British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations [Archive] - Page 16

MrBunker

29th Nov 2009, 11:39

CFC,

If I'm speaking out of turn when I try and suggest why there may be a modicum of disbelief, please excuse me but, I think the disconnect lies in the fact that some regular posters on here have asked some very straight questions which no-one from the pro-BASSA side of the debate has either been able, or seen fit, to answer. I know from reading CF that this forum is derided as being irretrievably biased and full of bitter Nigels or wannabes who'll get no closer to an aeroplane than MS Flight Sim but that very stance means that you'll never get the understanding or support of people who, by their very questions, strive to understand more fully your position and stance.

But, and this is only my point of view, it's incredibly frustrating when people won't actually engage in the meat of the debate and answer some simply put questions. Your case is not assisted greatly by those who support you coming on here, playing a personal attack card, being banned or merely putting BASSA 100% :ok: as a posting.

I note from Crew Forum a debate which really exemplifies the problem if you don't feel the way BASSA want you to feel. For those without access it debates the recent secondment/promotion campaign for CSD's that BA have run. Some have dared to suggest that those who apply for it may not be the undermining of all that BASSA hold dear and have mooted other issues which have contributed to a degree of undermining. Those people have been excoriated for their point of view. Moreover when the debate turns to whether or not BASSA won their day in court (we all have our opinion on this), those who dare to suggest they may not have are lambasted with "how do you know?", "were you there?" and then these self-same attackers in the very next sentence proceed to say they know they won because BASSA told them, even proclaiming they know that BA's lawyers admitted defeat on the contractual point because, yes that's right, BASSA told them.

On neither side is there any proof of the above. One most certainly will prove to be correct in time but neither person can claim absolute knowledge and this undermines any attempt at debate all the damned time. It's so depressing that so many armchair CEO's seem to think they know better than WW how to run the company yet can come up with nothing more constructive in debate about that very issue than "Wake up and smell the coffee". That's not debate - it's sniping and it belittles the very core of the argument.

Your passions are undeniable. Your articulation of the root and validity of those passions falls somewhat shorter.

All the assertions made, thus far, by BASSA have, as far as I'm aware not been backed up by one provable piece of evidence. Claiming you offered the savings without an audited proof of such means nothing. I can claim I saved BA £300,000 on my last flight. I can't prove it but if I say it often enough does it become true? Not really.

Same with the fines etc - it's now an article of faith through repetition that had BA not played their, admittedly, underhand fixing games, that we'd not be in any financial trouble whatsoever and none of this structural change would be necessary. The fact (verifiable through the company accounts, which, despite many of the assertions, BA don't, and can't, run 2 sets of just to screw the CC over) is that they were accounted for in a different year to this one in which (the news will tell you) we are making record losses which are unsustainable. So BA aren't coming to you to pay the fines. They're accounted for. Too many beliefs are held as facts due to the catechistic manner of BASSA's preaching.

I respect each and every crew member's right to hold their opinion but when you read of so many taking pride in the fact they don't read anything BA sends them, then I weep for the fact that on that statement alone, one can never form a balanced opinion, formed by one's own mature mind. It isn't fact because BASSA say it is, nor, indeed, because BA say it is. But, the least you owe yourselves is to read all the available information and then form an opinion and not to only absorb the information that supports your pre-defined viewpoint.

Apologies for a ramble, one of the failings of my brain.

MrB

Desertia

29th Nov 2009, 11:40

CFC and A Lurker, you both claim to have received calls yet you don't say what those calls were about. Were they asking you which way you were voting? Were they putting pressure on you to vote No as BASSA claim?

My question as to was it a "Waterside manager" that phoned, or actually someone you knew, has been answered and I thank you; the rest of my question hasn't, which based on your past form (CFC) suggests you are being evasive once more, or you need time to describe these conversations in a manner which suits your argument.

As for whether it's my business, as a former premium FF who stopped flying BA because of the miserable and off-putting attitude of some of their tired old staff, to offer my opinions on how both BASSA members and BA can get me (and probably many others) flying BA again, fortunately that is none of "your business". I and the mods think I do and that's all that matter thank heavens. You cannot throw your BASSA weight around in this thread as you can and do on other forums.

If you don't like my opinions, that is your prerogative, but I am afraid you are going to have to lump them if the moderators consider that I have a right to participate in the thread. You'll just have to get over it.

Please stop your diversionary "it's got nothing to do with you" tactics and answer the questions that we continue to pose on this thread, and from which you continually hide.

wobble2plank

29th Nov 2009, 11:50

My point is that they are more than capable of looking after themselves without Fincastle and Desertia sticking their noses in.

Surely the point of an open, frank discussion/debate is that, on Pprune, everyone is allowed to voice an opinion. The fact that the opinion might come from Flight Crew, Cabin Crew, passenger or someone with a passing interest is irrelevant.

I could suggest that comments from passengers who are experiencing the best/worst of the current coal face dispute can be extremely useful in gaining the passenger insight. Whether to posts are genuine, irrelevant or conjecture is not up to the posters reading, if they are the latter then they get ignored/moderated.

Locking a thread down to just those who are, in the eyes of others, involved would lead to the CF style of ranting/raving and gratuitous 'back slapping'.

At least on this thread there is discussion and, where possible and with the exception of CFC, answers are provided. :ok:

midman

29th Nov 2009, 13:13

CFC,
Can I ask yet again, what you think strike action is going to achieve, and what are the expected sequence of events that will result in your desired outcome?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that people have no idea where they are going with this.

Prove me wrong.

4468

29th Nov 2009, 13:52

midman

It seems pretty clear from comments on here, and discussions elsewhere, that BASSA has no plan beyond 'sending Willie a message'.

Once people realise a yes vote alone will achieve absolutely nothing, then we will see which party takes the initiative in these matters.

One group has a very definite plan, with many contingencies. Sadly, I fear the other organisation has nothing more than the 'mantra' we see from some contributors here.

Golden Ticket

29th Nov 2009, 14:14

Just to get this straight, I had a call fom my manager in the last week. She informed me that they were calling everybody. It was purely to say they were concerned that a lot of crew were quite scared about the circumstances we are all in and if I had any concerns that I could contact them just as easily as the union. I had no questions for her at the time and at no point was I asked how I had or was going to vote. The union and ballot wasn't even mentioned.

I have a good relationship with my manager and I've always found it easy to have a frank and open discussion with her. Maybe this is the call people have been getting?

dave747436

29th Nov 2009, 14:17

Mr Bunker,
An excellent post which expresses my thoughts far more eloquently then I could.

Desertia,
My wife is a Purser, presently applying to be a CSD.
Whilst visiting her manager (in CRC) a few days ago for some feedback/information, said manager was working her way down a list of names, telephoning each in turn, and not enjoying the experience very much.
I believe she was contacting 'her' Pursers to ask if thay had any questions about the ballot/ BA's position.

If ALurker said he was contacted by his manager, I think it pretty likely he was- I believe many crew are being contacted.

(Or maybe I'm a BASSA rep in disguise, too!!)

I don't think BASSA would need to pull a stunt like the one you're suggesting.
BASSA just need to tell the troops to vote YES whether they intend to strike or not, which they have already done.

Unfortunately BA know this, which makes it almost a certainty that BA will call BASSA's bluff & see how many crew will put their money where their mouth is on day 1 of the strike.

I genuinely fear for my wife and the other hard working, moderate crew I meet day-in-day-out.

Alexandraa

29th Nov 2009, 15:02

It could be true because my manager phoned me recently and asked if I was worried or had any concerns about the dispute. She never asked about what I would be voting. I have a very good relationship with my manager and I will tell her about my voting. Some might say it's none of their business but I have nothing to hide and stand for my opinion.

At least I made up my mind today after a lot of thinking and pondering and I will be voting NO.

Voting YES had been wrong because I can't actually explain what the ballot is all about and going out on a possible strike under that sort of illusion would be such a fault.

It's neck or nothing.

HiFlyer14

29th Nov 2009, 15:26

Let's put this one to rest - managers are calling us. It's absolutely fine, and the majority don't have a problem with it. TBH I doubt the union would have had the intelligence to dream up a scam like that!

Well done Alexandraa for having the guts to talk about it. You are not alone, I truly think many people are really thinking about the ballot this time, and they are asking the following questions:

1. What will be achieved with a strike? (Nothing)
2. Will I put my job and livelihood at risk? (Yes)
3. Are BA asking too much of me? (No)

The Union have no plan for what happens after the ballot, and that is a very dangerous position to be in. You can bet your bottom dollar that the other side have a plan!:rolleyes:

Vote No - You won't be alone in doing so.

The above represents my own personal views and not that of BA.

jetset lady

29th Nov 2009, 15:56

I wish I hadn't mentioned it now, but seeing as I did, can I reiterate a few points. Managers were not calling us back then. The calls were made at approximately 1900G from a person claiming to be a manager at Waterside. The crew called were of different ranks and had different managers. The only thing they had in common was that they were BASSA members. There was another strong coincidence, however, I can't go into details, as it could lead to someone being identified.

On reflection, I agree that BASSA probably have more sense than to risk pulling a stunt like this but, having seen the evidence, I am also forced to believe that it was not an official BA call, or even a mistake made by one of the less than bright Waterside staff.

I can only conclude that this was a one off, by someone with a grudge, looking to stir the pot. There may even have been a personal angle involved and bearing in mind the way that BASSA subs are collected, contact details could, I assume, be obtained by someone from either side of the fence.

Once again, I apologise for bringing it up in the first place. I was curious to see if anyone else had experienced the same thing. Can we forget I ever mentioned it? Please? I really need to go to sleep now... :sad:

Jockster

29th Nov 2009, 16:09

You bet BA have a plan following the expected YES vote:-

Option 1 (BASSAs preferred response from BA)

BA go to the courts to get an injunction against any strike being implimented - this they could easily achieve given the tenuous lack of reason for a strike ballot in the first place.

Result - BA win because the new crew compliments are in and the savings are made. BASSA also win because they could claim thier hands were tied by the courts and it's the big bad company preventing their membership from exercising their right to take industrial action and how the Union has the moral high ground etc.

Option 2 (A BASSA nightmare)

BA don't try to fight in the courts at all and do nothing thereby calling the unions bluff. The union will be forced to announce strike dates which will be broken in the first 24 hours once a few crew are sacked. The union loses all credability. BASSA falls apart and BA get to impliment even more changes early in the new year following disappointing quarterly results etc
- New fleet implimented early along with Operational Recovery Proceedure (the replacement for the disruption agreement).

Option 3 (BASSAs worst nightmare)

BA yield to cabin crew pressure and announce the recent impostion of crewing levels is cancelled / rescinded. Crew joy for 24 hours until the 90 day notice to terminate all CC contracts under SOSR rules hit the doormats and that existing crew are invited to accept new (New Fleet) contracts or please return their uniform etc.

My bet is option 2 because BA win massivley with little disruption / cost.

BASSA would hate options 2 or 3 but option 3 is the worst for the union reps personally because it affects all crew not just the ones who are sacked on day 1 of the strike as you can bet none of the reps will be rostered to work that day.

SlideBustle

29th Nov 2009, 22:04

I'm BA cabin crew (LHR) I only joined a couple of years ago and I must say this is an awful awful position for us all to be in (including other people working at BA pilots, ground staff, baggage handlers, call centre, head office etc etc) I am like Alexandraa, very confused on how to vote, lots of mixed mixed messages and ALOT at stake in one important decision. Yes or NO? I THINK I am going to vote No in the end but haven't done so YET, just want to make sure. Must admit I am glad I came across this forum, I use all the other forums official and non whether I post or just lurk. It has allowed me to look balanced at the whole issue.

I wish negotiations could continue, for everyones sake. Yes, I suppose you may think well BA have imposed, what could they impose next. Well they have been negotiating for 9 months. I think with such dire financial results they had to do something about it. Of course negotiation is what they should do, but they have, surely if they can't come to an agreement and the savings HAVE to be made soon or else... then they have the right to do this. It's only crew complements that have been imposed... Similar complements (well for the 777 and a319 as they don't have the others) as LGW have been operating with and manage, don't know how our service compares, but surely the union could of saw this coming when they allowed SFLGW? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick.

Having said that... I don't agree with making us cheap and ending our careers.... neither do I agree with turning this into a gap year job... but BA have not imposed new t&c's, and have said they are willing to negotiate on new fleet, new contracts etc... surely the Union could agree to this invitation by BA get down to some serious negotiations on IT'S MEMBERS behalf. There were many things in the UNite proposal I didn't agree with.... they suggested 1 SCCM on a euro 767 no PSR, noone complained because it was a BASSA proposal but as soon as BA do it it becomes unworkable, unthinkable and a nightmare although I do think it's the worst part of the new crew complements, mainly because of the promotional prospects.

I want a future with BA, I would like promotion, I want BA to survive and to be the great airline it can be. Most of my colleagues are fab and make this airline great, sure there is PLENTY of deadwood that bring shame but we do deserve a future. To have a future we need change... yes we don't need to be shafted but the key to this is negotiation.... I must admit though, I do worry when the people in BASSA say if they imposed this what next... there will be no promotion etc.... but is this all propaganda. Or do they have a point.

Inclined to vote No but still very much confused. However I think I'm slowly coming to my senses as to the consequences of a strike and the reality that surrounds us (airlines gone bust, bmi sheding jobs, BA losing money etc etc!)

Sorry for my long post, just alot of emotions and thoughts racing through my mind!

Desertia

30th Nov 2009, 05:00

Thank you for elaborating on the telephone calls from your managers.

Given the current circumstances, offering to answer your colleagues' questions seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I wonder why A Lurker would be so angry about it - or is it simply that some of those answers might expose the BASSA sham?

Let's remind ourselves of the oberfuhrers' orders shall we?

With a ballot paper due to arrive next week you will increasingly find yourselves the subject of much management “activity” by way of phone calls, meeting aircraft, attending briefings etc to enquire as to your intentions when voting.

From the people who've spoken here free from the shackles of BASSA censorship, it sounds as if nothing of the sort has taken place in the 18 days since this drivel was published; another BASSA LIE.

WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM BASSA!

fincastle84

30th Nov 2009, 06:16

However I think I'm slowly coming to my senses as to the consequences of a strike and the reality that surrounds us (airlines gone bust, bmi shedding jobs, BA losing money etc etc!)

You say you have only been with BA for a couple of years. Well, your words show wisdom far in excess of that. What a pity that your BASSA leaders don't exhibit such wisdom.
Congratulations on your excellent post & please accept my sincere sympathy for the extreme stress being suffered by you & your colleagues. Good luck in reaching the correct decision & best wishes for a successful & happy career with your great airline.

exeng

30th Nov 2009, 07:44

I have sympathy with your predicament.

I'll offer some advice if I may (because you seem to be asking for it)

As background I used to work for BA both on the ground as an Engineer and flying both as an F/E and Pilot (34 years) - I have never been Cabin Crew. I am not now in the BA pension scheme and very rarely travel on BA as a customer. So I am reasonably unbiased apart from the fact that I have quite a few friends who still work for BA - flying (as Pilots and Cabin Crew) and on the ground (as Engineers).

For BA to survive they must remain competitive. Changes in working practices have to take place in order for BA to be competitive - it is that simple. If they don't then BA will die. The Management team know this and they will play their cards very carefully to ensure that BA survive (think shareholders here) - they will try and do this with the least blood spilt by shareholders, customers and staff (in that order). They are a caring employer but they will spill blood if necessary to survive.

I think a majority yes vote is likely, but a lot of folk who vote yes will not strike. So much is at stake here that I think a small number of the initial strikers will be sacked but after some time (with any Management sense) they may be re-instated.

The strike (if it takes place) will be broken because for BA shareholders anything else means kissing goodbye to their investment. The Management team will try by any means to ensure that BA survives (If I was a BA investor that is what I would expect them to do) For BA Management it is simple - the strike may break us but the alternative definitely will break us in the long term.

So Slidebustle make your vote but please think carefully about what you stand to lose and what you may gain (if anything)

I wish you and your colleagues all the best.

Regards
Exeng

plodding along

30th Nov 2009, 08:47

From several posts above it seems no one really knows what this is about any more.

I think we need a straight talking pro BASSA person to come on here and explain without emotion what the issues are and what the plan of action actually is.

We need to know the aim of this potential strike.

To go back to the beginning BA set a cost saving target of £140m or 24% for IFCE (I know it was £82m originally but that was before the fleet stand downs).

Each department had it's own cost saving target.

Some departments, after seeing an independant financial review accepted these savings, polled their members and came up with a negiotated settlement.

BASSA held a big meeting at a racecourse and about 1000 crew voted on the other 13,000's behalf to say they DID NOT accept the cuts.
I don't recall BASSA polling the remaining members.

BASSA then came up with it's own £174m cost saving proposal which was not only later valued at £54m but was temporary.

They had a mantra of "temporary soloution for a temporary problem".
ALL their savings were to be paid back in full after two years (please correct me if I am wrong), that is after all what the 1000 had voted on - no cuts, full stop.

(Did BASSA even actually poll it's members on how to achieve these tempory savings? Did crew want middle east back to backs? Did they want a 2.61% pay cut? Did they want crew complements reduced? I don't know.)

So, the membership wanted no cuts, so BASSA offered no cuts. (Just a temporary soloution to be paid back in full)

Nine months later nothing had changed because BA wanted/needed permanent savings and the membership had still not accepted permanent cuts.

One presumes this would have gone on for infinitum, BASSA were never going to agree with BA's cost savings because the membership had told them not to.

Thus the imposition.

Now, the strike ballot seems to be because of the imposition, BASSA say remove it and get back round the table.

So two questions, if (option 1) BA did remove imposition and get back round the table, has BASSA and it's membership's position changed?
Do they now accept the need for £140m savings or not?
If not then surely we are back to the same deadlock we've had for the last nine months and talks will go on for ever with no agreement reached.

Question two, (option two), if BASSA now accept the £140m target and with the involvement of the membership negiotiate a way of achieving it. How could this be done?
Forgive me if I'm being simple but to save 24% of a department's wage bill you only have three possibilities:

1: a 24% reduction in wages (ouch!) Crew have said they do not want this.

2: a 24% increase in hours worked. As longhaul crew already do circa 900 hours this would mean shorthaul making all the cuts, a huge lifestyle change by reducing days off and increasing sectors flown through fixed links etc.

3: Reducing the number of crew on board by 24%, thus keeping pay and hours worked the same.
Given the above three choices would crew not vote for option three, thus having the same end result as the imposition?

The other big factor is that in reality 24% is very hard to achieve through the current workforce, from the BASSA newsletter the BA imposition only saves about £40m, the other £100m will come from new fleet.

Is this not a good thing? If a strike forces new fleet away then the remaining £100m would have to come from current crew, am I not correct in saying that when new fleet was removed a few months back the current crew faced reduced days off and single night stopovers in addition to the complement changes?

I've had enough typing now but what I'm trying to say is that despite the imposition is this not the best solution anyway?

If customers genuinely suffer a little then that is an unfortunate result of necessary cost cutting, do crew really want to swap the reduced complements for a large pay cut or a big jump in sectors flown just to get more crew back on the aircraft?

I'm perplexed.

Please could someone outline how crew would prefer to make these savings (if at all) assuming it's not the way BA has imposed.

　
　
　
　

Flap33

30th Nov 2009, 09:06

You raise some good points worthy of rsponse from BASSA, but let's face it - that won't happen (you'll get accused of BASSA bashing!)

All you could expect is the standard BASSA response of figures fiddled by BA / price fixing fines / poor fuel hedging / greedy pilots / what recession?? (Delete as appropriate)

I am sorry but BASSA are absolutely clear that they have the support of the membership when they voted (I use the term losely) at Kempton Park for NO cost savings. That, IMHO, means that you will NEVER get BASSA back to the negotiating table to work something out as it would be the same as admitting defeat.

They have lead their members up a creek then have sold the paddle in an attempt to preserve the terms of the few at the top of the tree.

Willum4a

30th Nov 2009, 09:59

As someone who would really like to make it home from foreign parts for Christmas and New Year, I do hope you wont vote for a strike, it will cause so much misery to those who dont deserve it, us passengers. In my limited experience a strike will have no real effect on management whatsoever. :uhoh:

dave747436

30th Nov 2009, 10:18

Plodding Along,

Nice summary, I think - and especially worth restating that BASSA's offer was temporary, to be repaid at the end of the business plan. (Whether it was £54m or £174m is moot, if the saving was temporary it didn't meet BA's criteria (no other department has refused to negotiate on permenant change.))

The only point I would make is that the initial £82m, and latterly £140m saving, is over the life of the BP. ie: 2 years.
It's not a £82m (£140m) year-on-year saving, more like £60m y-o-y once fleet contraction has been stripped out of the figures.
£60m is, what, 10% of the IFCE budget- ish?

So in your 3 options, the work harder/pay-cut balance would be more along the lines of 10%...

All IMHO and willing to be corrected!

Clarified

30th Nov 2009, 10:24

Plodding along said...
Please could someone outline how crew would prefer to make these savings (if at all) assuming it's not the way BA has imposed.

