originally said you were striking because you were going to take a 40% pay cut and lose your house. You have admitted, based on the balloted items, that none of this will happen.

If you truly were going to lose 40% of your pay, hell, I would be on the picket line with you.

You talk about hourly rate allowances and reduced report times. Neither of these were on the strike ballot!. You have nothing to fear from hourly rate allowances. It is still the same amount of money, paid in a fairer & simpler way. We have been on it for a few years now and I personally think it is a much better system - we get the same rate everywhere we go. Compared to meal allowances, some you win, some you lose but at least we all get the same.

You also admit that BA should reduce the report times when we move to T5 as the aircraft will be closer - after all, they were increased when we moved to Compass with a 20min bus ride involved. What's sauce for the goose etc...

You mention the cap on increments for new contract CC. This is a current agreement with BASSA/CC89. So you want to break an existing agreement? If it were BA trying to do this, there would be uproar. But it's BASSA wanting to tear up the agreement so that's OK then.

To summarise, you appear to be wanting to strike against things that might happen in the future, not what is proposed now. If so, think again. There is no basis for a strike now - there might be in the future but not now.

Finally, I am still mystified where you get your 40% figure from. Even the things you mention (not part of this ballot) would have little effect on your pay. I am waiting to be enlightened.

I reiterate I am not having a pop at you, just trying to get you to see that BASSA are leading you straight into the cannons.

ATB & good luck

p.s. you CAN be sacked for going on strike within the first 12 weeks but it will automatically be deemed to be UNFAIR. Note it is unfair, not illegal. Redress is through employment tribunal as stated by others.

Full info at the DTIs website here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/employees/tradeunions/DG_10031235

The relevant points are:-
If you take industrial action, be aware that:
your employer may stop paying you as you'll be in breach of contract
you could lose your job
you could lose any company benefits
if you're dismissed you may not have the right to claim unfair dismissal
The last point doesn't apply if the correct procedure for industrial action has been followed and you're dismissed less than 12 weeks after action began.

So why are BASSA telling you that you can't be dismissed? More spin?

whattimedoweland

21st Jan 2007, 00:14

M.Mouse,
IMHO the only bullies out there are the aggressive and arrogant,'listen to no one',IFS management team and Willie 'Cut & Slash' Walsh.
BALPA have done a fine job in negotiating with the pension dispute and I do not be grudge you a penny of what you get.I have listened to and been spoken at by so many pilots on how important the pension issue is which is fine as your is worth fighting for.
At the end of service my pension will amount to very little but what does matter to myself and 14000 Cabin Crew are our present terms & conditions which we rely on for today.
BASSA keep getting branded as militant for standing up and protecting it's membership.If BALPA does not succeed in getting it's members to accept the BA pension proposal and the Pilot community voted for industrial action to protect their pension would that then class BALPA as militant.At the end of the day a strike is a strike so why should we say BALPA are not militant if that was to occur?.
Just a thought.
WTDWL.
PS. Eddy fine posts.See you at the 'floorplate'!! meeting on Wednesday?.
Peter.

overstress

21st Jan 2007, 00:21

OzzieO. It doesn't matter what BASSA says. BA can sack strikers and pay compensation in the Tribunal. They don't have to reinstate.

A good way of getting rid of those they see as troublemakers?

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 00:27

Thanks for the reply Eddy. However, I don't believe you answered my origininal question which was:-
Please can you tell me which one of the 12 items you have voted to strike over (and I have looked at all of them) involves you taking a 40% pay cut and having to sell your house?
Fred, good evening. I've been out drinking tonight while I can still afford to do so (he he he.... scoff) and will reply more thoroughly in the morning, but I refer you to a post perhaps unavailable to you which says that the 12 points listed INCLUDE but are NOT LIMITED TO.

As such, the points you refer to are not the only ones being discussed.

At this point in the conversation I'd like to add a few things :

1) I love my job
2) I really love my job
3) I love the company I work for
4) I have nothing but respect for my upper-management. They have been employed to do a job and they are doing it, however badly one might see this as being done.

Bottom line - I hate that the company name has been damaged as a result of my (and my peers') mission, if you will, to protect our earnings. I want a fair deal that can be agreed to by both the unions and the company AND I HOPE that we can reach this deal without a walkout coming to fruition.

Again, chaps, a full response will follow in the morning.

Best wishes

Heliport

21st Jan 2007, 09:11

Copied from another forum.
Thought it might be interest. The situation that we as crew and our management find ourselves in seems to be entirely different depending on whom you listen to...

If you listen to BASSA and read the postings on their website it seems that the company is doing a large-scale smash and grab on our Ts&Cs with imposition being the order of the day.

If you listen to Amicus they are in talks with the company and have made some progress. I had a letter from their full time officer on my door mat when I got home with an update on the issues in dispute as follows:

Pensions - BA Reps will be meeting on the 22nd Jan to discuss the proposals prior to membership being consulted.

Buses - Will be extended to run over the weekend.

LGW Breakfast - Offer has been made by BA, the decision on whether to accept it rests with LGW fleet reps and LGW crew.

EG300 - Matter is of major importance, any review is the property of all BA employees. There are items specific to cabin crew that Amicus are adressing and BA have acknowledged this and proposed a number of changes. Proposals have been made to change ill-health retirement arrangements also.

Report time - BA admit there are issues and have agreed that it can be dealt with at Worldwide Steering.

WTR - BA agree that 900 hours is the maximum number of flying hours permissible. Training days are now being considered as duty. Discussion are continuing.

MAN - Objections at the manner in which the closre was managed have been registered along with concerns over the future of GLA. As the decision on MAN will not be reversed, the closure will not be included in ongoing discussions.

Preferred Seller - BA's proposals have been withdrawn. BA invited Amicus to come forward with ideas to maximise revenue.

Fixed links - Has been referred back to EF Steering. Amicus raised the issue of rest breaks under the WTR. BA has been asked to demostrate their compliance with this in their duty time allocations. Further discussions will take place on this matter.

Single Supervisory Grade - Amicus believes that this has been dealt with outside the current discussions and therefore does not form part of their current discussions.

PSR/JNR Swap - This is of primary importance to Amicus. Further discussions will take place on this issue although BA have stated their determination to go ahead with this proposal. Amicus has asked for guarantees in respect of promotion and employment continuity. Discussion will continue.

Post '97 Payscales - Item is of utmost importance. BA has said they could make money available to help resolve the issue. In terms of over all costs there seems to be no opportunity for levelling of the payscales. Discussions are ongoing.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but it does not seem that discussions have ground to a halt as the 'walking egos' of BASSA seem to suggest. I'll hold my hands up now and say that I am not a great fan of industrial action, I've been out before and will do again if I need to because I am left with no choice but we do not seem to have reached that point yet.

Unfortunately a large number of my colleagues seem to wait on every word (and text message) uttered by BASSA and consume each pearl of wisdom with unnerring trust without stopping to question a thing that they have been told. The reps are held in such reverence that to dare to consider any other point of view except that which is passed down from on high is shouted down as herecy and treason by their coterie of bully-boys.

Here's hoping that one day the politicking and double-speak that is used to brainwash a large number of cabin crew is seen for what it is before too much damage is done.

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 10:39

I have taken SOME of the points and responded to them here. I'd removed others that are either too complex to discuss, I don't have the patience to discuss (because we all know what's going on with them and share similar views), or don't really affect me directly - like fixed links and CSD removal on shorthaul. I would prefer to leave those to a colleague from Shorthaul to discuss.

2. BUSES (commuting cabin crew)
By Mouse : I believe that the removal of the bus service was causing some difficulty for commuting crew. Valid grievance but a strike issue?

By Eddy : To an extent, yes (this has been causing difficulty). A huge portion of the BA cabin crew workforce commutes by air to Heathrow and relies on, midweek, the BA shuttles to ferry them between the terminals and the Compass Centre.

In the past there was a dedicated crew shuttle but it was cancelled about, gosh, nine months ago. Why the company chose to cancel it just eighteen months before a move to Terminal Five is anyone's guess.... Terminal Five will sort this situation once and for all, as the report centre is within the main terminal.

Anyway, at weekends the BA buses that we now use (which are actually 'designed' for Waterside residents) do not run and we have to rely on public buses. Normally not a problem, but when you have three or four cabin crew with Delseys and cabin bags trying to get on a bus with all and sundry (many of them with luggage), you get problems. Crew are routinely denied boarding because of space limitations.

Is it a serious issue? Well, not really. Is it worth striking over? Absolutely not. Is it something that could be easily rectified (and it looks like it has been) fairly cheaply? Indeed. Extending the BA5 to visit the terminals on weekends only would be a perfect compromise.

3. GATWICK BREAKFAST ALLOWANCE (Gatwick cabin crew)
By Mouse : BASSA want the existing Gatwick shorthaul breakfast arrangements to be applied across Gatwick longhaul flying.

Another minor issue and didn't BA offer a 4% increase in the hourly rate at LGW to 'buy off' this issue?

By Eddy : Do the maths matey. A 4% increase in the hourly rate over the course of a three day Dallas trip equates to little over four quid. Find me a decent breakfast in America for four quid (apart from McDonalds) and I'll eat my hat.... Well, I would if I had one.

Further, I don't think that the union were consulted about this change. It was just imposed. When we signed up to SFLGW, breakfast allowances WERE being paid. It was part of the deal. For the company to just change things is really not on when we have a union in place.

4. EG300 (all cabin crew)
By Mouse : The new absence management policy was agreed with BASSA and Amicus in October 2005. CC received £1,000 each upon signing up. CC don't like its implementation, nothing to do with the fact that it HAS dramatically reduced the still high levels of CC social sickness. BASSA have tried to make the policy unworkable by insisting that every return to work interview was attended by a BASSA rep as well.

What are BASSA actually asking for on this issue?

By Eddy : The biggest part of the problem is that things that SHOULD be discounted under the terms that we signed up to, are not being. Friend of mine had route canal surgery in America. It's classed as invasive which should be immediately discounted. Was it? Like hell it was.

You're right that social sickness is a problem. It's a big problem but one that IS improving with EG300. The problem is that those who are genuinely unwell and cannot work are paying the price. Often paying more than those who are calling sick to watch Ascot.

EG300 should be working. Infact, it does work to a large extent. We just need the company or, more precisely, those leading the attendance interviews and making the decisions about discounting illness, to stick to the rules as we signed up for.

5. DOWNROUTE REPORT TIME

By Mouse : Report times are generally set so that crew arrive with sufficient time to enable an on time departure. If times become too rigidly controlled you watch the opportunity to quickly visit the duty free shop disappear. Again a small issue not worthy of a strike ballot.

Our report times have gradually been brought forward without anyone really noticing - five minutes here, five minutes there, etc. It's logical to try and get us to the airport as early as possible (within reason) to make a timely departure, but we need to make sure that these extra minutes are being counted towards our duty - they're not at the moment.

Small issue perhaps, but a breach of our agreements. Attempt to have this rectified by talking have failed, so it's been added to the list of items we're looking to take action over. By itself it's not the extra time that's the issue - it's the breaking of industrial agreements.

6. 900 HOURS annual flight time limit.

By Mouse : BASSA wanted guarantees that when cabin crew reach 900 flying hours they will not be used for any duty, e.g. training.

The EU working time directive says that an employee cannot be rostered to work more than 900 flying hours, or 2,000 duty hours, in a rolling 12-month period.

Heaven forbid that BA want to utilise previously available working time
instead of giving it as free time off.

By Eddy : I agree with you to an extent. Only problem is that this company has, in the past, deliberately recruited people from around Europe. People who don't live in the UK. This went a long way to establishing the culture of commuting to work and, as such, a massive part of the crew community does so.

I have no real problem with being asked to do the occasional course. It's in the remit of my role as crew. That's fine. I do have an issue with being asked (or told) to work in the terminal. THAT is not my job. I am cabin crew and I'm happy to do anything that is linked with MY JOB. I don't want to have to be doing someone elses just because some halfwit in the EU decided to make up this rediculous law.

Further, making these courses in London is an obvious choice for the airline, but as commuting costs increase, I routinely have to spend over 100.00 (on flight and hotel) to attend a four hour training course.

My choice to live where I live, but the company encouraged commuting in the past and should try and be more considerate when rostering courses to people - and not just those who fly in to London.

8. PREFERRED DUTY FREE SELLER
By Mouse : This issue is about maximising revenue generation onboard from High Life Shop and, I believe, was about the best person for the role of bar operator, as opposed to a seniority-based selection process, operating the duty free trolley.

So let everybody have a go at duty free sales at the cost of selling less and reducing BAs income stream?

By Eddy : I am personally in favour of this.

11. PURSER/JUNIOR SWAP (B747)
By Mouse : BA want to reduce the number of pursers on a B747 from four to three.

So we need 1 x CSD and 4 x pursers for a crew of 16 - 18?

Speaks for itself!

By Eddy : I'd love the chance to go for promotion. Looks like I'll never get it. You'd be surprised at how many people online don't actually see this as a big issue. Most (or many) do actually seem willing to let the Purser go. I withhold judgement.

That said, if the company do remove the purser and reduce my chances of promotion so drastically, I would hope that they'd put in place another means for me to leave my 14k earning ceiling. This, of course, brings us on to :

12. POST-1997 CC PAYSCALES
By Mouse : BASSA wish the current £15,000 p.a. BASIC pay cap to be removed.

These were the pay scales agreed for the new entrants after the debacle of the 1997 strike. BASSA now want to change what they agreed to increase BASIC pay levels above £15,000?

By Eddy : This is a tricky one. I think this popped up because of a new link that's been put in place for our ground colleagues that sees the old and new payscales meet up, much like we're trying to put in place in the air.

Where will the money come from? I have no idea. We're talking about a lot of extra cash over time. I'd love to see my salary continue to rise past my current ceiling and I thank my reps, most of whom are on the old payscale or in senior roles where the payscales are largely the same, for taking on this 'cause'. I do, however, think that this will be the most difficult issue for us to 'win'.