Well how about this for starters!
Stop the ballot and get around the table to negotiate the following ideas.
Accept that everyone in our company needs to save a lot of money.
Ask for new fleet to be integrated, with current crew.
To achieve this we have to have the same slip patterns, you can’t have half the crew on a night stop with the other half on 2 local nights rest in SFO for example.
Maintain all long range services (over 12.30 hour duty) which involve an 8 hour time change at 2 local nights rest. Give a reduction on all other flights.
This would keep West Coast services inc. PHX/LAS as they are and also protect ALL Far East services. South America, India and MRU would reduce but our services are not daily to most of those,
CPT/JNB trip lengths would decrease, however there is little time change in that part of the world.
Accept the monthly travel payment but negotiate a condition that it is reviewed annually to account for any increase in long range flying. (The downside is that it could also reduce).

Accept the changes to crewing levels.

On Eurofleet negotiate to keep last day finish times and 10 days off per month for existing crew. (New contracts would only have 9).
In return allow short turnarounds/fix links on all services. Remember our hours are governed by scheme/industrial limitations so there is only so much flying we can do. Also the nature of our schedule allows for a lot of night stopping, again helping with lifestyle/work load.

There is some pain in my suggestion, we all have to give a bit.

The benefits for us would be an integrated fleet, current crew being able to move between fleets and main crew looking forward to promotion etc. (Our fleets have growth planned in the medium term, A380 B787 etc. Despite the crewing level changes, promotion opportunities should be available).
We would keep ALL our pay at current levels. Meal allowances would remain unchanged and trip lengths to some of our favourite destinations would be protected.
The company would save on future contracts, (market rate, hourly rate, productivity, increment scales etc). It would save on crewing levels. It would have improved utilisation of aircraft and crew on all fleets.
As an ‘old contract’ leaves the business the company would save again as their replacement would be a lot cheaper to employ.

What ever happens a NEGOTIATION will be required at some stage.
The sooner that happens the sooner we can look forward to our futures rather than staring into the abyss.
Hope this helps.

(I am cabin crew at LHR, these comments are my personal ideas. They do not represent my employer’s view or any other party).

Da Dog

30th Nov 2009, 10:28

From Andrew Lobbenberg, European Transport Equity Research RBS.

On Friday afternoon the aviation leadership team at Unite briefed city analysts on the ongoing cabin crew dispute at BA. Relations seem very poor between the union and management, with the union in our view resenting the company’s efforts to drive through a cultural shift that secures decision making for head office. We think the strike vote will be close. The key technical issue is whether BA’s recent operational changes have imposed contractual changes or not. This will not become clear until the February court ruling. We therefore think that the union, if it does win a mandate, will look to delay strike action until the spring.

Unite’s position is that it has engaged with BA and from the start of negotiations has recognised the need to make concessions given the current acute downturn facing the industry. Unite said that BA’s opening proposal to them, many months back, was remarkably similar to what BA has now imposed. This cost cutting package was not deemed acceptable to members and was rejected. Unite came forward with its own package of cost saving measures, centred on a two year pay freeze, a 2.61% pay cut (as offered by pilots) and increased flexibility in the context of disrupted operations. The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.

Following the failure to agree a mutually satisfactory package of cost saving measures, the company is imposing cost cutting measures, including the reduction of staffing levels on long haul and short haul aircraft and is planning in the future on implementing a new set of terms and conditions for future new joiners, which will cross utilise crew between short and long haul operations. The company claims that staffing levels are not contractual and can be changed without union agreement after consultation. The union claims they are contractual and that proper consultation did not take place. The company has already implemented the long haul staff reductions and is due to implement short haul during December.

Unite applied to the High Court to have an injunction placed on BA to stop it implementing new staffing levels. The injunction was not granted but an expedited court date in February was set for a hearing on the matter. The union characterises this as a victory: it says that BA sought to have the injunction dismissed and setting an expedited court date recognises that there is some merit to their case. The union says that BA sought to be awarded costs but failed. The union also said the judge offered to impose an interim injunction but said the union would be liable for damages had it lost in the final hearing – a risk it was not financially able to take.

The union is now balloting for industrial action. The ballot will conclude on December 14 allowing the union, if the vote is successful, to launch industrial action from 21 December. The union said it was confident of a strong vote in favour of industrial action. The union also said it would not be surprised if BA sought an injunction against the ballot on technical grounds. Unite said it did not expect its ballot to fall foul of the same problems that the BALPA pilot union strike vote did last year – challenging BA’s right to maintain operations in other European countries. The pilot case also related to concerns about future use of the open skies airline, which is not permissible under UK labour law – ballots may not be about potential future action by the company. But the union does still expect a legal challenge. It argued that if BA does find a technical flaw in the ballot procedure, the union could correct and re-ballot immediately. They argued that in such scenarios the blocking of industrial action typically strengthens union’s case towards staff and results in stronger votes for industrial action in subsequent ballots.

The union also flagged that if it were successful in winning the injunction in the February Court date, staff would be able to claim damages. Under BA’s previous operating conditions crew who operate flights short of a cabin crew member can claim an extra £200-260 per sector (depending on seniority) and get a day off in additional compensation. If BA were found to have forced staff to operate with fewer crew than contractually agreed, the union expects to be able to claim this level of compensation for all flying since the introduction of the currently imposed conditions. It estimates this as a cost of £10m per month in additional sector pay, with the cost of extra leave on top.

The union also argued that building up this dispute with cabin crew will only make its pension deficit negotiations all the more fraught and could jeopardise the June 2010 deadline for finalising the deficit recovery scheme.

Our thoughts

There are three key issues. Can the union win a strong strike mandate from staff? Are the changes made by BA contractual or not? What is the timing of events?

On the strike mandate, the union sounded confident to us, but they could not hold a briefing and do otherwise. The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support. We do think this will play a role and will weaken support. We do not expect staff eying part time working or voluntary redundancy to support the strike. We would expect weaker support for strike action at Gatwick – somewhat simplistically, management are trying to make Heathrow staff productivity as good as Gatwick – the only reason Gatwick staff might chose to support industrial action would be to keep alive hopes of transferring in the future to the significantly more lucrative operation for them at Heathrow. Otherwise, the union is working hard to get a positive vote with a strong turnout. We do not think the union will get a very very strong mandate, though it might or might not get a majority for action. We think it will be close.

We are not employment law experts and have no clear view as to whether the changes made by BA are contractual. The company states confidently that they are not contractual. The union argues the reverse.

In terms of timing, we think the union would probably prefer for strike action to be delayed until after the court has judged on the contractual/non contractual issue. Were the union to call strike action before there is legal certainty on whether BA’s changes to terms and conditions are contractual, then should they lose that legal question, they would be liable for very significant damages that might bankrupt the union. We therefore think the union wants to threaten strike action over Christmas, to deter passengers from booking BA, but will want to defer action into the spring. The union will be looking for the cycle to improve and hence strengthen its hand. The union will be looking to run the dispute on towards the June 2010 pension deadline. If there is a vote for strike action, it is possible that there could be a real game of poker, with the union hoping for an injunction from the company to protect its holiday operation, whilst the company could choose to hold back and see if the union dare actually strike without legal certainty of its position.

Underpinning this battle there does appear to be an ideological dispute. The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. The significant cuts to management ranks have seen many operational leaders who had good links with unions, leave the company – this has cut off the working relationships. Repeatedly, the union contended that the reductions to staffing ratios were weakening BA’s premium positioning and threatening the brand.
We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. We think BA’s leadership is keen to force cultural change on the institution and breaking established union management links is key. Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.

plodding along

30th Nov 2009, 11:25

Clarified, I'll re read your post in greater detail later, as far as I remember an integrated fleet was on the table during negiotations in the summer.
BASSA did not accept it or try to tweak it (such as swap 9 days off for fixed links).

If forced back to the table again are you saying BASSA would accept it this time?

I would have thought BASSA should have done a bit of polling to find out what crew do/do not want.

It does look like a bit of a personal agenda from senior old contract CSD's.

Just a point of note of saying you can't get much more work out of crew, maybe not on longhaul but certainly on shorthaul.

Many full time shorthaul cc do in the region of 500 hours, made up of lots of single sector days and standovers.

I don't think they will be too chuffed if BASSA agreed to fixed links ending up with mainly two day, six sector / three day eight sector trips and 750 hours pa.

It would mean then that shorthaul would bear most of the pain, although that would probably suit the longhaul CDS's quit well.

The article above seems informative.

midman

30th Nov 2009, 11:25

From Andrew Lobbenberg, European Transport Equity Research RBS.

The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. T...We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. ....Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.

Nail, head, hit etc.
This ballot is being sold to Bassa members as a dispute about imposition. What Bassa tells the city is that it's about power. Power to control the day to day operation, and BA quite rightly want that control back.

Interesting too that they think the ballot will be close....

flybymerchant

30th Nov 2009, 11:28

The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.

...so FINALLY the Cabin Crew union admit to telling rather LARGE porky pies (LIES)- their own version of the 'truth' sent out to all CC members quite clearly told all Cabin Crew in black and white print that the value of their offer to BA was £175 million!! Yet here they have to admit (as they can't lie about financial matters to the City!) that they only ever thought it worth around £100million and that actually Price Waterhouse Coopers independently valued their TEMPORARY cost cuts at £54 million!!! I emphasize the word 'TEMPORARY' here because not only was their 'offer' only 35% of what was required, it was also conditional on all cuts being paid back to the crew as they thought that the crippling drain of antequated working practices, annual IA, less work for more money, BASSA running the company etc etc was only TEMPORARY!

...and all this 'financial' hocuspocus worked out whilst refusing to look at the company's confidential financial accounts! Incredible!

Exposed as complete LIES, told directly to their fee paying members!!

wobble2plank

30th Nov 2009, 11:41

The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support.

Wow, another startling revelation that cropped up in this thread from all the posters who, according to the BASSA proles, 'don't know what they're talking about'.

Along with all the other spin that BASSA have had to put the brakes on under scrutiny.

What a surprise.

Looking after the membership? Nope! Abject power struggle? Yep.

fincastle84

30th Nov 2009, 12:08

The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support.
Blimey, has BASSA been reading my posts on PPrune? Maybe, just maybe, common sense will prevail after all.

Clarified

30th Nov 2009, 12:15

As I understand it the intergrated fleet idea was accepted by the company, but they also needed other things to make it work and get the savings they were looking for eg. double nights down route. (If anyone one has a different understanding of this please feel free to correct me).
Hasn't this been one of the big issues all along? How and what to give in order to get the savings and not change the crews T & C's drastically.

If forced back to the table again are you saying BASSA would accept it this time?

I haven't got a clue what they are thinking!

My post is mearly my suggestion of a way forward, we are debating how it could look, what may or may not be acceptable, healthy stuff.
We need a lot more of that, wouldn't you agree?

NB. When I fly I try and avoid discussions onboard re. IR issues, however when asked my opinion I do enter into respectful debate. The message I get loud and clear is an intergrated fleet is the best option.
I would hope my colleagues representatives would be aware of that feeling.

Jockster

30th Nov 2009, 12:37

Clarified - I don't think the Company are interested in a way forward with BASSA at all - see DaDog post earlier:-

We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. We think BA’s leadership is keen to force cultural change on the institution and breaking established union management links is key. Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.

The money issue / crewing levels are all by the by. It's about who runs the Company. The only way management can get that power back is to break the union - the earlier the better as the current financial climate helps their cause.

BASSA have fallen into the trap a treat - they have called for a strike. BASSA have to hope now that the Company block the strike using a legal challenge so they can save face.

However, better for the company to allow the strike to happen and break it - job done, power regained as no more BASSA.

flybymerchant

30th Nov 2009, 14:08

.....good-riddance, BASSA has been nothing but a dreadful, parasitic scourge on this once great company, which, in its final death-throws (BASSA), STILL wants to bring everyone/everything else down with it.

Perhaps our children's children will learn about this at school.....maybe they'll learn how, for DECADES, a few selfish and greedy individuals got together to brainwash the masses into doing their bidding; holding a Multinational FTSE 100 company to ransom, using the company's demonstrated and world-renowned good-will and generosity with regards to terms & conditions, pension and salary against it in the most disgraceful and un-British manner, threatening to bankrupt it rather than joining ALL other work-groups in desperately needed CHANGE.

Or perhaps they'll just learn about how the company that helped to design, develop and produce Concorde, bringing supersonic commercial air travel to the world was bankrupted and destroyed by 14,000 staff members who refused to listen to both sides of an argument that threatens their jobs and just did what they were told to by the handful of most senior cabin crew members who had most to lose from their minions educating themselves.

Perhaps once this morally corrupt, head-in-sand, self-serving, ignorant, unnecessarily aggressive, spiteful & vindictive union is overthrown, those Cabin Crew members sensible/enlightened enough to post on this site (once free of the OPPRESSION) will start a new union, from the ground up.

It's the only way. Some of the CC posting on here are clearly highly intelligent, reasoned individuals with a passion for British Airways, a sense of fair-play and the sort of can-do, pragmatic approach that would see the Cabin Crew enjoy a respected, esteemed, honourable and honest representation at the highest of levels within the company....your fellow colleagues NEED you. BA Cabin Crew DESERVE better than this!

The lies, the deceit, the mis-information, the scare-mongering, the bullying, the mud-slinging, it's all GOT TO GO. Start thinking about what kind of mission directive you would like to read from the next union reps....could you deliver better representation for your colleagues than this lot?

Remember that the current warlords suspended democratic election in the run-up to this 'dispute'?...well, when it's over they will eventually have to give way to the will of the masses and to democratic protocol and allow the elections. WHY NOT STAND FOR ELECTION?

Surely only a very small minority of BASSA members would want to re-elect the current reps (after how they've 'represented' you) over someone with a sensible head on some sensible shoulders? GOOD LUCK TO THE NEW UNION.

p.s. ask yourself why BASSA have (year-in, year-out) refused BALPA's olive branch, collaborative invitation of working together to gain strength in unity on the bigger issues? What (apart from dictatorial power) could BASSA hope to gain from poisoning its members against other work-groups in the company? Why do they perpetuate lies about the pilots that they KNOW aren't true? Could it be because people are easier to manipulate once you've encouraged, developed and aggravated their prejudices? Pilots?! Look how much better they get treated! It's definitely NOT because their union is better and actually represents them, it MUST be because they're getting one up on us!!! NO FAIR!!!!

...oh, and why, after refusing to join in on any of the big discussions (pensions/cost cuttings) does BASSA just jump in at the last moment (often without asking the members what THEY want) and try to copy the deal that BALPA spent months on? Pensions? Just give us the same deal as the pilots.....is that GOOD representation? Cabin Crew members may not WANT the same deal as the pilots, they may have different priorities!

As proved by the CATACLYSMIC failure to negotiate/represent, when BASSA lamely offered a small portion of the BALPA negotiated (over many months) cost saving settlement, the 2.61% PAYCUT!!!! Whilst this only made up about 1/3rd of the pilots cost-savings and so was woefully short of the mark and not at all thought out, surely the point is that THIS UNION IS OFFERING PAYCUTS THAT ARE NEITHER WANTED BY YOU, THE MEMBERS, OR INDEED THE COMPANY! Such representation need to be questioned and the people responsible MUST ANSWER to the people that pay the subs, you the members!

BY NOT VOTING YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE VOTED YES.

START A NEW UNION, STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, STAND FOR ELECTION

Jean-Lill

30th Nov 2009, 15:01

IMHO, I do not think the strike will happen regardless of the voting outcome. They would have to be very sure they will win the court case if they intend striking beforehand. Public support for them would be zero if they strike over Christmas

Supposing the 1 Feb court hearing rules in BA's favour and the union have already had a strike over the issue.

What position would Bassa be in there?

SlideBustle

30th Nov 2009, 15:03

Firstly, thanks fincastle for the comments, despite not being here for as long as some, I try to be balanced before reaching a decision.

Clarified you have hit the nail spot on really. That is actually what should of happened to start with - oh, actually it did really but as soon as these suggestions were made by the company - the union were out with the emotive newsletters.... I'm not a BASSA basher, I do support the union as there is always a place, but this hasn't been played very well at all. I'm sure there are plenty more moderate bassa members, but unfortunately the militants will always have the louder voice and be more noticable.

New Fleet proposed to start with (they knew about it 2008, just waited until this year to action it apart from the newsletters to put the fear of god in you!! Remember last years ''The airline that stole Christmas?'') Talks started around Feb/March I think, when New Fleet proposed with some changes to us like crew complements, no working down/up payment, fixed links on EF etc etc... BASSA suggested an integrated approach as didn't want to starve us of work..... BA actually did listen, however to have an integrated approach, some of our trip patterns would have to change. BA did listen but from the militants it was NO NO NO - accept our proposal - which was obvious it didn't save enough money there was hardly anything to it really!! This then dragged on and BA obviously thought we have VR/part time to give something HAS to be done,. so had to do the new crew complements, New Fleet is not set in stone, but the union rather than negotiating things as you have said Clarified, instead they have taken their membership to a position where we shouldn't be!

I don't see anything in what you suggested to be unreasonable really, I don't think HKG/SIN/NRT/PVG etc should be done as a single night (I'm a Eurofleeter but I imagine it wouldn't be nice) but why not even just trial some of the shorter destinations having this. Didn't Virgin trial this? How did they get on?? As for EF, I didn't agree with the losing a day off, wouldn't really want to finish after 9pm on my last day, but wouldn't mind fixed links, etc (means you get home quicker!!! If you have to do more doubles so be it something HAS to be done!!) We could keep our pay and just have new contracts on hourly rate and as you said promotional prospects!! Don't really see a problem. But some people will.

Some people are never happy whatever is proposed, they don't want fixed links, to lose sa day off, less crew, a seperate new fleet, more doubles, etc etc... they want to be untouched. I don't want a pay cut or to work like a slave, but don't really think many BA proposals are unreasonable. Some I didn't agree with like I said, which is why negotiation has to be made from ALL members being asked, not just 2000 or whatever :hmm: We can't remain untouched!! Which would be lovely, but this is the real world... and look at it!! Not really pretty at the moment with a RECESSION on is it?? Really hope for the sake of everyone at BA including myself we come out of this, even if REASONABLE compromises are made, as BA are a great airline... would hate our stubbon-refusal to change at all attitude to destroy that!!

PHEW RANT OVER!! :rolleyes:

PS: New crew complements on Tuesday, abit apprehensive, but will work as best as I can to them, I will not try to make them not work,. Don't get me wrong if they don't I will report, but if they do work then fab! That's something we will just have to compromise!!

Clarified

30th Nov 2009, 15:27

Hi Jean-Lill,
I am a bit confused. According to various internet sites re. industrial action it has to be taken within 4 weeks of the ballot closing. It can be extended up to 8 weeks but only if both sides agree!
That means any action would have to be under way mid Jan at the latest,
assuming the company did not agree to any extension.
Any legal eagles like to help me on this one?

Jockster

30th Nov 2009, 16:08

You're right clarified - which is why the union is praying that BA challenge the strike mandate in the courts. If BA do nothing (which I hope and believe they will) then BASSAs hand is forced because they will have to announce strike dates within the 4 week period or come up with a good excuse why not and why they have to re-ballot.

Either way, this means a huge loss of face because the strike won't work and the inadequacy of the BASSA leadership will be shown up for what it is - rubbish! BA then regain control of the company which is the real prize in all this.

The UNITE union are going to be even more upset when the legal proceedings go against them in Feb because the legal bill will seriously drain their coffers.

All this is actually irrevelant to the cabin crew on the ground. It's about BA verses BASSA, a power struggle. I'm afraid whatever happens, New Fleet terms and conditions are on their way for ALL CABIN CREW - it's unstoppable now - sorry!

HiFlyer14

30th Nov 2009, 17:47

Slidebustle - welcome to a balanced forum. You have posted an intelligent and well-thought out post, and I would like to respond to a point you raise that a lot of crew seem to be asking:

must admit though, I do worry when the people in BASSA say if they imposed this what next... there will be no promotion etc.... but is this all propaganda. Or do they have a point.

First of all, we need to be very clear on a couple of things.

1. This is not about a BALLOT. This is about a STRIKE. Do not ask yourself whether you should vote Yes or No. Ask yourself whether you are truly prepared to sit at home, on a day when you should be checking in for a flight. Are you really prepared to breach your contract in this way in the hope that the majority of other crew will do the same? Slidebustle, you probably haven't seen the previous strikes, but believe me it gets very scary in the last 24-48 hours prior to strike day.

2. Secondly, the Union is telling us that we are voting to strike, not about New Fleet, or crew complements, etc. but about IMPOSITION (and you outline your fears above). To say that we are striking about IMPOSITION is ridiculous. It has to be about WHAT has been imposed, not about the imposition itself.

Two years ago, the company IMPOSED a profit share. We didn't quite reach the required 10% profit margin, but it was felt that in view of T5 etc and the hard work everyone had put in, we deserved the reward. Did the UNION ballot about that? Of course not. So it can never be about the IMPOSITION itself, but only about the WHAT that has been imposed.

So, you then have to ask yourself WHAT has been imposed, to know whether or not you are prepared to strike, and sit at home when you should be flying. And the WHAT that has been imposed is simply reduced crew complements. End of. WW are already doing it, and due to the low loads are not having any real problems. EF start tomorrow and will undoubtedly just get on with it. So where's the issue?

Slidebustle, you have ventured onto this forum, like the rest of us, because you have a gut instinct that what the Union is doing is wrong. Do not feel afraid. Crossing a picket line at T5 will be easy - simply come in dressed in civvies and enter like a passenger! It will be a lot harder to picket at T5 than in previous strikes, and I'm sure there will be a mass of us getting together to come in to work. We will find a way.;)

Jockster - I would just like to correct what you have said - New Fleet is not unstoppable. BA have said it is not set in stone and that they are prepared to discuss options with the Union. This very reason makes the Union stance even more ridiculous.

VOTE NO. COME TO WORK WITH THE REST OF US.:D

The above represents my personal view, and not that of BA.

Jockster

30th Nov 2009, 19:33

HiFlyer - technically you're correct (as always) BUT in order to survive long term BA have to be competitive and current T&Cs EVEN WITH the reduced crew levels are unsustainable.

New Fleet T&Cs (Virgin +10% etc) is what ALL crew will eventually end up on in the not too distant future - I'll bet my house on it.

The conspiracy theorist in me is convinced that this whole thing has been stage managed so BASSA gets the blame for the early introduction of New Fleet because the strike (which the Union called) forced the company to sack so many CC and incur losses etc.

If I were CEO and was looking to enhance my reputation for my next job- this is exactly what I would do. The benefits are HUGE and the current economic climate is perfect for such action.

finncapt

30th Nov 2009, 19:46

Jockster

I may not agree with your reasoning but I think your right with where this is going.

Sad but true, if only BASSA had seen it coming.

Clarified

30th Nov 2009, 21:42

SlideBustle, it's great to read your views, like a lot of our colleagues on this forum you see the world in a very colourful and balanced way.
It's exactly because there are a lot of people like us that our voices are starting to be heard. I am an optimist at heart and believe in fairness and the democratic principles that living here allows.
Your post and other recent posts (Alexandraa is an example) demonstrate how much people care and also that they are willing to stand up for what THEY believe in.
HiFlyer14's reference to coming to work in civvies etc. is not something I would do. I will walk straight through the front of the building having parked my car in OUR car park. There is no need to wear a false nose and glasses, our democratic country protects people who choose to exercise their right to work. Any attempt to obstruct that right could be deemed unlawful. Come to work, lots of us will.
SlideBustle, thanks for your observations on my earlier post, I would like to keep those double nights in the Far East and West coast though. Part of what makes this job so great is being able to have that time in places like that. As you suggest, it's all about solving the problem together and meeting people halfway. Anything else just doesn't feel right especially at the moment. (More company lay offs today in the news, it's not good out there). Lets help our business and ourselves, surely that's not a bad thing is it!

Hotel Mode

30th Nov 2009, 22:14

I would like to keep those double nights in the Far East and West coast though.

The double night thing wouldnt have been half as scary if BASSA knew where to look in scheme for the limits. If Virgin dont do a single night somewhere you can be assured that theres a good reason, either its over the legal limit, or so close that the disruption simply isnt worth the saving. On that basis its only JNB and CPT at significant risk.

It is worth noting though that Virgin crew do significantly more cabin/meal prep prior to boarding so their duty days are around 30 mins longer. Would that be a good compromise? Downroute reports at -90mins which means fewer trips down to nightstops?

SlideBustle

30th Nov 2009, 23:07

Wow!! There are some excellent posts here. Clarified, yes know what you mean about not losing double night, it's all abit give and take, the union could say oh no thanks - how about doing ......... instead? Will save the same amount. Company accepts that. Company suggests another thing... union accepts, company proposes another... union offer alternative etc. Unfortunately that's not how it's gone. Looking back at my newsletter outlining their ''integrated proposal'' back in June/July... some things I think are acceptable, some things need tweaking but hey that never happened!! I feel new fleet is more likely to happen with a strike than no strike!! lol Ironic!

Hiflyer, that's what I thought, striking about imposition does hold no substance, there needs to be a real reason.... which I suppose is why BA might be able to stop the strike anyway! If BA all of sudden imposed a 30% PAY CUT I could understand..... it all depends on the reason.... There are some people who will purposefully go slow, secure cabin too late resulting in go arounds just to make it look like it doesn't work. It does beggar belief!! I can't really comment on the crew complements yet, will have to see tomorrow, but if it is truly bad and customers don't get served ONLY THEN will I tell the company, and offer suggestions on what's wrong/what can be done.... If customers complain at the lack of product that will be fed back - with reduction in product, that is a different story, I'm sure if there is any adverse feedback the company will tweak... it's all about experimenting with what they can save on... what the customer finds important and what they don't - causing wastage!!

I think, you know what, I have made my mind up. Over the last week or so I've been leaning towards no as the thought of striking is too scary - for a start and also I've been askingdo I think it will be productive or worth it?? Will it make BA back down? Almost certainly NOT! What's held me back from voting no though is the thoughts of ''what if everyone else/BASSA is right - I would have got rid of my t&cs in one swoop blah blah... but I've come to my senses. BA has imposed new crew complements that's all. Is that enough to warrant striking and staying at home when I have a flight? Not really. BA are willing to negotiate, but unite, we are running out of time!! As they will lose their patience (if they haven't already!!) Need to save money ASAP! It CAN be done reasonably...

You can't strike based on speculation anyway which is what it seems many people are doing. ''I'm striking because whatever next???'' Totally not based in any reality!! Just speculation. I might strike next week because BA MIGHT merge with Ryanair AND easyJet and I don't want them to do that.... Well they did merge with Iberia, who's to say they won't with RyanEasy??....:ok: Those who have heard the ''I'm striking because what will they do next'' mantra will see what I'm getting at!!

Tiramisu

30th Nov 2009, 23:09

Hello Clarified,
It is indeed a relief to see so many like minded crew on PPrune who are against IA.
I too feel that I've nothing and no one to hide from, and if asked about what I'll do in the unfortunate event of a Strike, I'm open about my intentions to work. Its's a pity the ESS Forum was closed down, we could have had healthy debates as we do on PPrune without fear of repercussions.
On another note, it's great to be able to share views here with our Flight Crew colleagues.
It's the 1st of December and our changes to the crew matrix begin today.
I'm looking forward to the challenge. Onwards and upwards, I say!

Vote NO To Strike Action and save BA

SlideBustle

30th Nov 2009, 23:38

Tiramisu, I'm quite looking forward to the challenge aswell!! OK I realise it may not work but then it might do, however I will do the service and SEP requirements as BA say they want me to, like we all should! I will work hard, the same as I do now, but if it's workable (which must of the matrix does) then I will accept just work harder (how many flights do you have plenty of time to sit around reading the daily rag?? plenty) OK, there are some hang ups I have like up to 2 less crew on a MAN which may not work etc, but on the other hand, some of it is no problem, it might well work on some flights and not on others.... I'm sure the matrix will be tweaked if so but I don't think it's really that unreasonable. It may be abit trial and error at first, like I'm sure LGW was.... some ex-LGW crew say it was terrible... some say it was perfectly fine..... we will just wait and see, I will form my opinion when I've done enough sectors to be in a place to say if it works and is reasonable... or not as the case may be, no question about it we will be working harder but somethings got to give! I'm not going to whinge about it trying to make it NOT work, it's irrational!

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 00:21

Hi SlideBustle,
The Matrix has been adjusted in line with the reduced service in any case so not a big problem except for the 767. As you rightly say, LGW have been doing it for some time with no real problems, so why can't we?
I enjoyed reading your sensible posts and look forward to flying with you.
Anyway, welcome to PPrune, I'm relatively new myself!

Vote No To Strike Action

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 07:55

Perhaps another indicator to the residents of LaLa land that all is not well in the real world:

Scandinavian airline SAS plans to sack up to 100 pilots after talks with their union failed.

"We were in negotiations with the pilots and the negotiations were not successful," Sture Stolen, head of investors relations at the airline, admitted.

The staff cuts were part of a cost reduction programme and would be enforced "as soon as possible", he said.

The airline has struggled with falling passenger loads and has been cutting costs aggressively through its "Core SAS" programme.

Traffic was down 13.5 per cent in October year-on-year, it revealed earlier this month.

This comes on top of a large amount of other redundancies from all other SAS departments as they attempt to adjust their business model to the new environment. No Government bailouts there either as, except in the dodgy case of Alitalia, Government bailouts for private companies are against the EU law.

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 08:29

Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 08:48

CFC,

Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?

A few of my friends did, they couldn't make up their minds as to what, exactly, was happening prior to the meeting either. They attended the Sandown Park meeting out of 'curiosity as to the BASSA plan', as there had been no canvassing of the members as to the stance of the Union amid one of the biggest potential changes since privatisation.

They left the meeting with the objective of not voting for IA and they have subsequently not voted for IA.

Half of the 'information' given was nothing but rhetoric. They were given 'assurances' that they could not be legally dismissed for striking. However they were not informed that they could be 'illegally' dismissed and thus have to endure Industrial Tribunal.

The 'explanation' was, once again, just a run through of the BASSA proposals, not a breakdown in detail you understand just a gloss overview, which everybody had heard before.

Add to that a bit of 'tub thumping' in respect to how evil all of the management team are and that BASSA action will rid BA of the cancerous Willie Walsh. (again, and again with no conviction or result)

Their view, not mine as I wasn't present, was that the whole thing was a complete waste of time and money.

Clear thinking, well balance crew being egged on by a minority of Union Proles. Jack Dromey and Bob Crow would have been proud!

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 08:48

Dear Mods,

I find post 3842 offensive and would like to see it removed ASAP.

Thank you.

CFC

plodding along

1st Dec 2009, 09:03

High Flier...Tiramisu...Clarified

You guys are a breath of fresh air, finally I can comfort myself that all behind that door are not mad or possessed!

Just one point to note about the cabin service on shorthaul, airborne holding is down to record lows at the moment and the shedules are still based on previous statistical levels, also taxi times in to T5 are a lot less than they used to be.
Hence most flights arrive early, indeed the most frequently asked question by crew seems to be "can we get back early?"

With that in mind there is fat in the system, if cabin service is getting tight slowing down can generate an extra 10 minutes, save a bit of fuel and still arrive on time.

It will not look good if reports go in about insufficient time if the aircraft arrived 30 mins early and the pilots weren't informed.

Some crew will want the cabin service to suffer to prove a point, they will also want to get home early, they can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways.

flapsforty

1st Dec 2009, 09:10

Post #3842 is indeed strongly worded, but does not attack any of the thread participants personally.
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.

CFC - W2T take it to the PM system please.

We are very pleased to note that more and more BA Cabin Crew appear to be finding their way here. Welcome people. :ok:

It bears repeating once again, that while this is an open forum where everybody is welcome, the main participants here are BA cabin crew.
This thread is an arena for them to discuss matters without fear of bullying and intimidation.
From either side!

Juan Tugoh

1st Dec 2009, 09:13

In these difficult economic times suggesting that you stay airborne longer than necessary just to allow cabin service to be completed is staggering. You save a lot more fuel by being on the ground with the engines off than by being airborne flying slowly. Please think more carefully before suggesting things like this.

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 09:26

It is, indeed, enlightening to see that so many of the crew can see through what could be the BASSA end play.

Today sees the implementation of the new crewing routines on SH and I will be interested to see how they fair. Especially as many of the SH flight crew have operated parts of the Airbus fleet out of LGW and have first hand experience of operating with the reduced crew.

I feel that having at least a 'source' of independent information where people can exchange views and ideas is vital in scenarios like this.

My view, the ballot will return a close 'yes' verdict. BASSA will be forced into commencing IA within 4 weeks, possibly 8 if the company agree! BA will ignore the IA and the airline will instigate contingency measures to keep the majority of flights on track.

BASSA will, once again, lose (you know that word which means you didn't win or gain the injunction you applied for) the court case over injunction and BA will be awarded damages including those incurred during ill advised IA running into, possibly, hundreds of millions of pounds especially if forward bookings damages are applied.

Unite have their hands full trying to fight GM at Luton at the moment along with a vast collection of minor disputes within minor industries where people are potentially losing their jobs through compulsory redundancy or employer insolvency. How much time will Unite have for a sub branch who are hell bent on keeping their cushy little number from the 1980's by taking on a company who have tried everything to get a negotiated settlement?

Is Lizanne Maloney the female version of Bob Crow?

Strimmerdriver

1st Dec 2009, 09:31

Dear Juan Tugoh

We base our speed on a Cost Index. This is a mix of fuel burn, engineering cost and schedule/lateness cost etc. An Airbus is normally CI 20 but if early we can and do slow down to save fuel using CI 0. So if the crew are struggling do let us know and given enough notice we can help.

Apologises for the thread creep.

JazzyKex

1st Dec 2009, 09:35

[QUOTE]In these difficult economic times suggesting that you stay airborne longer than necessary just to allow cabin service to be completed is staggering. You save a lot more fuel by being on the ground with the engines off than by being airborne flying slowly. Please think more carefully before suggesting things like this./QUOTE]

Juan Tugoh...that is not actually correct (sorry for the thread creep). Most aircraft are flown at a speed which is most economical but can have that economy 'adjusted'. Generally the faster you fly the more fuel you burn, sometimes by slowing down and flying at a more economical speed despite being in the air longer we actually burn much less fuel over the entire journey length (on long haul often by many tons).

The decision as to which speed we fly is generally specified by the company on the flight plan with the proviso that arriving too early is not always the fastest way of getting the pax into the terminal or best for the overall operation!

Also keep in mind 'most economical' is not always JUST about fuel burn but may include other costs...for example being close to the cusp of crew box payments may see your flight planned at much higher speed and fuel burn but overall the costs to the airline are lower.

It's their trainset, unless safety is compromised they decide the rules...

Hope that help clear it up and again sorry for the creep...

Jazzy

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 09:42

Don't forget that 'rushing' to land can also involve stand delays on the ground as the stand allocation is generally +/- 15mins of scheduled arrival time.

So, as JazzyKex has alluded to, rushing to wait can burn excessive fuel in the air leading to airborne holding followed by ground holding.

As our erstwhile colleagues in the back are well aware the passengers can get very grumpy sitting on the ground for 15 minutes waiting for a stand to become free even if the aircraft is 30 minutes early.

So, all told, quite a carefully though out plan and one that is constantly reviewed throughout the flight.

fincastle84

1st Dec 2009, 10:08

The latest 6 months trading figures have just arrived in my in tray & don't make happy reading.
To summarise:

Operating loss £111 million ( 2008 profit of £240 million )
Loss before tax £292 million
Revenue down 13.7%

Not happy reading!

Question: How will IA help to improve these appalling figures?

Juan Tugoh

1st Dec 2009, 10:30

Clarified

1st Dec 2009, 10:58

Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?

When I first posted here I was very transparent about my union membership over the years.
I have said many times that I no longer belong to a union.
So, the answer to your question is no.
I understand it was the first joint meeting Amicus and Bassa have held.
Is that right?
Why are you asking me this question?

plodding along

1st Dec 2009, 11:01

Juan, if you re read my post I was saying that these days we often arrive excessively early due lack of holding and ground congestion.
T5 always has a shortage of stands and we should aim to arrive no more than shed arr time (STA) -15 mins.
Arriving 20/30 minutes early due to no holding often results in waiting on the ground for a stand or having a stand change which is then a logistical nightmare for the ground crews.

I'm afraid you are incorrect, cost index 0 will burn less fuel than cost index 20 even though the flight time is longer, (drag vs airspeed squared and all that). As long as we don't go over the planned block time and keep to schedule the crew costs etc stay the same.
I was not saying delay the flight, we can fly at the most economical speed to arrive when we should arrive as opposed to horrendously early.

I find it a little hypocrital when every day crew want to board early so that we can depart early to then land early and go home early, yet some claim we won't be able to do a service properly.

If the service can't be done in the proper time then it should and hopefully will be reviewed.

Sorry mods, hopefully misunderstanding cleared up.

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 11:21

Flaps40 - Mod wrote:

Post #3842 is indeed strongly worded, but does not attack any of the thread participants personally.
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.

Well thats how YOU read it - why am I not surprised.

Human Factor

1st Dec 2009, 11:21

The suggestion was slowing down to allow the service to be completed - on SH staying airborne for another 10 mins is often an increase of 1/6th of the total flight time. I do not believe that any reduction in cost index (by the way a concept that any modern operator is aware of not just BA) will mean that staying airborne equals a lower fuel burn. Ground idle fuel flow on the engines means even if the engines are running for the same amount of time you are always better off on the ground - that's without shutting one down.

Juan,

On a typical shorthaul sector (90 to 120 minutes), I can reduce the CI and arrive perhaps five minutes or so later having burned the same amount of fuel as flying at a higher cost index and arriving earlier. If we still have to wait for the same stand, this means that the amount of time spent waiting on the ground with the engines running is five minutes less. Ergo, we use less fuel overall.

Slowing down is not a big issue in terms of cost and in some cases is a benefit. In extremis on a longhaul sector, you could slow down enough to arrive an hour late whilst reducing your fuel burn by 10%. So why don't we fly slower all the time? In the long run, you complete fewer sectors for a given aeroplane, which reduces the overall revenue.

However, if we're significantly early on a particular sector, slowing down to allow the service to be completed whilst still allowing us to make the schedule, has a lot of benefits. The main one for you being that BA won't b*ll*ck the SCCM for not completing the service. If in doubt, ask.

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 11:22

Clarified

Why are you asking me this question?

At the risk of wrath from 'sticking my oar in' again it is because the BASSA supporters believe that this meeting showed the 'strength of feeling' gained from BASSA rhetoric.

As most of the CF drones shouted after the event '3250+ can't be wrong!'.

Sadly it was shown that after the event +3250 was an overly optimistic number as, as my friends show, a large number of participants did so in order to actually try and get some information out of BASSA. Once it was realised that it was just another press pleasing mass shouting session they went away disappointed with no new insights.

BASSA show the numbers, quote statistics, trumpet their own 'cost saving' plans and denigrate the management they have not, however, once canvassed individual opinion from their membership.

So, how can such large meetings where it is a one way transmission from the heads of LaLa land be of benefit to the membership?

Simple answer, it can't.

But that won't stop PiB, CFC etc telling you how great it was.

dave747436

1st Dec 2009, 11:33

CFC,

With regard to the examples of CrewForum prose that I have seen, your double standards are breathtaking.

Why am I not surprised?

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 11:34

Well thats how YOU read it - why am I not surprised.

Before throwing stones within your glass house, have a good look at the official missives BASSA have been sending out to their membership.

Certain 'halloween' coloured ones spring to mind!

Then realise that, during a certain court case involving another 'association' and BA, ALL correspondence from both BA and the other party was required by the Judge. This involved forum posts, e-mails both private and corporate, missives, flyers and letters.

How are these BASSA childish rantings going to look in the case that you are guaranteed to win?

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 11:38

Its quite sad Clarified that you are not a Union member and that you couldn't make it to the meeting at Sandown Pk with 3250 of your colleagues.

I was a bit unsure about events up to that point but listening to the facts from the top table, comments from the representing lawyers along with personally speaking to reps and also colleagues on the day I took no hesitation in putting a cross in the yes box and posting it off toute suite.

I found the day totally enlightening unlike W2P 'few friends' that were there (BTW W2P invite your friends to talk directly on this thread rather than through your selective approach).

Looking at your past posts Clarified where you have wanted negotiation etc, etc, you might start to realise you cannot change ways of a union body from the outside, only from within.

As for you crossing the'picket line' on the day there will be no unlawful action so do not worry yourself.

CFC,

With regard to the examples of CrewForum prose that I have seen, your double standards are breathtaking.

Why am I not surprised? ]

Care to expand on the question for me to understand what you are referring to?

W2P
I'm getting confused. If you are seeing all that Bassa are sending out are you a member of Bassa?

I'm not so, do not have a clue what you are ranting about.

Please show me what you are referring to.

flapsforty

1st Dec 2009, 11:58

CFC, here is a link to the PPRuNe rules: link (http://www.pprune.org/register.php)
Please PM me to explain where you feel that the post in question contravenes those rules, and we´ll look at it again.

As for your ´why am I not surprised?´; I have no idea.

I repeat for the umpteenth time:

PPRune is not beholden to BA.

The CC Forum forum is run for and by cabin crew. Without pay and with the sole aim of providing fellow FAs with a level playing field free of bullying and intimidation.
As stated many times before, the Mods of this forum are long time career Cabin Crew.

None of us work for BA or any other British airline. None of us have a stake in this debate. Other than being naturally ´pro cabin crew´, whatever you take that to mean.
As for me personally, I am not British, I do not live in the UK and I am not married to a pilot. ;)

Apart from our pro cabin crew bias, we provide about the most impartial moderating you will find on any of the sites currently hosting this debate.

... as proven by posters from both sides of the debate endlessly accusing us of giving unfair advantage to ´the other side´... :rolleyes:

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 12:17

Anyone is entitled to post on this subject if they feel they have a point to make. If my friends wish to make a comment then so be it.

As to the various BASSA missives they have been posted on this forum, left lying around the CRC and posted on the BASSA board in the CRC. Possibly even some of the more balanced and thoughtful members of BASSA have been so ashamed of the actions of their Union that they felt compelled to share the rubbish with their colleagues. Have a search through this thread or a look on the coffee tables of CRC or the BASSA board next to the drop boxes.

Some were so contentious that BA took them down thus creating ample opportunity for yet another BASSA spat.

As I posted previously these informative journals could well go before a court of law where they will not serve their originating organisation well.

The Sandown meeting generated, as usual and as is quite correct in a debate, two opinions. Only those judging on their own merits can decide which was right and which was wrong. I very much doubt a dissenting voice could be heard in a room where there were many militant BASSA supporters 'shipped in'.