If the company takes the purser away, I'd say that this is an absolute MUST to enable people's earnings to increase over time. I don't want to be a 60 year old bloke (and I do hope to still be at BA by the time I'm 60 - yes, I love the company that much) flying around on 14k a year. Whether that increase comes from the above proposal OR from promotion, I don't really mind (as much as I'd love promotion). That said, it would be great to have both options and that, I think, is what the unions are fighting to offer us.

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 10:48

BALPA have done a fine job in negotiating with the pension dispute and I do not be grudge you a penny of what you get. At the end of service my pension will amount to very little......

What is being missed is that the pension negotiations were led very effectively and the unions, until BASSA's deliberate avoidance of the January 4th meeting, presented BA with a united position. BA were wrongfooted by that stance because they had believed a united front would never happen.

The resulting proposals are as good as it will get. All things considered it is the best of a damage limitation exercise. The deal for flying staff was particularly difficult to negotiate given that we all stood to lose the most e.g. being compelled to work and extra 10 years for similar benefits.

The GMB and BASSA are posturing on this issue and just watch, the pension proposal will be accepted at the last minute and hailed as a vast improvement over what you would have got had BASSA nor been so effective!

Ask BASSA what they propose to do with the £6m ring fenced for CC. They have been deliberately quiet about that. The effect on your pension arrangements, if used in the right way, is dramatic (I have seen the numbers).
BASSA instead are referring to a bribe of £9m to the pilots as though it is being divvied up between us. It was used to mitigate the effect of having to work an extra 10 years. BASSA have not proposed anything with your money but have used spin anmd deceipt to alienate further the CC from the FC by claiming we took a bribe. They are lying.

BASSA keep getting branded as militant for standing up and protecting its membership.

BASSA is not standing up for you, BASSA is leading you into a war you cannot and will not win.

From conversations I have had with many, many cabin crew they are now scared witless at the thought of actually going on strike. As has been said to me by various, expecially younger crew, 'but I cannot afford to go on strike'. When I ask if they voted to 'oh yes!'. That is because BASSA were not honest about the true situation should a strike be called. BALPA is truthful in this regard. BALPA also tells us the full story and sets achievable goals and does not go for the nuclear option over small and petty issues.

BALPA held a large face to face briefing for city analysts and the like to present to them what BA's proposals meant and what BALPA proposed instead. There were some gasps of suprise at the true effect of some of BA's original proposals.

Contrast that mature, intelligent and effective strategy with BASSA's current stance and the spin and nonsense emanating from your representatives.
You would be suprised at the level of support you would enjoy from pilot's if we truly believed you had solid and serious issues to fight over. The reason you do not enjoy that support is because we almost daily see the generally obstructive and outdated results of BASSA's stance on so many issues. Finally somebody has arrived who is not prepared to see the tail wagging the dog any longer. BASSA have sleep walked into this confrontation and have been set up for a very large fall.

All staff will suffer as a result because WW is effectively going to neuter the unions. BASSA will rue the day it started this fight.

Eddy, thank you for spending the time to actually answer some of the questions posed. I think further input from me is pointless because we now know how both of us see most of the issues.

Flying Fred

21st Jan 2007, 11:23

Heliport,
Thanks for that post. What a pleasure to see a reasoned, adult, intelligently written newsletter from Amicus. Contrast that with the illiterate rants from BASSA that are full of spin & rhetoric.

I also agree with M.Mouse that a lot of pilots would support the CC if we believed they had a genuine lifestyle threatening grievance but not one of the 12 items is that.

Eddy, thanks for continuing to post. I await your reply to my 40% question with interest

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 11:54

Eddy, thanks for continuing to post. I await your reply to my 40% question with interest
Fred, my dear fellow, I thought I already had.
The twelve points listed INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO the reasons why the strike has been called.
As previously mentioned, the uncertainty over hourly rate is another major issue that's being discussed but, as it's not technically on the table right now, it can't be listed as one of the strike points (I believe that's a legal thing).
The comapny put hourly rate on the table and swiftly removed it, but we can't live with the uncertainty over when it will be re-visited. Hourly rate would have a MASSIVE impact on my earnings, unless we got a deal similar to that offered to my flight crew colleagues.
I would personally welcome a shift to hourly rate if it was done on mutually agreeable terms. I'd welcome the removal of box payments IF the money was put in to the pot and distributed through the hourly amount.
By doing this, people would start requesting trips they actually wanted because they enjoyed the place as opposed to purely for the financial gain. Lots of people love India but try and aboid it because it's worth about 40 quid. If these trips suddenly became worth the same money as a New York or a Chicago, you'd probably find people happier to be flying there and see a lot less people ringing sick for the poorly paid trips.
Yes, Singapore would be worth much, much less, but things would be evened out over the month and you'd be a lot less reliant on getting a long range trip to bring home a decent pay packet.
The reason this isn't being agreed to at this point is that the company aren't willing to guarantee that either the boxes will remain or that the money will be re-distributed.
Bear in mind that we can only do 2000 duty hours a year. On the 2.40 (or whatever - I know it's about that) an hour rate that could be a maximum of just 4,800 a year extra on top of my maximum 14k pay packet. Thats the most I'd EVER earn if the hourly rate was passed through on the company terms.
The reps have said it themselves - let US set the terms (but ensuring they're agreeable to the company - i.e. not costing any more than we do already) for hourly rate and we'll accept the proposal.

4468

21st Jan 2007, 12:32

The reps are held in such reverence that to dare to consider any other point of view except that which is passed down from on high is shouted down as herecy and treason by their coterie of bully-boys.

Mmmm.

Interesting. That sounds familiar! :rolleyes:

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 12:43

The twelve points listed INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO the reasons why the strike has been called.

As previously mentioned, the uncertainty over hourly rate is another major issue that's being discussed but, as it's not technically on the table right now, it can't be listed as one of the strike points (I believe that's a legal thing).

The comapny put hourly rate on the table and swiftly removed it, but we can't live with the uncertainty over when it will be re-visited.

Sorry Eddy but the logic does not add up.

You are saying a strike is being called but it is also about other issues not on the table.

If the issues are not on the table then they won't be part of any agrement to resolve the strike threat.

It really demonstrates that CC are angry and will strike to flex their muscles and scare BA management back into their usual timidity when they (BA) are dealing with difficult issues rather than CC striking over specific and serious issues which can be resolved no other way.

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 12:53

Sorry Eddy but the logic does not add up.
You are saying a strike is being called but it is also about other issues not on the table.
If the issues are not on the table then they won't be part of any agrement to resolve the strike threat.
It really demonstrates that CC are angry and will strike to flex their muscles and scare BA management back into their usual timidity when they (BA) are dealing with difficult issues rather than CC striking over specific and serious issues which can be resolved no other way.
M. Mouse, a valid point.

That said, I'm struggling to actually explain with clarity what the situation is.

The hourly rate thing IS being discussed and it is of great concern to all crew. I don't pretend for one second to know the legal ins and outs of what's going on in the negotiations, but the way I understand it is that because BA took it off the table, it can't be a strike point.

It's not an impending change, it's just something that might happen some time down the line.

Because it's a 'what if' and not a certainty, I don't think we can use that as a strike point. We'd be striking for something that's not actually taking place.

I'm really doing a terrible job at putting this in to words. I do apologise.

CFC

21st Jan 2007, 12:55

Eddy - FYI when Amicus cabin crew were given all the details of 'hourly rate' and then balloted - 86% were in favour. Your comments echo those of many Bassa members who still do not understand the whole hourly rate scenario.

eg - you would earn slightly more on the hourly rate set up in SIN then the current allowance payment.

Bassa has confused many by tying up the meal allowance payment with that of all of the other payments - long range, etc.

Once again if more crew actually took the blinkers off and found out a little more for themselves, rather than listening to the rhetoric of a few militants, we would probably be a lot further down the road in trying to sort out our current problems.

keel beam

21st Jan 2007, 13:53

There has been mentioned in quite a few posts about the hourly rate. If it has been explained before, I apologise.
My understanding is that the hourly rate replaces expenses. (Expenses defined by BA to cover costs of meals etc at the places you are staying)
Some people viewing these posting may get the the impression that it is the CC wages that are to change to an hourly rate (and with that impression may very well think the CC have a case to complain).
As for the "12" items - they seem, to me, a flimsy case for a strike.
Though saying that, I do applaud the CC strength of feeling to persue a strike.
As has been mentioned on posts on Pprune, I get the impression this is a "politics" game by the union leaders. (The AUEW had the same problem in the 1977 strike, and since then trust in the union - now AMICUS - has deteriorated)

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 14:18

To clarify the hourly rate issue. BA pilots had many and various extra payments associated mainly with the destination (distance and local cost of living).

Based on seniority our bidding system meant that senior bods bid for the lucrative trips and junior bods got the poorly paid stuff. When our pay restructuring took place all the meal allowances and various extra payments went into the pot. A better basic was negotiated, the various allowances were scrapped and instead we now get x per hour for meal allowances and y per hour for time away from base. The senior chaps still get the pick but the differentials between the best and worst paying trips is far more equitable. It also means that when on leave or off sick our salary does not now drop by the vast amount of old due to the loss of allowances. Overall a far simpler, fairer and easier system for both the pilots and BA.

The cabin crew still have a low basic, highly lucrative 'long range' payments plus various other add ons. Given the alleged corruption which appears to be endemic in the rostering of cabin crew and the need to do the good trips to boost the low basic a system similar to the pilots is long overdue.

Ask yourself why there is so much reluctance on the part of BASSA to even consider the issue. The pension issue has shown that with intelligent research and good negotiation what can be achieved. I would suggest that 90% of CC would be better off with a properly negotiated change to the current system but then it is not part of the current dispute!

Get Smart

21st Jan 2007, 14:56

I'm in BASSA and agree with many of the comments made here. Whilst I value being in a Union and think in a large company, it's necessary, I wish CC could be represented by BALPA! I'm not adverse to considering the hourly rate. Whats the harm in looking at the deal. I actually think we may well be better off. Very disappointed in thought of imminent strike. This battle has just begun and there will be casualities. WW is fully prepared for this and I think crew need to be ready for him! One of his biggest missions is to take on the unions so here we go .............

Flying Fred

21st Jan 2007, 15:36

Eddy,

I'm with M.Mouse on this one, your arguements just don't stand up.

For one thing, you fundamentally misunderstand hourly rate allowances. We get approx (I can't remember the exact figure) £2.67 per hour from the moment of report to Compass to 30min after chocks on the way home. It doesn't matter where we go, we get the same rate, which works out at about £64 per day. So your India trip at about 2.6 days would be worth £166 instead of the £40 you get at the moment. Obviously in high cost places (e.g. Switzerland, Japan) you would lose out but the whole thing is much fairer. It has the effect of smoothing out the highs and lows of allowance payments.

Now here is the big thing:- it does not include box payments, overtime etc. The hourly rate replaced our meal allowances, nothing else. So it's the same amount on money, just disributed slightly differently. The saving to BA is in simplified admin (same for everybody) and possibly some currency conversions.

We also had box payments and other allowances which were incorporated into our basic salary, apart from one element, flying hour rate, which is still dependant on the number of hours flying we do on a trip. The system is great because it removed all the greed/corruption and now, provided I do a full months work, I get roughly the same take home pay every month.

Now I am asking myself how come you do not know this? Could it be that your union has not explained it to you? Now why would that do that? Might it be that the threat of 'hourly rate allowance' would make the members vote for a strike. Why did BASSA not put 'hourly rate allowances' as one of the 12 items if it is such a big deal (certainly a bigger deal than duty free position, LGW breakfast etc)? Could it be that they know the true nature of what's on offer has little effect on take home pay but just want to keep you in the dark, in order to gain your STRIKE vote. I hope not, because if it is the case, you have been well and truly suckered.

Have you read the AMICUS newsletter above? Have you compared it to the BASSA version? Somewhat different in style, I think you will agree. AMICUS seems to want to publish facts, not rhetoric. They still have problems with some of the same issues you do but are treating their members with more respect. It may be they wind up voting for strike action as well, but at least their members will have the correct facts on which to base their decision.

Why does BASSA still insist you cannot be sacked for going on strike. The link I posted earlier to the DTI website clearly says you can, only it will be UNFAIR, not ILLEGAL. Redress is through an employment tribunal, many months down the line.

Finally, I know you have personally agonised over this. Your posts are articulate and intelligent so keep them up and keep thinking. I urge you to search for the FACTS hidden in amongst the rhetoric and I wish you good luck in the forthcoming weeks

ATB

TopBunk

21st Jan 2007, 15:38

BASSA have apparently hand-delivered a letter to BA this afternoon. They have pushed the 'self-destruct' button. Official announcement imminent.

speedmarque

21st Jan 2007, 15:49

There you go. Not official but highly regarded source.

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 16:25

TopBunk

21st Jan 2007, 16:39

Eddy

21st Jan 2007, 16:46

Eddy

You are probably correct. Whilst there are such incongruous anomalies as the box payments, the destination payments, the CAT payments, early morning report allowances, working one down payments etc etc, then they will always be a target. What the cabin crew community would be advised to do, imho, is to totally restructure the method of determining pay as per the pilots.

The cabin crew payments structure can be likened to something like Windows 98, an elephant teetering precariously on a pinhead, a total revamp is what is required.
With you on that one entirely, mate. The earnings structure needs to be re-worked to prevent such massive variances in take-home pay from month to month. Pay can fluctuate by as much as 700.00 a month depending on what trips you get.

Something needs to be done to simplify things and make things more fair, but not at the expense of crew.

rubberjungle

21st Jan 2007, 16:57

Sky news just announced a 3 day strike Jan 29-31st.

will fly for food 06

21st Jan 2007, 17:08

There you go. Not official but highly regarded source.

i just heard that too, flying out of uk on the 27th and back on the 6th, that was close!

TopBunk

21st Jan 2007, 17:14

Three periods of 3-day strikes.

29-31/1 then 5-7/2 then 12-14/2

stormin norman

21st Jan 2007, 17:31

quote from Get Smart 'so here we go .............'