Flaps 40 please forgive me for posting slightly off topic:

Rant:

A rant or harangue is a speech or text that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims

A touch unfair I believe. Could you please show where this has occurred? I try to keep my posts relevant and without personal attack. The basis of the discussion is extremely well grounded with just this thread. Perhaps a little read through might help.

dave747436

1st Dec 2009, 12:24

CFC said:
Dear Mods,
I find post 3842 offensive and would like to see it removed ASAP.
CFCI suggested that you have double standards, and you ask me to expand on why I would suggest this.

Well, I have seen samples of Crewforum posts that denigrate (eg) Willie Walsh in the most vile and disgusting terms, (the word twunt is a particular favourite) that remain unmoderated by the CF admin., and are in fact applauded by subsequent posters. They attack the man, not his policies.

Yet you wish PPRUNE post #3842 removed because you find it offensive.

Unless you make similar requests to have anti BA/BALPA posts removed on Crewforum, you have one set of standards for PPRUNE, and a different set of standards for Crewforum.

Or, to put it another way, double standards.

Unless, of course, you don't find the CrewForum posts offensive?

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 12:29

W2P it was a UNITE meeting - how many times do you have to be told. I do not belong to Bassa but was more than welcomed by all present - assuming they did belong to Bassa.

Are you now questioning the 3250 attendance? It seems anything to do withh CC unions niggles you. Amazingly 'your friends' at the meeting must have missed the numerous questions from the large LGW group, and others questioning the lawyers who were asking probing questions. It was from the genuine replies to these questions that enforced my feelings and hence the YES vote.

Once again I'm amazed at an outsider taking so much interest in another groups dealings.

Other BA CC reading this thread and looking for advice/support/info please be aware the vast number of posters on this thread do not even work for BA, and many of the others are not CC - be warned of misleading advice.

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 12:31

Dear Dave,

No it is not clearer to me.

I do not go onto Crewforum so do not understand your comments about ME finding a certain post offensive.

Very dangerous to assume sometimes.

overstress

1st Dec 2009, 12:33

My straw polls have the ballot as a close call, but I'll probably be proved wrong! My CSD yesterday was reasonably well informed, was a BASSA member but has not had a ballot paper but would vote no! Down-route, one of the pursers, a lovely lady and very professional on board, subjected me to the standard BASSA line whilst I was trying to have a quiet beer. She was determined to strike until BA failed.

Willie Walsh's name came up a lot in our friendly discussion, it seems like BASSA have been successful at focusing hatred at the man. This seems like a waste of effort to me, as the board clearly feel he is the right man for the job, he is unlikely to be dislodged because of a few badly-written and over-emotive BASSA communications.

overstress

1st Dec 2009, 12:38

CFC: Once again I'm amazed at an outsider taking so much interest in another groups dealings.

Lots of people have vested interests, last night a purser effectively told me she would be happy to see me lose my job (by her striking until BA went bust). Do you not see that attitudes like that might cause a few other BA employees and yes, maybe pax or shareholders to take an interest in BASSA's antics?

Clarified

1st Dec 2009, 13:02

I am not interested in changing BASSA's ways as I don't support them.
I am confident that events over the next few months will lead to everyone having a long hard look at how we got here. That will likely lead to change, a necessary process in order to move forward in harmony and successfully.
All of us are involved in that process, the winners will be those that engage and maintain influence. I listen to all sides of the debate and have made a clear choice, as you have.
No, I don't have a vote but that doesn't stop me from being involved.
I am not 'sad' that I am not a union member, I feel free. I respect my colleagues choice whether to belong to a union or not, as I have said we live in a democratic country. (Don't forget I paid my dues for 20+ years).
I'll join and vote for anyone that I think gives me good representation and works with my employer for everyones good.
You believe your representatives are doing just that, I disagree with you. The democratic process at work again.

HiFlyer14

1st Dec 2009, 13:02

CFC - I am a Union member, (actually - tell a lie it's now the 1st December so ex-Union member!), I did attend all the meetings until the Sandown one, and I was one of the VERY FEW who voted against the BASSA Proposal. I made a conscientious decision NOT to attend the Sandown meeting, as I realised it would be more of the same, and a few stray hands, trying to voice their opinion amidst rent-a-mob wouldn't change anything. I also know for a fact that there were plenty of people that were at the meeting, who didn't agree with the proposals, but were too scared to vote against the flow. Intimidation appears to be the main objective word of this union. Therefore your statement that :

you might start to realise you cannot change ways of a union body from the outside, only from within.

is incorrect. I have learnt that, in fact in this case, it is damn impossible to change the union from within. The only thing we can do now is to:

VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM THE UNION. And then there will be no union, and we can form a new one. Failing that, the Union will have enormous costs to pay at the court hearing in February, so will be bankrupted one way or the other. A new union is on the cards one way or another - this one has long since passed it's sell-by date.:cool:

BTW - having read all the Halloween brochures from the Union, I fail to see that I missed anything at the meeting. Please enlighten us as to what was so revealing?

dave747436

1st Dec 2009, 13:05

On 1st September CFC wrote:

As for your goody-goody approach re everybody else is in the wrong or they just don't know ... maybe you should take up the offer and discuss all on other forums...CFC,

Well, as you're not a member of BASSA, you can't have been referring to the BASSA forum in the above quote..
Which other obvious mainstream forums are you referring to (that one doesn't have to be a union member to access)?

You would not recommend Glamgirl (in this instance) to 'learn from' a forum you are not aquainted with,surely?

Regardless, as you are now aware of the writings on Crewforum, I'm sure someone with the moral sensibilities you have displayed over here on PPRuNe will feel obliged to visit CrewForum and insist that any offensive posts will be removed there, too.

Lest you should be considered inconsistant...

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 13:06

CFC,

BASSA, being part of Unite, covers the meeting more than well enough for most. Where do I question the 3250 attendance? Just because you were sucked in by the rhetoric doesn't mean everyone was. The questions asked will have been given BASSA answers, ones that support and enhance the appeal-ability of IA. I have to admit I would be amazed if it were any different. Undoubtedly the answers given were the ones the crowd wanted to hear but perhaps not to the depth that could cause doubt.

The funny thing about it all was that just a month previously saw BASSA, on the Unite website, calling for the dismissal of the CC89 Chair as they had had the audacity to go behind BASSA's back and tentatively agree a deal.

The 'negotiations' then ground to a halt as BASSA refused to negotiate in the same room as CC89. Is that really the behavior of a caring Union where the welfare of their members comes first?

Why do I have an interest? Well, overstress summed it up, when a Union has the audacity to claim that it would rather bring my employer, and yes I do work for BA, down than implement minor productivity changes then it becomes my interest.

Nothing niggles me about CC Unions. What annoys me is that BASSA have been so unbelievably poor at representing the majority of their members by not allowing their members to decide on their futures. BASSA behave like a small child caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Deny everything constantly in the hope that, eventually, someone believes you.

As an 'outsider' as you seem to have labeled me I can assure you that, when asked (wouldn't want to be accused of bullying now would we) I will explain what my 'outsiders' view is.

LGW were and still have been fed to the wolves. The last message from BASSA was 'support us pleeeeeease as you will still get hit by the allowances taxation!'. Most of LGW don't give a toss about LHR and see whats coming as long overdue.

So, CFC, apart from pulling other posters posts apart and demanding answers to various posts, most of which the posters have kindly answered for you, what is your stance?

Why do you think it is acceptable for the CC to retain T's & C's and have every other department pay for them?

Why do you think it is acceptable for a Union to agree the productivity needs to increase and then call IA when that increase is announced?

Why do you think it is acceptable for BASSA/Unite to continue to negotiate past a set deadline when they have such a poor track record of productive meetings?

Why do you think it is acceptable for one sub branch of Unite to call for the sacking of the Chair of another Sub Branch as that branch was attempting to negotiate a deal for its members.

BASSA are losing power and they hate it. It will be a revelation to be able to operate in this company without the ridiculous hand of BASSA interfering in the day to day operation of the Airline.

Not ranting, just stating my opinion. So CFC, break the mold and explain why the Unions have it right.

HiFlyer14

1st Dec 2009, 13:09

Clarified - I'll see you in the car park on Strike Day One- you'll be able to spot me with the false nose, moustache and glasses LMFAO!

Seriously, you are right - and whilst you and I are probably diehards at this and will happily walk into work with our heads held high, I know that a lot of crew don't want to strike, or vote yes, but are worried about having to cross a picket line. I just want to make the point to anyone that is worried, that it is actually going to be quite easy - and am sure that there will be a contingency plan in place.;)

VOTE NO and come into work with the rest of us!

fincastle84

1st Dec 2009, 13:22

Personal attacks are not welcome and lead to thread bans.

The personal attack is apparently a hard to grasp concept, so let us spell it out for you.

Any sentence containing:

You are
You have
You appear to be
He/she is/has
Any and all variations of the above....

Is about a person (your opponent) rather than an argument, and as such, not welcome here.

CFC

1st Dec 2009, 13:41

explain the build up in conversation with this purser and what was your reply to the comment

change has happened.

these shenanigans from BA have united both CC union branches after a 20 year split and at last we speak (well those in a union) as ONE! :D

the problem with getting 80% of the facts from various sources (maybe your 'friends') and then concocting the other 20% to fit in with what you think.....the more you spout on the funnier it all gets.

Please carry on, we could all do with a laugh right now!

(Dear Mods, truthfully not having a go at the person, just their POV)

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 13:48

No answers then CFC?

No surprise except you still want overstress to explain his/her post?

:ugh:

Hmm, name calling as well, very droll.

Where is then your 100% factual, 'I'm not a member of BASSA but went to the Sandown meeting anyway' answers to the above questions?

You call it laughable but have yet to give the thread the insight into your obviously vast knowledge based upon 100% fact and no conjecture.

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 13:57

the problem with getting 80% of the facts from various sources (maybe your 'friends') and then concocting the other 20% to fit in with what you think.....the more you spout on the funnier it all gets.

Please carry on, we could all do with a laugh right now!

(Dear Mods, truthfully not having a go at the person, just their POV)

Please explain where, in my previous post, there is something that didn't actually occur?

If I were holding a meeting with that many members of a Union then I wouldn't stand up in front of a lectern and say 'We think BA have got us over a barrel but we are going to go ahead with pointless IA and shaft you all in the process! Show of hands please.'

Of course the rhetoric flows in one direction. Doesn't necessarily mean you get a balanced view.

All of the points I raised happened during the run up to this debacle.

So, come on CFC, what is your view, why are we all so wrong and amusing?

Human Factor

1st Dec 2009, 14:05

... we provide about the most impartial moderating you will find on any of the sites currently hosting this debate.

Despite being moderated several times and banned on one occasion from this thread, I agree with flapsforty! This is as good as you'll get. ;)

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2009, 14:09

Despite being moderated a several times and banned on one occasion from this thread, I agree with flapsforty! This is as good as you'll get. ;)

Even after serving my time on the naughty bench I also have to concur.

:ouch:

Locked door

1st Dec 2009, 14:13

The most recent posts on this thread illustrate the problems that have led to this impasse. On one side you have well reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful discourse on how the company can progress into the future and on the other side childlike rants that contain no fact, no answers and no intelligent questions. The problem the company faces is that the CC union is led in majority by those of the second ilk, who are unable to see past their god given right for loads of loot and to control what goes on in one of the largest UK companies.

It smacks of historically poor management by BA to allow these people to have so much sway over the company and how it is run and the company finally seems to be getting to grips with it. BA is no longer government owned and has to make a profit. A point lost on one side of this argument.

I have nothing against CC, and most seem quite sensible. However a vocal group seem to think that they should run the company, deciding on policy, product and other aspects of the operation. In my experience none seem to have the faintest idea of the length of training, qualifications and experience of those in the company who do make those decisions.

In other airlines CC turn up, do their jobs and go home. Why is BA any different?

CFC, as the most vocal of those on this forum expounding your side of the argument, how about answering a few of the questions posed to you?

I suspect the previous posters £20 is safe.

LD

midman

1st Dec 2009, 15:28

CFC,

I think you'll find the vast majority of posters on here do work for BA, hence the interest and the passion for explaining the facts to your colleagues in Bassa who might come on here looking for answers and guidance on how to vote.

Many of us have given our view of events, and have asked Bassa supporters to explain many of the apparent flaws in Bassa's argument, but you can only state that we 'concoct' and 'spout' facts that you find funny.

Instead of providing no answers to your fellow ballotters about the Bassa position, and attempting to divert them away from here, please point out facts that support your argument.

Perhaps you could start by explaining what your goal in all this is, and specifically what happens when you get a Yes vote. Or is that the victory in itself?

Human Factor

1st Dec 2009, 17:45

Or is that the victory in itself?

With this in mind, perhaps a few of the BASSA diehards may want to watch "Flags of Our Fathers" on Film4 this evening. It should demonstrate fairly well why the use of the Iwo Jima memorial on the BASSA stickers is entirely inappropriate. :mad:

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 19:30

Originally posted by CFC

High Flier...Tiramisu...Clarified

Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?

CFC,
I was flying and unfortunately could not attend the meeting.
However, my previous experience of pre-strike meetings in 1984 and 1997 have not been pleasant. I remember speaking out then and being completely ostracised by the BASSA die hards. Tyres let down, anonymous phone calls and cheap and malicious taunts that you would not expect from colleagues for having an alternative view or difference of opinion.
Sadly, not much has changed and most of our senior colleagues know that I am a-non striker and still give me the cold shoulder. But hey ho, I'm big and ugly enough to take it.
Would I have gone to the meeting if I could, probably not to be honest. I don't like the chanting, and thuggish attitudes and behaviours of many who attend.
I simply do not believe that striking does anyone any favours and this is what the meeting was about.
Sensible, intelligent and adult negotiation is the only way forward in my view and that has not happened.

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 19:53

Originally posted by plodding along
Some crew will want the cabin service to suffer to prove a point, they will also want to get home early, they can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways.

Plodding along,
FWIW, I agree with you that crew can't have it both ways. I'd be very surprised if crew fail to complete the service, the new matrix is adjusted to the reduced service. At the end of the day you make a rod for your own back and it's unnecessary. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the changes are minimal on Eurofleet, and in my view it's much ado about nothing.
But then I don't mind working a little harder as I'd rather be in a job with BA then anywhere else.

Vote NO To Strike Action

JayPee28bpr

1st Dec 2009, 21:37

Firstly, thanks to Da Dog for posting the above. It is an interesting summary of the Union position.

What makes it most interesting is that the clear message from it is that the dispute is really about control, and nothing to do with the actual changes. AL makes the point that many of the (middle) managers with whom Union reps have previously agreed such matters have already left BA. BA is now tackling the other side of the issue.

That raises the question: how does the Union maximise its influence in future? There is simply no chance of the staus quo remaining if BA want to change it. IA appears an irrelevance, and AL's meeting summary confirmed my own view that the ballot and IA are pointless. The real deal here is the Court case. However, even if Unite wins it, they will still lose, and lose very badly in my view. Incidentally, I do not share the view they "lost" at the interim injunction hearing. They simply did not take the risk that, had they taken an interim injunction and then lost, they would have been bankrupt. It was a sensible tactical retreat: lose the battle, win the war.

What is the Union really looking to defend? AL's note suggests it is nothing less than maintaining a veto on operational matters affecting the routine running of BA. Unfortunately, successful companies are not run in this producer-centric manner. They are run in a customer-centric manner which, ultimately, results in profits. The Union ought to be working with BA to maximise profits and then seek a decent "cut" of the profit for its members. I will give you a simple example. From what I have read on here, when BA was disrupted by weather in early-2009, it appears CC insisted on staying two nights away from base under the terms of the disruption agreement. Presumably they get some sort of "hardship" payment for this, which they would not get if they got the planes back to base quicker. A more sensible, customer-centric, agreement would have as its objective getting passengers back to their destination, and planes to where they ought to be for future operations, as quickly as possible. The Union demand ought to be for some kind of bonus payment if achieving these objectives are achieved in a given timeframe. The staff cost to BA may well end up being the same (they save peripherals such as hotel costs), but there is a clear marketing benefit in minimising customer disruption and the goodwill that engenders. That should be the way remuneration is negotiated generally: work out how to meet/beat customer expectation, then reward people who meet/beat it. Embed those rewards in employee contracts. As the service/product evolve, revisit the rewards.

What Unite appears to be fighting for, however, is to maintain a veto on the service/product BA provides, effectively freezing in time the requirements in terms of staffing and payments for non-compliance with such product/service agreements. They simply cannot win this fight. Even if they win in Court, they will lose. Ultimately, companies can change whatever they want in staff contracts. A win in Court for the Union simply makes this a longer and (short-term) costlier exercise. Utlimately, however, BA could just lay off all 14,000 CC on compulsory redundancy having gone through due process and consultation, and then offer as many staff as they want new contracts on the terms they want. It is a futile battle. Sure, the Union will have "won the argument", but that pays no bills.

Not only is it futile, but it is very high risk for the Union (as opposed to its individual members). It seems to me that if the Union took the pragmatic, customer-centric approach I describe, then it remains a relevant and useful party in BA's human resource management. However, if it remains of the view that it ought to be able to veto reasonable management decisions, then its relevance declines. In that case, BA ought to (and probably will) seek alternative means of communicating and consulting with staff. It will seek to bypass the Union. As Union influence declines, members question its relevance and leave, resulting in lower memberhip stats and revenue.

If the Union loses the Court case, and still sticks to its attitude of having veto rights over decisons BA considers rightfully its alone, then the Union will lose all influence. If the Union loses in Court, it will suffer very high costs, ie will not be in a position to defend further legal claims against BA. In which case, I see little to stop BA writing to the Union and stating it no longer recognises it for collective bargaining purposes. The Union may still meet the requirements for recognition, but in the event of a Court loss, it may not have the financial means to prove that point and force BA to comply. Even if it could, it would incur further heavy costs, and certainly then be in no position to fight further changes to its status that BA wishes to make.

So, it seems to me, the Union has chosen the wrong fight. It would be better off in the long term accepting that its influence over day-to-day operations will diminish, but seeking imaginative ways to ensure its members share in any rewards generated by the changes BA insists are necessary and will return it to attractive levels of profit. That seems to be the approach, certainly on this forum, that many Union members want the Union to pursue.

Will the Union's failure to do this impact their members negatively? I do not think it will. BA is engaged in exactly the same battle as the Union but from the opposite side: namely to regain control over its operations. It is not battling its staff per se. If BA can ascertain from staff what they really do and do not like, it will adjust product and working conditions accordingly. I would suggest this dispute should be seen as being as much about BA being able to get closer to the bulk of its CC staff as about diminishing Union power. These are two sides of the same coin.

We are already seeing this happening. There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so. Conversely, by being seen to respond to staff feedback, there is a positive feedback loop that management does listen. It encourages further (even unsolicited) suggestions for change and questioning the status quo. Coming from staff with the greatest interface with paying customers, it is the most valuable source of information. It is actually quite ironic that CC appear to be the staff with the least direct input to product management and development right now, yet they have the most customer interraction.

Sorry for a long post from a total outsider. However, I always feel a disinterested observer can offer useful opinions as a catalyst to better debate internally.

saintjoseph

1st Dec 2009, 22:11

quoting jaypee above
There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so.

well, we know it works, as do ba, because lgw have proved it for the last three years. in light of which, there is no way any judge in february is going to uphold bassa's stance re safety/security etc. i still feel there'll be a yes vote re strike, but as a protest about the way in which things have happened, and coloured by bassa rhetoric. but if/when push comes to shove, be under no illusion, a tactical sh cancellation will see lgw crews working out of lhr on 777 prestige routes. and there's no one to blame but the union for that. that's just the way the ball bounces!

SlideBustle

1st Dec 2009, 22:13

Some people are so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable!! LOL. I have spoken to people who say ''the situation is not that bad'' ''BA are not doing that bad it's all spin'' etc etc... they are the ones who say wake up and smell the coffee - ironic really!?!?

I would be lying if I said that I didn't have worries about the proposals. Main things for me I care about most are no CR, no pay cuts, promotion prospects still being there as I have started on my career like many crew, and still having agreements where you can enjoy the job. Most crew have the same concerns. With BAs proposals if negotiated properly, I can see promotions, current crew pay etc protected and just have us working REASONABLY harder, with new crew on new t&cs. Is that really too much to ask?? Just read Bill's webchat, he has said the above should be protected.

Oh well... will both parties get back to the table - it seems one side is open to and has actually been reasonable and fair through all of this no pay cut, just work abit harder etc. Afterall BA have been quite fair - the deadline for agreement was June 30th!! And they changed their proposals a couple of times since!! New fleet, no new fleet etc... BASSA didn't want ANY of it!! Not even a compromise!! They just want a strike! (Well they did from the start!)

Oh and who else is fed up of people who say ''I would rather break the company 'till it goes bust than change our T&Cs???'' :*

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 22:29

Hi JayPee28bpr,
What a brilliant post!
Fo a disinterested observer, you make some very interesting and accurate observations!
I wish we could elect some new representatives of the people, by the people, for the people! It's time to get rid of the dead wood and have a fresh start, we deserve it. There are a few colleagues both Flight and Cabin Crew here on this forum that I would vote for.

Thanks to PPrune and all the Mods for allowing us to have a voice here without fear of backlash.

SlideBustle

1st Dec 2009, 22:43

Tiramisu, it is such a shame though that we have to come to this forum to be able to see both sides and actually have a different opinion and express it without being shot down. I doubt anyone on the BASSA forum has ADMITED to voting No!! Can you imagine???

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 22:54

Isn't it just, SlideBustle?
I have to add that occasionally when you fly with some of the crew and explain things the way you, Alexandraa, Midman, Clarified, GlamGirl, HighFlyer and myself see it, they tend to come round our way of thinking. I'm not trying to persuade anyone but just explaining it with a little logic.
I did like the BA ESS Forum, there were some healthy debates on there too until it was disbanded.

JayPee28bpr

1st Dec 2009, 23:04

For anyone wondering either where BA may end up eventually, or what is likely to happen if BA is held not to be able to make changes without Union agreement, may I direct you to the Flight Deck/Rumours & News thread entitled "Aer Lingus to leave Dublin forever"? Specifically posts #109 and 110. These detail results of an Aer Lingus Board meeting this evening resulting from failure to agree a €100 million cost cut plan with Unions.

For those of you who do not like pilots, you will be pleased to hear that it is IALPA who are the bad guys over here. They were the most intransigent work group. However, everything else occuring at Aer Lingus ought to focus minds at BA very clearly. As a reult of IALPA being nowhere near reaching agreement, even though 3 other Unions did reach agreement and cabin crew were very close, this evening Aer Lingus has announced an imposition package across the airline. This will result in compulsory redundancies immediately (per the Board announcement, not simply my opinion). This is on top of previous cuts announced just a few months ago.

One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.

Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.

Glamgirl

1st Dec 2009, 23:24

First of all, a warm welcome to Alexandraa and Slidebustle.

Secondly, a big thank you to the people who talk sense. I won't name anyone in particular, but the information is much appreciated.

In regards to the imposition:

I'm amazed at the short-sightedness of some people. The ones who think it's a good thing to have go-arounds/not finish the service/only doing the bare minimum etc, have no idea how unprofessional they will look. They'll also look incompetent and incapable (esp CSDs) when others can manage perfectly well. How will it reflect on them when, after a few months, they get called in for a "chat" with their manager? One doesn't need a lot of pax complaints per crew member before managers start calling. I'm sure the union will claim that managers are bullies, as that's the standard when anyone gets a call from the office.

Refusing to reset AVOD/screens because the CSD is on a trolley is ridiculous. At LGW we just call the front (777) and whoever is the closest resets the screen. Simple. None of us had any training on it, just a printed user guide and a mock-up in crc. It's not exactly rocket science...:rolleyes:

In regards to recent publications and comments, it seems to me that the unions are coming close to be found out about their lies and mis-information. I'm sure they're working non-stop to come up with more excuses and lies to cover it all up, but we'll have to wait another 12 or so days for that.

I do appreciate this forum and the ability it gives us to express our opinions, concerns and facts without repercussions (unless you're me, of course - but they haven't found me yet...). I think the more people on CF talk badly about this forum, the more people will come over to look, and will hopefully realise that it's ok to not follow the die-hard militants. As and when I meet NO voters (basically every day I go to work), I encourage them to find information and facts in various places. I also encourage them to pop on here if they have questions at any point.

To some posters, who keep with the rhetoric and keep putting people's posts down (I'm trying very hard here to be pc about it and not mention names), you must soon start to realise that if you answer the many questions that have been put to you on this thread, you might actually persuade people that you have arguments and points of view other than name-calling and accusations.

Gg

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 23:28

Originally posted by JayPee28pr
One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.

Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.

JayPee,
I agree that the package put together by our Head of IFCE Bill Francis and Willie Walsh is more than reasonable. Hence my acceptance of the changes that have been implemented. As a CSD I have more to loose if New Fleet starts next year and I'm forced to move eventually.
You'll be pleased to know that some of us have our eyes wide open.
The way I see it having been with BA since 1984 and a CSD for almost 12 years, I have little or no option. Rather than work for another airline I would move to New Fleet in the hope of a Supervisory role and continue to do a job that I absolutely love. I don't think people realise just how fortunate we are in BA.
As far as our CEO Willie Walsh goes, I don't have a problem with him having met him at our Crew Report Centre twice.
Thanks to him, we are still Standing!

PS. Thanks for drawing our attention to the Aer Lingus posts

Tiramisu

1st Dec 2009, 23:55

JayPee,
That was an interesting read. As I've previously mentioned, I just wish that the crew who are willing to go on strike would realise that none of us are indispensable. There are crews from airlines like Aer Lingus, BMI and not to mention the many graduates without work just waiting to jump into our shoes on new terms and conditions on a lot less than we are earning currently.
None of us are safe during this financial Tsunami.

SlideBustle

2nd Dec 2009, 00:04

Glamgirl, your last paragraph is very true, the more militant brigade need to answer the various questions... then the rhetoric might actually be plausable! Must admit, as I haven't been around for that long like others, I initially blindly followed the rhetoric, and was probably brainwashed by the various flyers/newsletters. It was probably when the deadline was not met this summer June 30th I started having my doubts about the whole rhetoric, and have started seeing the light. Don't get me wrong, I feel the union is important and does alot of good for us, but this probably isn't one of the examples. I remember looking at the proposals in July from BA thinking we could accept that and that and that - ok not accept that, but negotiate something else, accept that, negotiate that. Instead 2000 or so BASSA members decided against the whole thing, rather than working with it as a start.... unfortunately...

Why the can't consider certain parts and play/tweak others to reach a mutual agreement I don't know.... some say ''we are flexible'' etc but NEVER give suggestions as what they could actually change/compromise on! They reject absolutely EVERYTHING. Oh, except the middle east back to backs and the WW 767 coming to shorthaul which was proaposed by the union as it saves £172m :ok: Interestingly, it was a union proposal (not BA) to get rid of the 2nd SCCM on shorthaul 767s, when people questioned this everyone was like ''don't critisise the union'' but as soon as BA implement it it's immediately ''this is unworkable and unthinkable'' - I think it's one of the worse things brought in personally but.... it's hypocritcial that they didn't mind when Unite proposed it :rolleyes: lol

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 00:27

SlideBustle, I agree with what you wrote:

Interestingly, it was a union proposal (not BA) to get rid of the 2nd SCCM on shorthaul 767s, when people questioned this everyone was like ''don't critisise the union'' but as soon as BA implement it it's immediately ''this is unworkable and unthinkable'' - I think it's one of the worse things brought in personally but.... it's hypocritcial that they didn't mind when Unite proposed it :rolleyes:

I'm amazed that none of the die-hard union supporters have questioned that or the other items offered to BA by the unions: Pay cut, pay freeze, etc etc. I certainly can't afford a pay cut, considering a Purser has been taken off the 777, and therefore my potential income has dramatically reduced. We've only got 6 European/domestic night stops and 2 split duty destinations, so we're dependant on long haul to make the money.

Incidentally, doing a Middle East B2B would actually cost more money than what it is at the moment. No wonder the union suggested that one.

It seems really bizarre to me that some people won't read info from various sources, but only rely on one. Nobody can get a balanced view from only one opinion.

The only thing (unfortunately) I've found the union is good at, is getting people out of trouble, as in getting them off the "naughty step".

Gg

Ps. Tiramisu, I can't reply. Please check your settings

Tiramisu

2nd Dec 2009, 01:11

Hi GlamGirl,
I agree with you re-union good at getting naughty crew out of trouble. Ironic isn't it that they are now about to get a lot of crew in trouble by asking them to vote for strike action!

Ps, Thanks GG, settings disabled!

wobble2plank

2nd Dec 2009, 08:31

It would seem that more and more crew are coming to realise the shambles that BASSA have led them into.

It is indeed sad that, in order to get a balanced, reasoned and argued view, crew need to come to an open public forum and not have access to debate upon their own Union forums.

Throughout this rather lengthy discourse a whole gambit of reason as to why the BASSA stance is flawed has been aired by a variety of posters. Some of whom work for BA, some of whom work as crew for other Airlines, some of whom fly as pax with BA and some of whom have flown with BA and thus can offer a comparison insight.

Unfortunately, apart from one or two BASSA posters who were prepared to accept valid argument, most of the return from those supporting the BASSA stance has been in the nature of rhetoric, BASSA/Unite 100%, questioning the facts of others without countering with facts from the BASSA proposals.

The 'new' crewing levels introduced on SH yesterday didn't seem to cause a blip. In line with the new procedures the max pax in Club before an extra crew member is required has now dropped from 21 to 16. Hardly world shattering.

I think Unite/BASSA have been backed heavily into a corner. They announced that imposition would be met with Ballot. Well they've balloted. They announced that balloting would result in a strong 'Yes' vote. Then they transmit a begging missive stating that they realise that the 90%+ vote of last time, which resulted in a win for BA and nothing for BASSA, is unachievable but please vote anyway as people die in countries for the right to vote! Running scared? If BASSA want to delay IA for 8 weeks, but only with the agreement of BA, then that would take IA past the court case date. I don't think BA will allow that to happen! So, after the ballot BASSA have 4 weeks to take IA. Over what? Nobody from BASSA seems to be able to state over what.

The court case comes in Feb and is one that BASSA MUST WIN TO SURVIVE! If BASSA lose the case then BA will come hunting for costs and damages and it will be a bill that even Unite cannot cover. (just think forward bookings and disruption costs!)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with New Fleet, productivity or even, as far as BASSA are concerned, money. Why else fight on when BA stated that they would 'top up' pay with an average payment if the CC took hourly rate? Simple the 'averaging' would benefit those at the bottom whilst those at the top would see a drop. Surely that's how averaging works? It is also exactly what the pilots did five years back and the new system works extremely well.

BASSA is in a power struggle. Willie Walsh wants to get rid of the BASSA grip on the decision making in the company and return it to where it should be, the operations department. The BASSA hierarchy cannot and will not give this up.

Time to change a corrupt (just look at the 'show of hands' not to vote us out yet at the last meeting!) BASSA heirarchy.

Waiting for CFC's words of infinite wisdom. :ugh:

StudentInDebt

2nd Dec 2009, 08:48

This has nothing whatsoever to do with New Fleet, productivity or even, as far as BASSA are concerned, money.I find it incredible that the issue that the cabin crew seem most concerned about, New Fleet, is not the subject of the ballot. BASSA's national officer has confirmed with BA that they are not in dispute over this trojan horse, focussing instead on the imposition. :ooh:

A Lurker

2nd Dec 2009, 08:58

New Fleet as yet, has not been brought up and UNITE themselves say at the moment BA Cabin Crew are not in dispute over New Fleet as this is a totally separate issue to the recent imposition.

As and when New Fleet is imposed there will be a second round of balloting and the threat of IA will once again be upon us

52049er

2nd Dec 2009, 09:06

Student in debt - Tell me you are joking? The only thing CC should be worried about is New Fleet as that IS the game changer. No court is ever going to prevent a company imposing 'essential' changes to T&C's, and convincing a court that theses tiny changes to working levels are essential will be childs play to a QC.

P-T-Gamekeeper

2nd Dec 2009, 09:10

There has been a lot of talk about voting out the current BASSA reps after this fiasco is over. I'm afraid it may not be that simple.

Of the list of positions up for election, only the deputy convener positions were available for new candidates. All other positions required a person with at least 2 years as a current rep:ooh::ooh: . I think the chairperson position required 4 years!!!!

So, even if all BASSA members wanted a completely new bunch of reps, they could only replace the junior reps, and all the old guard are safe. :=

Hotel Mode

2nd Dec 2009, 09:14

As and when New Fleet is imposed there will be a second round of balloting and the threat of IA will once again be upon us

Tiny point A. Lurker but it was in the imposition letter, therefore has been imposed. There wont be another opportunity to ballot for it.

Savings from future crew
The proposal to mix future crew with current crew would have required significant changes for you.

I’ve listened to your feedback and I will now look to make savings from future crew at Heathrow, who will join a separate new fleet. These crew will be rostered and will fly separately from you on new terms and conditions. We do not envisage any new crew joining BA until the business begins to grow again.

Buter

2nd Dec 2009, 09:28

So, even if all BASSA members wanted a completely new bunch of reps, they could only replace the junior reps, and all the old guard are safe.

It's your union, not theirs.

P-T-Gamekeeper

2nd Dec 2009, 09:35

It's your union, not theirs.

Apparently not.:ugh:

52049er

2nd Dec 2009, 09:52

The trouble is, Mr Lurker, just whom is New Fleet an imposition upon? Not existing staff as their contract of employment remains the same. Surely any company has the right to employ new people on whatever (legal) contract they like - as long as people are prepared to sign, thats it.

This is why so many of us are so frustrated with BASSA. New Fleet cannot be stopped by the union - only negotiation could have secured all new joiners onto existing contracts. Remember what came out of the racecourse 'meetings'? No to any negotiations. So thats it then. New Fleet will arrive because BA can do it. Anything else; crewing levels, disruption agreements, days off, finishing times or numbers of seniors on board is merely froth on the ocean of change that New Fleet will bring.

BASSA could have stopped New Fleet but they (not the 14000 members) decided on a No Negotiations stance. Just remember that in 5 years time.

FlexSRS

2nd Dec 2009, 10:17

One thing I have been constantly amazed about, is how BASSA manages to throw the various parts of the company to the lions in order to protect LHR. (Think of the regions, the Glasgow base, the Ts&Cs at LGW they happily gave away to prevent LHR having to work harder, despite those Ts&Cs now being 'unsafe for pax' and 'bad for crew health' etc when LHR crew have to work with them)

Anyway, one thing that I was really shocked by, and that very few people have picked up on, is that now the BASSA reps are starting to sell out Eurofleet in order to protect WorldWide. The cannibal is starting to eat itself! I know a lot of crew are upset about the pay cut BASSA offered, that BA didn't even want, and I know a few crew have worked out one of the other little cheeky bits in their offering, ie the increments freeze for most people. How many of the senior reps and CSDs are on the top increment already? That freeze won't make a jot of difference to the likes of the BASSA chair.

The issue I'm thinking about is the kind offer of BASSA to let the WW 767 go to Eurofleet. Why? Because WW crew hate the 767 trips, there is no bunk for them to rest in, and they are usually some of the lowest paying trips.

Do the crew on Eurofleet, (who are more often than not there for a lifestyle choice because they like being home at night) want a load of low paying trips to Africa and Canada in the middle of the winter? Did anyone actually ask them?

Say by some twist of technology the 767 had some giant winglets and new super biofuel engines fitted and was now being used on BKK/SYD or NRT, triggering all sorts of lovely box payments, do you think Eurofleet would be getting a look in still? Not a chance. So, not just content to feed other bases to the lions, they now turn on their own colleagues at their own base, and without even asking their opinions, they try and get rid of the dross they don't like and offload it on good old Eurofleet. Thanks a bunch!

Can you imagine if BA suggested using WW crew on a 777 to do the night moscow? Or the day moscow? They could probably fill up the 1st Class cabin, we all know what the club loads can be like. It would be a great product, better IFE etc. Can you imagine the WW crew going "to moscow, and back, on the same day Darling? I don't think so!!"

They should be ashamed of themselves, and Eurofleet crew have every right to be angry.

Eurofleet crew watch out, you're next in line to be sold out

flyeruk69

2nd Dec 2009, 11:25

The issue I'm thinking about is the kind offer of BASSA to let the WW 767 go to Eurofleet. Why? Because WW crew hate the 767 trips, there is no bunk for them to rest in, and they are usually some of the lowest paying trips.

The 767 trips are not hated by the majority of crew who work on it they in fact much prefer it, especially going to the east coast of the states, which it mainly goes. In fact the most crew enjoy it. Granted there is a perception with crews who don't fly the 767 you get less days off but there are less trips that generate two days off than the 777.

As for being paid less for the trips, this is also not true, the majority of trips pay the same, if not more as many of the 777/ 747 trips excluding the long range trips. There are more trips on the worldwide fleet that are none long range than long range

As for in flight rest well some of the days are long and not a bunk in sight, the same can be said for a lot of the 777's we fly on.

The proposal from BASSA to have Eurofleet to do the 767 work was to protect the CSD rank on Eurofleet it also gave other crew on Eurofleet a bit of long haul if they wanted it.

wobble2plank

2nd Dec 2009, 11:35

Amazing isn't it, reading through the posts posted by BA crew, some members of BASSA or at least were until BASSA messed it all up again.

This is a Union that is so out of touch with its membership. The BASSA reps, you know the ones, those who sit at the top of the tree on the LH, high paying, part timer trips. Those who back slapped the 'sacked' allocator who 'apparently' seemed to always allocate the same high paying trips to the same crews and then gets hailed a hero by the BASSA front line.

They have no body parts left to throw to the wolves, all external bases are gone or already rationlised. They are experiencing an attack on the core body of BASSA, something that could threaten their elevated position and they will do anything to protect themselves. They aren't interested in the affect on junior crew of the imposition of new fleet. They are concerned that New Fleet will remove their ludicrously high paying cushy routes that they hold so dear. The ones that no one else can get on because the dinosaurs at the top of BASSA seem to get them all of the time. They aren't interested in rationalising the pay system as an average out will see the top end losing money! Can't have that can we now! Before anyone cries foul and 'they are rewarding experience'. The FC have already gone through this process and the fleets are much more relaxed as a result. It takes away the destination payment lottery and replaces it with 'where would I like to see this time'.

This Union is totally out of control. IA for New Fleet? What ballot again? It cannot be done as a previous poster pointed out it is all rolled up by BA into the one, current imposition.

Time for change and time those milking the system and the junior crew to move aside. The world, economics, demographics and time have passed you by.

Can you change the Union? Of course. You can force a ballot of no confidence in the leadership team if BASSA lose the court action and end up paying all of your Union contributions to BA as a direct result of ineffectual action. BASSA love votes of no confidence, I wonder if they would like that one?

FlexSRS

2nd Dec 2009, 12:07

Flyeruk69 wrote

The proposal from BASSA to have Eurofleet to do the 767 work was to protect the CSD rank...

A common theme in BASSA....

it also gave other crew on Eurofleet a bit of long haul if they wanted it.

But do they want it? Did anyone bother to ask them? It's not like BASSA didn't have months and months and months to actually poll their members and find out what they, the members, actually want. The members are supposed to be the important ones in the union. And by that I mean the vast majority, not the gold-plated few.

BABOBO

2nd Dec 2009, 14:08

Don't forget about the Purser / Main Crew swap on the 3-class B777 at LGW!!! In BASSA's very first counter proposal this was one of the only items BASSA agreed with...... now they are trying to gain support at LGW from Pursers by saying 'Pursers loose out in allowances due to less longhaul flying beacuse of the Purser / Main Crew swap'...... funnily enough they (BASSA) forget to mention / remind crew, they agreed with this particular bit of the company's proposal!!! :ugh:

keel beam

2nd Dec 2009, 14:10

I always thought that the New Fleet was associated with the A380 and B787. So on that basis, I am certain New Fleet will happen.

I speculate that the A380 and B787 will end up doing the "lucrative" routes. So if this IS BASSA's line of thinking (though to be honest, reading through these threads I find it hard to believe at the moment) they would be upset at the "New Fleet" as all the money making routes will disappear.

BASSA have missed an opportunity by not negotiating.

I was beginning to find this thread monotonous, but new blood has ignited my interest with well thought out arguments.

To CFC et al, if you would be so kind to answer the questions put to you, "we" as readers and contributors would have a much better appreciation of where you are coming from. The attitude of "because I said so" does not wash. I, and I imagine most of the contributors here, are information hungry. To get a balanced view of the CC situation and thoughts, throwing your toys out of the pram does not help. You would get far more appreciation if your arguments were well put, even if people did not agree with you. I would also think that you may feel satisfaction that you have put your points over in an adult way.

Just for the record I do work for BA, though not in CC, so I want as much reasoned information as possible from BOTH sides, but at the moment it is rather one sided!

MrBernoulli

2nd Dec 2009, 14:21

Signs of the much needed changes in BA are also beginning to appear in the paperwork. New directive this week clearly shows that the head of IFCE (cabin crew head honcho), amongst other things, will now report to the Director of Flight Ops for safety and compliance responsibilities under EU-Ops. That has been a long time coming, and is a necessary shift in the power balance.

wobble2plank

2nd Dec 2009, 15:02

So, the head of IFcE finally reports directly to the Director of Flight Operations!

Just as with almost every other Airline in the world!

Does this mean that the line responsibility will finally be placed with the Captain? With no wishy washy grey blurring of the lines of responsibility? All crew, crew rest, disruption, hours, discretion etc. etc. being decided not by a power hungry Union but by the Captain with the best interests of the paying passenger at heart?

One can only hope so!

Jockster

2nd Dec 2009, 15:24

Wobble - I thought it was the other way around - Isn't Flight Ops and indeed the rest of BA a fully owned subsiduary of IFCE services?

Golden Ticket

2nd Dec 2009, 15:40

My understanding is that cabin service has always been the Captains responsibility and that it was delegated to the CSD to organise on his/her behalf.

I thought discression was the Captains responsibility.

cessnapete

2nd Dec 2009, 15:59

Not in BA you have to check with BASSA first.

midman

2nd Dec 2009, 16:00

Discretion is the Captain's responsibility.