Your right there, you'll be going right out of the company.
looking through the papers today i see no vacancies for any pursers or CSD's,or even longhaul cabin crew at £30K PA.(including allowances of course!)

Flying Lawyer

21st Jan 2007, 17:35

It's a great shame but, looking on the bright side, if WW holds his nerve (and there's no reason AFAIK to think he won't) it could be a good thing for the future of BA in the long term.
From BA's perspective, strikes in Jan or Feb when the loads are usually lower won't do as much damage as they would at other times of the year.

It would be interesting to know if CC sickness during those periods is above average, although use of that device is limited by EG300 - one of the reasons, I suspect, that Bassa dislikes EG300 so much.

I wonder what percentage of the famous 96% who voted to strike will actually do so when the crunch comes?

GetSmart
You wrote in another forum: I'm in BASSA but I have to say, I think CC89 are being far more professional about this. I want to hear BALANCED facts from my union to whom I pay £16 per month to. Not newsletters slagging off management and name calling. And what's the 'diary of a crew member' about? I'm an adult. Talk to me like one. I'm a little disillusioned at BASSA at the moment. I'm not saying BA are right and they're wrong. Far from it. I'm just not so sure that talks are being as constructive as they could be. If BALPA can do it and CC89 can do it, then BASSA must be able to.
Will you follow Bassa's call to strike, despite those views? :confused:

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 17:43

It's a great shame but, looking on the bright side, if WW holds his nerve (and there's no reason AFAIK to think he won't) it could be a good thing for the future of BA in the long term.

So very true.

It will also effectively neuter the more militant behaviour of other BA unions.

How about this santimonious drivel directly from the BASSA site:

The Spirit of British Airways 22nd January 2007

Barely a week ago the branch meeting, held on Monday 15th January, truly was the most symbolic in the history of this union. Crew came along on days off, some came in from trips, some not reporting until the evening. Many went to extraordinary lengths to attend, driving from all parts of the country on their days off. Others hired mini buses to come to the meeting together, from Devon, the Midlands, Manchester, even flying in from Europe, Scotland, France, Spain, you name it they were there.

Why? Because they, like you, care about their future.

For those who were fortunate enough to be able to attend, the effort was worth it! The experience and strength gained on that day will stay with us all for the rest of our lives.

The spontaneous cheers and scenes of jubilation when the 96.1% ballot result was announced, was seen on television around the world and could even be heard in Waterside and Compass Centre!

Those scenes have deliberately been misinterpreted by some, including Willie Walsh;

No one was cheering the fact that there would be a strike.

No one was celebrating disruption for our passengers.

No one was celebrating industrial action.

No one wants to be to be in our position.

Those scenes of celebration were merely an outpouring of emotion from a frustrated group of decent, hard working, ordinary people that have simply had enough.

Our right to a decent pension after a lifetime's hard work is being destroyed. We are being forced to come to work when we are genuinely sick out of fear of an uncaring policy. Many suffer through poverty level new entrant pay scales. We have been arrogantly pushed around and treated as a cheap, disposable corporate commodity that can easily be replaced for far too long. Well, not any more.

We are people with dreams and aspirations of our own and those dreams and our future are worth standing up and fighting for.

We now have a voice. A very loud voice. It was the explosive sound of 8000 plus cabin crew who finally saw the light and hope at the end of a very long and dark tunnel.

Cabin Crew are not some radical militants, far from it. Being Cabin Crew is about doing a good job, day in and day out, on the front line of customer services, for a company most of us are still proud to work for. Last Monday, crew finally saw the chance to reclaim the "spirit of this company" from a cynical management that, over time, has hijacked the British Airway ethic, that both we and our customers love and has instead turned it into a bitter, hard faced place to work.

The spontaneity and volume of the crew reaction was not malicious or aggressive, far from it. It was crew rejoicing in the fact that others shared their beliefs.

It is time for our passengers to know that as our aircraft and terminals become shabbier, with poorer quality food, less service, less facilities, equipment breakdown, as our customer contact staff is cut to the bone in every area, there is one exception. The gleaming, opulence of Waterside. Take a look around next time you go, at the waterfalls and buffed chrome and, amidst those thousands of shiny people, we doubt you will see even one customer contact uniform in the entire building.

The founder of McDonald's once famously said, "take care of the customer and the business will take care of itself".

Our management's philosophy appears to be the exact opposite. As the people who actually take care of our customers, whether it's in the terminal, handling their luggage or serving on the flight, they are being removed, they are being replaced by layer upon layer of faceless managers, that quite frankly wouldn't know a customer if they fell over one, let alone ever tried to serve one. Apart from their enhanced staff travel we seriously doubt they even realise they work for an airline.

Corporate BA is simply another world, far removed from the reality of taking our customers, in the best possible way, from A to B. Yet it is one that is shaping a future for both British Airways staff and our customers that they may not recognise or want.

We asked for your support in the ballot to give us a strong position at the negotiation table. We emphatically got this. 96.1% is simply incredible and unheard of in trade union history. We sincerely thank you for your support, your faith and your trust.

Our aim was to return to the negotiations in a strong position, to try to secure beneficial change on your behalf. We are saddened to say that in this aim, we have failed. Not through lack of effort or enterprise but because we have a management that simply will not listen.

With your faith in us comes responsibility.

We would not even consider industrial action if there remained even a glimmer of hope of negotiating an acceptable solution. It would be purely a last resort. With regret, we have to announce that we are now at that point.

After 4 days of intense negotiations, British Airways gave us their final position last Friday. It was contained in a lengthy document that had not been written for us, as it was simplistic and deliberately misleading. It was written for public and press consumption. The only thing that they were prepared to move on was our request for a weekend central area bus. We knew at that moment, that this was the end of the road. The management present could barely contain the glee on their faces (Alun Howells actually smirked and continually shook his head in mock disbelief as the Deputy General Secretary of the TGWU outlined our proposals). The overtly aggressive style of their response, clearly indicated that they were not interested in either peace or negotiation.

They were just waiting for the opportunity to try and crush your union and you as a work force with a voice, along with us. They never had any intention of holding meaningful talks, they were not negotiating they were simply delaying.

Our proposals were intended as a compromise to offer a sensible way out of confrontation, for management for once to use their imagination instead of tired dogma, to solve and heal a conflict rather than inflame it even further. Where there is a will there is a way.

We sincerely doubt that the sincerity or realistic cost of our proposals ever made it as far as Willie Walsh, past the jaded cynicism of the level of management that we had to deal with.

To be honest it was always going to be that way. How else could the same managers that have had a 96.1% vote for industrial action justify their own failings? How else could they explain their own mismanagement? It is far easier to blame BASSA and an "unreasonable workforce", than to admit the truth to our Chief Executive.

FACT-You do not get a vote with that strength of feeling unless something is seriously wrong in the way a department is being run.

IFS Management repeatedly state BASSA will not accept change and yet the greatest irony is that it is they that never change. Creativity and indeed flexibility simply do not exist in their vocabulary. Their frustration stems from the fact that we won't simply just "do as we are told" and their accusation that BASSA is guilty of "1970s style trade unionism". We say their style of management also belongs to the 70s, the 1870s!

Modern industrial relations must be as a partnership not as master and servant.

One thing they have underestimated - they are taking this stance because it's their job, they are being told what to do and say. But for your reps and for you it's something that we strongly believe in. It's our lives and our future. There is a big difference.

Our proposals are fair, balanced and in the circumstances not unreasonable or unrealistic. We are happy to share the proposals with you in full, details will be placed on our website in the urgent news updates, entitled - Industrial Action - BASSA Proposals for Settlement and if you are a subscriber to our email news service then this will also have been emailed to you.

They have been costed by a recognised expert in this field, Ed Sabisky, a former financial director for General Motors a man whose financial expertise is widely recognised and whose credibility is beyond question or reproach, even by BA.

We now simply have no other alternative but to ask for your support to take industrial action in a series of 3 day strikes, the first to commence at 0001 on Monday 29th through to 2359 on Wednesday 31st January and then the 5th, 6th and 7th February and then 12th, 13th and 14th February. Please do not report for any duty (at base) between these times. You are taking part in legal industrial action. You do not need to inform BA of your decision, you simply do not report for work.

We of course know that this is an unnerving prospect for us all, but please do not feel alone. Draw on the support of others, talk to each other through our website, phone lines and most of all, if you can, by joining your friends and colleagues on the picket lines or just to help out with cups of tea at either of our two LHR bases at Bedfont Football Club and our temporary office just off the Bath Road. Also at LGW the Premium Lodge, next to the Gatwick Manor and Ramada Hotel at GLA.

Have no doubts, we now have no other alternative to convince the company of our resolve and the legitimacy of our issues than industrial action, negotiation has failed. They don't believe you will support your union in industrial action, hence their aggressive stance.

For your pension, for your right to go sick, for a fairer salary for new entrants, for career prospects, for respect, for your future, for your family and most of all for YOU, we must now ask for your support. Without it, it is the end for BASSA. We cannot fight these changes alone.

Please do not rely on the bravery of others. We will not get a second chance.

No one wants to take industrial action, least of all BASSA, no one wants to cause anxiety and inconvenience to you and to our passengers or indeed to the reputation of our airline and our colleagues from other areas within BA.
Sometimes in life you have to stand up and be counted for what we all know is right, now is that time!

stormin norman

21st Jan 2007, 17:53

can't even get the date right.
look after the customers and the business will look after itself ?
Try telling that to the customers who will have ther holidays ruined -yet again.

Flying Lawyer

21st Jan 2007, 17:59

BASSAWithout it, it is the end for BASSA

What a curious argument to use - even as one of the reasons members should comply with their call to strike.

Oldy

21st Jan 2007, 17:59

Dear M.Mouse,

What EXACTLY are Bassa asking ? quote

<<We are happy to share the proposals with you in full, details will be placed on our website in the urgent news updates, entitled - Industrial Action - BASSA Proposals for Settlement>>

Rgds, Oldy :confused:

paulthornton

21st Jan 2007, 18:00

I had no direct reason to comment on this thread up until now, and I must say that it has proved very interesting reading. I believe that the case remains to be proven in favour of a strike as far as the BA customers, and the general public, are concerned. It also seems that a good number of those who voted yes were not wholly aware as to their reasons for doing so.

Which brings me to my point. I do now have a direct involvement in this, as I am foolish enough to be booked on a BA flight out of the UK one day after the first batch of strikes, returning to the UK on one of the later strike days. Or should I say "attempting to fly out of the UK, and attempting to return".

So at the sharp end of the business, here is the impact of your action. I cancel my direct BA flights because of the uncertainty that now surrounds those dates - and take flights with the competition even though that will involve more hassle for me. Others will, I'm sure, do the same. Some customers will not return - and the more that do not return, the fewer seats that are sold in the future and ultimately the damage done to BA will come back and be felt by those so in favour of industrial action.

I'll echo what others have said here: Good luck to those striking as you will need it - I fear that your cause will not carry the support of your customers when the facts emerge.

Paul, off to re-book his travels.

tristar500

21st Jan 2007, 18:04

This is just a taste of whats to come Willie! Grin and bear it. You have been instrumental in this happening - maybe even constructing the basis for the walk-out... Rumours going round (for some time now) that there is enough cash 'in the bank' for times such as these, to see BA through - just. The idea of shutting down the company - temporarily - then restarting with a clean sheet, including contracts, Ts and Cs... Does it sound too fanciful?

Just a quick question, was it not around this time (strike action iminent) while at EI that Willies future there began to look bleak and he was on his merry way over the water to 'Waterworld'?

Strike action will cause serious damage to the BA image, and will only benefit other carriers. What must Mr Bishop and Mr Branson be thinking tonight... Christmas come early!

Its time BA got a proper managerial team in place. From the top down through the ranks. Aviation isnt a game. It takes years to build up customer trust, customer satisfaction and make money - money thats hard to come by with so much competition. If the current 'management' cant sort out the mess then get a team in who can. This has been brewing for some time. Bit late to call for talks once the ballot has been announced - 96.1%! Thats not an ill conceived majority. Thats a statement that almost all cabin crew who voted have NO FAITH in Willie or his team. Mind you, most of the ground staff feel the same, so lets see how the GMB ballot turns out for the ground staff industrial action... :D :ok: :mad:

PS -- Dont shoot me. Just passing on some info as this is a Rumour and News Forum :O

yachtno1

21st Jan 2007, 18:08

It will also effectively neuter the more militant behaviour of other BA unions. Umm wonder if that includes BALPA ? :)

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 18:09

As for BASSA's demands how about this one from a statement by Simon Talling-Smith, BAs head of Inflight Services:

Simon Talling-Smith added: The union has submitted a request to add new increments to the pay rates of crew who joined since 1997. The effect of this would equate to an 18 per cent pay rise for top-of-scale crew, taking their earnings to more than £30,000 per year. The cost including pensions would be £10.4m a year, rising to £19m per year over time.

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 18:11

It will also effectively neuter the more militant behaviour of other BA unions. Umm wonder if that includes BALPA ?

It rather depend how you define militant but whatever happens after BASSA have slunk away to lick their wounds we will ALL be worse off in many ways.

Tandemrotor

21st Jan 2007, 18:14

I feel genuinely sorry for the customers of BA. I know how I would feel if important travel plans were wrecked. I can certainly understand those who say they will not return. I hope the impact on BA will not prove terminal!

It may even be the case that BASSA's actions are not well focused. However...

96% of their membership voted in favour of IA! So it seems there is some kind of problem for BA to address.

All I would say to the BA pilots on this forum is this: Whatever you think of BASSA, for heavens sake look after your individual cabin crew members, in what must be an incredibly difficult time for them all. I'm sure you will.

It is only a few days ago that pilots were also prepared to withdraw their labour too.

Don't forget that!