The problem is if you have a cabin crewmember on board who wants to stick with his industrial limits which might be more restrictive than the Captain's discretion limits.

In which case Bassa will almost always tell the crewmember not to operate, and the union will tell cabin crew ops that the crew are out of hours and the flight will not go (unless a second crew can be found).

So Bassa run the operation and there's virtually nothing the Captain can do.

This is what WW wants to change, and Bassa don't like it one bit. (See Bassa's briefing to the city above.)

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 16:08

A couple of sentences I found somewhere else... (yes, I'm naughty again)

You may disagree with the premise for the ballot and the result if it is contrary to your view, but in a democracy and for democracy to function at all, the minority must support the majority.

If you vote NO and then make yourself available to BA for work, you are underminding the fundemental roots of democracy and your colleagues who later you will have to work alongside.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Maybe the original poster meant something else from what I read into it, but in that case it's badly put.

Gg

Lord Bracken

2nd Dec 2009, 16:18

What that poster is basically saying is that those who have voted No should (in BASSA's view) still strike if the overall vote is Yes.

It's a pretty loose interpretation of how a democracy works.

Desertia

2nd Dec 2009, 16:33

It's a pretty loose interpretation of how a democracy works.

Actually it's a not even that good. The whole point of a democracy is that the minority (and in fact ANYONE) must regularly challenge their leadership to justify themselves or their actions, and if they are unable to do so satisfactorily, they must be removed.

Democracy fails when the leadership are able to quell any dissent. An example of this is BASSA leaders and their loudmouthed stormtroopers shouting down any questioning of, or disagreement with their actions on the forums on which they have control. They are an oligarchy.

I could argue that it is closer to fascism than it is to democracy or liberalism.

You can tell how much they wish to retain control of what their members see by their futile attempts at excluding people such as myself and fincastle from this forum, despite the fact we have every right to be interested in the future of our national carrier.

:=

JayPee28bpr

2nd Dec 2009, 16:49

But isn't it unfair that, having voted No, a person is free to undermine any consequent strike, but if a person strikes in spite of a No vote they (more likely their Union) face damages? I think people should have the choice to follow their conscience, but it seems fair that the consequences ought to be balanced. So, if people do undermine the collective position (ie work following a Yes vote), shouldn't they be open to similar claims for damages by their colleagues/Union, as is the case where strikes are not properly sanctioned? And isn't that a better solution than the risk of harrasment etc that many have expressed fears of on here?

You can't have it all ways guys.

wobble2plank

2nd Dec 2009, 16:58

Cabin services and discretion are the responsibility of the Captain.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But only, at the moment, after the Great God BASSA have been consulted and a few goats sacrificed!

If the great God BASSA say NO! then you could just as easily move a mountain as get the crew to go into discretion. Not the fault of the crew but more of the rather intimidating attitude of the Union as espoused by

If you vote NO and then make yourself available to BA for work, you are underminding (SP x 50 BASSA 'undermining') the fundemental (Sp x 50 BASSA 'fundamental') roots of democracy and your colleagues who later you will have to work alongside.

Great stuff.

52049er

2nd Dec 2009, 17:16

I'm not sure I disagree with BASSA's (rather badly expressed) message on this one. If my Union called a strike, gained a majority to do it, and I had voted no, I would accept the collective position and withdraw my labour. No point in being in a 'union' otherwise.

Likewise, in a democracy the minorities have to accept the rule of the majority. The idea is that you win the argument so your rules become the accepted ones. You can't just ignore certain laws/decisions because you don't agree with them, otherwise who would pay tax?

winstonsmith

2nd Dec 2009, 17:27

being home at night) want a load of low paying trips to Africa and Canada in the middle of the winter? Did anyone actually ask them?

767 going over to EF was part of UNITE's proposal and AFAIK they never asked their members.

EF crew are going mad because the ET Purser has been replaced with a main crew member. Wait - have they forgotten UNITE actually proposed this too?

767 goes to DAR, EBB, LUN, NAS, YYC and some US destinations. Some of them pay good but most of them are the lowest paid WW destinations.

Can you imagine if BA suggested using WW crew on a 777 to do the night moscow? Or the day moscow?

The day DME would trigger an ERD the day before the trip.

It would be the same if LCA came over to WW - and BA could fill a 777 on the route - it would need an ERD unless they changed the schedule - and 2 MBT- and the trip would in total be 5 days. Economical?

binsleepen

2nd Dec 2009, 18:44

I do reluctantly have some sympathy with the view that if you vote no and lose you do have a moral obligation not to undermine the majority of your fellow union members. (Just as a member of the cabinet has to tow the government line if they wish to remain in the government). However just like a member of the cabinet if you don't like a policy or the result of a vote you are free to return to the back benches or in this case resign from the union and continue to work.

There are obviously many CC who are not union members, and therefore had no vote, and should be supported to the full extent of the law to go to work free of threats or intimidation if that is their wish.

Regards

wobble2plank

2nd Dec 2009, 18:54

52049er,

I'm not sure I disagree with BASSA's (rather badly expressed) message on this one. If my Union called a strike, gained a majority to do it, and I had voted no, I would accept the collective position and withdraw my labour. No point in being in a 'union' otherwise.

Likewise, in a democracy the minorities have to accept the rule of the majority. The idea is that you win the argument so your rules become the accepted ones. You can't just ignore certain laws/decisions because you don't agree with them, otherwise who would pay tax?

Fundamentally I agree with you.

The difficulties come with both those who are not in the Union and also on the demographics of the Union Vote.

Both of your, quite correct, views could be destroyed if a low vote percentile were returned with a high 'Yes' volume. Would you then be advocating that the majority accede to the wishes of the minority in a 'One out, all out' strike?

The problem for BASSA would be where less than 50% return produces a 'Yes' vote on 75% of those returned. You would then have a strike called on a majority of 3/8th of the eligible vote representing a minority of the membership.

I think the fundamentally important factor in this whole process is, whatever your view, make sure you use and cast your vote. Apathy achieved the Labour party its last victory don't let apathy be the downfall of BA.

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 19:28

Firstly, the sentences I quoted are not from Bassa. They're from a crew member.

My issue isn't with democracy. My issue is with the way it's written. It makes it sound like that if you're in the minority you have no options.

I know "Wixspedia" isn't always the most reliable source of information, but here goes anyway:

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom.These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. A third common principle, though less measurable, is that all citizens are promised certain legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are generally protected by a constitution.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)), freedom of speech (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) and freedom of the press (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press) are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

Make of it what you like.

Gg

SlideBustle

2nd Dec 2009, 19:35

Hmm, I CAN see what you guys are saying, but if a strike is called I would be very reluctant to strike just because the majority of voters voted yes. Many people are BLINDLY voting yes - they think that it will ''send a message'' to Willie Walsh and that he will back down. I think if he was going to, he probably would have by now!! :hmm:

Have you seen a recent BASSA publication.... I won't post the exact as wouldn't want to break any rules BUT... it's talking about December 14th will be the day that will shape our working life. If you vote yes we will find out whether BA has offered any change, or prospect of change to their position. If not then strike dates will be announced. It then goes on to say if you vote No then december 14th will be the last meeting of it's kind and the end of the union - ''your union will have been defeated and our strength to represent you with it.'' :hmm: Represent whom?? Oh I know! Never was I consulted on any of their proposals or how I wanted negotiations to go!!

Slickster

2nd Dec 2009, 20:16

My ears are flapping, every time I go to work, and occasionally, I chuck in a question, but keep my own counsel.

The last trip was laughable, on the bus. One of the CC didn't know what to do, so wasn't going to vote. None of them knew what the ballot was about. I flatter myself, but I genuinely believe I'm far better informed about the reason for this dispute, and the ramifications of a strike, if it does happen.

One of the crew (the one who couldn't make his mind up, because he couldn't be bothered to avail himself to the facts) said he would strike if he had a lousy roster, but not if he had a decent trip. Truly pathetic - my teeth were grinding.

I do hope WW calls their bluff, and lets them strike. I wouldn't even bother cancelling services - from what I see and hear, very few have the balls to walk out (and it won't be the BASSA leadership), and if they do, they won't even know why they're doing it. Good riddance; I don't want stupid people working for my company.

Anyone who votes "no" clearly won't strike (it's just the way of things), and many who have voted "yes", think that's all they need to do, and are praying for days off/leave/splintered pancreas to avoid the need to walk. Well, I have news for you "yes" voters; your bravado and BS won't work this time. We've all had enough of it.

52049er

2nd Dec 2009, 20:31

And given all that I truly feel for those of you caught in this dilemma. A union differs from a democracy in that membership is optional. The reason I am a member of my Union (Association?) is that I happen to agree with its aims, methods and philosophy.

My association is interested in my opinion, asks for my preferences and is open, honest and mature in its dealings with me. As a result I give it in return the level of support I discussed in my last post. However, I don't have a problem with people going against democracy if there is an obvious justification.

After all (forgive the glib comparison but there is an Association that enjoys using inappropriate images from WW2) Hitler was democratically elected and I dont think anyone would criticise a rebel against that particular democratic regime.

SlideBustle

2nd Dec 2009, 20:32

Slickster that is unbelievable (oh well actually it's not) that someone would strike only if they had a rubbish roster!! I mean I respect everyones decision - whether they vote Yes or No but Omg! that to use that reason to strike is foolish!

Slickster

2nd Dec 2009, 20:43

Yes, it is unbelievable, but the kind of rubbish I hear spouted around all the time. Of course he wouldn't strike; he struck me as someone who could barely make it into work on time, let alone strike. He couldn't even make his mind up over a ballot paper, in the comfort of his own home.

Which is why I hope the bluff is called.

HiFlyer14

2nd Dec 2009, 20:49

Right for the record, I am in the Union have voted NO, have now resigned from the Union and will DEFINiTELY be coming into work on strike days.

Democracy? Really?

Where was the democracy asking ALL members if they accepted any of the THREE BA proposals?
Where was the democracy asking ALL members if they approved of the BASSA proposal (pay cut etc.)?
Where was the democracy asking ALL members which parts of either proposal they accept?
Where was the democracy asking ALL members which parts of either proposal they reject?
Where was the democracy or representation of the members when BASSA walked out of a meeting when BA wanted to show a slideshow?
Where's the democracy when the Union publish propoganda flyers with personal attacks on management rather than publishing the facts of the issue?
Where is the democracy when anyone who posts an "alternative" view on either crewforum or BASSA forum is shot down in flames?
Where is the democracy when anyone who posts an "alternative" view on either crewforum or BASSA forum is BANNED from the forum?
Where's the democracy when some cabin crew say "I'll bring this company down before I accept..."

We are all looking for democracy in this :mad: Union but there isn't any.

We work for BA too, yet this Union seems intent on sinking it. Some of us have the guts, the intelligence and the ability to fight that. So please don't :mad: well tell me that due to democracy I have to support the YES voters that have been led like lambs to the slaughter because they haven't bothered to read both sides of the argument.

If they want to lose their jobs and their livelihoods, then that's their problem. I have to keep a roof over my family's head. So don't you dare throw the :mad: democracy card at me for doing so.

I HAVE VOTED NO AND I WILL COME TO WORK. IT IS MY RIGHT UNDER UK EMPLOYMENT LAW TO DO SO.

Oh just wanted to add - where's the democracy in sending out ballot forms to approx 1000+ people who won't even be employed by the company when the time for IA comes??:mad::rolleyes::(

Human Factor

2nd Dec 2009, 20:59

What that poster is basically saying is that those who have voted No should (in BASSA's view) still strike if the overall vote is Yes.

Entirely agree, hence the term "Union" - meaning "as one". IMHO, there are three correct courses of action:

Vote "Yes" - strike if there is a "Yes" vote, as you acknowledge you will by your vote.

Vote "No" - strike if there is a "Yes" vote, as you acknowledge that you are a member of a "Union" (remember) and democracy rules.

Vote "No" - don't strike and resign from the union if there is a majority "Yes" vote. If you remain a member, by defying the democratic majority, you are undermining the point of the "Union" (there's that word again).

... and the secret fourth option. Don't vote at all and go with the majority. If you don't vote, you cannot morally do anything else.

Not often I agree with BASSA (and controversial, I know) but this post describes the moral thing to do. Ah, now I see the problem.... :rolleyes:

Human Factor

2nd Dec 2009, 21:01

There are obviously many CC who are not union members, and therefore had no vote, and should be supported to the full extent of the law to go to work free of threats or intimidation if that is their wish.

Those CC who are not union members will not have been balloted and are therefore ineligible to take part in a strike. They have no choice but to come to work.

Slickster

2nd Dec 2009, 21:08

I forgot to add, that on the bus, I had to inform them that they wouldn't get paid if they went on strike, but added that they would get their £30 per day, from Unite.

Lambs to the slaughter. If they can't be bothered to inform themselves...Perhaps too much reliance on BASSA, and not enough independent thought.

It always pays to check things out for yourself, whoever you are, and whatever you do; it's one of the reasons BALPA is so effective these days.

KitKat747

2nd Dec 2009, 21:23

I have been in the postion where my union voted for a strike yet I voted against.

When it came to the strike I resigned from the union and went to work - it seemed the honerable thing to do. In time I joined an alternative union and was a union representative for that union for many years.

I would urge all BASSA members to act with honour - if you voted to strike - then strike. If you voted NO - resign from the union, you don't have to be a member - and you will be much wealthier!

Desertia

2nd Dec 2009, 22:39

Just as a member of the cabinet has to tow the government line if they wish to remain in the government.

A member of the government remains that regardless of being rejected as a member of the cabinet.

And it is "toe the line" not "tow the line", which is a nautical term.

Give me strength. No wonder this union is in such a mess.

Apologies mods, but it is British Airways we are discussing. I'd expect a little knowledge of British politics.

ArthurScargill

2nd Dec 2009, 22:47

Anyone worked the new compliments on longhaul then ?

Genuine question with no sarcasm:
How are they working out ?

Human Factor

2nd Dec 2009, 23:06

A member of the government remains that regardless of being rejected as a member of the cabinet.

At the risk of thread creep, the government is made up of the cabinet and associated ministers. One may be a member of parliament for the ruling party but one is not part of the government unless one is a secretary of state or a minister.

As you say though, we are discussing BA.... :oh:

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 23:10

ArthurS,

I've been flying with these crew complements for over 3 years ;). No problems (a few teething ones in the beginning, but that's because we hadn't done long haul before). Everything gets done, and we don't stress.

However, through various sources there are conflicting reports. Some claim it's awful, some say it's no problem. Some refuse to do anything but the bare minimum, some are professional. Some try to make sure it doesn't work, some do their very best and get everything done. As always, there are different views.

Gg

Jpax

2nd Dec 2009, 23:27

I am not cabin crew, I am a customer.

I have travelled twice since 16 November in J main deck cabin.

Outbound day flight full, nothing unusual, the cabin crew seemed to work normally, I cannot think of anything to comment on. They were perfectly ok and friendly, there was no obvious reduction in crew, the service was delivered exactly as before. I travel a lot so know the method of service.,

Return sector a night sector which was far from full. Service again was normal with nothing unusual to report, crew friendly as on the outbound flight. There was plenty of time and the services were not rushed, I was addressed by name by one of the crew who chatted but did not mention anything about new routines resulting in less crew.

Had I not been reading this topic I would not have thought there was any change at all. I left the aircraft as a completely satisfied customer.

ArthurScargill

2nd Dec 2009, 23:32

ArthurS,

I've been flying with these crew complements for over 3 years http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif. No problems (a few teething ones in the beginning, but that's because we hadn't done long haul before). Everything gets done, and we don't stress.

However, through various sources there are conflicting reports. Some claim it's awful, some say it's no problem. Some refuse to do anything but the bare minimum, some are professional. Some try to make sure it doesn't work, some do their very best and get everything done. As always, there are different views.

Thanks Glamgirl - as this appears to be the 'reason to strike', i'm generally interested in how the compliments are working out. Whilst i would expect a few juvenile protests, i wonder if there have been any noteworthy incidents which BASSA can regale in their next set of comms.

I still can't believe Unite have actually picked this reason to strike. As you said, you've been doing it yourself for 3 years and i must admit you've only just made me realise LGW crew are a 'man' down. I fly out of there on longhaul just as regularly as i do LHR - often in the premium cabins and can't say i have noticed any difference in service at all !
How Unite (BASSA) expect that reason to hold any legal credibility when they themselves allowed the same thing to happen at LGW is beyond me. Are they really that stupid & blinkered ? Surely not.

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 23:33

Jpax,

I'm so glad you had good flights. Sounds like you had a good crew who know what team work is and had the right attitude to work. Thanks for letting us know.

In regards to other flights, I think the whole thing depends very much on the CSD and their attitude to the whole thing. I've read "reports" where CSDs have refused to go on a trolley, where there have been go-arounds, refusal to reset AVOD, I could go on. I'm really hoping this will be in the minority, for obvious reasons.

I think (as I've said before) it's all about team work..

Gg

Glamgirl

2nd Dec 2009, 23:37

ArthurS,

What seems to be the main reason Bassa/unite/LHR wants to strike about this is because they claim their customers have higher expectations :rolleyes:. I would like to point out though, that whenever LHR crew operate a "leisure" route, they seem to complain how demanding the passengers are... Go figure.

Oh, and not forgetting it's all about imposition...

Gg

ArthurScargill

3rd Dec 2009, 00:16

So in your opinion Glamgirl, do you see LGW backing LHR in this strike ?
I'd be surprised if they did but it has been said before on this thread that they are wiling to strike and i have heard from other people that that is the case.
I find that quite mind boggling.

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 00:24

There are some LGW cc who have been "brain washed" and have voted yes. I reckon they'll be very annoyed when they realise they've been lied to. Incidentally, the only reason some LGW have voted yes is due to the union telling them there won't be any transfers to LHR - ever.

We (that keep informed about stuff) knew that anyways. No transfers is because of NewFleet. If this had been negotiated away, there would've been a better chance of keeping the option of transfers in the contract.

The issue about transfers was only flung out as "info" just before the ballot was sent out. As was the "info" about the tax on allowances for LGW. The (increasingly) cynical side of me thinks (or should I say pretty much know) that this was an excercise purely to get support from LGW.

But all in all, I doubt there would be much disruption at LGW if it comes to strike (not that I think it will get to that). Too many aren't in a union, and most don't support what the ballot is about anyways. Well, the cc who understand all the mumbo jumbo from the union anyway....

Gg

Slickster

3rd Dec 2009, 00:54

I've read "reports" where CSDs have refused to go on a trolley, where there have been go-arounds, refusal to reset AVOD, I could go on. I'm really hoping this will be in the minority, for obvious reasons.

Please don't mess with go-arounds, people. It's a serious business, involving lots of reports, from lots of different people. It burns fuel, leaves the pilots with less options, and a few more years off their lives, whilst they try and work out where they can land. It's well under the belt, and you, too, are on the aeroplane!!

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 01:03

Slickster,

I know what you're saying. I think it's disgusting that go-arounds have happened because of a crew member coming off the aircraft. It means they've started the 2nd service too late and aren't organised enough.

I pride myself on that I've never had a go-around due to cabin "activity", and I have no intentions of starting anytime soon. It's not exactly difficult (when working as a team) to secure a cabin for landing. I know that for some reason LHR crew only collect head-sets at 20min to land (LGW @40 mins), but whey they get the 40 min call, surely one starts preparing for landing by starting to pick up stuff/clearing in, securing the galley etc??? Or is that just too organised?

Gg

OzzieO

3rd Dec 2009, 02:28

GG - Talking about being organised how are your new union efforts coming along?;)

beerdrinker

3rd Dec 2009, 05:32

After a go-around has been carried out, an ASR has to be completed by the Captain. If the reason is because of the non-readiness of the Cabin, I would expect a thorough investigation would be carried out by the Director of Flight Ops - to whom Cabin Services now report to on matters of Safety. If it transpires that there has been a clear dereliction of duty in the Cabin, I would imagine that a disciplinairy investigation will follow - I would not like to be in the SCCM's shoes then.

Desertia

3rd Dec 2009, 06:22

In practice, governments can pass any legislation (within reason) in the Commons they wish, unless there is major dissent by MPs in the governing party.

I apologise for my error, Human Factor, and indeed I have learned something new today. I will tow the line from now on (OK, I won't use "Government" in place of "governing party") :}

I'm not sure it's thread creep though. If our BASSA "cabinet" are making decisions without providing their reasons to their "governing party", then where is the queen that can dissolve government? :sad:

dave747436

3rd Dec 2009, 08:10

Desertia, I think you'll find that's 'toe'.......see post #3954 written by.... er....

Desertia

3rd Dec 2009, 08:58

I can't understand some people and there sense of humour :}

flyeruk69

3rd Dec 2009, 10:40

It's good to hear Jpax had a good flight both ways, this fight with BA isn't about taking the frustrations out on the customers on day to day flights and nor should it be.

My beef as I've said before is the total disregard to collective agreements signed and agreed by both BA and the TU's. Just because these agreements don't suit the current management they shouldn't be disregarded.

I hoped there would be a mutual agreement found which suited both sides unfortunately this has not been the case.

Both sides are now in the situation where the TU members are in the middle of a ballot which could possibly lead IA, BA say they are open to talking to the TU's at anytime in reality BA are not willing to talk about the breaking of the cabin crew agreements (removal of crew members) and the TU's are not willing to talk until the breaking of the agreements is returned to the table.