Smell the Coffee

21st Jan 2007, 18:16

As BA crew, I too think hourly rate is the way forward - BA wants to introduce them to smoothen out attendance issues with respect to certain flights (difficulty in crewing flights to India for instance, where allowances are poor). The hourly rate has little to do with saving money and much more to do with correcting intolerably high absence.
Pros:
1) Take home pay no less than what it already is for most (some may see a small rise in net monthly salary)
2) Higher tax allowance
3) BA pays less in National Insurance Contributions (saves a little money)
4) Attendance issues (hopefully) resolved (no one will have any reason not to turn up for a BOM).
In short, everyone gains. What exactly is BASSA's problem?
May I also add - I don't agree that ANY of the 12 points BASSA have outlined justify this strike...some of their points are unjustified altogether.
Yes, I was one of the few (330) that voted NO...I am certain that more may have seen the light (or simply possessed some common sense or objectivity) if BASSA hadn't done such a great job of brainwashing 96% of the membership...
Sorry fellow crew, but I'm not stupid...

tristar500

21st Jan 2007, 18:16

I feel genuinely sorry for the customers of BA. I know how I would feel if important travel plans were wrecked. I can certainly understand those who say they will not return. I hope the impact on BA will not prove terminal!
It may even be the case that BASSA's actions are not well focused. However...
96% of their membership voted in favour of IA! So it seems there is some kind of problem for BA to address.
All I would say to the BA pilots on this forum is this: Whatever you think of BASSA, for heavens sake look after your individual cabin crew members, in what must be an incredibly difficult time for them all. I'm sure you will.
It is only a few days ago that pilots were also prepared to withdraw their labour too.
Don't forget that!
... I hope the impact on BA WILL prove Terminal (5) is worth all of this upheaval... :oh:

T5 will solve nothing - watch and see... The biggest Greenhouse in Europe :E

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 18:22

It is only a few days ago that pilots were also prepared to withdraw their labour too.
Don't forget that!

At no time to the BALPA leadership threaten a strike ballot, at no time did BALPA issue a strike ballot. Individually pilots did say that it was the one issue over which we would strike.

Given the consequences of the initial pension proposals and comparing that issue with BASSA's wish list, well.............

I said earlier the majority of pilots would probably be right behind our CC colleagues if we felt the actions of BASSA on their behalf were justified, they are not and from my conversations with CC the penny is only now dropping.

Tandemrotor

21st Jan 2007, 18:30

sad or what

21st Jan 2007, 18:46

Mickey Mouse

Of course the thread entitled "BA pilots prepared to strike" which ran to around 70 pages was just a figment of my imagination!

Even I'm beginning to dislike BA pilots!

And I is wun!,

Hahaha, This has to be the funniest thing writen on this whole thread! Well done sir, glad to see some of us are on the ball! :ok:

propaganda

21st Jan 2007, 18:50

Can you imagine the divide and rule, big stick, bend over, management mentality, if they break any of the big unions at BA..:ugh:
Anyone naive enough to believe it's good for BA, may well consider selling their shares now !!!!!....most of the BA board have.
.

tristar500

21st Jan 2007, 18:53

Maybe we should be employing Ms Marple to find out where all the pension contributions went to as this 'black hole' is a major part of the companys on-going crisis and part of the CC debate.:hmm:

Yes , see those shares being sold quicker than a cup of coffee full of optrex being given to WW at the first strike press conference... :E

The Controlller

21st Jan 2007, 19:01

The only winners will the the cabin crew union staff....deadheads.....and we are being controlled by them...believe or not I know them and they are dangerous and will not do anybody any favours ??????????

overstress

21st Jan 2007, 19:01

Of course the thread entitled "BA pilots prepared to strike" which ran to around 70 pages was just a figment of my imagination!

Even I'm beginning to dislike BA pilots!

Tandemrotor - I started that thread and carefully chose the words. Prepared to strike - the threat of that convinced BA mgt that we were serious. Pilots stuck their heads above the parapet and personally e-mailed managers and told them they would walk. The threat of this convinced mgt we were serious and the result was our BALPA reps could negotiate in the secure knowledge that the members were behind them.

BALPA has now issued a ballot with the opposite recommendation to BASSA's.

Look at the difference in approach, but all the time we convinced mgt we were prepared to go out. Now we won't have to as we have extracted the max from BA with just the threat of a ballot.

CFC

21st Jan 2007, 19:03

Flying Fred, why should I not assume that in time the company will remove the boxes, destination payments and overtime like they've done at Gatwick?!
You're right in that initially, these extra payments would remain. Over time, though, they'd undoubtedly be eaten away at by the company.
Eddy - what are you talking about? The negotiated agreement (Bassa & Amicus are signatories) states no trips to be rostered over 13 hours hence no long range premium payments.
Get the blinkers off and think for yourself.
And for all the BA pilots watching from the sidelines who do you think WW is going to target next.....

Orvil

21st Jan 2007, 19:05

Hi all,
I've been reading this tread with interest and amusment.
I'm an ex-employee of a BA franchise, so I have a strong connection with BA and LHR.

My T&C's at my last place are what WW is trying to achieve. Ie. Hourly rate, No CSD's, or overtime payments etc..

Some contributers think that a hourly rate is fairer to all concerned. Unfortunatley, it isn't. My experience is that favouritism/bidding for trips makes no difference. I usually came home with £1300 a month because of being stuck on 3 day trips! While some of my "colleagues" where coming home with £2000! (4x5 day trips and weekends off). It actually had nothing to do with rostering because the CC Managers would check rosters but to with Op's. An individual would phone in sick taking them off a crap trip, then having to call out another CC to cover (taking them off a nice 5 dayer). The "sick" CC would have miracle recovery just in time for the 5 day trip!

It may seem fairer on paper but in reality it ain't. Human interaction/coersion still can have a major influence.
You should also consider NI contributions, if you contribute less (due to tax exempt part of hourly rate), you'll end up with not enough contributions to draw a pension. It should be really looked into properly. It may seem like saving money for BA and WW but who's really paying the price? It certainly won't be WW and his multi-million "golden hand-shake" that he'll be receiving (like Ayling) after making a complete hash of BA.

The quote from "talling-smith" that crew would be earning £30,000 a year. And? He should try living in SE/London on less!. But with a name like that you know he spends more on his kids education than what CC earn! Prat.

Good Luck

CFC

21st Jan 2007, 19:06

Flying Fred

21st Jan 2007, 19:09

Flying Fred, why should I not assume that in time the company will remove the boxes, destination payments and overtime like they've done at Gatwick?! You're right in that initially, these extra payments would remain. Over time, though, they'd undoubtedly be eaten away at by the company.

Ok, so they might want to remove them over time. They also might not!!
Let me ask you what a successful outcome of this strike might be? BA withdraw their proposal to remove boxes, destination payments and overtime. Well they have never proposed them, so strike over then. You are striking against something that BA has not even proposed????

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

p.s. the destination payments (which are paid to crew in order to get them to turn up for work to certain destinations!!) would not be needed if you went to hourly rate allowances. :ugh:

The Controlller

21st Jan 2007, 19:14

The Controlller

21st Jan 2007, 19:37

Do i guess by the lack of reponse that I have hit a (union) come on and come back to the real world ???????????????????????????

CFC

21st Jan 2007, 19:45

CFC where do I start...........this is the 21st century and not the dark ages that the CC unions live in. Come on lets look at what the CC get...more and more than most ? A lot of us have to work hard for our living and honesty for our families
So what is it that the CC unions are doing that reminds you of the dark ages?
"lets look at what the cabin crew get....more than most" - Can you be more specific and give some facts for a change. Sounds like you get most of your info from the Daily Mail.
And as for the sarcastic comments re my absence for a short while - like you I have a family.......

sunnysmith

21st Jan 2007, 19:49

Well I have to say I am not happy about this result.

However I wish the cabin crew the very best.

I notice from the thread (skimmed through most of it I have to admit!) that no one has mentioned the fact that practically every group of staff in BA has had some form of industrial unrest within the last 12 - 18 months. That is a lot of different, hard working (the majority DO work hard!) sections of the airline deciding that the have had enough. Think about the wild cat check-in staff strike and the 'sympathy' ground staff strike for Gate Gourmet workers just to name two. All in my opinion, led by an antagonistic management that keep pushing and pushing. That same manageement that don't seem to reward hard work. All we ever hear is how hard we must work to keep the airline going etc.

We only ever get lip service thanks and yet our senior 'bods' get bonuses that I now feel grossly over pays them for their efforts. Not many have commented on that; yet on the other hand I see people stating how over-paid crew (cabin and pilots) are paid to do thier jobs..... why should we accept to be paid 'just the right amount'? Most other professionals can change jobs, get headhunted or even demand pay and condition increases! We essentially depend on our employer to be honourable, yes they must minimise costs but where do you draw the line?

Anyway, I personally think that the managers are just as responsible for causing this strike to be announed as the union.

SS

The Truth

21st Jan 2007, 19:52

Are BASSA representatives at all bases? ie: Does this strike affect ALL BA (mainline) flights? How about Gatwick?
The Truth

sunnysmith

21st Jan 2007, 19:59

The Controller,

Have you hit a nerve?
Nope.

Personally I've practically stopped reading your posts. You illustrate the type of bitterness and jealously that is indicative of a person (sadly becoming more common in the UK) that envys others because of what they have rather than praising how they 'achieved'.

SS

DarkStar

21st Jan 2007, 20:04

CFC

21st Jan 2007, 20:13

The strike will not happen, it'll be called off with less than a day to spare pending 'urgent negotiations'....bit like an Italian ATC strike.
You've got to understand how hard the CC have it, Box payments, destination payments, breakfast, lunch and dinner allowances and that's even before they've bowled up at Compass. So CC go sick rather than turn up and do a BOM, so how do they feel about the poor CC on stby - simply tucking their colleagues up. :D :D :D :ugh:
Oh how sad you are DarkStar.
What do you intend to achieve by your pathetic comments?
Assuming your are Flt Crew, this makes it very obvious to all readers just what CC have to put up with from some of our colleagues. Pls refer to earlier posts on this thread in which some Flt Crew just cannot understand how the bitterness exists between some CC and FC.

Get Smart

21st Jan 2007, 20:19

Sporran - you totally speak my language. Everything you've said totally sums up my views.
Flying Lawyer. No I will not strike. The more this ugly debate continues, the more I'm beginning to wonder wheather I'm in the right union for me. This is my own personal view.
If I felt that the 12 REASONS for the strike were strike worthy, then I would. But I personally do not. I feel these can all be sorted out through talks.
I am horrified to think that BASSA could even CONSIDER the kind of post 97 pay deal they have proposed. How incredibly ridicilous! Yes it needs addressing, but lets get in the real world about it!
Now, I'm going to put my heart right out there on my sleeve and admitt that I'm absolutely petrified of the thought of going to work during a strike. The intimidation I will probably be getting from crew makes me feel uncomfortable but like those who choose to stay at home, I choose not to.
Now let the slaughter begin .... Before you start, I'll just go get my cross and crown of thorns!! :{

Glamgirl

21st Jan 2007, 20:25

Get Smart, I hear you loud and clear and I completely agree with you. I'm very cross with bassa and seriously considering changing unions, not that it'll help if we all lose our jobs...

Good luck to you my friend and I hope you don't get too much hassle. I'm turning up for work as well. Just remember this: "Stop-why did you do that?" if you get any problems...

Get Smart

21st Jan 2007, 20:43

Glamgirl, I'm so grateful for your post. Thank you and good luck to you as well. Those of us who choose to go to work face a far more difficult choice than those who don't. I sincerely someone comes to their senses before it gets that far. A strike will achieve nothing. :O

And re your point of loosing jobs. Yes, agree. I'm not prepared to risk it. WW will put out every dirty trick in the book. Whist it will be very unpleasant, one has to look at the big picture. We can be sacked. It is unfair dismissal, but if he decides to sack a days worth of striking crew, that's not really a problem. It'll only cost him about £1500 or more per crew via the tribunals. Nothing when they can all be replaced on the new contract. Or - maybe even invite the trained and uniformed LGW SF crew straight up and replace them at LGW on an even cheaper contract!! I think some crew aren't thinking this one through. Emotions are running high and they're all jumping on BASSA's exciting ride. Good luck folks, but hold on tight!! Hope I'm wrong, but have decided to play it safe this time round. It's all too uncertain. :=

mad_jock

21st Jan 2007, 20:49

As matter of interest what happens if on the strike day, your down route?

Do they have to foot their own HOTAC?

And what happens if they decide to launch with freight onboard. Thus leaving the CC behind. How do they get back?

GalleyWench

21st Jan 2007, 20:54

Glamgirl/Getsmart, While not a member of your union/airline, i would urge you to think to the future before crossing a picket line. My airline had a strike in 85 and they 'scabs' are STILL given hassle over it. A solution is arrived at quicker if all members stay out. I have not taken the time to real ALL of the posts regarding your labour dispute but I can tell you that ALL of the employees that did not honour the picket line at my carrier say that they would never make the same decision if they could have seen the consequences.

Flying Lawyer

21st Jan 2007, 20:58

Flying Lawyer.
No I will not strike. The more this ugly debate continues, the more I'm beginning to wonder wheather I'm in the right union for me. This is my own personal view.
If I felt that the 12 REASONS for the strike were strike worthy, then I would. But I personally do not. I feel these can all be sorted out through talks.

Thanks for responding to my question.
I admire your integrity.
It's the one thing no-one can take from us.
We only lose it if we give it away.

Get Smart

21st Jan 2007, 20:59

Your right galleywrench. You have a point. My point is that I don't trust BA. I think WW has a plan. He's going to get dirty and at the end of the day, I'd rather have my job. I can't bear the thought of crossing the picket line, but apart from those who are in BASSA and will do so, there are crew in CC89 and those not in a union, who don't have a choice. Crew seem to think that 96% are going on strike. It's 96% of 80% of BASSA. It works out at around 65% of the crew workforce so many will have to go to work. It's a very bad situation to be in. Lets not forget, there are those BASSA strikers who are on leave, days off who fortunately won't have to even make the choice. How many BASSA's on the day, are really not going to work?

Human Factor

21st Jan 2007, 21:01

As matter of interest what happens if on the strike day, your down route?

In the past, if you were downroute you were considered not to be on strike. I would imagine the same will happen this time. If this isn't the case and you decide that you will join in, you can expect to be booted out of the HOTAC, lose your allowances and no doubt would have to make your own way home.:uhoh:

rubberjungle

21st Jan 2007, 21:06

Clamgirl/Getsmart I really don't envy your situation but I seem to remember a previous threatened strike where BA arranged off airport report facilities to help crew in your situation or you could park in the airport pax car parks and get a taxi in, they will refund by SECV at least they offered to last time.
Good luck and I hope you get some sleep over the next few days, I really think WW is going all the way on this.

Get Smart

21st Jan 2007, 21:13

Thanks for support. You're right. It's awful. I am quite sure that I'm not alone in my opinion as there must be plenty of other crew out there feeling the same. Let's just hope that within the next 7 days, they'll sort it out.

WeLieInTheShadows

21st Jan 2007, 21:17

I'd just like to reitterate what I said earlier in the thread.

It's unlikely to affect LGW as much.

About 10% of crew there are in BASSA, rest are in Amicus or not unionised.

So BA wil get away with normal ops there with overtime etc etc.

Fuzzy112

21st Jan 2007, 21:21

Good luck to all the crew who decide to go on strike. I think WW will be very tough and shut up shop for everyone in a bid to turn different working groups against eachother. One thing is for sure though - all BA's competitors are about to have a field day - I bet the likes of bmi are chomping at the bit to grab some customers!

ABird747

21st Jan 2007, 21:39

I posted this in the Cabin Crew forum, can't be bothered to type it all again but it seems pertinent.

The situation that we as crew and our management find ourselves in seems to be entirely different depending on whom you listen to...

If you listen to BASSA and read the postings on their website it seems that the company is doing a large-scale smash and grab on our Ts&Cs with imposition being the order of the day.

If you listen to Amicus they are in talks with the company and have made some progress. I had a letter from their full time officer on my door mat when I got home with an update on the issues in dispute as follows:

Pensions - BA Reps will be meeting on the 22nd Jan to discuss the proposals prior to membership being consulted.

Buses - Will be extended to run over the weekend.

LGW Breakfast - Offer has been made by BA, the decision on whether to accept it rests with LGW fleet reps and LGW crew.

EG300 - Matter is of major importance, any review is the property of all BA employees. There are items specific to cabin crew that Amicus are adressing and BA have acknowledged this and proposed a number of changes. Proposals have been made to change ill-health retirement arrangements also.

Report time - BA admit there are issues and have agreed that it can be dealt with at Worldwide Steering.

WTR - BA agree that 900 hours is the maximum number of flying hours permissible. Training days are now being considered as duty. Discussion are continuing.

MAN - Objections at the manner in which the closre was managed have been registered along with concerns over the future of GLA. As the decision on MAN will not be reversed, the closure will not be included in ongoing discussions.

Preferred Seller - BA's proposals have been withdrawn. BA invited Amicus to come forward with ideas to maximise revenue.

Fixed links - Has been referred back to EF Steering. Amicus raised the issue of rest breaks under the WTR. BA has been asked to demostrate their compliance with this in their duty time allocations. Further discussions will take place on this matter.

Single Supervisory Grade - Amicus believes that this has been dealt with outside the current discussions and therefore does not form part of their current discussions.

PSR/JNR Swap - This is of primary importance to Amicus. Further discussions will take place on this issue although BA have stated their determination to go ahead with this proposal. Amicus has asked for guarantees in respect of promotion and employment continuity. Discussion will continue.

Post '97 Payscales - Item is of utmost importance. BA has said they could make money available to help resolve the issue. In terms of over all costs there seems to be no opportunity for levelling of the payscales. Discussions are ongoing.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but it does not seem that discussions have ground to a halt as the 'walking egos' of BASSA seem to suggest. I'll hold my hands up now and say that I am not a great fan of industrial action, I've been out before and will do again if I need to because I am left with no choice but we do not seem to have reached that point yet.

Unfortunately a large number of my colleagues seem to wait on every word (and text message) uttered by BASSA and consume each pearl of wisdom with unnerring trust without stopping to question a thing that they have been told. The reps are held in such reverence that to dare to consider any other point of view except that which is passed down from on high is shouted down as herecy and treason by their coterie of bully-boys.

Here's hoping that one day the politicking and double-speak that is used to brainwash a large number of cabin crew is seen for what it is before too much damage is done.

egbt

21st Jan 2007, 22:07

Well Guys and Girls at BA, it’s probably not sensible to post after some rather good Cote du Rhone but I’m going to any way…..

You people need to remember that customer loyalty is a very fickle thing; I have been flying BA as my preferred carrier for over 25 years and still do so enough to have a gold card and enough BA miles to get my wife and I on a long haul flight each year, 1st class, plus a couple of European flights as well.

Why do I fly BA? well partially, I admit, from habit but also because service is generally good, you have a good route structure and I have (had?) the perception that BA had a good safety culture (not so sure now on the engineering side, having read the AAIB reports) and would some how get me home if there was a problem with the aircraft or what ever.

However a couple of years ago I defected to another carrier for flights to the far east, the trigger for that was a price difference of about £800 for a business class ticket to HKG, but guess what – having flown CX I found that not only were they cheaper but the food and wine were better than BA, the lounge in HKG was better (important for a 23:30 flight), I could check in from mainland China at the ferry port rather than go through HKG / Kowloon etc (I think BA do that now) and the service was as good and arguably better than BA’s. Also I realised that if an a/c when t!tts up in HKG Cathay would probably be in a better position to get me home than BA, as they proved late last year. At the same time I have seen a gradual increase in the number of BA engineering screw ups, probably caused by penny pinching, one of which that cost me a days delay to PHL I know was avoidable.

So what’s my point? Well firstly and most emotively I am due to fly to Cape Town on vacation (yes BA miles) on one of your strike days, if it goes ahead I will probably lose a significant amount of cash as well as my annual vacation - so I am extremely P!ss@d off and will probably be less favourably inclined to BA in the future.

Secondly and in the grand scheme of things more importantly for BA staff, other customers will realise that there is an alternative and defect to other airlines and may very well like what they find and stay with them.

IIRC research shows it costs > 5 times as much to get a new customer as to retain a current one, so if you lot go on strike you are probably going to shoot yourselves in both feet at the same time. And not get what your union say you want.

Carnage Matey!

21st Jan 2007, 22:24

A little birdy tells me they are now censoring the postings on the BASSA forum to stop people questioning the unions tactics. Apparently you can't post anything over there that challenges the reputation or operation of the union!!!

M.Mouse

21st Jan 2007, 22:33

My airline had a strike in 85 and they 'scabs' are STILL given hassle over it.

Ah yes, the good old intimidation and blackmail threat.

wiggy

21st Jan 2007, 22:48

OK, I'll bite, I usually do.
The reduction in the quality of food and wine is more likely to be down to penny pinching by those who control the budgets ( perhaps in an attempt to generate their bonuses) rather than the "boys and girls" on the line, so perhaps that's a point that should be put to Willie or one of the Board. That said, I agree, it's not right, you paid for a Premium product and rightly expected to get what you paid for.
AS for engineering "screw ups", thats's a bit of an emotive term to say the least, so could you be more specfic? Or would you be happier we accepted and flew unservicable aircraft just to avoid delays.
As to suddenly realising that HKG Cathy would be in a better position to get you home from HKG than BA - they bl***y well should be - HKG is their main base ( location of spare aircraft/ crew/ parts). If the delay was in London the boot would be on the other foot, so to speak.
I agree with your last point - at every Corporate "event" I've attended we've had the "it costs 5 times more to get as new customer than retain one" speech; problem is that in recent years we've not then been given the tools to do the job( penny pinching again).

Joetom

21st Jan 2007, 22:56

CM,
.
Thanks for the info on the BASSA birdie.
.
How about "BA pilots prepared to strike" on this site, was in Rumours and News for about one year with 1394 posts and 202175 views, but its just been moved to Terms and Endearment with last post about two days ago!!!
.
Lets be clear about stike action, BASSA are working for their members, BASSA do not want to strike, but it's the only option left open to them in looking after their members.
.
BASSA will prove it still has teeth and claws and they look very sharpe to me.
.
Talking of cats, the company gave great rewards to those who were involved in previous wildcat actions in the past, a union working inside and to the letter or the law will get a good result and that's for sure.
.
I hope the next lot of free thank you hotline tickets are club class!!!:ooh:

Carnage Matey!

21st Jan 2007, 23:05

Yep. We were prepared to strike. Through negotiation it looks like that won't be necessary.

BASSA are looking after BASSA, and the militant 100 who voted for a ballot. Since then the members have been looking after BASSA. "Vote Yes, support the union" has been the mantra. They could have tried negotiation like CC89, which appears to have yielded results.

The company gave rewards to people involved in previous strikes when Mike 'Feeble' Street was in charge. When Willy took over there were no rewards, only the sack.

ABird747

21st Jan 2007, 23:19

.
Lets be clear about stike action, BASSA are working for their members, BASSA do not want to strike, but it's the only option left open to them in looking after their members.

What?! If they were so averse to going on strike they would have been talking to the company as Amicus have been!

The line they're stringing you that the company isn't willing to enter meaningful negotiations is clearly crap as Amicus have been negotiating in a sensible way and have been getting results.

WHY ARE YOU GOING ON STRIKE WHEN THERE IS STILL TALKING TO BE DONE!?

tilewood

22nd Jan 2007, 07:00

Walsh and Dromey were interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme
a few minutes ago. It was like going back to the 1970s. When Dromey was
asked, as the union representative, whether he thought an average 0f 22 days per year off sick was acceptable, he would not give a straight answer.

The good ole unions.... meanwhile waiting in the wings and waiting
to perform are the lo-costs!!

AndyPandy

22nd Jan 2007, 09:31

meanwhile waiting in the wings and waiting
to perform are the lo-costs!!

Regrettable but it is obvious from the post by baggersup that he/she is being screwed twice once by BASSA and again by Mr. B seeking to make a killing. I have no doubt all other airlines will too.

Here is some information on what BASSA is demanding, I will leave it to others to decide whether these demands are reasonable.

The specific points raised by the BASSA in the discussions would add more than £37 million a year to costs within Inflight Service.

Some but not all demands are:

Purser/Junior swap

British Airways has the highest supervisor levels of any European airline and, apart from JAL, any world airline, on the Boeing 747-400 aircraft.
BA are offering to introduce this change incrementally, as well as offer voluntary severance and part-time working to provide some room for promotions. Intended fleet growth in the coming years will require additional cabin crew jobs at all grades.

BASSA have asked that BA does not impose any reduction in the number of Purser manning levels on a 747-400 and subsequent increase in main crew levels.

Post 97 pay scales

The BASSA position is to add an extra four increments to the pay scales for those who joined since 1997.

These would be:

1. 16200
2. 17000
3. 17800
4. 18600

This amounts to an 18 per cent pay rise for top-of-scale crew whose earnings would then exceed £30,000 per annum. The cost of adding these to the scale including pensions would be £10.4m per year, rising to £19m over time.

Report times.

The BASSA request for every long-haul report to be one hour before estimated time of departure increases the duty day of every inbound flight and would cost BA £6.2 million per year.

LGW Breakfast allowance

Increasing the LGW hourly rate by a further 4p.

BASSA propose the hourly rate for LGW crew be raised from the £2.41 that BA proposed in December to £2.45. This would cost an extra £306,000 in total per year.

Fixed Links

BA believe that having cabin crew stay with the same aircraft for a given duty period through fixed links can improve stability and punctuality as well as offering crew more certainty in their expected earnings. It also reduces the frustration of time spent waiting around.

BA propose replacing current turnaround payments with fixed link payments so that crew earnings are protected.

This is a proposal that provides a benefit to the company under the IFS business plan. The BASSA proposal is that an extra £700k is also added to standby payments (£20 per crew member per day).

250 CSD headcount guaranteed on Shorthaul

The BASSA proposal is that the company agrees to guarantee a fixed number of 250 CSDs within the shorthaul crew community, whether they are required or not. This would cost £1.4m per year to sustain.

MAN-JFK Route

The Manchester base has now closed and all staff have been given the choice to work elsewhere within the company, to transfer to another fleet, or to leave the business under voluntary severance.

BASSA have made a suggestion for a crewing solution that the MAN-JFK longhaul route become part of Eurofleet and is flown by volunteers only.

This would cost around £3 million more than moving the route into longhaul as planned by the company.

900 hours

Working time rules mean that BA cabin crew can fly for a maximum of 900 hours per year. BA have already employed an additional 350 crew at a cost of around £9 million to comply with this legislation.

There is, of course, an ability to do non-flying work beyond this, up to a maximum of 2,000 hours a year. BA wish to use some of these paid days for training and developing our crew.

The BASSA proposal seeks a guarantee that when a crew member's roster reaches the 900 flying hours level that crew member will not be used for any duty, ground or air. This effectively turns paid working days into extra days off and would cost an additional £5.2 million.

Pensions

BA have committed £6m for use among cabin crew. This could be used either to increase pensionable pay for crew or elsewhere (for example, to address BASSA's desire to improve pay rates for cabin crew who joined after 1997).

There are now a number of further claims for the new NAPS pension proposal from BASSA:

Any crew member considered for ground duty under EG300 section 4 must be skills matched and fully matched or protected on earnings. The EG300 absence policy will match crew to roles where the basic pay is comparable. In addition, any alternative role is fully skills matched before an individual can be placed in it.

BA say that to include allowances, and thereby protect total earnings, would go far beyond the existing process for all other staff groups. In addition, the change would almost certainly have an impact upon the sustainability of tax efficient allowances.

Ill Health Retirement:

BASSA propose that if an individual lives more than one hour travel time or 50 miles from current base then ill health retirement should always be available.