Rather a Mexican stand off , sadly not an ideal situation for either side or the customers.

There should be a way forward that suits both sides in this dispute.

Should this whole unrest end in IA especially over the festive period will be disastrous for the travelling public.

The problem is that many crew feel that if they accept this imposition and the removal of one of our agreements what will be next ?

Readers may not believe being cabin crew should be a career choice and should only be a short term job before doing "a proper job". Why shouldn't the job be career choice in much the same way as pilots view their job as a career, OK it costs less to train cabin crew, however that shouldn't devalue it as chosen career for those who want to do the job.

Carnage Matey!

3rd Dec 2009, 10:55

Nobody was stopping you doing the job as a career, certainly not BA who agreed to take new fleet off the table. They were just asking you to do it with fewer crew on board. As BASSA wouldn't agree to this then BA's only option is to impose the changes and bypass BASSA with the generation of new fleet so that they can save the money they need to. If you want to look at who is jeopardising your 'career crew' plans I'd be looking at your union, and why they've forced BA to bring back new fleet.

dave747436

3rd Dec 2009, 10:59

I can't understand some people and there sense of humourDesertia, I think you'll find it's 'their' (sense of humour)....:ok:

A joke is no laughing matter.

MrBernoulli

3rd Dec 2009, 11:16

Why shouldn't the job be career choice in much the same way as pilots view their job as a career ....If we're honest, there are an awful lot of BA cabin crew (not all of them, I know) who didn't see the job with BA as a 'career choice' at all, but as an easy life for easy money. Both the 'life' and the 'money' must now really fall into line with what the job is worth - simple.

And again, falling in to the old trap of comparing apples with oranges - pilots have a completely different sort of training, with a professional license, regular medicals, yaddah, yaddah ..... don't go there, the Mods don't like it.

.... OK it costs less to train cabin crew, however that shouldn't devalue it as chosen career for those who want to do the job. But you seem to assume that because someone might chose cabin crewing as a career, that it should provide them with an income that suits their personal circumstances. That isn't the way the world works - the world doesn't owe individuals a living! The job is offered with a salary, and the individual then decides whether that is worthwhile or not. If the salary later changes, and the individual doesn't like it - move on! If there is nothing to move on to, then there are two choices - bite the bullet and stay, and make up income by doing a second job, or leave and have no job! I repeat - the individual is not owed a living of their own choosing!

Human Factor

3rd Dec 2009, 11:27

flyeruk69,

... the individual is not owed a living of their own choosing!

The individual should have pay and conditions at market rate (or thereabouts) for their job. I have as flight crew and I would suggest that pretty much everyone else in BA has as well, with one group being a glaring exception.:oh:

Just explain again why you feel your pay and conditions should be so significantly different to the market rate for your job when "market rate" is good enough for the rest of the company....:hmm:

Andy_S

3rd Dec 2009, 11:40

Readers may not believe being cabin crew should be a career choice and should only be a short term job before doing "a proper job". Why shouldn't the job be career choice in much the same way as pilots view their job as a career

Ultimately it's all about the requirements of the business. It's for BA to decide how to recruit, pay and organise cabin crew. You can either accept what they're offering or look for alternative employment.

When a company starts being run for the benefit and convenience of it's employees rather than shareholders or paying customers, it's asking for trouble.

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 12:15

OzzyO, it's a work in progress. Want to join?:p

I just wanted to let you all know that LGW cc has improved in all areas in November (re customer satisfaction). LHR cc are down a few points on both fleets unfortunately.

Gg

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 13:13

What 'Market Rate' are you quoting????

Human Factor

3rd Dec 2009, 13:19

I'll let you work that out from the previous 190 or so pages.:rolleyes:

Suffice to say that BASSA seem entirely content for those market rate terms and conditions to exist at LGW.

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 13:22

I asked a very simple and straightforward question which it seems that you are unable to answer - or so it seems:rolleyes:

GS-Alpha

3rd Dec 2009, 13:23

The problem is that many crew feel that if they accept this imposition and the removal of one of our agreements what will be next ?
Why does everyone in this company feel they need to strike over what might happen? Surely the time to strike is when you are not happy with a change - not when you think it might open the door to a change you will not like in the future! So many crew say this to me, and I think it is madness to make your company lose revenue and customers in the middle of a recession when you are actually quite happy with the currently imposed changes.

Fuel_on_Mixture_Rich

3rd Dec 2009, 13:25

Page 187 A Lurker. Market rates were done to death on there.

Desertia

3rd Dec 2009, 13:39

My beef as I've said before is the total disregard to collective agreements signed and agreed by both BA and the TU's. Just because these agreements don't suit the current management they shouldn't be disregarded.

Flyer it is naive to try and confuse "current management" with "current economic conditions", "significant changes in the industry due to LCCs" and "shareholders' ideas of what they want to do with their company".

The agreements were drawn up in a period where the company could afford everything it forged with the union.

You are abundantly correct in that they should be renegotiated if anything, as opposed to being "torn up", but I think it's apparent from the information on this thread and the hissy fits coming from BASSA that they are not willing to negotiate - so BA are having to do it the hard way. Unfortunately the members that BASSA represent will learn this to their cost if the ballot swings to IA and BASSA lead them out of a job.

Which is why I think it's important to consider all of the information available in this discussion (and why I added the information about the Green taxes that are going to take even more money away from BA in the coming years).

I for one would love to see BASSA sit down at the table and listen properly to what BA have to say, but it would seem the current leadership see this as a threat to their own personal circumstances and will not do it.

dave747436

3rd Dec 2009, 13:45

Sorry to self-quote, but on the 27th November I posted this:
In the past I've spent a lot of time & effort trying to ascertain other (non-UK) arline rates of pay for Cabin Crew, and drawn a complete blank.

Some of the US carriers payscales seem to indicate a similar "top of scale" rate as BA, in terms of gross pay, but no real indication of average pay, or unit pay (approx cost "per hour flown" to the company).

For the EU airlines, I've had no luck at all.

My only feeling is that surely Unite know these details (at least for EU airlines).
If Iberia/AF/KLM/Lufthansa rates are the same as BA (or more), why aren't Unite shouting these numbers from the rooftops? (Lufthansa's average cost per unit flown is X! BA crew are only paid X - 10%!!!, for example)

So what do these airlines pay? Even if, as W2P points out, cost of living etc would be different - at least knowing the raw figures would be a start.

Without the basic data I don't see how we can really make any progress?

Perhaps some of the BASSA members who post here have some personal knowledge, or would be willing to ask their reps some questions?Hi A Lurker, good to see you back - I know you're willing to engage on the detail..

Have you had more luck than me ascertaining EU airline rates of pay for Cabin Crew? Any info from Unite?

As far as pilots go, BA pilots are paid about the same as Virgin Pilots per hour flown (for example). And (guessing here) about 30% more than LoCo/Charter pilots. (willing to be corrected, but don't think I'm far off..)

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 14:01

What I really don't get is why the union is still refusing to meet with BA, purely because BA won't remove the imposition. Yes, I know the union doesn't agree with it, but to be able to move forward, surely it's at least common sense to meet with the management to hear what they have to say? It doesn't mean the union has to agree to anything (as I don't expect them to from experience...), but at least listen, and come up with a plan of action.

The union won't tell any of the members what Plan A, B or C is. Yes, I know they've said there will be an announcement of strike dates on the 14th, but after the last Sandown meeting can one really trust what they say? I refer to the much hyped (non) deliverance of a ballot from the recently sacked scheduling man. He was sent off from Sandhurst to personally deliver the intent of ballot from the union to BA. He was "called back" due to some reason or another. The members weren't told this asap, it came out several days later.

Trust? Where? Who? When? Why?

Gg

Edited for rather major typo...

MrBernoulli

3rd Dec 2009, 14:12

GG,

By 'Sandhurst', I'm sure you mean Sandown?

And I am surprised that you are surprised at BASSAs refusal to meet BA. BASSA usually demands the pre-conditions it wants to do anything, and due to BA not playing that game, BASSA has painted itself into a corner where it doesn't know how to move, let alone think (as if it really ever has done any of the latter recently .....).

BA are not going to pussy-foot anymore - 'hardball' is the name of the game now. And it is obvious BASSA is not qualified to play! Bad luck to them.

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 14:34

MrBernoulli,

Firstsly, thanks for pointing out my typo :ok:. Now corrected.*

I'm not surprised at the unions refusal, I just don't "get" it. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at union HQ these days to hear what they have to say about this whole shambles.

Gg

*or maybe Sandhurst might be a more appropriate place for such a meeting?:}

Slickster

3rd Dec 2009, 14:48

I think Sandhurst would be an admirable place for the BASSA clowns to start. They might actually learn something about leadership, and tactics. Probably all a bit late now....

Human Factor

3rd Dec 2009, 15:13

I asked a very simple and straightforward question which it seems that you are unable to answer - or so it seems.

I thought I did.

Suffice to say that BASSA seem entirely content for those market rate terms and conditions to exist at LGW.

So that market rate already exists within BA. Sounds like you're protesting a bit much, otherwise BASSA would have made more of an effort to stop it at LGW.

Wouldn't they?

flyeruk69

3rd Dec 2009, 15:59

Having not mentioned "market rates" ( it's been done to death on here) my point was to say if an individual wants a career as cabin crew it should be available. At no point did I mention what sort of reward for such a career an individual would want or need, which wasn't what I was getting at. Although taking a substantial amount of money away from current employees because of the way they are paid and is viewed by some as "above market rates" is in my view morally wrong as most people live to their means, ( it has to be said BA have not done this). To infer that just because current cabin crew should take a substantial pay cut to meet market rates is unrealistic, new entrant crew is a different matter.

I wonder how many people in any industry would accept up to a 50% pay cut to bring them in line with so called market rates, theoretically would anyone on here accept this ?

As in all industry career's are down to market forces and no business would last long if it thought other wise, my point was really about giving people a choice however long it may take to build a career as cabin crew.

I only compared a pilots career to cabin crew career because they are the only two groups of people who spend most of their working lives in the air. It maybe like comparing apples and oranges but they are both still fruit, apart from that the two jobs are fundamentally different but I believe both have an oportuity for a career path if that's what an individual wants. Nothing to do with being "owed a living" or pay, many many other industries offer career paths so why should this industry be so different.

Regardless of the law when balloting and the reasons that caused the ballot, part of the high feelings and passion are about the future and what could happen in the future, rightly or wrongly cabin crew think that if BA can disregard one part of the agreement then they will / could disregard others over time.
We could debate the naivety, lawlessness and futility of using a ballot partly to stop what could happen in the future until "pontius" becomes a "pilate" again, it wouldn't be the first time a group of unionised work force has done such a thing, as long as there is a tangible reason for a ballot there really is nothing that can be done to stop this in law.

wee one

3rd Dec 2009, 16:32

Just curious but isnt BRITISH AIRWAYS, BA et al part of a protected trademark and brand.
Therefore shouldnt BA move to prevent BASSA using BA (British Airways) as part of their union Identity. The general public will easily asume that they form part of the BA hierarchy and not an independant Union.
With their beligerence it could be argued that they are damaging the brand and to the unitiiated appear to be an official entity of BA.
It may also stop the confusion in the bassa leaderships minds that they are an operational department of BA the airline.

Not as far fetched as you think. There is an association in the Middle east that shares the name of the Company its members work for. Many people perceive them to be one and the same. Note: They operate with agreement ffor theuse of the name.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 16:42

Hi wee one,

I think the BA in BASSA stands for British Airlines....ie British Airlines Stewards & Stewardesses Association

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 16:47

Glamgirl,

it is very frustrating this lack of talks between the two parties. Comments have been made a few days ago might shed some light for you.....

Your Union is more than happy to sit down anytime, anywhere to resolve the issues between us, in the end that is what will need to be done. British Airways, so they say, will do the same... but only about new fleet. That is NOT acceptable to any of us.

They will NOT agree to remove or talk about any of the items of imposition.

Keep talking?

If Bill Francis is so keen to talk, why does he never do so? Instead, he prefers to do all of his talking in front of the camera, or via ESS emails. In reality, we have not spoken or heard a word from Bill Francis since June 30th this year. If he is so keen to reach an agreement, why does he not try to do so? In the past, every head of cabin service, no matter how difficult the situation, has maintained an open communication with the union to explore ways of trying to resolve the issues. To repeat, we have not received a single solitary word or phone call from him for nearly six months.

wee one

3rd Dec 2009, 16:48

You are indeed correct. So how many Bassa members are from other British Airlines then?
:ok:

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 16:59

CFC,

Your Union is more than happy to sit down anytime, anywhere to resolve the issues between us, in the end that is what will need to be done. British Airways, so they say, will do the same... but only about new fleet. That is NOT acceptable to any of us.

They will NOT agree to remove or talk about any of the items of imposition.

And there is the problem. Who runs the company? Who is in charge here? I know the union wants to be in charge of the company, but that's not how a company works.

I do find it odd that the union hasn't heard from BF since late June. Have they had comms from anyone else in management? I'm guessing it's a catch-22 regardless, because if BF did call the unions, he'd be harassing them, right?:oh:

Gg

Perry-oaks

3rd Dec 2009, 17:10

we have not spoken or heard a word from Bill Francis since June 30th this year

June 30th - Wasn't that the deadline, the date negotiations were supposed to have ended?

So I take it that Bill was available before June 30th - but Bassa choose NOT to negotiate before then.

It has been commented elsewhere that during the last round of pension talks Bassa reps only turned up on average to 1 out of every 5 meetings, and Balpa were asked to look after their interests by the Bassa Chair on numerous occasions, I understand Bassa have acted in a similar manner throughout these talks.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:14

You are indeed correct. So how many Bassa members are from other British Airlines then?

Not being a member I wouldn't know. Maybe a question for them?

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:20

GG,

Why do you say the union wants to run the company?

Regarding BF not contacting the unions - if you find this hard to believe why not ask him yourself - he's regularly holding live webchats on the BA forum and has a floorplate meeting every Wednesday in CRC.

moo

3rd Dec 2009, 17:22

Bill Francis in today's BA news:

In This week’s BA News, head of IFCE Bill Francis addresses some of the top issues about cost savings in IFCE. since the Unite strike ballot opened, Bill and his team have telephoned more than 10,000 cabin crew and met up with many of them to make sure they have the facts before they vote.
And, as the ballot approaches its final week, Bill explains why he thinks Unite should lift its strike threat and resume talks on the issues facing cabin crew. Still talking: Bill Francis and his team have called more than 10,000 cabin crew to tell them about the airline’s package

Why are we trying to make cost savings in IFCE?

I’m really proud of the cabin crew we have. They do a fantastic job for our airline and our customers. But BA made a record loss last year, and analysts forecast we’re heading for losses again, of up to £800m this year.
Everywhere in BA, costs have to be reduced if we’re to stand any chance of achieving the profitability that is essential to securing our long-term future.
IFCE must play its part in this process.

Why is Unite balloting for a strike?

Unite doesn’t say on its ballot form why it is asking cabin crew to strike. I believe there’s no justification for Unite to create such uncertainty for our cabin crew and to threaten our customers in this way. Let me explain why:
1. Unite asked for a court hearing in February, but is threatening a strike now. We introduced our new crew complements from November after nine months’ consultation with Unite. We believe the changes don’t alter individual terms and conditions. We couldn’t wait any longer to make the cost savings and it meant I could offer 3,000 part-time contracts and 1,000 cabin crew the voluntary redundancy they had asked for. Most of those people have now left BA. Unite thinks the changes are contractual and need formal agreement. It started legal proceedings and when the High Court didn’t grant it an injunction to stop the changes going ahead, Unite asked for a full court hearing. Having chosen the legal route, why is Unite threatening a strike now, before the court hearing in February can consider the arguments?

2. We’re not taking pay or allowances away. There’s a two-year basic pay freeze in my plan, but even so, there will be incremental pay rises of between two and seven per cent this year, and again in 2010, for the 75 per cent of crew who are eligible. I’ve also offered to protect average variable pay for Heathrow crew by replacing it with a new fixed monthly travel payment. That’s an offer to Unite and we need it to agree if we are going to introduce it for all our Heathrow cabin crew.

3. There’s no dispute on new fleet. In a letter to Willie Walsh dated November 19, Unite wrote: “While we have clear concerns about your proposals in respect to ‘new fleet’, we are of course not in dispute over ‘new fleet’.” Despite this, Willie accepted a request from Unite when he met it in October to consider alternative ideas it might have, although we haven’t had any yet.

Why won’t you negotiate with the union?

I want to negotiate and reach an agreement with Unite on the rest of my plan, including changes to the worldwide disruption agreement and the offer of a new monthly travel payment. I cannot implement changes to contractual pay, hours or leave arrangements without agreement, and I don’t want to. As I’ve already said, crew complements were introduced after nine months of consultation, and that’s now in the hands of the court.

So why haven’t you met with Unite since June?

We have. We went to Acas in July, but those talks didn’t go smoothly.
On July 23, Unite registered a failure to agree because it insisted that talks could only continue if they were solely based on its own proposal and were nothing to do with our proposal. This resulted in the talks being escalated to Willie and the Unite general secretaries on August 27. We tried to meet again at Acas at the end of September, but by this time the two branches of
Unite would not sit in the same room together. The resumption of talks is not dependent on the ballot outcome. Talks can restart at any time. Despite lots of invitations since then, Unite still hasn’t agreed a date when it will meet us again.

Are you forcing new contracts on current crew?

No. My plan protects the pay and conditions for our current crew. We can’t afford the same contracts for future crew, which is why we’re planning to recruit them on different terms and conditions. That’s not unique. Our Gatwick crew are on different contracts to Heathrow, with Unite’s
agreement, and they do a great job looking after our customers and their safety.

But surely the threat of a strike will force the company to rethink its plans?

A strike would cost the company millions of pounds and this would make the savings and changes we need to make in IFCE much bigger.With the package that is on the table, that doesn’t need to happen. There is absolutely no reason for a strike. For the sake of our customers and our crew, I urge Unite to withdraw the threat and work with us.

Perry-oaks

3rd Dec 2009, 17:23

Not being a member I wouldn't know. Maybe a question for them?

Sorry for nit picking but you have stated a number of times that you are not a member of Bassa, yet in post # 3876 you state -

I was a bit unsure about events up to that point but listening to the facts from the top table, comments from the representing lawyers along with personally speaking to reps and also colleagues on the day I took no hesitation in putting a cross in the yes box and posting it off toute suite.

I'm just wondering how you managed to get a ballot paper if you are a non-union member??

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:23

Hi Perry Oaks,

remember that the goalposts were moved on two occasions by BF and he then went from headcount savings to a financial figure. Not saying the unions could have done more, but the circumstances were a bit strange around that time.

Desertia

3rd Dec 2009, 17:24

CFC,

It strikes me that BA have made these impositions because they HAVE to stop the flood of money leaving the company. Unless you think there is another reason? Maximising profit perhaps?

If BASSA can come up with alternative CC cost saving suggestions (that pass the independent audit test), then surely BA would be receptive to them rather than risk costly IA? Have BASSA tried to do so, since their wildly inaccurate 175 million package was proven to be bogus?

This was supposed to be the point of the negotiations, and BA were willing to grant BASSA access to the company accounts to prove it. If you remember, BASSA refused to do so. And you still have not told us why.

I would also like to know what harm it would have done to the BASSA cause to see these accounts, because the simple refusal to see them was simply sticking the collective BASSA head in the sand.

I don't see what choice BA have had in the matter, and I don't see that the onus is on them to come back to the table, especially when BASSA is telling its members not to discuss the issues with their "harrassing" managers.

The sensible thing is to VOTE NO and find some decent union representatives to go back to management and find out where compromises can be reached.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:27

Hi again Perry Oaks,

I am a union member but do not belong to Bassa.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:38

It strikes me that BA have made these impositions because they HAVE to stop the flood of money leaving the company. Unless you think there is another reason? Maximising profit perhaps?

If BASSA can come up with alternative CC cost saving suggestions (that pass the independent audit test), then surely BA would be receptive to them rather than risk costly IA? Have BASSA tried to do so, since their wildly inaccurate 175 million package was proven to be bogus?

This was supposed to be the point of the negotiations, and BA were willing to grant BASSA access to the company accounts to prove it. If you remember, BASSA refused to do so. And you still have not told us why.

I would also like to know what harm it would have done to the BASSA cause to see these accounts, because the simple refusal to see them was simply sticking the collective BASSA head in the sand.

I don't see what choice BA have had in the matter, and I don't see that the onus is on them to come back to the table, especially when BASSA is telling its members not to discuss the issues with their "harrassing" managers.

Hi Desertia,

I do not remember Bassa refusing to view the company accounts - can you enlighten me with some facts...and once again, not belonging to Bassa, I therefore are unable to tell you why.

Talks are necessary to sort this mess out. It will take both sides to come to the table. The unions under the UNITE banner are ready and willing, I find it strange BA cannot find a way to sit down with them....or is there an ulterior motive by BA?

VOTE YES FOR YOUR FUTURE

Perry-oaks

3rd Dec 2009, 17:45

Hi CFC

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

remember that the goalposts were moved on two occasions by BF

You must also remember that the company stated that if there were any delays to the BP being implemented then the additional costs caused by the delays would be added to the original target. (the same with any costs associated with IA).