The BASSA proposal here is that any crew member who is unable to perform flying duties due to medical incapacity but is fit to continue working in a ground role, is offered ill health retirement if they live more than 50 miles (or one hour's drive) from their base.

This proposal would cost the company around £3.9 million in ill health retirement pensions augmentation and lump sum payment costs and would require a change in the Pension Trust Deed.

It is also inequitable for other BA employees who already drive for more than one hour to work as well as those crew who live closer to their base.

BASSA propose that a move from NAPS 1 to NAPS 2 with no cost to crew member and no back dating of benefits should be allowed.

The cost of offering a move from NAPS1 to NAPS2 at no cost to the crew member would amount to £4 million.

Buy back at 55 at 6.25 per cent

The BASSA proposal is to offer crew an opportunity to make additional contributions of 6.25 per cent to secure a normal retirement age of 55. This proposal, which was extensively discussed within the recently settled pensions talks with the Trade Unions, runs counter to the position agreed within the BA Forum. Additionally there would be a significant equal pay issue if only offered to the crew community.

P.S. I am not management and the above information has been gleaned from sources available elsewhere.

kaikohe76

22nd Jan 2007, 09:51

Folks, you may well think you have right on your side, but do you really think you will win in the end?

Even now many passengers, remember them at all, will be cancelling BA bookings & the phones at Ryanair Ugh!! & Easy Jet Ugh!! will be ringing. These pax as I said before may very well not return to BA & with good reason not to.

So no problem then. Less passengers = Less need for BA to provide seats = Less need for quite so many CC etc = staff redundancies at some stage down the line.

This folks is not the way, all you will achieve is to loose what little good will BA may still have with the travelling public & they will not return.

WW & his management must be rubbing their hands with glee, what a super excuse for cutting staff & thus cutting costs!!

Still no mention from most posts about the pax, perhaps that shows just what level they occupy in many BA staff's minds.

Flying Lawyer

22nd Jan 2007, 10:45

Still no mention from most posts about the pax, perhaps that shows just what level they occupy in many BA staff's minds.
As a fellow passenger who's followed the discussion from the beginning, I don't think that's either accurate or fair.
Whether it is or not, surely this thread in an aviation forum is mainly for people who work in the industry to discuss the pros and cons of Bassa CC demands?
When those of us outside the industry have asked questions, they've been answered patiently and politely.

the departed

22nd Jan 2007, 10:53

Interesting posts. I find myself knodding in agreement with most of them. 747bird, sporran, CM (not always liked your posts but you're making sense on this one matey) and others in agreement.

YES, we need the unions, YES it's important for them to have claws, YES it's important for them fight our cause, YES, BA would love to strip us of our contracts and here lies the danger ...

Unions should only come out to flight in this way when its completely necessary. Many of the 12 points on the table are a laugh, the others are all solvable. Personally, and please don't have a go here as I'm one of many crew now feeling this way, I voted YES. But I voted yes in good faith. I believed that with a 96% yes vote that would be enough for BASSA to negoiate with alone and they would use that vote WISELY. Now, I think they're running away with their power, and as Get Smart rightly pointed out, taking a lot of over emotional crew ill-informed along for the bumpy ride. A dangerous game with it's your career.

This time, we're dealing with an unknown enemy. We know WW is bad news and he's fully up for the bloody fight, but we don't quite know what he's going to do - but rest assured it won't be pleasant. That is certain. Whatever he has planned, he will have approval but also - he must succeed with his cunning plan or his out of a job so it's risky for him too. He has a lot to loose.

But, this 'american' gun-ho attitude by the unions rather scarey. Now, as a BASSA member, I'm also having a change of heart - because I believe my yes vote is being abused. Coming back to the start of my post, the empowerment given to BASSA by the crew should only be used when completely necessary. Next time, when we need this support, it may not be so forthcoming if crew are left licking their wounds and WW will have won the battle. There lies the danger in our future.

As for the customers, yes they are fickle but there are now more choices (and attractive ones) out there. BA have had a rather horrid year haven't they? It's been one PR disaster after another. With CC set to strike, groundstaff apparently preparing to as well (anyone have any further info on that)? it's not going to be long before Richard has the worlds favorite airline and the worlds fav are out of favour! Richard will win out of this no matter what happens and he's done nothing but sit back and rub his hands with glee.

Good luck to striking crew. I think you'll need it. I'm going to CC89 asap. Sinking ship? :=

kaikohe76

22nd Jan 2007, 11:06

Flying Lawyer, thanks for your reply to my post, I note your comments. May I please make the following myself.

- Does 37 years wearing both a blue & then a black uniform, having gained 17000 hours plus & at one stage (6 years) been authorised to fly both HM the Q & any occupant of No 10 justify my arrendance on this post.

- I still maintain that, by going on strike the only people to benefit in the end, will be management & the only people to losse out will be the Cabin Crew themselves & yes the passenger.

- Do think of the inconvenience & trouble this strike will put the passengers to folks, you may well need them at some stage along the line.

Flying Lawyer

22nd Jan 2007, 11:40

kaikohe76

Infinitely more justification than I have. :)

I suspect you may have misunderstood what I meant. If so, that's entirely my fault for not expressing myself sufficiently clearly.

FL

Roobarb

22nd Jan 2007, 12:07

YES, we need the unions

The truth is that well run companies that respect their employees have no need of unions.

BA has a history of hostile management, that resorts to aggressive and hostile when bullying doesn’t work. They give 19th century mill-owners a bad name.

WW is a one trick pony who offers more of the same with knobs on. He’s a legend amongst macho managers, and is looking for an opportunity to show that world what he’s made of.

One day, if there’s anything left of BA after all this, the board might actually decide that treating its major asset – the staff – with some dignity and respect might produce bountious dividends.

After all, staff sickness is directly proportional to poor morale. So said Ailing Bob.

http://www.toonhound.com/roob-1.gif
I’ll take on the opposition anyday, it’s my management I can’t beat!

egbt

22nd Jan 2007, 12:35

OK, I'll bite, I usually do.
AS for engineering "screw ups", thats's a bit of an emotive term to say the least, so could you be more specfic? Or would you be happier we accepted and flew unservicable aircraft just to avoid delays.

Try this one (of several): 747 has minor fault with 28 days to fix, engineering leave till the last minute (OK last couple of hours) and fail to fix it. So they decide that the CAA will issue a waiver, we board the a/c and sit there for several hours whilst the CSD bad mouths the CAA because a) the person they need to speak to is unavailable and then b) they refuse the waiver. (The Capt confirmed the story to me but did not knock the CAA). Result: 24 hour delay I lost half of my 48 hour trip, meetings missed and a p!ssed off customer.
As a part owner of a GA aircraft I am no supporter of the CAA but they were quite right and BA engineering wrong firstly for leaving is so late and then assuming they would get the waiver. The CSD was just a pr*t.
My point from this and about quality of food etc is of course nothing directly to do with the CC my point was that BA is going down hill, events like a proposed strike can be the trigger for customer defections and once people switch its hard to get them back.

the departed

22nd Jan 2007, 12:39

'BA has a history of hostile management, that resorts to aggressive and hostile when bullying doesn’t work. They give 19th century mill-owners a bad name.'

Hence we need unions. But the unions must behave carefully, we we'll all loose. That's the point I'm making.

Da Dog

22nd Jan 2007, 12:47

BASSA are playing their membership in much the same way Channel 4 played Jade Goody. I hope the CC know what they individually are doing.:ugh: :ugh:
Now I am reliably informed that even the BASSA members forum has been censored, with various posts being removed and threats being made to non co-operative members.:ooh:
Still, desperate times for those with big egos now they have backed themselves into a corner.

M.Mouse

22nd Jan 2007, 13:10

egbt

You post illustrates the frustration that flight crew face with so much of the operation. The example you quote is not so much incompetence on the part of engineering but more an indication of the pressure under which they work due to the continual cost cutting to the point where the operation suffers.

BA still suffers from many legacy issues, gross overmanning, above average Ts & Cs for the majority of staff and many, many working practises which have no place in the present. Instead of tackling the difficult issues, which is basically what the latest diispute is about i.e. bringing the CC into the real world, cutting costs in every other area of the operation has been the norm and in 99% of cases has gone so far as to severely damage our reputation as an airline.

As a passenger you have noticed, and from comments to me from other passengers, so have most regular travellers. I think that fact has finally been noticed on high but bringing our unacceptable cost base under control is a necessity to enable us to once again offer a desirable product.

To give some more examples of the cost cutting stupidity we, as crew, have bright yellow cardboard labels tied to our suitcases to identify the crew bags because they are handled differently from passenger bags. Some bright spark reduced the former robust quality of the labels (each label able to be used for eleven flights). The new thinner labels tear off and are lost after just one or two flights.

You also mention the quality of food, you would not believe the pig swill loaded for crew. I rarely now eat crew food and generally self cater. I won't mention the often 45 minute wait for the crew bus once we have finished our duty (often after having had to wait for buses to collect our passengers in the first place).

If WW succeeds in bringing BA staff into the current century I fervently hope that we can once again concentrate on regaining the reputation we have so badly squandered in recent years.

kaikohe76

22nd Jan 2007, 13:52

FL, thanks again for your post.

As you may have gathered, I have little direct involvement in the current dispute, between the BA Cabin Crew & Management, except often travelling as `walking freight`.

Please be assured, I have absolutely no desire at all to see either BA as an airline suffer, or the Cabin Crew in particular.

However would you not agree, that over the past few years, the once justifiably proud name of BA & all it stood for, gained largely through the efforts of it's workforce, has been squandered (as M Mouse rightly suggests), to the level of almost an `also ran?. The Speedbird logo & also later on the BA logo, always used to stand for a highly professional airline, who always got the job done & was highly respected by the travelling public worldwide.

In my opinion, a series of silly needless disputes, spats, plain bad administration etc, has led to catering problems, check in difficulties, loss of passengers baggage, apparent `your only the passenger` attitude! & this has left many pax with little option, other than to take their business elsewhere for good.

Some years ago I was involved with the Australian Pilot's dispute, they thought they could win & their own Union advised them so, I would suggest the final outcome was rather different. It would give me no pleasure at all to see BA or the Cabin Crew go down the same road. In such a dispute as this surely, the Staff can't win, the Passengers certainly can't win & it will lead to an increasing loss of goodwill to BA as a whole.

Come on folks, get it sorted!

Litebulbs

22nd Jan 2007, 15:27

During negotiations with my company, Market Rate has been quoted many times. We are measured against our direct competetors (charter) in all grades. Give or take 5%, the pay is the same across the big four. the skill is trying to get to have the plus side of all the 5% into your T and C's.
If you look at BA, in all departments and all grades, most are paid at least, but mainly more than the market rate. Their is nothing wrong with this, if the quality of staff that you have, bring the profit into the business, that offsets the extra cost. Its Asda to Waitrose. Is WW looking for the most cost effective way of delivering the BA product, or delivering the product the most effective way?
Another problem with BA have, over most of the other airlines that I have seen in the UK, is turnover rate. At BA, their is a obviously well defined and very well paid career path for cabin crew, both on and off the aircraft. It may be slow, but it is their. Is he bothered about this? Every year their will be a new pool of potential cabin crew leaving education and wanting to see the world. I imagine their a fair few school leavers who dream of working for BA, but not that many who dream of working for TUIfly?! Do you actually need a 20 year CSD or 10 year purser? Virgin are making a fortune as a business, and its about six years to CSS and say 10 to IFS. Most people agree that the Virgin product is excellent. The difference between these products is like comparing the Ritz to China Whites. The thing is, their will always be a market for Ritz passengers.
It is a brave battle BASSA are taking on. WW would have been mandated to fix the cost of cabin crew and he will do or he will fail. But if he fails, I am sure there are a few protections drawn into his contract; protections that the average employee does not have.
Still, I am on the side of the CC, as BA are making loads of cash and I feel that they do deliver a great product. Only time will tell though.

CFC

22nd Jan 2007, 15:38

Litebulb - yes 'market rate' is regularly quoted on this thread. It explains why there is such a massive turnover within BA currently especially at LGW where on average 25% of each course leave within 6 months. It is now commonly known that better basic salary and T&C's can be achieved at many more airlines nowadays.
As for the need of a 20+ year CSD - well that is probably the difference between BA and the rest, I'm sure your well seasoned travellers viewing this thread will agree. Experience in ANY job has its many advantages...

Litebulbs

22nd Jan 2007, 15:45

CFC

I agree with experience, but does the bloke at the top? Is that turnover rate the same for LHR?

roll_over

22nd Jan 2007, 16:09

M.Mouse

22nd Jan 2007, 16:10

Still, I am on the side of the CC, as BA are making loads of cash

Is that as a percentage of its market capitalisation or compared to equally poor performing airlines i.e. all of them?

It explains why there is such a massive turnover within BA currently especially at LGW where on average 25% of each course leave within 6 months.

Exaggerated figures but leaving that aside could you tell me who negotiated those Ts & Cs for LGW crew?

The turnover of CC at LHR is minimal, they bitch and moan but rarely leave.

CFC

22nd Jan 2007, 16:17

From what I understand the cabin crew are the worst in BA to go off sick. An average of 22 days sick is terrible, I suppose these sick days coincide with flights scheduled to unpopular destinations.

I wonder what the average number of sick days for the chaps up front is?

roll over - get with it. Those original 'sickness' figures included crew on maternity and long term sick. Even now if one is sick over MBT it is still counted as the total when in fact there was no roster to be sick on. Like an accountant BA manipulate these figures to suit themselves.......and amzingly some actually believe them !!

Carnage Matey!

22nd Jan 2007, 16:19

In the pre-ballot propaganda BASSA were claiming a turnover rate of 1% to remind crew that they'll be in BA for ever and they'd better vote yes.

Litebulbs

22nd Jan 2007, 16:29

Mouse

Your points are valid, but which ever one is right, they are still making loads of cash.

Your comment about turnover is the bit that would worry me if I was crew. It should worry BA, but clearly it doesn't. A 25% turnover rate is terrible and shows that BA is not the employer of choice that it should want to be, however, the training courses are still full. Would that be the case, if their was a turnover rate of 25% at LHR?