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 17:50

Hi P O,

fair enough - but looking from the Union stance, it cannot have been easy with ever changing figures to deal with.

Personally, I think the Unions and BA reps should be locked away in a hotel till they come to some form of agreement.

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 17:52

CFC,

Why do you say the union wants to run the company?

Where do I start?

Not agreeing to anything, pretty much. No discretion, no alleviations, refusal to turn up to meetings because the company wants to discuss something else than to what union wants to talk about, walking out of meetings when they don't like what they hear, making crew stay 2 local nights after disruption instead of getting home asap (legal limits permitting), lying to members about what the company wants, ostracising non-believers, and general no no no no no culture.

Talks are necessary to sort this mess out. It will take both sides to come to the table. The unions under the UNITE banner are ready and willing, I find it strange BA cannot find a way to sit down with them....or is there an ulterior motive by BA?

I know that BA management are willing and ready to come to the table. I also know that union refuses to come to the table unless they can decide what to "negotiate". I refer you to your post on page 200 (in blue).

Gg

P-T-Gamekeeper

3rd Dec 2009, 17:53

All BA unions were offered access to PWC's latest audit of BA's accounts. BALPA looked at them and agreed to cost savings. BASSA refused and wouldnt accept the need for permanent change.

After ACAS talks, at the final, final talk, BA turned up to start the day with a presentation on their final position. BASSA refused to watch the presentation and went home. Their communique talked rudely about "some junior waterside clerk" and why should they have to listen to what BA had to say, after all, this economic downturn was just a blip!!!!!!

So yes, I would say BASSA refused to look at BA's acounts.

P-T-Gamekeeper

3rd Dec 2009, 17:59

CFC

I think you may find BA management has been slashed in the last year by a far greater margin than the imposition on CC.

As they are now spread much more thinly, I'm not surprised the odd mistake slips through.

The cost cutting has hit all parts of the business. We have no choice if we are to survive.

I'm not BA management BTW;)

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:03

Not agreeing to anything, pretty much. No discretion, no alleviations, refusal to turn up to meetings because the company wants to discuss something else than to what union wants to talk about, walking out of meetings when they don't like what they hear, making crew stay 2 local nights after disruption instead of getting home asap (legal limits permitting), lying to members about what the company wants, ostracising non-believers, and general no no no no no culture.

Gg, I disagree with much of the above. Both Unions have regularly granted alleviations over the years to keep the operation running. With regard to the two local nights on an inbound long range service, well that is the agreement that both parties come to, Whats the point of having agreements if they are regularly broken? Saying that I think all concerned feel that that particular agreement is due for an overhaul. Lying and ostracising - I feel its more of a personal issue with you.

I know that BA management are willing and ready to come to the table

How do you know this? Its contrary to what has recently been issued by UNITE?

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:09

Hi P-T-G,
the management I come into contact in IFCE do not last long. They either move on within BA or just cannot take the pressure (from above) and the merry go round continues. You only have to look at new onboard responsibilities that have been changed by 'management' to see they have not got a clue.

As for continually slashing I feel BA would do much better with a smaller but much higher calibre of management to run this airline.

Carnage Matey!

3rd Dec 2009, 18:11

You only have to look at new onboard responsibilities that have been changed by 'management' to see they have not got a clue

If you have to do it without consultation with the crew then what do you expect? And why was there no consultation with the crew...........?

moo

3rd Dec 2009, 18:12

CFC asked:

How do you KNOW this? Its contrary to what has recently been issued by UNITE?

Perhaps read post no.3999, BF has openly said BA are willing to talk:

Quote: Why won’t you negotiate with the union?

I want to negotiate and reach an agreement with Unite on the rest of my plan, including changes to the worldwide disruption agreement and the offer of a new monthly travel payment. I cannot implement changes to contractual pay, hours or leave arrangements without agreement, and I don’t want to. As I’ve already said, crew complements were introduced after nine months of consultation, and that’s now in the hands of the court.

Talks can restart at any time. Despite lots of invitations since then, Unite still hasn’t agreed a date when it will meet us again.

And before you say it, this cannot possibly be untrue CFC, otherwise BF would be in a lot of trouble when it came to the impending court case for issuing a release to BA cabin crew with barefaced lies in, wouldn't he?

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 18:23

CFC,

With regard to the two local nights on an inbound long range service, well that is the agreement that both parties come to, Whats the point of having agreements if they are regularly broken?

Yes, I know that's the agreement. However, when there's major disruption on the network (in this instance snow), surely the main priority should be to get the network back up and running asap? In such scenarios it's in everyone's best interest to co-operate and work together. Why did the unions say a big fat NO to alleviate that time? Wouldn't it have made more sense if they said, "ok, we'll operate home after minimum (legal) rest, however we want our crew members to have an additional MBT" or suchlike?

In regards to ostracising, it's not just me. There are plenty of cases of such behaviour and also behaviour that smells of bullying. The union doesn't like it when people think for themselves and ask difficult questions. I'll give you an example, that a heck of a lot of members think they can be "fined" by the union for going against their "commands". The union has never said that this isn't true. They like that people believes this, as they get more "co-operation" from it.

As has been mentioned here before, the Captain is in charge of the aircraft, and, if you know your JPM, is in charge of discretion. However, there have been plenty of times where unions (and particularly Bassa) have refused. What happened to common sense? Considering discretion is included in the JPM, it can be used.

Gg

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:24

If you have to do it without consultation with the crew then what do you expect? And why was there no consultation with the crew...........?

There you have it in a nutshell. As with the 2nd CW meal service, no inclusion from our CC reps and this service is being done a 100 different ways and is a total mess for our premium pax.

Consultation - it takes two.

VOTE YES FOR YOUR FUTURE

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:30

Dear Moo,

What you are reading and copying here is BF talking about talks on the Disruption Agreement and New Fleet. What the Unions want to talk about is imposition.

Its his usual play on wordrs.

Sadly for BF, he has lost all credibility with CC as we just cannot trust him anymore and having recently talked to a CC mgr feelings are the same from some on that side of the fence.

VOTE YES - ITS YOUR FUTURE YOU'RE VOTING ON

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 18:31

CFC,

There you have it in a nutshell. As with the 2nd CW meal service, no inclusion from our CC reps and this service is being done a 100 different ways and is a total mess for our premium pax.

Consultation - it takes two.

Firstly, the new service should be done to what the standards say, so no "100 different ways". That doesn't mean I agree with what the standards say, but it's part of the job to adhere to it. If it doesn't work, report it back to the company with suggestions what would actually make it work. Whether you believe it or not, management do actually listen when you feed back stuff to them.

Re consultation about the new service, I can see it now:

BF: Dear union reps, could you please come to meetings to discuss the new service? We'd like your input.

UR (union reps): :mad::mad: off.... :rolleyes:

Gg

moo

3rd Dec 2009, 18:41

CFC,

........but BA & BASSA have talked for 9 months - far exceeding the original deadline. Eventually to keep the company afloat BA simply HAVE to impose the cost savings. What other option is left? MORE talking?? How much exactly?? ANOTHER 9 months?? The company LITERALLY cannot afford to let this drag out, especially when BASSA seem unable to come up with alternative proposals that save the required amount.

I fail to see what more talking will achieve. The company needs to stem the outflow of cash & it needs to do it NOW! (Hence the original deadline)

You may not like imposition, but that's what BASSA/UNITE have driven BA to do - you cannot question BA's resolve to make the cost savings plan palatable to both sides, it's all very well documented and much discussed here.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:41

Dear Gg,

Errrr...the disruption agreement normally kicks in with snow...sometimes fog...thats the whole point of why the agreement first come into place. If you are referring to the snow disruption earlier this year, then the Unions did try and assist in getting the operation back to normal asap - I know as a flight of mine was involved, but the responses from the company just made the Unions dig their heels in and stick to WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO BY BOTH UNIONS AND BA.

In regards to ostracising, it's not just me. There are plenty of cases of such behaviour and also behaviour that smells of bullying. The union doesn't like it when people think for themselves and ask difficult questions. I'll give you an example, that a heck of a lot of members think they can be "fined" by the union for going against their "commands". The union has never said that this isn't true. They like that people believes this, as they get more "co-operation" from it.

If you feel bullied there are more than enough rules/laws to protect you - why didn't you do something about it? As for crew thinking they will be fined - really, that stopped nearly 21 years ago - how long have they been flying?

As has been mentioned here before, the Captain is in charge of the aircraft, and, if you know your JPM, is in charge of discretion. However, there have been plenty of times where unions (and particularly Bassa) have refused. What happened to common sense? Considering discretion is included in the JPM, it can be used.

"Plenty of times" .... give examples please.

VOTE YES - YOU KNOW IT IS THE ONLY CHOICE

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:45

Re consultation about the new service, I can see it now:

BF: Dear union reps, could you please come to meetings to discuss the new service? We'd like your input.

UR (union reps): off....

Excellent post not - true colours showing through now?

VOTE YES FOR YOUR FUTURE

midman

3rd Dec 2009, 18:49

To repeat, we have not received a single solitary word or phone call from him for nearly six months.

Well, I know for a fact BF was at ACAS on every day of the talks when Bassa refused to sit in the same room as CC89 and was therefore unable to get any kind of mutual discussion organised.

So hardly an honest reflection of events from Bassa.

sunnysmith

3rd Dec 2009, 18:52

"Plenty of times" .... give examples please.

When I was on short haul, the crew NEVER went into discretion IF the union was involved and that is a fact.....

SS

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:53

Dear Moo,

the crux of your post is the word 'amount'.

Apart from the amount changing a couple of times, CC feel a bit aggrieved that our contribution to the overall savings on a percentage level far outweighs all other departments within BA.

If WW had gone to the all BA staff and suggested say a 10% drop in pay for a period of time, this would have been much fairer and accepted by all of us. However you must agree that efforts by the CC Unions to find these savings is a step in the right direction, albeit figures offered were not deemed to be correct by BA.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 18:58

Midman,

You are definitely right - that was a sorry period for CC reps. What did emerge from those 3 days is now a joint effort by Bassa and Amicus. Ironically it took a dispute to bring the CC Unions back together, the same as what tore them apart.

BA should welcome this and get round a table ASAP.

VOTE YES - ITS YOUR FUTURE

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:00

CFC,

My last post about consultation on new service was my attempt at injecting a bit of humour. Obviously we have a different sense of humour. I can live with that.

Can you clarify for me please what the company said that made the union dig their heels in during the snow disruption this year?

You want examples of where the union has refused discretion? What would you like? Date, time and flight number? I'm unable to give that to you due to confidentiality.

If you feel bullied there are more than enough rules/laws to protect you - why didn't you do something about it? As for crew thinking they will be fined - really, that stopped nearly 21 years ago - how long have they been flying?

I did something about it, actually. I'm not interested in going into details here, as that could jeopardise my safety as far as I'm concerned. The reason (as I said in previous post) people still believe they can be fined is because the union hasn't told them it's untrue.

Gg

Perry-oaks

3rd Dec 2009, 19:05

CFC

No disrespect intended but have you actually read any of the last 200 pages?

Apart from the amount changing a couple of times

Changed because Bassa missed the deadline. As already explained numerous times

If WW had gone to the all BA staff and suggested say a 10% drop in pay for a period of time, this would have been much fairer and accepted by all of us

CC are playing catch up with the rest of the airline. Every department has had changes to terms and conditions and working practices in the last five years to bring us in line with the rest of aviation world EXCEPT IFCE, which I'm sure you'll understand makes the rest of us 'feel a bit aggrieved'.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:10

Hi again Gg,

Humour ....really? Who are you kidding.

With regard to disruption, no manager in BA could guarantee anything - extra MBT/Monies/etc, in fact it was quite pathetic but I did feel for those BA mgrs put under the spotlight without any support from above. The crew reaction was 'if they cannot be bothered either can we'.

Scratching backs works in both directions.

Confidentiality....mmmmmm, very handy that word isn't it?

So what you are saying is that crew are ringing up about being fined (of course this has happened in the last few weeks since the ballot ???) and the Unions are denying they will not be fined. Are you sure?? Are you really sure about this???

VOTE YES

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:18

CFC,

In regard to the union fines, this has been going on for years, not just recently. It has been mentioned here before as well.

Confidentiality is important. Did you really think I was going to publish such information on a public board? Also, SS confirms what I was saying. I know this probably isn't enough information for you, but it's all you'll get, I'm afraid.

Gg

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:21

Perry Oaks,

Yes I've been regularly involved over the last 200 pages. Thank you.

Changed because Bassa missed the deadline. As already explained numerous times

Can I ask you if you read any of the last 200 pages? You are incorrect. The original figure of £82M (Pls correct me if I'm wrong on these figures) moved to £126M after the first quarters' results. This figure was then changed to a saving of HCE1700 - and all before the June 30th deadline.

So I ask you to check your thoughts/timelines/figures.

VOTE YES - ITS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD

winstonsmith

3rd Dec 2009, 19:27

CFC

Apart from the amount changing a couple of times, CC feel a bit aggrieved that our contribution to the overall savings on a percentage level far outweighs all other departments within BA.

A bit aggrieved that you need to save more money than other departments? What on earth for? Perhaps if you had bothered to look outside of the world of IFCE you might have noticed that every single department in BA has done continuous savings!

If your beloved BASSA had kept up with reality for the past few years they could have avoided you, their members, from such a deep fall as you are now facing. Bring with you a parachute!

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:27

Dear Gg,

You are as clear as mud!

Fines going on for years, just what are you referring to exactly? Are you saying crew are contacting their Union to be told they will be fined if they cross the picket line?

:ugh:

This soon came to a stop after the introduction of a second CC Union along with new legislation thanks to Maggie Thatcher. Crew would simply swap or not be a member at all. In fact in the old days, not only were you fined £50, your name would be printed in the next Union newsletter! Oh how we have moved 'forward' since then.

VOTE YES AND BE PROUD OF IT

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:33

Hi winstonsmith,

A bit aggrieved that you need to save more money than other departments? What on earth for? Perhaps if you had bothered to look outside of the world of IFCE you might have noticed that every single department in BA has done continuous savings!

Out of interest what department do you work in and what 'continuous savings ' are you referring to.

If your beloved BASSA

Errr...for the umpteenth time I do not belong to Bassa. Please note.

VOTE YES AND MAKE SURE YOUR COLLEAGUES DO AS WELL

Hotel Mode

3rd Dec 2009, 19:34

With regard to disruption, no manager in BA could guarantee anything - extra MBT/Monies/etc,

And there we have it. Damn the passengers unless the hoses have been primed with the requisite amount of cash.

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:34

CFC,

What I am saying is that cc believe (still) that they can be fined by the union if they go against their orders. Examples would be in cases of disruption or discretion.

They may not have been threatened with fines directly from the union, but the union hasn't said that fines won't happen.

This may (or may not) clarify things for you.

Gg

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 19:35

I have read many posts from current BA Crew and those 'outsiders' like Desertia who take an interest in what is happening - however just to clear up a huge rumour that is on this thread - BASSA's current reps are made up of flying staff who are elected representatives - they themselves have no qualification in accountancy and as such BASSA/Unite asked to see BA's books and they were to be studied by one of Unites top economic experts - Ed Sabinksy.

This request was UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECTED by BA.

That alone speaks volumes....

So please no more of the BASSA wouldnt look at the books nonsense BA wouldn't let them look at the books with someone who actually knew what they where looking for!

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:38

A Lurker,

The union (or their representative) refused to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to gain access to BA's accounts. Therefore it was rejected. It is normal practice to sign such an agreement in these cases.

Gg

Jockster

3rd Dec 2009, 19:38

CFC - I see you make lots of posts with the "Vote Yes' guff at the bottom. The vote must be closer than you first thought. Have you been 'tasked' to get onto the pprune forum as quickly as possible to try and affect the vote?

What's sad is that it's all irrevelant and futile because the result DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

You can't win now: -

VOTE is NO - BASSA finished. Imposition complete, more to follow.

VOTE is YES - BA call your bluff. Strike broken in a couple of hours, BASSA finished, more changes to follow.

VOTE is YES and the cabin crew actually strike (very unlikely) - BA issue 90 day notice of termination of contract under SOSR. All existing crew invited to sign 'new fleet' contracts or don't - we don't mind either way - there are plenty of crew elsewhere desperate for a job.

It's 'endgame' time. BA are in the driving seat and you are passengers towards your demise. The only chance you have is if BASSA agree to talk at the eleventh hour - so no chance then!!

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 19:39

Who told you that?

No confidentiality agreement was needed because BA point blank refused to let him see the said 'books'

winstonsmith

3rd Dec 2009, 19:41

CFC

Out of interest what department do you work in and what 'continuous savings ' are you referring to.

Here's an example - speak to your flight crew on your next flight and ask what sort of savings they have been doing - and you will understand why their proposal was accepted and not UNITE's.

Facts remain - every single department in BA has done savings - speak to your union and they might show you the numbers. Otherwise you might want to pay a visit to WS!

Scheduling has also done a huge saving recently - forced scheduled to go part-time!

Errr...for the umpteenth time I do not belong to Bassa. Please note.

Sorry!

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:42

A Lurker,

No confidentiality agreement was needed because BA point blank refused to let him see the said 'books'

And who told you that?

Gg

winstonsmith

3rd Dec 2009, 19:43

A Lurker

And who told you that BA refused UNITE's representative to see the financial numbers - BASSA by any chance?

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:44

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:46

Two can play that game, A Lurker.

Plenty of questions have been posted to you, where you've refused to answer...

Actually, I reckon I know the answer to my own question to you. Your union told you, right? That means it must be true...:rolleyes:

Gg

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 19:47

of course it was BASSA who informed their membership of this - or do you really think that they would make this up by actually naming a UNITE official - come on now - BA knew he would see through their figures - it may well have been easy to try to dupe an elected Cabin Crew representative but not an expert in accountancy :bored:

Hotel Mode

3rd Dec 2009, 19:54

- BA knew he would see through their figures -

Ah right, so the pension trustees, PWC, the GMB and BALPAs financial teams are just gullible and only Unites "expert" would have seen through the figures. On the basis of Unites legal expertise I think most people will find that unlikely.

CFC

3rd Dec 2009, 19:54

Dear winstonsmith,,

Here's an example - speak to your flight crew on your next flight and ask what sort of savings they have been doing - and you will understand why their proposal was accepted and not UNITE's.

Funny you should ask that. Did ask on sector last night to here....do not want to upset the Mods by printing their comments, but suffice to say, the final comments from the Captain were he hoped "we (the CC) really give WW a stuffing" - and not the Xmas type.

Otherwise you might want to pay a visit to WS!

You failed to mention visiting times at WS - is it still in this 24hr airline only Mon to Fri and when staff not doing Pilates/ getting hair done/ banking/ shopping in Waitrose/staring out over the lake...and thats of course if they are not working from home.

VOTE YES FOR YOUR FUTURE

Glamgirl

3rd Dec 2009, 19:54

A Lurker,

I am not making personal attacks on you at all.

I have read every post on this thread and questions have been posted to you a few times. If I didn't have better things to do, I would find them for you, but if you go back a few pages you should be able to find them.

Gg

Ps. I'm still trying to find out more about Ed Sabinksy, but it's not easy to find information about him. May I ask if the spelling of the name is correct please?

Hotel Mode

3rd Dec 2009, 19:58

You failed to mention visiting times at WS - is it still in this 24hr airline only Mon to Fri and when staff not doing Pilates/ getting hair done/ banking/ shopping in Waitrose/staring out over the lake...and thats of course if they are not working from home.

I dare say they feel that achieving 2hrs rest each on a 7hr sector may not be considered full time employment as well. (last week, and full since you're bound to ask)

A Lurker

3rd Dec 2009, 19:59

He was former finance director of Vauxhall - and as I stated previously I do not troll back through the thread as most of the stuff on here is repeated on a regular basis and as stated previously I am more than willing to answer questions put to me

midman

3rd Dec 2009, 20:23

Dear winstonsmith,,

Funny you should ask that. Did ask on sector last night to here....do not want to upset the Mods by printing their comments, but suffice to say, the final comments from the Captain were he hoped "we (the CC) really give WW a stuffing" - and not the Xmas type.

CFC, Thanks for engaging in the debate.

I've no doubt that your conversation did occur as you described, but I'm afraid it would have been very much unrepresentative of the view from in front of the locked door.

The issue has arisen on 99% of the flights I have done over the last 11 months and I think without exception the opinion of Bassa's negotiating was totally negative, and the opinion of WW was 99% positive. The language used by Bassa, the omission of reference to facts in the comms, the switch from ' we will not negotiate on any cuts' to 'we are the only ones willing to negotiate' (twice), the temporary nature of the recession, the misrepresentation of the pilots' deal, all served to demonstrate an unsophisticated stonewalling approach to the need for change.

Such a stance doesn't lend itself to support from other departments, the public, nor the shareholders (the owners of our company).

In fact the arguments presented to the city convinced the analysts that Unite's aim in the dispute was to retain control over day to day operational decisions and that BA were trying to bring operational control back to management. (As in every other company in the UK, bar none)

So CFC, you may have one supporter in Flt Ops, but very few others elsewhere.

Perhaps you could increase that support by explaining what sequence of events you hope will follow the first day of IA, and how that will result in a successful conclusion for your fellow union members.
If that involves compromise on both sides, could you describe the areas you would be willing to provide savings in?

Thanks