People flock to BA because of the money that could be earnt there, but take that away, would they? Some people do their job for the love of customer interaction, some for seeing the world, but most do it for the money

roll_over

22nd Jan 2007, 16:35

Ok then, not going by figures that may have been spun I will go with what I have been told by my father, which is that they take too much time off sick. After working for well over 20 years at BA I doubt my father took anywhere near 22 sick days.

I don't see how the cabin crew can be complaining at all, from what I gather the pay for cabin crew is very reasonable , they are flying at a prestigious carrier and the hotels that they get to stay in aren't exactly shabby. Don't get me wrong, i think the BA cabin crew do a great job, but in this instance I think they are just being unreasonable.

Maybe they should take note of what the SIA cabin crew put up with, retirement at 30?

M.Mouse

22nd Jan 2007, 16:56

Your points are valid, but which ever one is right, they are still making loads of cash.

There are none so deaf as those not wishing to hear.

atyourcervix73

22nd Jan 2007, 16:57

Staff Travel arrangements in the event of strike action
The airline is currently reviewing its contingency plans following the announcement by the T&G cabin crew branch that it intends to hold a series of 72 hour strikes, starting next Monday (January 29).
The airline remains committed to finding a resolution to this situation through sensible discussion and negotiation. However, it also has a responsibility to give relevant information to staff and customers as soon as possible.
It is our intention to announce the commercial flying schedule for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (January 29 to 31 inclusive) on Wednesday this week (January 24).
This announcement will be supported by a new commercial policy for our customers that will apply to any cancelled flights.
As part of these contingency plans the airline will be suspending all personal (bookable and stand-by) staff travel on BA mainline services from 23:59 on Thursday, January 25 until further notice.
Exemptions to the staff travel embargo are staff returning to base, as well as commuting flight and cabin crew.
This embargo will be reviewed throughout this week and if a resolution to the dispute can be reached, it will be lifted. Staff should also be aware that the embargo could be brought forward if operational requirements dictate.
Staff who still wish to travel ahead of the embargo are strongly advised to purchase a range of back-up tickets. They should also be aware that available capacity on other carriers is likely to significantly reduce if a strike goes ahead.
Duty travel on British Airways' services will also be suspended from 2359 on Thursday night until further notice. Any exemptions to this must be approved at director level.

The fun starts.................:hmm:

M Mouse, as you WELL know, BA don't currently measure performance as a % of its market capitalisation, rather the measure is % operating margin.................and for the last quarter it was,
July-September 2006 (Q2 2006)
Q2 Operating margin
10.4%*
BA Way target 10% (full year)
The Employee Reward Plan will pay out if FY operating margin exceeds 8% after costs of the scheme.
* excluding the BA Connect write-down

So BA are making a rather large sum of money :=

Silver Tongued Cavalier

22nd Jan 2007, 17:10

Good luck to all the BA Ccms coming up against WW, I've always been well looked after by BA cabin crew over the years, and they are a top bunch of people, even if they all vanish to the bunk after the sevice is finished !!! ;)

I have been on Strike/Lockout for 4 days with my colleagues in Aer Lingus due to WW and I know its very stressful.

100% unity is the only game in town. There are no winners and losers in this war, just attrition on both sides. He knows that, and so MUST you.

tristar500

22nd Jan 2007, 18:30

Where do the unions go next IF the strikes indeed go ahead? Whats the plan after the 3 rounds of 3 day strikes...

BA clearly take the action threat seriously, putting out their 'change of travel' policy to customers who have booked through intended strike dates. Can you beleive however that customers WILL NOT be entitled to a refund - they will only be able to change date/time of travel. Hardly fair when school holidays etc are fixed :mad:

Life jackets at dawn. Someone has to give. If the unions back down, then Willie will have a field day from this point on. If Willie backs down, he will face complete and utter humiliation :{ So, its going to be very interesting indeed - WHO DARES WINS :ok:

CFC

22nd Jan 2007, 18:51

I don't see how the cabin crew can be complaining at all, from what I gather the pay for cabin crew is very reasonable , they are flying at a prestigious carrier and the hotels that they get to stay in aren't exactly shabby. Don't get me wrong, i think the BA cabin crew do a great job, but in this instance I think they are just being unreasonable.
Maybe they should take note of what the SIA cabin crew put up with, retirement at 30?

Is that the answer then roll_over....all become subserviant smilers for the likes of you and your type.

From personal experience on SIA I would not recommend becoming seriously ill......

Having just been down SIN way with no spare seats in either direction, BA can't be THAT bad as some would think.

All readers of this thread might want to consider what they actually do expect from any cabin crew on any airline.

Final 3 Greens

22nd Jan 2007, 18:55

All readers of this thread might want to consider what they actually do expect from any cabin crew on any airline

Well, turning up for work is fairly high on the list for us pax.

Wolverhampton

22nd Jan 2007, 19:01

I have been observing from afar both sides of this discussion since it's start.

As a BA passenger with long haul travel plans that coicided with the proposed strike dates, I have now cancelled my BA flights and booked with another airline. The simple economic reality is that BA have now lost my money, and will loose the money and confidence of many other travellers

I understand the frustrations of those that voted for action, but what a time for disruption. Passengers want good service, good products, good aeroplanes etc etc. Without these things, they will go elsewhere. That means less money, meaning less investment. BA has to save money or be more efficient to break the ongoing cycle and start an upward trend of investment to attract new and dissillusioned passengers.

WW will not give up and he will not fail in his intentions. Short term huge disruption for long term stability and investment. Shame it has to be done in this way, but BA is a business in a competative market.

Seat1APlease

22nd Jan 2007, 19:03

I recall the cabin crew "strike" about 12-15 years ago. They were all mouth about their determination to strike until their demands were met.
On the appointed day some reported for work, and very few actually went on strike, they all started calling in sick instead, thinking that way they would be untouchable.

Well times have moved on and the option of going sick for three blocks of three days is hardly an option with the EG300? programme which they have signed up for.

If the management were to dismiss all those on the old contract then that would be unfair dismissal and they would be entiteld to compensation of around a weeks salary for each year of service. The figure will obviously vary from individual to individual, but lets say a figure of £5000 might be typical.
How long would it take to re-coup that money with new staff on new contracts?

If they are determined to stay out until their demands are met in full including items such as the re-opening of the Manchester base then I think their prospects are bleak. The original justification for all the regional bases Man, Gla and Bfs was that it saved the costs of crew nightstopping in those places, and that they crewed regional services from Man, but that's all in the past, those services are now Bacon/Be.

I wish them luck in trying to hang on to hard won T&C's in difficult times but I fear they are not going on win this one.

CFC

22nd Jan 2007, 19:13

Wolverhampton - spot on!

Unfortunately the BA spin machine is blaming everything onto CC in this latest dispute when in fact its their doing that has brought all this on.

As for "good service, good product, good aeroplanes" we have been telling our 'management' for years now that these items are just not good enough.

As a SCCM with BA I spend 90% of my time apologising, the other 10% trying to fix the antequated IFE system. Its not what I want nor my colleagues - we want to return BA to its premier position in the airline industry but unfortunately thats' not one of our managements goals....

Mister Geezer

22nd Jan 2007, 19:18

E-mail sent out by BA this afternoon to customers:

The Transport and General Workers Union's (T&G) cabin crew branch has announced that it is planning industrial action on January 29, 30 and 31; February 5, 6 and 7; and February 12, 13 and 14.

We would like to assure you that we remain committed to resolving this dispute through continued talks. We have today asked the conciliation service Acas to assist us in taking this process forward with the T&G.

In the meantime, all British Airways flights continue to operate normally.

We are currently assessing the impact any potential industrial action will have on our flight schedule, in the event that a strike does take place. We are working as quickly as possible to confirm our plans for the affected period. We aim to make information available about the first period of action and will update you with this as soon as it is available.

We understand that this is an uncertain time for our customers. We would like to reassure you that we are doing everything we can to make sure that disruption is minimised in the event of any industrial action.

If you are due to travel between January 29 and February 16 we understand that you may wish to change your plans. As a result, we have introduced a policy that enables you to rebook flights for a different date. If we have to make flight cancellations as a result of industrial action, we will publish a comprehensive policy that will cover rebooking, rerouting and refund options.

You may be able to make changes to your booking via the Change Booking facility on ba.com. Please visit
http://ba.com/mmb for details.

If you are unable to make changes to your booking on ba.com you can call British Airways or contact your travel agent.

If you are in the UK you can call us on (freephone) 0800 727 800.

If you are calling from outside the UK you can find contact details of your local British Airways call centre on ba.com
http://ba.com/travel/ctclist

For the latest information on the situation, please go to the latest flight news pages on ba.com
http://ba.com/lfn

Yours sincerely,

British Airways

Finals19

22nd Jan 2007, 19:22

Seat1APlease:

If the management were to dismiss all those on the old contract then that would be unfair dismissal and they would be entiteld to compensation of around a weeks salary for each year of service. The figure will obviously vary from individual to individual, but lets say a figure of £5000 might be typical. How long would it take to re-coup that money with new staff on new contracts?

You're missing the point here. There are roughly 14,000 Cabin Crew at BA. It takes only a small percentage of these to go on strike to cause a severe disruption to service and the associated knock on effects through cancellations and loss of revenue. So lets just say that you sack all the old contract crew. How many crew do you think BA have ready and trained to move in and take new junior positions from previous juniors who just got a jump in seniority due to senior striking crew getting the boot?

My point is that to just fire everyone who goes on strike is going to further cripple BA, as there is no tangible way of replacing these people quickly. There would be a HUGE shortage of manpower (there already is) and the loss of revenue from lack of such and the cancellations to service is only something that BA have a finite contingency plan for.

So, if the CC do strike (lets hope that doesn't happen) playing hardball by firing people is going to sink BA further (FWIW the minimum training time for a CC member at Cranebank from zero to operational is about 3 weeks)

:ok:

M.Mouse

22nd Jan 2007, 19:34

I support the crew! I have my interview with BA this Wednesday, but i still think not only the cabin crew is underpaid

It does rather beg the question why you want to work for such an underpaid company then.

CFC, the arrogance evident in your last two posts epitomises the whole problem.

There are roughly 14,000 Cabin Crew at BA. It takes only a small percentage of these to go on strike to cause a severe disruption to service and the associated knock on effects through cancellations and loss of revenue. So

He doesn't have to sack them all, just the ones who don't turn up for work on day 1. If the level of commitment when push came to shove in 1997 is anything to go by the strike would collapse in 48 hours.

BASSA's campaign for a yes vote was the most cynical piece of manipulation by any organisation that I have witnessed for years. I cannot help but have sympathy with all the crew who really didn't believe that they would have to actually strike. These are some of the same crew who express complete suprise when they learn that you don't get paid when on strike!

Railgun

22nd Jan 2007, 19:39

As of Thursday there is a indefinate embargo on all staff travel on BA.

kaikohe76

22nd Jan 2007, 19:48

Railgun,

Perhaps they will have to travel with Ryanair, Easy Jet, etc, like the rest of us passengers then!!!

Wolverhampton

22nd Jan 2007, 19:51

CFC, you seem to have misunderstood my post.
I understand how you must feel when facing passengers as you have described, but in order to get new aeroplanes with better technology etc there has to be more money. This can only come from being more efficient, and your management quite rightly is on the war path against anything that is inefficient. You need to take a step back, understand the whole cycle, and then understand where the money for investment to attract new passengers is coming from. And with new passengers, you have more money, and happy passengers tell other travellers, who then choose BA. I see a pattern forming...

stormin norman

22nd Jan 2007, 19:59

The BBC interview this morning with Jack dromey and willy walsh is worth a listern.Mr dromey couldn't answer a question straight all interview.
And where on the CC ballot info was there ever a mention of pay raises for existing cabin crew of 18 % ?
1-0 to willy i'm afraid

tristar500

22nd Jan 2007, 20:06

As of Thursday there is a indefinate embargo on all staff travel on BA.

Its the staff who had booked holidays during this time I feel sorry for... School hols and the likes. I booked flights with EZY as I had an idea this might happen. The times were better, fare was cheaper and it was confirmed! bmi domestic UK flights in particular LHR will be full of staff travel passengers! Just what the Dr ordered for them at a atime when the loads really need boosting. Good luck to them :O

Its time ALL of the staff within BA made it clear that the 'leader' has lost the backing of the workforce. Lets face it, if BA were a football team, WW would be out on his ass! What has he done to improve the BA product since joining? NOTHING! All he has done is quite literally gone round various departments in turn and 'wound them up' to breaking point. He appeared last night on TV - WAW... The first time since this all began. Giving excuses and trying to play the guilty concience card on the cabin crew as they would be disrupting travel plans for thousands... YES but why and why now? Because you have failed in your duty Mr Walsh to bring the company together and work as a team. The name British Airways is - BRITISH. Not LHR T5 against the rest of the UK or the world. You have not only alienated the Cabin Crew - BUT alienated staff the length and breadth of the UK, Britain, ie England-Scotland-Ireland and Wales. You have taken a very proud and resilient workforce and thrown them to the lions.

Not once in the past 12 weeks (since the initial botched announcement) have you made any comment on the UK Regional Staff futures within BA. Your team led by Bev 'chopper' Bennett (Thats another story...) has held the staff in the regions in contempt to the highest level. Its surprising how the daily schedule continues without 'disruption' considering we are still waiting for news 4 weeks after we were originally to be told. :mad: :mad: :mad:

You deserve all you get Mr Walsh. No sympathy what so ever. Its no wonder the cabin crew voted 96% in favour of strike action. Lets see how many GMB ground staff members vote in favour... We cant all be wrong. Maybe we should be voting you out! You should take on board the results and study them carefully!

Flying Lawyer

22nd Jan 2007, 20:07

According to the recruitment section on the BA website, to be eligible to join Cabin Crew, you need (in addition to the right to live/work in the EU, passport etc):

To be aged at least 18
To be a minimum of 5'2" in height, with weight in proportion
To be physically fit
GCSE or equivalent in English and Maths

I know many CC have more qualifications than that, and could do jobs requiring higher qualifications, but that's irrelevant because they've chosen to do a job which requires 2 GCSEs.

eurocan says "C'mon 13000 per annum??? Give me a break etc"
I can only assume that is the basic salary, not the actual pre-tax earnings per year.
I assume that because I know from friends who are CC in BA that the actual pre-tax earnings are considerably more than that, and have just been reading a Times article (June 2006) about someone who gave up a very high earning job to become a BA Flight Attendant saying his income "took a dive to £21,000 a year." He'd been CC for 2 years when the article was written.

Finals19 says "FWIW the minimum training time for a CC member at Cranebank from zero to operational is about 3 weeks."
Even assuming the 'normal' training period is double that or more ....

How much do those who say BA CC are underpaid think someone with 2 GCSEs and a couple of months training should be earning a year pre-tax so that they they would not be 'underpaid'?

Carnage Matey!

22nd Jan 2007, 20:26

tristar500 - Sadly you cannot just blame WW for the demise of the regions, the London based staff generally suffer a bad case of "I see no ships" when any CEO has gone with his axe to the outstations. Whilst I think it's a great shame that so many staff in the regions are likely to lose their jobs, I would ask you what else the company was supposed to do? With the closure of BAR and the sale of BACon the number of BA flights in the region will be a fraction of their former number. Do you really expect BA to retain the same number of ground handling staff?

sweeper

22nd Jan 2007, 20:36

saying "only fight battles that you can win"

with the lack of understanding of the nature of your opponent (WW) and the general air of innocence (IMHO) displayed in the posts, methinks this one is lost already!

be very careful...........

atyourcervix73

22nd Jan 2007, 20:39

Sadly you cannot just blame WW for the demise of the regions, the London based staff generally suffer a bad case of "I see no ships" when any CEO has gone with his axe to the outstations

Carnage you are right, you can however blame successive CEO's, the latte' quaffing waterworld inept middle managers singular lack of managerial ability, and of course...3 accountants for every aeroplane:hmm:

would ask you what else the company was supposed to do? With the closure of BAR and the sale of BACon the number of BA flights in the region will be a fraction of their former number.

Symptomatic of a business sorely lacking quality leadership.
How can an airline management team, after the most sustained period of economic prosperity (sept 11 was a relative blip..given most airlines were rationalising capacity before this) fail to maximise its competitive advantage, then choose the easy option of attacking staff T & C's rather than addressing the underlying fundamentals that continue to cause bad feeling, poor productivity, and now industrial unrest...???
:oh:

M.Mouse

22nd Jan 2007, 20:49

How can an airline management team, after the most sustained period of economic prosperity (sept 11 was a relative blip..given most airlines were rationalising capacity before this) fail to maximise its competitive advantage, then choose the easy option of attacking staff T & C's rather than addressing the underlying fundamentals that continue to cause bad feeling, poor productivity, and now industrial unrest...???

What utter tripe.

frequentflyer2

22nd Jan 2007, 21:04

And no prizes for guessing for where that approach came from. The company I have loyally worked for for nearly a decade with another paddy at the helm.......

You know who I mean.........[/quote]

I'm sorry but I really don't think the use of the word 'paddy' here is appropriate. 'Irishman' or even 'ruthless Irishman' would be quite acceptable but 'paddy' has other connotations.
It is traditionally an undeserved derogatory term used by some English people - and others for that matter - when referring to natives of the Emerald Isle.
I doubt whether either of the two gentlemen in question would conform to the stereotypical image the word conjures up.
Incidently, although I live in Belfast I don't hail from this side of the Irish Sea. Mrs. Frequentflyer does, however, and found herself referred to as a 'paddy' and worse on a number of occasions during visits to England.
These verbal assaults occurred at the time when everyone from Belfast (or anywhere in Ireland North or South) was regarded as a potential threat to state security.
Thankfully, those days are over and the use of the word 'paddy' in this context should be no more acceptable than any other form of racial abuse.
I hope the administrators of this otherwise excellent website and the person who posted this contribution will think about these comments.

Now I've go that off my chest I do hope all concerned in the BA dispute will try to come to some kind of compromise allowing the planes to keep flying AND the airline's cabin crew to enjoy good terms and conditions. I really don't see how strike action and its repercussions can do anything but damage the airline industry in the long term.

yachtno1

22nd Jan 2007, 22:02

It's an alternative for Patrick or Padrich... just like the kiwis call us Poms .. or the Americans Yanks .. can't see a problem really ..:confused:

Carnage Matey!

22nd Jan 2007, 22:09

Less of yer racist stereotyping please or yer might end up with a bomb under yer car.:}

Flying Lawyer

22nd Jan 2007, 22:24

atyourcervix73

Do you mind if I ask you some questions? I'm finding the debate very interesting and am curious about the stance you take.

I hope you'll agree that a fair summary of your 30 posts approx on this thread is that you've been largely supportive of Bassa's claims and suggested BA has caused a situation where Bassa's call to strike is justified.
Yet, only a year ago, on another thread, you described "BASSA...(the union bigwigs)" as "a bunch of Stalinist, card carrying, 2 jobs when one will do...muppets."
It seems to be rather a dramatic change of mind. :confused:
Has the leadership improved so dramatically in a year? (Or 13 months, to be precise.)
Isn't Bassa's opposition to the reduction in supervisory positions an example of the '2 jobs when one will do' mentality?

You've dismissed some of those who disagree with your views about the way BA is run as "armchair CEOs".
Do you agree some of your claims about BA's financial state and criticism of its long term financial strategy make you ever so slightly guilty of that yourself?

In March last year, you said you were thinking of leaving "a well known and respected UK charter operator", cosidering applying to BA for a DE F/O position, and asked BA pilots on Pprune about the prospects on various fleets? Then, in July, you were asking for tips in readiness for your assessment?
Did you hold such a poor opinion of the way BA is run then?
Or have you formed your views in the few months you've worked for BA?
(If you do, of course. ;) )

You've said previously that your wife is BA CC.
Do you think that might be influencing the stance you're taking?

FL

atyourcervix73

22nd Jan 2007, 23:23

Flying Lawyer.....

I'm a current BA f/o of few short months of experience, in that time I've found a large minority of the left seat with whom I share my days with (is that representative?) to be pious, self-centered, self-serving, and utterly without compassion when it comes to issues affecting anyone other than themselves:hmm:
The current industrial strife has bought all those wonderful traits to the fore in this thread from certain Flight deck individuals on here. (you can decide who they are)

My opinion of BASSA is unchanged.(they do behave in a rather stalinist fashion at times!)...my opinion of the reasons behind the frustrations felt by the CC is also unchanged, as I've seen it first hand.

My other half is far less opinionated by my good-self, she is however aware that WW intends to stamp his authority on this issue, and she is prepared to stand her ground with her beliefs.....most of which relate to being treated with decency and respect.

As for my financial assessment of BA as a business, perhaps I am guilty of some 20/20 hindsight, the fact remains however that BA cannot afford further industrial unrest...my city contacts suggest that institutional investors are getting tired of the continued upheaval. The current directorship portfolio sale is evidence enough for many.

Perhaps we should be calling to task a management policy that actively encourages division? or at the very least wonder why so many people from one part of the company fell compelled (whether you agree or disagree) to act in such a resolute and decisive fashion.

I'll leave that with you to ponder

overstress

22nd Jan 2007, 23:28

I'm a current BA f/o of few short months of experience, in that time I've found a large minority of the left seat with whom I share my days with (is that representative?) to be pious, self-centered, self-serving, and utterly without compassion when it comes to issues affecting anyone other than themselves As opposed to cynical and judgemental? Try looking out of the side window in the cruise a bit more! (try studying the starboard wing-tip - that normally gets the message across) And turn the intercom gain down a little, and keep away from the BASSA forum. Try the pub! :)
Sorry , ayc, couldn't resist that! :p

atyourcervix73

22nd Jan 2007, 23:30

As opposed to cynical and judgemental?

Big words for late at night:ok: :E

Plus the pub is closed!!

Mister Geezer

22nd Jan 2007, 23:46

It made me laugh to come across this comment that Mr Walsh apparently made when he was chief negotiator for the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA)

A reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations.

Touché will no doubt be the response from BA Cabin Crew!

Da Dog

23rd Jan 2007, 08:08

This from the Daily Telegraph:

BA unions add toenails to list of grievances in sickness row

Nothing better illustrates just how bad things have got between British Airways and its cabin crew than yesterday's petty row. The subject? Ingrowing toenails. Are they in or out?

In, if you ask BA's combative chief executive Willie Walsh, brandishing a seven-page letter sent by the airline to Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. Out, if you listen to the T&G.

advertisement
A word of explanation. Next Monday, unless the two sides find an agreement, the 10,500 of BA's 14,000 cabin crew belonging to the T&G will walk out for the first of a trio of three-day strikes, costing the airline a minimum of £15m a day and serious damage to its reputation.

Top of the list of grievances is BA's new absence policy, introduced for cabin crew in October 2005 to cut the average number of days they took off sick from an astonishing 22 a year.

It has worked, because the average is now down to 12, though, mysteriously, pilots get by with seven. But cabin crew are furious over how it has been implemented.

T&G spokesman Andrew Dodgshon says: "People are genuinely in fear of calling in sick."

Take more than 12 days sick, crew say, and they face an inquisition by their line managers. So they want some illnesses exempted from their dozen days, including colds, blocked ears, vomiting and broken limbs. And ingrowing toenails, BA says. "Ingrowing toenails are not on the list we gave to BA," Mr Dodgshon insists.

Perhaps this is what counts as serious debate in the rarefied atmosphere at 30,000 feet, but even the current policy is causing BA problems. Every day, 700 cabin crew are off sick, a figure that cannot be explained by the demands of switching time zones and working in confined spaces.

In the letter to Mr Dromey, David Lebrecht, BA's head of employee relations, says he recognises the new policy is "a genuine concern to our cabin crew. We do not expect or want cabin crew to come to work if they are unwell. Nor do we expect or want to return to the excessive levels of crew absence we experienced before."

BA spokesman Paul Marston says: "Already, 26pc of actual absence doesn't count towards the 12 days. The difference is, we want these kinds of concessions to be discriminatory."

From the sickness issue, contagion has spread to create a mind-boggling list of grievances. Mike Powell, an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort, says: "Some of them are ridiculous. There's no logic to them. I think BA are right to stand their ground. It may cost them a lot of money and cause disruption and damage to their brand, but otherwise they are going to give back all the savings they've made."

Cabin crew also want:

* A rise at the top end of the pay scale for workers who joined after 1997. Today ordinary crew can earn a maximum £27,373. Those promoted to pursers can earn £47,900, while a cabin services director can make £54,500. While this is at the top end of pay rates for the industry, it is less than can be earned by those that joined BA before 1997, which adds legitimacy to their claim, though BA says improving the post-1997 pay scale would add an initial £10.4m a year to the wage bill.
* An abandonment of BA's plans to replace one of the four pursers on a 747-400 with a junior member of staff, which crew say reduces promotion opportunities.
* A 4p-per-hour increase to £2.41 in the food allowance for staff flying from Gatwick.
* Exemption from any ground duties once a crew member reaches 900 flying hours a year, which BA says "effectively turns paid working days into extra days off".
* Retirement on appropriate benefits for any crew member no longer able to fly because of medical incapacity but who is fit for ground duties if they live more than 50 miles from their base.

BA reckons these, plus various minor claims, will increase inflight service costs by £37m a year, just when its rivals are becoming more competitive. It is an argument, however, that is unlikely to cut much ice with the British Airlines Steward and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), a more militant wing of the T&G.

Some 10,622 cabin crew were balloted on a strike, with the 8,132 that voted representing 96pc in favour. Some in Bassa feel they are reflecting a wider disaffection for Mr Walsh, as a glance at pilots' website pprune.org highlights. Pistonprop writes: "BA cabin crew have my full support. What modern CEOs like WW don't grasp is that staff such as cabin crew are the front line." Another pilot, styling himself apaddyinuk, writes simply: "Willie out! Willie out! Willie out!".

Last week Mr Walsh looked pained when he said: "I was disappointed to see our cabin crew staff cheering at the prospect that they might disrupt families flying. That's something we need to talk about."

He only has a few days left for talking.

Mr Powell says: "I think there is going to be a strike. It's a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object."

Pity the author has promoted apaddyinuk to that of a pilot:(

.......... and further

Maybe Jack Dromey is suffering from blocked ear. That may explain why the Transport and General Workers Union deputy general secretary failed three times to answer a question on the BBC's Today programme.

He was asked if it was acceptable that British Airways' 10,500 cabin crew take an average 22 days off sick a year.

He should have had no problem answering it because, after two years' efforts from both sides, the average is now down to 12 - still pretty high compared with the seven days for pilots.

The problem is, if his members get their way, it is going back up again.

BA's "absence policy", which yesterday degenerated into a row over ingrowing toenails, is just one of a surreal list of grievances that has provoked the cabin crew to push the nuclear button and call for up to nine days of strikes. All betray just how far relations have broken down between BA chief executive Willie Walsh and the T&G, and particularly its more militant offshoot - the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association.

With the help of those helpful people at Acas, both sides now have less than a week to avert a strike which analysts reckon could cost BA as much as £300m and do untold damage to its reputation - already sullied after the pre-Christmas fog and missing luggage debacle.

Mr Walsh may need to make a few minor concessions but caving in to all the demands would be a disaster for an airline that needs to drive through more change before the move to Terminal 5 at Heathrow.

In an increasingly competitive world, Mr Walsh needs to make clear that some of the union's demands are straight out of the last millennium.

Giving in now could leave both Mr Walsh and his shareholders feeling more than a little airsick.

BASSA are showing themselves to be stuck yet again in the 1970s and for the benefit of their own egos are manipulating crew with ill informed rehtoric:ugh: :ugh: