British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Buter]

how sad that is in reality

Finally, something from one of you 4 that we will all agree with.

Cheers

Buter

[CFC]

"4"...that many BA CC bothering to get into "the debate"...!!!!!!!!

I wonder why?

[StraightDave]

Because the rest don't believe what you are doing is right and are slightly embarassed at your extreme militancy in the midst of a recession?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

My wife is an employment law consultant. Its game, set and match to BA in her opinion.


The relevant thing to understand was quoted above:


Disagreeing to changes in your employment conditions

Sometimes your employer will want to bring in a change to your contract that you don't agree to. Find out what your rights are if that is happening and how you can raise your complaint.


What if you and your employer don't agree?

If you don't agree, your employer is not allowed to just bring in a change. However, they can terminate your contract (by giving notice) and offer you a new one including the revised terms - effectively sacking you and taking you back on. Your employer would be expected to follow a statutory minimum dismissal procedure. They may have to follow a collective redundancy consultation process if they plan to do this to a group of employees.

If this situation happens in your workplace, you should contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) or another advice service from our contacts pages for further guidance.

If you don't accept the new contract - or if you've accepted the new one but feel there was no good reason for ending the old one - you have the right to make an unfair dismissal claim provided you've at least one year of continuous service with your employer. You may also be able to claim redundancy if you have at least two years service.

If there is a sound business reason for the change, and your employer has properly consulted you and looked into any alternatives, you could find it difficult to win your claim.


They'll use SOSR and they'll win.

WWW

[midman]

I'm really glad BALPA and the pilot community got off so lightly, but please back out of our troubles!

The pilots didn't get off so 'lightly', we achieved 100% of the savings we were required to achieve - it shows what sophisticated and imaginative negotiations can obtain - even with BA management.

The reason we are not backing out of your troubles is that many of us have family and/or good friends who are being poorly represented, who aren't receiving the full facts from Bassa, and could be being led into an unnecessary, stressful and ultimately expensive confrontation. Bassa need to start being open and honest, stop the tub-thumping and aggressive name-calling, and start being sophisticated and imaginative.

They should be working for the benefit of all their members, not just a few senior CSDs who commute, and who have by far the most to lose.

[wobble2plank]

It would seem that the city has wind of change.

BA share price is topping £1.61 at the moment and on the up!

Is it possible that the investors can see that BASSA is leading their membership into oblivion.

As to those posters who continually state that most of those expressing concern on this forum are anti BA CC, you honestly couldn't be further from the truth.

Change has to happen, there is more going on in the company than just the BASSA spat. We are all tightening belts and trying to re-organise the Airline for the future. We all want the CC along as well but not being led by a militant organisation such as BASSA who don't appear to be interested in balanced negotiation.

I, personally, enjoy the flights I do, have the greatest respect for the CC and constantly ensure that I am polite, respectful and courteous with them all. I do feel however that they are being let down by their union, when asked what is occurring they generally don't know and when they have honest, truthful and balanced answers as to why this wasn't agreed or why did the company do that they can see there is more than one side to the story.

The constant prattle of, 'you don't agree with BASSA then you must hate all CC' is really starting to wear thin. Please understand that trying to help a group of individuals make a life changing decision by supplying them with facts does not turn one into a CC hater, quite the opposite.

[overstress]

w2p, well put, I guess I am in the same boat (plane?) as you.

My CC friends who approach me for info are very worried as to where they have been led.

[Hot Wings]

Well, 100 more BA pilots to lose their jobs.

What will BASSA do when 3,000 cabin crew are given their notice on 1st September?

Please, all of you on the new contract take a stand against the "fat cat" £60,000 WW CSDs that run BASSA. Share the wealth before you share the pain!!!

[LD12986]

I am no lawyer but I always believe that British Law will act on what is fair and reasonable and what British Airways proposes is not fair and not reasonable.

Bealine - The job of a court judge is to find the facts of the case and apply the law accordingly. It will have nothing to do with what is considered to be fair and reasonable.

[egdg]

There are plenty of personnel leaving the armed services right now. Add the newly delivered deal to experienced real aircrew with their pensions and I'm sure that there will be a seemless transition. Old decrepit CSD's should take fright, there are many that will take the new contracts and oversee their downfall.

[FlexSRS]

So, the BA proposal letters have been sent out to World Wide crew, people have read them and thought to themselves....... is all they want? Phew! :ok:

In a nutshell;

a) 2000 man power equiv reduction via VR 50/75% part time if desired. 150 33% PTW also avail.

b) 1 PSR reduction on WW flights, 1 main crew member reduction on LR flights

c) CSD has to do a defined working role :eek:

d) Some nightstops that were 2 nights reduced to 1 night, except Oz trips.

e) No paycut :ok: two yr pay freeze & one yr incremental freeze, unless you take home less than £14.5k. (+£18-21k allowances)

f) Early day report two hours earlier


So, in summary, work a bit harder on board (or quite a bit harder in the case of a minority of CSDs, you know the ones!), a bit less time in the hotel downroute (as so many crew are hitting 900hrs, this just means more time at home) and most importantly, no paycut. No minimum wage. No hourly rate.

Can't see a lot to strike about on the face of it, I think BASSA are going to have a job to get people riled up enough to risk the dole queue and start striking over that lot, it all seems reasonable enough...

Anyone know what the Eurofleet / LGW proposal is?

[Glamgirl]

I haven't received my letter yet :{. They sent out the wrong ones to the Pursers at LGW anyways, so new letter in the post as we speak.

Much shouting and screaming and toy throwing on another forum (guess which one), saying NO NO NO.

Part of the EF letter is one less day off (in line with LGW), single supervisory role on the aircraft (either CSD or Purser), less crew on each aircraft (in line with LGW). Not sure what the rest of it is, to be honest.

Gg

(oh, and apparently most crew at LGW are now "gap year students" :rolleyes:)

[FlexSRS]

Thanks for the info GG, I'd be very interested to hear any more details on the EF SH proposal.

I think BASSA are going to have a hard time convincing LGW to strike.

"Come on guys, support us and risk the dole, strike strike strike!"

"Why should we?"

"Err, because we don't to have 3 crew on a 319!"

"Like we do at Gatwick?"

"Well, we can't possibly have less crew on the 777"

"Like at Gatwick?"

etc etc :ugh:

[HiFlyer14]

Mandycon said: BB and all the other budding lawyers on here lets leave the legalities to the legal experts shall we.

Where are the legal experts Mandycon?

BASSA advice on a new contract letter? - "They can't do it" - yet the government website says they can.
"Don't sign it". But give no information about the consequences that this involves.

BASSA advice on a strike? "They can't sack you". Yet again the information shows they can.

Leaving the legalities to the so-called legal experts of BASSA can have only one consequence: instant dismissal.

Personally, I prefer to find out the information for myself, sign the letter, and keep my job.:ok:

Hi to Geardown and FlexSRS - good to see you onboard - the Speak Out against BASSA (SOBs!) army grows!:D

[Glamgirl]

Flex,

There are very few at LGW who would be interested in striking. Also, there are more and more crew at LHR who are waking up and realising that maybe they've been fed (quite) a few porkies and are now figuring it out for themselves.

The sooner the militants realise there is no legal reason to call strike, the better. Any other action, such as a mass sick day or similar will only cause problems for the individuals and will have no impact on the management apart from management having to find another stamp to send out the P45.

Gg

Ps. Some people in other places thinks that I'm anti-crew. This is obviously not true - how could I be?

[TorC]

1) Restates that for those that have already registered, there will be, subject to business need: VR / 75% or 50% PT / 33% PT for 150 people.

2) Pay freeze untill FEB2011.

3) 1 Year increment freeze 01/01/10 to 21/12/10 for those on a basic salary of £14500 or higher.

4) Reduction to days off from 10 to 9 pm.

5) Finish time on last day of working blocks of upto 5days to be extended to 2200.

6) Crew complement on EF flights to be consistant with those at LGW. Service routines to be changed to reflect this.

The letter then refers to a new Q&A available on the IFCE intranet and then asks us to complete on online survey.

The online survey asks us to rank in order of preference:
9 days off, 2200 late finish, WW B767 work, 2year payfreeze, increment freeze, single supervisor.

edited: The online survey also has space for any additional comments.

So, another part of the jigsaw has been placed: it'll not be possible to accuse BA of failing to consult.

[Glamgirl]

Thanks for that, TorC.

Several EF crew are saying No way! to the day off/LGW level crew issues. I'm still wondering how they think it wouldn't happen when it's going on a few miles down the road.

Now that the catering has been changed (or at least soon will be), there is no reason to have 5 crew on board a A319. Apparently, all the juices are coming back to LGW as well (at least one little positive thing, I suppose...)

Gg

[nuigini]

1 PSR reduction on WW - Suggested by BASSA.

1 MCC removed on LR flights - More or less suggested by BASSA as they agreed to remove the additional crew member which includes LR flights to CPT and MRU. If the CSD becomes part of the service it won't have too much of an impact.

Two year pay freeze - Suggested by BASSA.

Early day report brought back two hours - Suggested by BASSA.

Voluntary Redundancy - Suggested by BASSA.

BA is not asking for a pay cut, as suggested by BASSA - which still makes me mad thinking over it, or the fixed monthly payment any longer. CSD to become part of the service makes sense and the two night layover destinations to come down to one night layover probably could have been avoided if negotiations had been serious in the first place. It will be hard and make us reach our 900 hours quicker so not sure how it should be dealt with.

I think it's time for crew to wake up and see that this is actually a pretty good deal and is actually a lot like what BASSA suggested in their proposal.

[CFC]

The obvious route then Nuigini is to let Bassa continue with negotiations.

Glamgirl wrote:
Also, there are more and more crew at LHR who are waking up and realising that maybe they've been fed (quite) a few porkies and are now figuring it out for themselves.


Where do you get your info from Glamgirl?

[CFC]

Geardown 107 wrote:
The line has been drawn. BASSA have let themselves down,

How and why do you say that? Bassa have met all thats been asked of them...including not communicating during the two week cooling off period - unlike BA with their letters.

[wobble2plank]

It would seem that BA have thrown a lifeline to BASSA.

If the BASSA membership reject these proposals then the way forward to contractual release followed by new contract imposition is wide open.

BA seem to have taken the start points of both sides, applied pragmatic common sense and achieved what appears to be a common sense agreement. Why this couldn't have been achieved by the 30th June is quite beyond me. Ahh, yes, BASSA refused to negotiate anything beyond the possibility of CR.

If BASSA whip up their slavering militants and reject this offer I truly hope that Unite grab them by the scruff of the neck and force them to accept.

This could have been a lot, lot worse.

unlike BA with their letters.

Hmm? BA released their letters to coincide with the end of the ACAS agreed cool-down period. Unlike the torrent of speculation released on the BASSA forum from reps and the CF.

[CFC]

High Flyer 14 wrote:

Take a look at what's happened over the last few days:
Catering reduced effective 1 Aug - in preparation for reduced crew onboard
GPMs now reduced onboard - in preparation for CSDs' increased workload
Planned allowances for Aug only showed meal allowances - to show system already adapted for Fixed Monthly Duty Payment.

BA.

Why do you write such rubbish HF14?
Some catering has been reduced due to cost savings - no other reason...see comments from Sally Munro-Smith.
GPM's now reduced to 6 yet again to save money as many pax are now being encouraged to complete inflight survey via AVOD or online at BA.Com.
Allowance details changed temporarily due to Citibank finishing contract with BA.
All the above readily available to view on the BA Intranet.

WW gave UNITE until 30 June to negotiate. The deadline is dead. Our Union have missed the boat on negotiation now. We are but at the mercy of WW.

The end of the cooling off period is anytime soon. The only question then will be "Will you sign?" I will. Because I have to keep my job.

Our union have failed us miserably. That will be the reality of life in BA
Just how defeatist can you be. Bearing in mind CC UNITE reps are up against professional BA negotiators, I think they have done a marvelous job so far and no doubt we will see that continue later this week. If you feel this way just resign from your union and accept all that BA throw at you.

[CFC]

And what "lifeline" would that be Wobblyplank? They are exactly the same proposals that BA wanted before the cooling off period. BA have still yet to give details about the PWC involvement on the figures.

Also, for the umpteenth time, it is UNITE BA are dealing with, not just Bassa.

[wobble2plank]

CFC, Unite had to pull BASSA together and collectively bang heads during the last pensions deal. Unite have the ability to tell the BASSA reps that they are on a hiding to nothing and that they are to accept a deal and issue no ballot.

Lovely being 'part' of a larger unionised structure isn't it.

My warning still stands. The 'proposals' as stands are eminently reasonable in the current climate and with the industry embroiled in the deepest turmoil since it became fashionable to fly.

Failure to accept will lead to SOSR application and issue of 90 day contract termination thus leaving BA to implement whatever changes it wishes. Then, it is up to the individual to decide if they wish to accept the new contract or, effectively, resign.

What 'marvellous' job have BASSA achieved? Surely a marvellous job would be sensibly and pro actively reaching an agreement acceptable to both sides before the implementation deadline thus removing the memberships worries about ACAS, implementation and strikes?

Doesn't sound so 'marvellous' to me. Seems a bit of 'reactive' scrambling on the part of the reps who have finally woken up to the fact that the big nasty BA men in suits mean business this time.

[CFC]

CFC, your attempt at derailing this thread is not welcome. Nor is your attempt at at personalising the debate.

Debate the CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations, and not the myriad other things happening at BA.
Debate the issues, not various posters´ presumed employment.

CC Mods

[Glamgirl]

CFC,

I have plenty of resources for info, thank you for your concern. One of them being talking with crew. Another is the amount of crew getting in touch with me telling me they don't want to strike and looking for proper information.

Gg

[wobble2plank]

BASSA have been hoisted by their own petard in this game. By cutting limbs over the years to protect fortress Heathrow they have allowed BA a ground in LGW to prove crew numbers, days off, pay and working structures. Now, after years of tinkering BA have found structures that are proven to work. As to service levels I have seen better service from a LGW crew to AMS than a LHR crew to AMS with 3 more crew members. It depends upon the calibre of the crew, not the numbers, and that doesn't reflect badly on any crew just that service level is dependant upon more factors than just how many you have in the cabin.

Now they seek to implement them at LHR. BASSA's LHR protectionism is coming home to roost.

Rather than continually commenting on just how poor/bad/underworked/overpaid we are

I have never commented on the above. I have commented that I believe that BA CC at LHR are over market rate, the rest of the sentence comes from BA and you.

My comment have always been that the majority of the CC have been poorly informed and represented by their paid union.

[CFC]

Sorry Glamgirl, thought I had read you were LGW crew and could'nt understand how you were so well briefed on LHR crew's views.

BTW...all crew I work with DO NOT want to strike and as for getting 'proper information' - what's the problem...if they do not like what their elected reps tell them, they can go and have a Latte with their manager.

[Glamgirl]

CFC,

You'll be amazed to know that even though I'm based at LGW I actually have friends at LHR. I've even got friends who work for other airlines as well...

Gg

Ps. Sorry Tightslot....

[CFC]

You'll be amazed to know that even though I'm based at LGW I actually have friends at LHR. I've even got friends who work for other airlines as well...
Thats good to hear Glamgirl - what we all need is honest open info from BA right now as to where they are heading, not more surveys!

[wobble2plank]

Not really CFC, you just try and divert attention from the thread title by presenting nebulous information which should be discussed on another thread.

My post has also been moderated, sensibly though I think.

Play the BALL CFC.

Unite/BASSA should, quite correctly, be 100% behind their action as we have not, yet, reached end game.

If it comes to the possibility of a highly disruptive strike ballot called by BASSA, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Unite applying some common sense restraint on BASSA. Now is a delicate time as the company, I personally feel, are positioning themselves to be able to fully implement new contracts if BASSA shouts strike.

Be very wary.

[CFC]

Whats the point of carrying on this so called debate - after all I'm CC and the title is "Cabin Crew Industrial Relations & Negotiations" ...but unfortunately I'm on the wrong side.

I now realise why this site has such a bad reputation amongst CC.

[FlexSRS]

The survey is so BA can say they have 'consulted' with the workforce.

When they then need to go to the High Court to get an injunction on a strike, or impose new contracts, they have got that tick in the box required for SOSR.

As a side issue, have BASSA actually told you whether the 2000 headcount reduction is as a result of standing down airframes and the reduction in volume of flying, or if the amount is more than that? Have you got detailed information from BASSA on the amount of crew per hull, so you can work these things out yourselves? How many crew per 747 for example? A lot of crew don't know these details, so how can they make a sensible decision?

If the 2000MPE reduction is more than required for just the adjustment in flying volume, then will it result in less 1 out, 1 backs, or the usual 1-2-1 pattern for 3 day tours? Or will 1 day off less per month on EF mean there are still lots of 1 sector days? How will the late finish on a block of 5 actually impact your life (if you are not a commuter getting the evening BCN flight home)

There seem to be a lot more questions than answers, and the trouble is, all you get from BASSA in response is "well, if we didn't have to pay those fines, or WW is a liar, or the fuel hedging people have got it wrong, or 'you just hate crew' or 'we'll all be on 20p/hr living off Aldi cat food etc' "

Please, someone, give us some hard facts! Please tell us you have actually considered all these questions! :ugh:

[wobble2plank]

CFC, on a public, open forum we all have the opportunity to discuss events happening within our company which could, ultimately, affect us all, irrespective of your department or, as you put it, side.

There are no sides, if BA goes down then we are all made unemployed/re contracted not just the CC. Hence we all have a right to present our views and arguments.

If that offends you then don't take part in the discussion. However, reasoned, factual and adult debate is enlightening, useful and enjoyable. It is also highly valued from either side. Not the playground politics of the BASSA forum or CF though.

[Re-Heat]

Not at all - you're welcome to post here, as is anyone with access to the internet displaying any reasonable knowledge of the subject.

Wouldn't you rather debate the issues to find a solution, and influence monolithic thinking that employee groups can sometimes display?

[deeceethree]

I now realise why this site has such a bad reputation amongst CC
Not true ...... but it is a site that BASSA die-hards are not happy with because it contains far too much information about the real world. Seems to me that there are several cabin-crew here who know that, and are happy to post. The enlightened ones are obviously fed up of the sycophantic, inaccurate, bullying tosh that goes on over at BASSA and other similar forums.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

Very true, deeceethree. There has been some mass brainwashing going on but luckily, it doesn't wash with all of us;)

[Ancient Observer]

Having read what is on offer, I suspect that this will turn in to a modest little internal squabble between Bassa and Unite.

What BA are asking for is so modest, and proven by GG and others to be easy to work, that Unite will have great trouble doing anything to support Bassa.
As I said in an earlier post, Unite have to look at this in a business like way. No matter what the "noise" from some militant Bassa reps., Unite have to be businesslike.

As an aside on the legal stuff, from a few posts back, the folk engaged in this need to remember that the courts will insist on each individual's duty to mitigate their losses should any SOSR dismissals take place. That is not a principle from employment law alone - it holds true in all cases of alleged loss.

[TorC]

So, are the talks about to resume, now that the FTA cooling-off period is finishing? This article suggests not right away, due to various parties apparently being on holiday: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6740679.ece

And Unite want BA people that can make decisions? So are we to assume all talks so far have ended with BA saying "we'll check and get back to you on that"? (And what would be wrong with that anyway? Am I wrong in thinking that bassa/cc89 have told their members that they won't act anyway without first consulting them?) Or, is Unite looking for a delaying tactic? Or hoping for a change to the BA team for some other reasons?

I see there's been some discussion elsewhere over BFs latest survey, with quite a few declaring that they won't complete it. Why anyone would deny themselves the chance to have their say, openly and honestly, directly to the management, is beyond me. Will these same people be moaning later that the survey was not fully inclusive?

[Glamgirl]

I've just received my letter...

This applies for LGW Pursers:

If registered the following might be available (subject to business needs) - VR/75%/50%/Moving to LHR to be on new t&c's

Two year pay freeze until Feb 2011 and one year increment freeze from 1st Jan to 31 Dec 2010. No pay cut proposed.

Remove one Purser off the 777 3-class aircraft (same as proposed at WWLHR). The Purser position will be replaced with a Main crew member. Crewing levels will remain the same as now on the 4-class 777.

That's it, basically.

I'm not completely happy with the removal of the Purser on the 777, as we don't actually cost the company any more than a Main crew member whilst on duty (we all have the same hourly pay). I understand that for the company to be able to cut the Purser levels at LHR, they need to do the same at LGW. I just wish the powers that be would understand that we don't cost any more than other crew members.

So no reason for me to even consider IA. Bassa proposed a pay cut as well as removing a Purser off the 777, which is a double whammy for us and we can't afford it, to be honest. I can personally cope (in a financial sense) with one or the other, not both.

Gg

[FlexSRS]

So, those 'at the bottom of the pile' , ie new contract cc, especially at LGW stand to give up very little, just work a bit harder (if that is possible! I know how hard LGW CC work)

Those at the top of the pile, old contract, LHR based, part time CSDs have to change the most. (But still not give up any cash, I don't expect to see a whole swathe of Mercedes SLKs with 'FOR SALE' signs when I park for my next trip.)

I wonder which group is clamoring for a strike on CF/BASSA forum?

I bet the ex GLA/MAN/BHX crew wished the LHR WW crew had protested as loudly while they were being cut loose!

[nuigini]

Sorry to get back to a previous topic but I would need to have something sorted out.

BASSA is trying to put a stop to the new route between LCY and JFK and will claim that crew needs to have 15 hour in SNN. They say LCY-SNN sector is a scheduled operation with departure time and scheduled arrival time on BA.COM. Crew will not be planned for any combination of long haul and short haul duties in the same duty period.

How come they allow us to do LHR-BAH-DOH and LHR-AUH-MCT in one duty period? Is it because we don't have to leave the aircraft in BAH or AUH to clear immigration and re-check baggage?

If not, BASSA must be contradicting themselves or I'm missing something...

[FlexSRS]

BASSA are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Hundreds of LGW crew were falling over themselves to volunteer for this route, knowing full well what it would involve, and when you speak to them, they are all looking forward to it, it's going to be a great little fleet.

BASSA just want to make it look like they are suddenly looking out for poor old LGW and trying to kick up a fuss. It's not going to make any difference. The unions told the crew not to volunteer themselves in the first place, seems no one took any notice of them then either.

Even if it has a departure/arrival time in ba.com, that doesn't mean a thing. You can't buy a LCY-SNN ticket! The ticket is LCY-JFK, this is just a tech-stop. It is not a SH sector followed by a LH sector, its a LH sector with a tech stop.

It's a bit late pretending to care about LGW crew now! (whilst at the same time saying how dare ba try and make old contract LHR crew work as hard as the 'gap year teenagers' down at LGW) No one is falling for it.

[Glamgirl]

Nuigini,

I'm afraid we'll probably never know the answers to this, but it does seem odd to me that Bassa has only just now started shouting about this now, after the training courses have started.

The pilots are night stopping in SNN, as they have a different agreement.

Strictly speaking, the LGW moa doesn't allow for short and long haul operated on the same day, however I think to start disagreeing now is a bit too little too late. This kind of information and "negotiation" (in the loosest form of it) should have been given to us in Feb/March. We were adviced by the unions to not volunteer for the LCY/NYC operation, and we were promised more info before the volunteering deadline. Not a word was said from the union before the deadline, so people concerned about their income, earning potential in a slow winter season, mortage, bills etc felt they had no option but to sign up for it, as it would mean at least one trip a month. In the LGW world, one good trip a month can mean the difference between being able to pay the mortage for some.

Gg

[overstress]

Gg I just wish the powers that be would understand that we don't cost any more than other crew members.

But your basic is more, surely that's what they're after?

[Glamgirl]

Overstress,

Yes, my basic is a little bit higher, but my basic will still be paid whether I fly or not, therefore I don't see why the company would want to take the 2nd Purser off the 777.

When Single Fleet started at LGW, we had 1 Purser on board. After much talking and negotiating, we finally got a 2nd Purser. The GPM results were higher, crew and passengers alike found it great. It seems to me that most management (even the top!) don't really want to remove the 2nd Purser, but have to include it in the proposals, as otherwise there will be no way of getting it through at LHR (although the Pursers on WW cost more per flight than main crew).

Hope this clarifies.

Gg

[plodding along]

If you take a purser off you will need less pursers overall, hence a cost saving.
I'm sure they wouldn't be so mean as to demote people, they just won't need to promote for a while.

[Glamgirl]

Well, I'd happily demote myself for a year or so if I was allowed to do it. Mainly to up my earning potential. It's not all about the money, but when we had just 1 Purser on the 777, we had a high section of Main crew earning much higher allowances than Pursers (and CM's to a certain extent). This seemed unfair and somewhat ridiculous to us Pursers (and CM's).

Gg

[saintjoseph]

:8how many pursers operate a lhr 777?

[Glamgirl]

SJ,

LHR 777 have 2 Pursers on a 3-class and 3 Pursers on a 4-class.

As far as I've been informed anyways. The company's proposal wants them to cut 1 Purser on each variant at LHR.

Gg

[LD12986]

Out of interest what is proposed in respect of the 2 night stop rule after a long range diversion?

[FlexSRS]

Out of interest what is proposed in respect of the 2 night stop rule after a long range diversion?

1 night instead.

Totally unreasonable, obviously. How very dare they! I want my 2 full nights in Stansted / Manchester before I'm positioned home to LHR.

And so on.
:ugh:

[LD12986]

1 night instead.


Surely that doesn't really deal with the problem in that pax will still have to be dispersed elsewhere to reach their final destination with the aircraft flying back to LHR empty?

[nuigini]

They are actually proposing minimum rest of 13½ hours for the disruption agreement.

[KitKat747]

Does that mean if after a fairly short flight time of 7 hours they divert to say BHX the aircraft would be stuck there for a minimum of 13.5 hours or flown empty to LHR an hour or two later after the reason for the diversion passed flown by the original pilots?

It would be understandable if the crew were reaching their maximum allowed duty hours after a flight of 12 hours +

[beerdrinker]

On this thread a while ago was the original (leaked!!!!) BA proposal for both Long Haul and Short Haul ops at LHR.

Can somebody in the know put up a side by side comparison of those proposals and the propsals in the "letter" received this week? Then we can see what weeks of negotiations has changed.

BD

[plodding along]

I see BA are doing an online survey where crew rank the proposals in preference order, that implies that not all of the items will be implemented. Would be pointless doing the survey if all the changes were going to be made wouldn't it?

The disruption agreement assumes that due fog/snow/winds the aircraft diverts and all crew will be out of hours. Crew and pax get hotel for minimum rest and proceed to LHR the next day.
At present the aircraft gets flown empty the next day with pilots only due cc needing two local nights.

[deeceethree]

Plodding Along,

They may not necessarily be why they are doing the survey. Could it be that BA are overtly doing the survey so that it appears they have gone out of their way to 'consult' and and be cuddly? And then they will impose whatever they feel is best for the company? How will you know if they haven't? :ok:

[BYMONEK]

deeceethree

Your thoughts please on the second paragraph from plodding along?

[Reargunner]

Kitkat,

The double night applies when a long range sector diverts and the crew have gone out of hours. It was agreed when we extended our hours to 19.25 max as part of the dispruption agreement reached with BA. The double night was one of the elements offered to be surrended by BASSA as part of the cc contributions to the cost cutting efficiency targets.

Beerdrinker,

There is nothing new in the letter. It purports to specify the impact of the BA proposal to each individual. So my letter does not mention the Eurofleet changes. GG has typed out hers which just states the SFG element. Mine is for WW LHR, and says they want pay freeze, increment freeze, purser removal, 1 main crew removal, 1 night less rest, early report brought earlier.

It does not mention the new crew contract or new disruption agreement, but BF says that is because these do not affect me..."the disruption agreement was only used once last year and you are not a new entrant."

As far as I know, there have been no changes to either side's position. There have been no negotiations for 14 days and prior to that the ACAS talks failed to find a way forward.

Edited to add...someone asked about the productivity and hull removal...we were told that 500 of the 2000 FTE jobs were due to the fleet reduction

[deeceethree]

BYMONEK,

Plodding Along's second para is on the money! Up till now BASSA have insisted that cabin crew diverting from their scheduled destination have 2 nights off! Crazy, when you consider that everyone should be going the extra mile to get passengers to their ultimate destination as soon as possible.

Certainly, in the last snow disruption earlier this year, BA had aircraft diverted to places like Manchester and Birmingham whereupon BASSA got their oar in and insisted that the cabin crew had 2 nights off. Meanwhile the pilots were on minimal rest and then flying empty aircraft back to LHR (once weather suitable/snow cleared) the next day. Pax were obviously unimpressed, left behind to be bussed to wherever ...... because cabin crew wouldn't play ball, and all because of a nonsensical BASSA 'rule'! It just beggars belief! When the wheels are coming off, all employees should be pulling to get the customers to their destination, within the limits of the law and safety requirements. BASSA's 'rules' have little to do with either the law or safety, and the fact that BA ever let such 'rules' enter historical negotiations says something about both BASSA and the company folk dealing with them!

BA wan't to end this pointless, damaging, expensive nonsense (and rightly so) by insisting that under new terms, cabin crew will have to put customers first during times of disruption (should be during all services, really). Consequently they will have to be more flexible about their normal working arrangements so that recovery from disruption is quickly achieved.

In simple terms, they need to extract finger and go all out to deliver an outcome suitable for the customer. No more selfish nonsense. And if it means disrupting their personal lives and plans for a day or two, then so be it!

[Poof in Boots]

Oh dear oh dear. The 'Hotspur' boys have been outsmarted by the Beano mob. Got to find another hundred sacrificial lambs then lads? Maybe you can cover it with unpaid leave, but of course you have a no strike contract now.Got to take the pain and can't do a thing about it!

Tears were literally rolling down my cheeks to read in the Times on Thursday that with a small drop in capacity BA's load factor has gone up. Even with Walsh talking the business down, the opposite happens.

The Beano mob have played a blinder drawing out negotiations until the recession has turned the corner. What sort of figures were BALPA looking at? Did they not see this improvement in performance forecast by Walsh? Obviously not. Now they are stitched up with their pay cut.

Best to play a waiting game sometimes lads, rather than falling over yourselves to suck up to Walsh.

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

Can I once again remind you of the title of this thread? It's about CC, not pilots. The way you come across in your latest post is very childish and puts you in a rather bad light.

Please, grow up and post something useful to the discussion. Thank you.

Gg

[747-436]

Tears were literally rolling down my cheeks to read in the Times on Thursday that with a small drop in capacity BA's load factor has gone up. Even with Walsh talking the business down, the opposite happens.

Correct, load factors have risen. But what have all these people paid for their tickets??!! Airlines are dropping prices just to get people on the planes. A full plane doesn't mean a profit! Load factors are up but yields are down.

[Poof in Boots]

Gg. Maybe we should have a whip round and buy you an ATPL course. You are wasted as a hostie. Your personal disposition and intellect is far better suited in the cockpit.

The Brylcreem Boys need you especially old 'Spanky' Carnage.

[Poof in Boots]

747-436

Eveyone has to discount in a recession to get business. I have just bought a new car with a 20% discount and four years interest free credit. That wasn't on offer two years ago.

Unlike after 9/11, passengers are not frightened to fly. Yields will return and Walsh's claim of "structural change" will turn out to be rubbish.

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

I can't really be bothered, but here it is anyways.

You can save your money. I've no interest in becoming a pilot. I do however, have an interest in not relishing in other people's discomfort. You seem to only come on here late at night, why is that? Is it because you've had a couple of glasses of your favourite tipple and therefore have some "Dutch" courage? Or are you trying to avoid the Mods?

Seriously, you do need to grow up. You make yourself and your like-minded colleagues look ridiculous.

Gg

[Poof in Boots]

In the last dispute you said you would walk through a picket line and now once again you will not support your colleagues.

You are happy to be demoted you say, take less pay, for what? To enhance shareholders profits?

Get real.

[wobble2plank]

PiB,

You really are living in a dream world! I wish I could have the same resounding confidence in the economy as you do but, unfortunately I live in the real world not yours.

The Beano mob have played a blinder drawing out negotiations until the recession has turned the corner.

What corner? I see the Bank of England is sooooo confident like the well informed BASSA tub thumpers that it has decided to celebrate by injecting yet another £50 billion of the future tax payers money into the economy because 'the recession is over'.


Yields will return and Walsh's claim of "structural change" will turnout to be rubbish.

Perhaps then you should run for the job of CEO yourself? It seems you have it all tied up and your quips could amuse everyone who works for you?

I have just bought a new car with a 20% discount and four years interest free credit. That wasn't on offer two years ago.

Errrrrm, no, it wasn't as market forces two years ago dictated that people would buy cars, along with any other consumable items, at the list price. Oddly enough, now, in the real world where the sky is blue (occasionally) people don't have the disposable income to pay the prices as dictated two years ago, the manufacturing and service industries are in the doldrums and doing everything they can to attract customers. Much like reducing the price of a ticket to such an extent where they make a loss just to stop the passenger flying with a rival airline in the hope the rival folds before they do! Sound familiar? Oh, no because you live in BASSA land.

What next? Who knows.

[wobble2plank]

You are happy to be demoted you say, take less pay, for what? To enhance shareholders profits?

No, to continue to get support from the shareholders who are the ones carrying the company whilst we make losses quarter after quarter in the worst economic environment for the airline industry since its inception.

If the shareholders run, we have another 'Northern Rock' and then the Beano boys will have lots to smirk about in the dole queue.

As you say

Get real

[Poof in Boots]

Well Wobble. You will be proved to be wrong in your assessment.

Gordon Brown does not want to lose the next election and it might just come good for him. BA will be on the leading edge of any recovery as it has always been a barometer for the UK economy.

If Walsh hasn't planned to take Business Class seats out just as the economy takes off, we should do very well next year with the current T&C's of staff.

[Carnage Matey!]

Same old, same old......

Got to find another hundred sacrificial lambs then lads? Maybe you can cover it with unpaid leave, but of course you have a no strike contract now.Got to take the pain and can't do a thing about it!

Another hundred? Where was the first hundred? This is the first volume related CR and entirely expected and publicised by BALPA, oooh, about 2 months ago. I have the newsletter if you'd like it. How many volume related CRs are BASSA looking at once you've shed the 2000 HCE required for the business plan? If we're parking 11 Jumbos how many cabin crew is that over and above the 2000? BASSA have warned you about that, haven't they? Are you going to have another strike over that one? My my, it's starting to look like the BASSA "Strike over EVERYTHING!" campaign last time (you know, when you got stitched up by Tony Woodley? More on that later). I doubt we'll be striking, and thats nothing to do with a non-existent no strike contract that you like to imagine, it's just we can handle it comfortably with unpaid leave. I wonder what BASSAs contingency plan is?

Tears were literally rolling down my cheeks to read in the Times on Thursday that with a small drop in capacity BA's load factor has gone up. Even with Walsh talking the business down, the opposite happens.

Load. Yield. You know the difference, so does everybody else here.

The Beano mob have played a blinder drawing out negotiations until the recession has turned the corner. What sort of figures were BALPA looking at? Did they not see this improvement in performance forecast by Walsh? Obviously not. Now they are stitched up with their pay cut.

Sounds like you've had one too many crew purchases. Did you miss the 90 million loss we announced in Q1. Recession over indeed.:rolleyes: And no pay cut for us until you deliver all of your departmental savings. In full.

Best to play a waiting game sometimes lads, rather than falling over yourselves to suck up to Walsh.

Will see who's right when your solution is imposed. Have you filled in BFs survey yet? I did one for you on ESS.:E

Now about that nice Mr Woodley. I had to laugh when I saw this rubbish from your union today:

Over my dead body will UNITE/TONY WOODLEY be able to exercise any unwanted influence on you - you have my word on that

Poor old Dunc, the stress must be getting to him. He seems to have forgotten that just moments earlier he wrote:

The situation with Tony Woodley is very clear. His permission is needed to run a ballot for industrial action if BA go ahead an impose any changes to agreements. After that moment everything is in your hands.

So everything is in your hands and Tony has no influence on you. Except when he says you can't hold a strike ballot. Ouch. Game, set and match BA. New constitution or not, your fate is in the hands of one man who is not inclined to strike, who has folded before BA before and, if rumours are to be believed, still has his balls firmly in the BA vice over Gate Gourmet. What a mess! And this is the man BA has called up to negotiate with at the Standing Conference!! You see Poof, the problem is that BASSA didn't take the idea of a deadline seriously. They thought they could go on and on, stalling BA, without consequences. The reality is that instead of shaping your future you've been sidelined. BA won't even talk to your reps now, they want the organ grinder, not the monkey. And the organ grinder's about to throw you a few nuts then sign away your future to BA. I pity you.

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

I stand by walking past a picket line because I will vote NO for a strike if it comes to that. I won't support something I don't believe in.

I said I'd be happy to demote myself for a year or so, as it would actually increase my allowances. So more pay, not less (and certainly nothing to do with lining the sharholders pockets). Do you think it's fair that Pursers (and some CM's) earn less than Main Crew although they're in charge on board? Surely not.

Gg

[Poof in Boots]

It is natural that the shareholders should take the pain during a temporary downturn via a Rights Issue. They will profit from that as the share price rises.

BA has had to poach £300m from the pension fund after it set aside £350m for the payment of fines in 2007-08. How nice it would be to have had that money now, rather than it being squandered on the alleged criminal activities of BA senior managers

[wobble2plank]

Gordon Brown does not want to lose the next election and it might just come good for him.

Sorry? I didn't quite get that? How, at the moment will it 'come good'?

The chances of GB getting re-elected are slim, but then that is a different matter in its entirety and one not really to be discussed here.

What T's & C's do you think you will be doing well on? When do you see, in your crystal ball, the economy taking off again? Do you, honestly, see us going back to the pre-crash days of relying on business class for more than 40% of our profit? Sorry PiB but times are changing rapidly and the demographics of passengers and ticket prices are going with the times. It seems that some people might well be left behind dreaming of the 'halcyon days' of yore. No?

[KitKat747]

Most people would think that after being away for several days the cabin crew would want to get back to their homes/loved ones rather than wanting to stay in a hotel for another 2 nights not so far from home base.

I am not convinced this is what some of cabin crew members really want.

I agree with deecee3 that getting the customer to their destination should be the priority providing of course it is safe and legal to do so.

I am not convinced the new rule of only 1 night at diversion airport will achieve a great deal financially because the pax's will still be left somewhere they probably do not want to be. I fully understand that after a long range sector there may be no alternatives other than getting a replacement crew positioned out to take over but that is probably very difficult or impossible.

If an aircraft diverts to another country close to the UK will they still need 2 nights off instead of just one or the 13.5 hours someone mentioned?

[bealine]

If, as you say, Carnage, the deadline has passed by, then why has BA not shown its hand?

You know as well as everybody else here that the BA proposals are unfair and quite unworkable. So, BA issue new contracts to all the Cabin Crew, all the Baggage Handlers and all the Ground Staff. What then happens when all these contracts are retuned to Watersplash in mail sacks - shredded and ready for the recyclers?

Sack the lot of us? I don't think so somehow - not if BA is to survive!

[Poof in Boots]

RyanAir has had a 42% drop in its fuel prices in the first quarter, that is the only reason it has made a profit.

How much has BA's fuel lbill dropped after it rose by 49% in the last financial year? Nowhere near 42%. That is the only reason we made that £90m loss Carnage.

[wobble2plank]

BA has had to poach £300m from the pension fund after it set aside £350m for the payment of fines in 2007-08. How nice it would be to have had that money now, rather than it being squandered on the alleged criminal activities of BA senior managers

Once again, how much of the fine has been offset by excess profit? Can you tell us? If not then don't use it as an argument. It was also factored in well before the downturn. Ironically BA has kept a large chunk of the profit from the previous year (where WW took over) as a buffer against the downturn.

Business is a gamble, some things pay off some things don't. What dictates the state, current and future, of any business is the bottom line and, at the moment, the BA bottom line is, at least, stable due to expeditious financial handling of the companies accounts and backing from the major investors .

Sorting out fluctuating, militant and overbearing unions has to be a priority.

[Glamgirl]

Bealine,

Could you please explain how the proposals are unfair and unworkable?

Thanks.

Gg

[Poof in Boots]

No Wobble.

There is no way via cuts in my T&C's am I going to make up the money BA has squandered in alleged illegal behaviour fixing ticket prices with VIRGIN.

Just look at the ridiculous situation at OS right now. Gg is happy to be demoted and take pay cut to see her money wasted on a joke operation like OS and the new LCY/JFK operation.

[wobble2plank]

RyanAir has had a 42% drop in its fuel prices in the first quarter, that is the only reason it has made a profit.

How much has BA's fuel lbill dropped after it rose by 49% in the last financial year? Nowhere near 42%. That is the only reason we made that £90m loss Carnage.

PiB if you are going to make pointed statements then at least understand the reasoning behind them, not just a throwaway line.

Ryanair LOST money for the first time in its 'short' history due to fuel hedging. RYR hedges fuel for a very short time and, like most other airlines, it bought into fuel when the $200 barrel was being bandied about.

BA hedges millions of dollars worth of fuel with different consortium's at different prices every year. If you buy a years worth of fuel with one consortium the price per unit barrel goes up. You are speculating that the price of the commodity will be going up thus you are 'hedging'. Hence you spread the demand to hide the speculation. Your new car is filling up with expensive fuel now because speculators think the price will rise in the future hence the £1.05 litre at the pumps.

We will not see the loss or gain of those hedging decisions until the end of the financial year. Generally, given the trend of fuel hedging since privatisation, the company has saved millions on fuel by buying and selling hedged fuel.

SO...

That is the only reason we made that £90m loss Carnage.

is wrong.

[Glamgirl]

Pib,

You obviously can't read properly :rolleyes:.

LCY/NYC is completely different to OS, surely even you can see that? We've tried to explain to you so many times it's getting tedious now. A major bank is paying for the LCY/NYC operation for the first 2 years.

And to try to explain again (oh why do I bother?), a demotion would be purely for my own benefit. My basic would be reduced by a few hundred £s, but my allowances would increase significantly. Is that clear enough for you?

Gg

[wobble2plank]

PiB,

You are obviously happy to see everyone else take the pay cuts but don't see any reason to take any yourself?

We, as in the other departments in the company, are to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed as you see all this financial mumbo jumbo as some made up smoke and mirrors from WW?

Seems a little self centred? Especially as many of your peers see it so differently. But, once again you can't see that can you?

As to the LCY-NYC, that has been requested by customers with guarantees of seat purchases by customers and hence is going ahead.

Companies that innovate in recessions generally survive, companies that stagnate in recessions and fail to modernise, die out.

Which would you rather have?

There is no way via cuts in my T&C's am I going to make up the money BA has squandered in alleged illegal behaviour fixing ticket prices with VIRGIN.

Nope, not from your personal pitiful income, just the same as not from my personal pitiful income, but the profits made by the company during that time coupled with the adjustments to 14,000 CC, 3200 Flight Crew, 20,000 support staff and 2,000 management staff T's & C's to make them more productive could more than cover the shortfall we have now.

[Carnage Matey!]

I would suggest that saving £150M over two years from the cabin crew will see the £300M lost for price fixing recovered in just four years. Simples.

If, as you say, Carnage, the deadline has passed by, then why has BA not shown its hand?

Why should they? They'll choose the time of the conflict, not BASSA. With every passing day more and more awkward questions are being asked of the union and more and more crew are being influenced by BAs proposals. They can afford to undermine BASSA for a bit then make their play. From Sept 1st BA can begin to issue compulsory redundancy notices to cabin crew. That'll focuse a few minds.

You know as well as everybody else here that the BA proposals are unfair and quite unworkable.

Nothing unfair, nothing unworkable. Better terms than other airlines and better pay too.

So, BA issue new contracts to all the Cabin Crew, all the Baggage Handlers and all the Ground Staff. What then happens when all these contracts are retuned to Watersplash in mail sacks - shredded and ready for the recyclers?

You'd better hope everybody else returns those contracts unsigned as well. What they say in public and what they do in private are very different things. If they don't sign then they are effectively resigning. No benefits. BA will seek an SOSR defence from the High Court blocking a strike. How many will really play chicken with their jobs in the middle of a recession?

[Re-Heat]

It is natural that the shareholders should take the pain during a temporary downturn via a Rights Issue. They will profit from that as the share price rises.
This is just so ridiculous as to be untrue. Perhaps you might be able to put a figures on total shareholder returns over the past few years, PiB? It is also quite natural that employees are culled in downturns in every other industry.

Shareholders have gone from 233 to 171 in five years, taken a 5p div on May 28th 2008, and watched cash flow out in every year except 2007's £315m inflow, with the last major div in 2001.

Shareholders have taken pain for the past 10 years. Where are you on this metric? The company is making almost nothing for shareholders at the bottom line!

http://i25.tinypic.com/25us9zp.jpg

[Re-Heat]

So £281m + new debt to make positive cash in 2010, on flat revenues (thought they are declining...) - do you really think that just the slightly rising yields in 2 years are going to make life sweet and peachy when you look at the bottom-line figures on my extract from the accounts?

Thought not.

Load factors are NOT yields / profits.

For the sake of consistency, here follow Lufthance, AF-KLM and Iberia:

http://i29.tinypic.com/sqr3f5.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/30ndshx.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/8zi439.jpg

[donaldson]

Reheat - I can't be bothered, but maybe, if you can, then explain to PiB the effects of dilution on shareholders' positions caused by a rights issue, and how that limits the profits from "a rising share price".

Maybe someone could also be bothered to explain to him how the pension fund relinquishing a guarantee of a small contribution applicable under certain possible future circumstances, the amount of which has become irrelevant to the size of the problem, is not "poaching" and is not removing any money from the fund.

I suspect he knows this, wrt the pension fund, but is putting things this way to cause anxiety among other readers.

[deeceethree]

Re-Heat and donaldson,

I wouldn't bother. PiB has shown that he has no comprehension of the basics, so he won't have a clue about the A-level stuff .....:ugh:

[MrBunker]

PiB your eloquence fails to disguise the fact you routinely do no more than argue from a position of unverified rhetoric. You've no proof that fuel hedging is the sole cause of our loss, nor that the price fixing fines were more than the money we (illegitimately, granted) made from the fixing itself. Just as so many of your self-congratulatory colleagues on CF do, you assume the position that suits you best and then, by what I can only assume is a process of internal self-justification, decide that it is the truth merely because you wish it to be so.

The glaring deficiency in your, and many others', argument on here is the unwillingness to back your assertions with figures and facts. Until you do so, I fear all we'll have from you is some inchoate ranting. But if you think you can take delight in the 90 day notice of 100 pilot CR's without making a leap to see where that might lead BA with you and your colleagues is to display a mastery of doublethink that O'Brien would truly admire.

Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your chest-beating will you?

[Re-Heat]

A disturbing quote from a poster on flyertalk, in response to an argumnent on there regarding whether BA Club World is best or not:

...the whole BA experience is far too inconsistent...I've had too many dreadful cabin crew on BA to think it's anything other than a problem that nobody at BA is willing to tackle head-on. They'd rather faff about with stupid 'enhancements' that do nothing except irritate the punter.

Similarly the 'food' served on BA can, at best, be described as edible - and that's if you're lucky. I really don't want to hear about the difficulties of catering at 40k feet - if other airlines can produce consistently good food at this altitude then BA can do it as well.

The 'death by a thousand cuts' analogy that's used elsewhere also applies to BA. Too many of the little niceties are being cut from the on-board experience now to make it feel anything even close to Premium.

Pay your business class fare and then queue up to get on the plane with all and sundry, have the 'Club Kitchen' emptied out by WT+ travellers, don't expect nice food, have the 'BA lottery' experience with the wine list, deal with grumpy crew who'd rather read the Daily Hate Mail than interact with a passenger, get to your destination and then have to wait to get off the plane because the denizens of WT+ get off first and beat you to airport immigration. Does that REALLY sound like the 'best long haul business class airline to you ?

By all means trumpet that BA is the best airline in business if all you want is a flat bed - but the moment you want anything else from your flight, the claim that BA is best is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.

[flying_chick]

No doubt the above quote was written by one of you or a pilot. :bored:

I have flown as a passengers on BA many times and always get excellent service, yes once or twice it was 'just good'.

It is our excellent service that keeps them coming back. Yes, the pilots,who are clearly worth every penny and more, ground staff, dispatchers, baggage, call centre etc etc everyone play HUGE part but it us they remember they most, we make a good impression when they get off the aircraft.

[overstress]

flyingchick, do you suppose all criticism of BA to be imagined (written by a pilot - haha!)? Are we so perfect that we are beyond criticism?

As for the rest of your point about excellent service, I am reminded of the time the journalist Jane Moore wrote about a BA flight. She was in First, and was quite excited to see a huge fuss being made over a female passenger. Thinking it was a celebrity she somehow didn't recognise, she made discreet enquiries to discover that the person getting the star treatment was a member of CC on staff travel.

I make this point to emphasise that we cannot afford to be complacent about anything in the current economic climate.

[Skylion]

Interesting to see the denials about the fact that BA's on board sevice is highly variable and while sometimes superb at others it is pretty awful-and has been for years. Some crew seem to believe what they are maybe told in training school: "We are the greatest" Some are ,but too many show little interest in the passenger, little warmth or humanity. It has become almost culture to these folk and they make life difficult for those who want to work hard at being. excellent.BA need to research why this is. Their cabin crew have one of the best packages in the industry and yet appear to be perennialy miserable. There is a large amount of blind loyalty to the union and what it says and little to the company which pays them,- and whose management, far from being evil, is generally relatively benign even if weak and unwilling to risk confrontation over poor performance. BA also suffers from huge political correctness. The allowance based culture has produced an inward looking and restrictive approach to the job. "How little can I do?" "When do I get my rest?" and "How much do we get for that" are too often the dominating questions. The on-board workload is generally less than on the competitors, especially the low costs whose staff work flat out on short sectors to deliver the catering, take the money and then sell the duty free,- something BA crew seldom make a serious effort at.(maybe they need training on selling techniques). BA has an excellent hard product but the often very obvious negative cabin crew attitides give it ,-and those who joined because they really wanted to make a difference ,-an enormous probem.
BASSA lives on strife and negativity-which actually undermines the enjoyment of the job for many. It is time they genuinely helped to design a new and happier future for everyone and accepted that the costs and attitudes which go with restrictive practices have got to come out,-permanently.

[cellstar]

No doubt the above quote was written by one of you or a pilot. :bored:

I have flown as a passengers on BA many times and always get excellent service, yes once or twice it was 'just good'.

It is our excellent service that keeps them coming back. Yes, the pilots,who are clearly worth every penny and more, ground staff, dispatchers, baggage, call centre etc etc everyone play HUGE part but it us they remember they most, we make a good impression when they get off the aircraft.

Flying Chick, I would guess that when you fly with BA as a passenger you're flying on a staff discount ticket and being Cabin Crew you have a pretty good chance of being upgraded and given that you're flying with your fellow CC. You're hardly going to be given just the normal or poor service that some of those posters on flying talk have experienced.

[Glamgirl]

I'm cringeing (sp?) now. For FlyingChick to claim we're always the best is exaggerated, unfortunately. I've travelled on various flights in various cabins and the service can be either amazingly fantastic or absolutely awful. There seems to be nothing in between. This is not about me critisising fellow crew, I'm just telling it like it is.

Now, if everyone in the company (whichever department they work in) gave 100% every time, we would be the best. Unfortunately there are people in the company who are "trapped" in the job and hate it and therefore don't provide good service, never mind great service.

Being crew is a vocation as such, you do it because you love it, not to earn vast amounts of money. After all these years I still love my job and long may it continue. I will provide 100% each and every time I come to work, because as far as I'm concerned, the passengers want to go from A to B with a smile and respect. I know it can be difficult when you have a passenger who's a PITA, "but fake it to make it" or "kill them with kindness". I'm not advocating rolling over in regards to abusive passengers though, they're in a different category altogether, but we rarely have abusive passengers considering how many flights we have per day.

All I can wish for is for crew to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they want to do this job. Provide the best service you possibly can. If you imagine the passengers are your good friends and family, it might be easier, as then you'll relate to how you want them to be treated.

Gg

Ps. Sorry for thread drift, had to get it out of my system...

[Ancient Observer]

Flyertalk and other places where airline customers chat make it very clear that BA's standards are variable.
This used to be an issue back in the 1980s, so thousands of PPF and PPF2 type courses were run. Whilst they did not solve every problem, they did improve things. (I was a gold card holder with BA and SQ at the time).

Are BA giving CC the sort of training that they need?

[Matt101]

AO - obviously there is the initial training but I believe (though haven't experienced it) BA has added a third day to the CC SEP recurrent course which is run by the Customer Service Trainers. There is also the ongoing roll out of the premium crew training at the moment.

In addition there is the opportunity to access many computer based courses for things like dealing with Passengers with disabilities to service recovery (though the CBT is not compulsory.)

I think the training provision is probably as adequate as it can be for such a large community of crew though that is not to say that improvements aren't a possibility.

Edited to add: Whilst I don't doubt that the experiences some people had onboard can be below par I think it worth noting that the VAST majority of BA crew do a sterling job.

[nuigini]

SEP is three days but the main reason as to why they have added the third day, which is actually the first day of three day SEP, is because of the mandatory learning (CBT) which had many no show's when it was a separate day.

[Poof in Boots]

BA moan about payments to the pension fund, then take another holiday by denying it £300m through their fiscal ineptitude.

You couldn't make it up

Ancient Observer. Regarding CC performance, the effects of low pay contracts are already apparent. We are not getting the calibre of person we used to. There are very few people who love the job so much they would cut their pay or take a demotion. Anyone who says that is obviously completely barking mad.

[Poof in Boots]

Well Re-Heat you pose the question 'why would anyone buy shares in BA'? Anyone that does should have their eyes wide open.

Well I have, bought 5,000 of them three months ago and I am just poised to sell. I think they have a little bit more to go before they drop again. Shareholders do not need dividends with a share like BA which is up and down as regular as clockwork, or another expression I could use which would be Mod'd off.

Personally I do not give a toss about shareholders. They take a gamble and speculate an investment in a share like BA. It is not for them to pressure the workforce to take pay cuts just to enhance their 'bet'. I am all for capitalism, but there is a tendency in the UK that profits are privatised, but debt is socialised.

A big PLC like BA is able to warp the books to look anyway they like. BA is being run like ENRON in reverse at the moment. The Chairman and CEO should resign, because even the markets don't believe them!

[Nutjob]

PiB

Direct question.

How many of the crew who are hoping for part-time (in it's various forms) or compulsory redundancy do you think will back BASSA in a strike vote? Let's go for a percentage.

Please bear in mind that the offers they receive from BA are all dependant on the the business efficiency targets being met. :ooh:

* Genuinely looking forward to the reply from a BASSA rep. (For those who don't know, our reps don't answer questions on the Bassa forum, it's purely there for crew to post and meet).

[Poof in Boots]

Nutjob. How can you give a direct answer to a hypothetical question?

I am not a BASSA rep and have no contact at all with anyone at BASSA. I am just one of the 11,000 or more who will go on strike if changes to contracts are imposed.

Willie Walsh is acting like a mill owner threatening employees with arbitrary change combined with an artificial deadline. The modern way to effect change is via negotiation.

[overstress]

PiB, hope you're enjoying the new caravan! Will you come on here and eat humble pie when the vast majority of your colleagues quietly sign and return their new contracts?

Seriously, I hope that those who would contemplate going out on strike (if one were called) are aware of the consequences of doing so.

[overstress]

The modern way to effect change is via negotiation.

All deadlines are artificial. This particular one was 30th June, it's over and BASSA missed it.

[Nutjob]

PiB

Ok, what I was getting at is that there will be this group of people who, imho, will have little motivation to join you in your battle. They have a vested interest in a settlement being reached. Their personal gains in the part-time/redundancy score will outweigh their reasons to fight BA.

All I'm saying is that I think you can count on losing the backing of thousands of crew because of this. BA boxing clever?

Sure you guys have considered that though. Which is why I thought you might have put your mind to the numbers involved. Pretty integral to the fight ahead.

You know my position and it isn't one of support for the way you've handled things. I also notice that the voices of dissent are growing over there on the BASSA forum. :hmm:

[flying_chick]

PiB totally with you mate and so are the vast majority. They are so deluded on here. Great news today you know what I am talking about. :ok:

[Hotel Mode]

Thank you flying chick for taking the debate further once again.

Can I suggest you return to crewforum. I'm suprised you didnt just reply with - PiB :D:D:D:D:D. That seems to be the standard of discussion over there. Well done for not calling anyone a twunt though.

Great news today you know what I am talking about.

If you mean that Unite have buckled to pressure from their largest branch and led some more BA employees down the failiure to agree path, then its not exactly a secret. It makes no difference to the facts presented above that a) BASSA cannot yet ballot and b) BA are very sure of their legal standing re SOSR.

[Carnage Matey!]

Not many days until the cabin crews CR1 notification matures. 2000 compulsory redundancy notices should focus the minds of Unites members that this is not a game.

[flying_chick]

Great news today. :ok: I like it here though so I won't go thank you. I like you all. A bunch of lovely people, such a nice community. ;) I actually am learning alot here too. So don't you dare suggest where I should or should not go in this democratic society. I am doing no wrong or calling anyone names just backing my union 100%

BASSA :ok:

[flying_chick]

Carnage that is why they are so short of crew I am doing overtime tomorrow. :E 2000 compulsary redundancies??? Maybe but I highly highly doubt it.

[Carnage Matey!]

Your empty posts are an excellent metaphor.

They are short of crew because it's a sunny weekend in the school holidays and you've all pulled a sicky again. I'd be watching those sickness days if I were you. Wonder what criteria they'll use for the CR.:E

[Hotel Mode]

I am doing no wrong or calling anyone names just backing my union 100%


But thats all you ever say, its almost like a parody of Crewforum rather than a view of your own. You have brought nothing to the debate at all. It might work elsewhere, it doesnt here.

[bermudatriangle]

Compulsory redundancies ??? I very much doubt it,BA are short of crew and requesting willing to work from crew on days off.
Added to the strength of the crews cause,is todays failure to agree between BA and the A scale groundstaff.Not only are the cabin crew refusing to accept permanent change,neither are the groundstaff.
Combined with increase in passenger figures for July,year on year and this standoff becomes a lot less simple to predict the outcome.

[Nutjob]

2000 compulsary redundancies??? Maybe but I highly highly doubt it.

Oh dear, there are some BIG shocks due. :ouch:

[Carnage Matey!]

They won't be short of the crew when the rest of Bill Francis' proposals are introduced. 3 crew on an A319, CSD working the service, 16th crew member off routes, variable crewing. We both know that'll free up 2000 heads. Issue the new contracts on Sept 1st along with 2000 CRs and see who blinks first.

The ground staff failure to agree doesn't help your cause much. You can't strike in support of each other (it's illegal secondary action). If either group strikes BA will cancel flights just like last time, so having two groups on strike simultaneously doesn't increase the effect. And this is assuming Tony Woodley doesn't pull the plug on any strike ballot. Which he almost certainly will.

PS Don't forget a large proportion of the A scalers are actually Waterworld staff. Do you think they'll be missed if they don't pitch up at work for a couple of days?

[flying_chick]

Again that may or may not happen. You cannot impose that is why we have a union. :ok: Plus, I am waitin for BASSA to imform us further. I am sure they are working hard but unlike BA they are adhering to all the rules during the cooling off period which only ended Friday. :ok: I have heard it all before with dates etc so many times. Come September the 1st I will tell you what will happen, I have a magic ball in front of me and it tells me everthing. Nothing will happen :E.



We will negotiate and some things we will just have accept but BA won't get everything.

[Carnage Matey!]

You cannot impose that is why we have a union

Yes you can, thats why SOSR exists. Plenty of information on here about how and why it works.

Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8176833.stm)

They've got a union too.

[flying_chick]

No they can't. I read what you posted and I am not worried in the slightest, been there and see it all before hundred times over. :}

[Carnage Matey!]

Really? Where did you see new contracts imposed a hundred times before? Is the latest BASSA line that the BBC are now fabricating stories as well as BA and PWC? Cuckoo!

[flying_chick]

It was all explained at the meeting. Honestly, we had a legal team there and it is confidential so hardly going to go through it with you but we all know what to do come crunch time. I am not going to argue with you but come September 1st we will see. My magic ball tells me you are way off the mark and I cannot wait to come back and say' I told you so' Mark my words I will. :}

[Carnage Matey!]

Which meeting was that? Not the Kempton Park one as my sources at the meeting said there was no mention of SOSR whatsoever and only the misleading information that you couldn't be sacked for striking. Perhaps there's been another one? Have BASSA changed their tune and starting facing up to the realities of strike action? I think not! September the 1st is going to be an interesting day.

[LD12986]

Combined with increase in passenger figures for July,year on year and this standoff becomes a lot less simple to predict the outcome.

The overall passenger numbers were up by 1%. However, premium traffic was down 11% and non-premium traffic was up 3.5% and that was due to massive discounting.

What really matters is yield, and that has gone off a cliff.

The one bright light is the LCY-JFK service where fares are not being discounted which, ironically, BASSA is now trying to scupper.

[overstress]

What really matters is yield, and that has gone off a cliff.

You see it in the passenger manifests (PIL). So many flights seem to have huge numbers of upgrades. There are some lucky people sitting at the front of cabins at the moment but it can't last. Something has to give, not all staff groups seem to realise this :eek::eek:

Funnily enough there has just been a TV programme on about the miners' strike. That ended in a massive climbdown and a permanent adjustment thereafter.

[Glamgirl]

It's good to see we have a psychic among us...:rolleyes:

Magic balls aside, Flying chick should start to worry, due to the lies being told by Bassa reps (or at least the lack of facual information). I think it's amazing that the CF lot think it's a great thing that the ground staff have issued a "failure to agree". They are obviously mis-informed and think they can strike on each other's behalf. As posted by others here, it would be secondary action and therefore illegal.

Gg

Ps Bye bye PiB. I wonder what name he'll use next time??

[overstress]

What happened to PiB? Did I miss his demise? :{

[Glamgirl]

Yep, he's gone. I bet he's proud :rolleyes:

Not sure why, but can think of a few reasons...

Gg

[Desertia]

"Funnily enough there has just been a TV programme on about the miners' strike. That ended in a massive climbdown and a permanent adjustment thereafter."

And if you remember, the NUM had the rug pulled from under their feet by thousands of former members who realised that Scargill was blindly leading them to their doom. In that case they even went as far as setting up their own union (the UDM iirc) which received backing from both the government and the industry.

And this while Scargill was loudly proclaiming how his union brothers were stood side by side 100% we shall not be moved, etc.

Sound familiar? :)

I listen to some of the warped Bassa cult members on here and am reminded of the Iraqi Information Minister and his famous "there are no American troops in Iraq" quote.

The louder and more indignant the squealing, the more the message is starting to get through :)

[Runway 31]

Was Scargill correct though? not to many mines left open in the UK.

[Da Dog]

Flying chick said

We will negotiate and some things we will just have accept but BA won't get everything.

Whilst most of your posts are empty, I think your prediction above is correct. But who is to say that that wasn't BAs' plan from the very beginning?

[Desertia]

Runway31 said "Was Scargill correct though? not to (sic) many mines left open in the UK".

Yes he was correct. He anticipated that the British government were sick and fed up of paying miners a fortune to dig coal which could simply be purchased overseas for a pittance.

Sorry but that's what the free market is all about: competition.

Something that seems to escape our BASSA superstars I fear. They seem to think they are immune from competing with employees who will work for less (and probably harder from what I've seen).

[Ancient Observer]

Carnage raises an interesting question about whether or not Woodley/Unite will support Bassa, should bassa request formal TU support in any industrial action. I believe that he won't, but do others on here have any reasons why he might support them?

[Litebulbs]

Why would he not support them? As long as the legal mechanisms are followed with regard to balloting for industrial action, then he has no reason not to.

[midman]

Why would he not support them? As long as the legal mechanisms are followed with regard to balloting for industrial action, then he has no reason not to.
He didn't support Bassa last time, he made a deal with WW to stop strike action.

Deja vu?

[wapses]

Saw an article last week about the head of Unite Union having been awarded a hefty pay rise.

How come when the rest of the world (the real world) is having to make do with pay freezes, pay cuts, and job losses, the Trades Union leeches are increasing their salaries?

And whose money exactly is it that they use to pay their salaries??

I suggest you ask some pretty searching questions about why your union dues are utlised in this way.

[Human Factor]

Why would he not support them? As long as the legal mechanisms are followed with regard to balloting for industrial action, then he has no reason not to.

Unite's finances aren't in the greatest shape so Mr Woodley will have to be assured beyond any shadow of a doubt that all the legal aspects are absolutely watertight, otherwise he has an awful lot (a union) to lose.

[Litebulbs]

It is quite simple. A ballot of the membership and either action or not, depending on the result.

[Nutjob]

The situation with Tony Woodley is very clear. His permission is needed to run a ballot for industrial action if BA go ahead an impose any changes to agreements. After that moment everything is in your hands. You will either decide to take industrial action or not. If you do, the only group who can call off that industrial action is you - not Tony Woodley, not the BASSA committee and certainly not BA.

Litebulbs

For clarification, from the BASSA moderator's own post. My bold.

BASSA members will have a vote if/when BA impose a new contract. However, in BASSA's own words, Woodley could prevent a ballot going ahead. It's not quite as cut and dried as it may first appear. :ooh:

[stormin norman]

Woodley would not risk a run in with Walsh.He knows it and so does Walsh.
Outsource the ground handling and he's lost membership he knows he'll never get back.

The company needs restructuring to support the pension deficit. Not only are accrued pensions at risk but future pension reduction is going to mean a poorer future for all at BA.Get your calculators out and work out your future pensions on rates of 1/80ths rather than 1/60ths-quite sobering.

Ironic really that the biggest financial supporter of the labour government is Unite and its been the labour government who has been instrumental is bringing to an end the final salary pension schemes in many companies.

[Litebulbs]

Nutjob,

I agree with everything you have stated in your post. You use the word could and I have used why.

[Bucking Bronco]

This is getting really interesting...

We have BASSA drawing a line in the sand.
Unite behind BASSA.
WW determined to introduce new Ts and Cs.
Unite still concerned over the GG fiasco and that BA could have wiped them out for illegal strike action.
Unite are major backers of the Labour party.
The Labour party cannot afford to lose the donations from Unite but cannot bail out BA (lack of public cash and EU rules), so just how much influence can the government exert on BA/Unite?

If I was a gambling man I'd say we are not going to have a strike. Rather an 11th hour capitulation from Unite, BASSA will not have everything they want, but nor will the company either, cost savings from what is eventually agreed will be massaged to meet the targets and everyone will claim victory all around.

All IMHO of course...

[Carnage Matey!]

Woodley does not have the emotional attachment to the negotiations that BASSAs reps do. He can afford to take a dispassionate look at the negotiations, the options BA have, the support BASSA really has (as opposed to the support the tubthumping devotees claim) and decided whether or not a strike is winnable in the current climate.

Given that BA have many options, and BASSAs suport is nothing like as solid as they claim, he may well decide that a negotiated settlement that looks almost identical to what BA propose is a better outcome than losing a strike. BASSAs latest update reveals that there have been no negotiations of late and BA have flatly rejected BASSAs offers since 30th June. That doesn't look like the actions of a company that are scared by the unions.

[Reargunner]

As the parent union must take legal responsibility for any andustrial action, including the possibility of legal action by the company to sue individual officers for damages, it is hardly suprising that they have the power to prevent reckless or illegal ballots.

Are you suggesting BA might punish the ground staff for action by the cabin crew?

That's a pretty hideous idea.

I understand the ground staff's chief problem with the company is over the amount of outsourcing in the cost-cutting plan. Plus a manager told me they intend to introduce the split shift/peak time working pattern that the wildcat strikes were called over.

I can't remember who said that the A4 staff largely work at Waterside...I thought a lot of them work in CRC? I think in terms of company organisation they are part of IfCE.

However, I know few details of the real proposals to these groups and only a little of their current working terms. Just like many people here know little of the reality of cabin crew's situation.

[HZ123]

Only been with BA for 33 years, CRC ? Go on! As a Cranebank observer in all of this it seems to be going around in ever expanding circles and it is not getting anywhere.IMHO

[flyeruk69]

It's been mentioned people on here don't think Bassa has the support they think they do from the cabin crew, just wondering what this is based on ?
I work with and talk to the said Bassa members and the feeling with most of those I talk to is that they're pretty pissed off with whole thing and are very wary of the future.
I don't mean redundancies or losing their jobs.
They are more worried about BA's proposal to have flexible rostering when ever BA feels it's necessary including being called in to fly on days off with 24 hours notice, trips being changed on report, crewing the aircraft to legal minimum, (almost manageable on short haul a nightmare on longhaul if the full service our customers expect and deserve is to be delivered) If there was some sort of overtime attached to being called in on days off , similar to draft payments for our pilot community it would be more palatable, however there's not.
The cabin crew are also worried about the single nights in 14 of the long range destinations and I'm pretty sure it's mainly about quality of life and health, and financially for those full time crew who will find their 900 hour limit creeps up very quickly, leaving them on £12000 basic pay with no chance of earning the extra payments for a period of time, currently about 28 days on the current rostering system on longhaul.

Believe me having been through 2 strikes and one near strike, I dread the thought of striking again !!
If BA decide to give the 90 days notice to change the collective agreements between BA and the TU's there will be a ballot and the return will be high, partly due to it being easy to put a cross in the yes box and passions running high.

For those who believe there will be a last ditch reprieve as last time, it can't happen as the branch constitution has changed meaning there has to be a meeting called for the Bassa membership to vote yea or nae to any agreements made by unite and BA.

The reason why BA and the trade unions have not been talking over the last 2 weeks is because they can't, with a failure to agree registered there has to be a 14 day cooling off period. (which ended last Thursday)

There will be some interesting times ahead, not sure it will be September 1st, but hay do any of us know for sure........... I think not !!

[StraightDave]

For me it's based on reading BASSAs claims of 100% support then going downroute and finding that when you remove the intimidating militants from the scene a large proportion of the crew volunteer that they are unhappy with BASSAs conduct and have no intention of striking. Of course if you are a union hack you'd never hear that.

BASSA may have changed their constitution but they still require Tony Woodleys approval to ballot for a strike. Odds on that approval won't be forthcoming.

[Litebulbs]

Why would that be then Dave?

[flyeruk69]

I have not seen or heard any intimidation from Bassa militants, there are very few cabin crew who really want to strike.
As for TW being reluctant to authorise a ballot, it wasn't the impression I got at the last Bassa meeting. This sounds to me like superstition as none of us on this forum really know what he's thinking.

[am i bothered]

From what I hear the vast majority are in support. 2 000 people attended a meeting. The biggest turn out ever!!

So if it makes some feel better to think that support isnt there then thats fine.

I quite fancy a trip down the river nile as well.

A sleeping giant is about to be woken and its causing panic. If there is imposition then permission will not be an issue. I cant see Unite turning down its biggest customer and in fact the biggest trade union branch in Europe!!!

[Human Factor]

A sleeping giant is about to be woken and its causing panic. If there is imposition then permission will not be an issue. I cant see Unite turning down its biggest customer and in fact the biggest trade union branch in Europe!!!

Not entirely sure it's causing panic. I can't say I've spotted too many signs of that at work to be honest.

Like I wrote earlier, the BASSA members, the BASSA reps, Unite and Tony Woodley had better be extremely sure that a) any strike is 100% legal on any and every level and b) the support of the membership is definitely there. Otherwise, it's likely to be the most ineffectual and self-defeating industrial action in the UK in recent years.

[Bucking Bronco]

Flyer69Uk

Nice post, I agree with you that probably most crew don't want to strike and that most crew are indeed behind BASSA.

From talking to CC downroute the vast majority are behind BASSA and have been putting forward the BASSA line. Where we've managed to have an unemotional discussion about the facts and details (for example putting the facts straight on the pilots deal, discussing the challenges BA face) then I've found the CC to be a little less chest beating and more reasoned/measured in their opinions. My advice to them FWIW has always been to get the "facts" from both BASSA and BA - take a deep breath, then have a look at them and consider your position. Deciding on a position only having listened to one side of the arguement and not scrutinising what you've heard is never appropriate, especially in something as serious as this.

The "discussions" that I've had to walk away from are when individuals have basically put their fingers in their ears, started name calling and accused anyone who has a different viewpoint from BASSA of being liars. These people are quite simply beyond reason and comprehension.:ugh:

Anyway, it seems to be quietening down a bit now, what's it like on BASSA and CF? Could it be that CC are happy with what's on the table? From the limited information I have seen (CC letter) it seems that BA have given some concessions.

Cheers

BB

[flyeruk69]

Listening to the crews concerns on board it appears that while BA certainly haven't given any concessions or backed down, the majority of crew see that there is a need for change and some of the tabled MOA will be acceptable at a push !!

As said previously it's the operational recovery agreement including called in on days off, with no information on what happens if you are not contactable,will disciplinarians ensue ? Less days off on euro fleet and single nights down route on longer range flights currently 2 local nights.

It's these that will drive cabin crew to strike, I do believe there is still room for negotiation with Bassa/Unite, it's just a question of finding a way through without either side losing face !!
Having said that I'm not in the room thrashing out these points !!

[Ancient Observer]

BA takeover and impact on BA/negotiations with CC et al.
As BA's share price is still weak, might a take-over be a possibility?
A year or so ago, MOL had a go at taking over Aer Lingus. He was stopped by the EU and Irish Government.
Would he have a go at taking over BA? he certainly has the financial power to do so - his Chairman is also Chairman of TPG, one of the biggest and most powerful of the American private equity houses.
Is there anything to stop MOL, or anyone else, from launching a take-over whilst BA's Board are focussed on their awful results and equally awful Employee Relations?

[Carnage Matey!]

A £3 billion pension deficit is a fairly good spoiler for a takeover.

[Juan Tugoh]

I suspect MOL would be completely uninterested in a takeover until the company has gone bust. Then he will be able to dictate terms and conditions to all. I simply cannot see him willing to deal with strong unions such as BASSA and BALPA.

[Human Factor]

....including called in on days off, with no information on what happens if you are not contactable,will disciplinarians ensue?

The pilots call the above "Forced Draft". We've had it for years and it doesn't happen that often as the vast majority of us are prepared to work beyond our agreements in case of severe disruption so there's rarely any need to force anyone to come in.

Starting to see an analogy yet?:rolleyes:

[Carnage Matey!]

Anyway, it seems to be quietening down a bit now, what's it like on BASSA and CF?

Well over on CF they're all having wet dreams about how they "stood up to the Captain" who wanted them to leave one down, about how the Captain was "so in the wrong and he knew it" and how "the Captain got told off by flight ops". Sorry to burst your bubble folks but the Captain was not in the wrong, he was perfectly correct in trying to keep the operation running with a legal number of cabin crew and Flight Ops do not tell captains off for such trivia as this. If they even noticed it would simply have been to say "Oh well, you tried your best."

The funniest part of the whole thread is that the Vicky Pollard type who started it found that when the standbys demanded eventually turned up at the aircraft there was one extra and they'd been removed from the Gen Dec! Sometimes the threat of an offload is whats required to put these people back into their boxes and remind them who's really in charge of the operation.:E

[flyeruk69]

Not sure what you mean about an analogy, yes the pilots do have forced draft, for which they are paid handsomely for. a couple of years ago it seamed that forced draft was fairly common especially on the 777 due to the shortage of pilots.



As for the cabin crew in all the time Ive been at BA the crewing figures produced by man power never seam quite right, before you say it's crew sickness, at times it is, BA are currently asking crew to work in their none working part time for the whole of August, none that can be sickness because even BA don't have a Chrystal ball, we are at the usual point of being short of crew in August.
The flight crew do indeed mainly work to scheme especially in time of disruption, fine that's how it is. The way disruption is managed tends to be more sensible when it comes to forward rosters for our flight crew,for the cabin crew and the way we are managed, the flexible rostering could last weeks or months which isn't ideal.
E.g. if the the operational recovery agreement is implemented and an individuals roster has days of 24 hour they can have their forward roster changed until such a time there is no wastage in the roster, hardly conducive to planning, especially child care !
Unfortunately what BA is proposing regarding operational recovery will not just cover times of disruption, but WHEN EVER BA feel it's necessary, which would include times of crew shortage.

My main concern about this is the consequences of not being contactable on days off or being unable to get to LHR within 24 hours and obviously being unable to rely on days off.

In any decent sort of leadership there has to be some sort of incentive for people no matter how small and the incentive has to be positive.

We all know that 1 volunteer is better than 10 pressed men !!

[nuigini]

"the Captain got told off by flight ops". Sorry to burst your bubble folks but the Captain was not in the wrong, he was perfectly correct in trying to keep the operation running with a legal number of cabin crew and Flight Ops do not tell captains off for such trivia as this. If they even noticed it would simply have been to say "Oh well, you tried your best."



I agree on this. I don't believe for a second that Flight OPS told off the captain for trying to leave one down. Flight OPS is trying to run the operation and they would probably have been pleased if the flight had left one down to save them a crew member!

[potopilot]

Carnage Matey.....you make me laugh and laugh and laugh..Actually as the aircrafted departed with all crew onboard and with the originator of the post you refer to..it looks to me as if Vicky Pollard was very much in charge.

You have a very unhealthy inflated view of how most cabin crew think of pilots.

Let me be blunt...if it ever happens on any of my flights I'll be advising the Captain that the aircraft will not be leaving one down with me onboard....Sorry...who's in charge. You make me laugh and laugh and laugh

[Re-Heat]

You can advise the Captain, SFO and FO as much as you like, but it is the Captain and only the Captain who holds legal authority and is in charge, followed by the SFO and FO.

[FlexSRS]

So Poof in Boots is now called Potopilot. It's hard to keep up!

[nuigini]

Let me be blunt...if it ever happens on any of my flights I'll be advising the Captain that the aircraft will not be leaving one down with me onboard....Sorry...who's in charge. You make me laugh and laugh and laugh

A very arrogant post and especially when you think of the delay caused which will only affect the passengers. Do you remember them? The ones paying our salaries. Why would you not leave LHR with one crew down on one occassion? Afraid of hard work?

[am i bothered]

Going one down is a slippery slope Im affraid and will become common place. Again it appears that they are trying everything to undermine agreements that have been created for a reason.

So prehaps flight crew will be happy to operate with three instead of four whenever there is a shortage.

[StraightDave]

Flight crew regularly do depart with less crew than they're entitled to: witness downroute disruption or any delayed 3 man HKG or 2 man MIA. They're entitled to go back to stand for the extra man but they don't.

In the case in question only the magnanimity of the Captain kept Vicky Pollard on board. With an extra standby called out it's clear that the he'd already considered offloading the trouble maker and could have done so should he have wished. I suspect it was only the presence of his/her case in the hold that kept the insubordinate one on the trip. Don't make the mistake of thinking your union is in charge if the aircraft. It isn't, and if you give the commander lip you'll be waving goodbye to the aircraft from T5.

[Glamgirl]

Flyeruk69,

I'm just wondering where you got the details of the "proposed" disruption agreement? I haven't seen/heard anything from BA on this (apart from needing it to change from 2 local nights after a diversion). Is this Bassa's take on what would happen, or has it been published by the company as well?

Gg

Ps. In regards to working with less crew on either fleet, I'm afraid you'll have a big fight on your hands avoiding that, as LGW has been doing it for years and we manage to provide just as well a service with less crew than LHR. Yes it means working harder, but it can be done.

[deeceethree]

GG,

PM on its way to you shortly with details.

[potopilot]

Cabin Crew are in the middle of a dispute at the moment.....try and get your heads out of the pilot universe for a moment...its not the real world.

If a crew member wants to get off the aircraft because some Captain insists on leaving crew down, then thats whats going to happen. I have it on good authority that on the flight in question 7 crew would have walked off the aircraft if the pilots attempted to leave without the full crew compliment. Captain,God whoever can do nowt about it. No full crew compliment...No flight..End of story

[am i bothered]

Staight Dave that maybe how it works in charter not here.

Incorrect crewing levels without agreement flight aint going

[StraightDave]

Last time I checked BA didn't have a seperate section of aviation law from charter. Once the door's closed were going! And no, I do not grant you permission to use your phone on board to call BASSA!:}

[am i bothered]

Unfortunately agreements are agreements whether you like it or not. So either this gets added to the list on the dispute items or maybe procedure will change so that cc do not board the aircraft until the correct crew compliment is present. But I am sure this matter is being looked at along with the many other issues at present.

[HiFlyer14]

FlyerUk69 - it does not say anywhere in the proposal that you would be "in on days off" under the new Disruption Agreement. This is another myth perpetuated by BASSA for their own devious means. Read the BA proposal yourself. It says:

Contact Cabin Crew at home to advise of roster changes during disruption
Introduction of willing-to-work

Therefore if you were rostered to work while disruption was ongoing IT MAY CHANGE. If you were a WTW volunteer then you could be contacted to work WHEN WILLING!! ABSOLUTELY ZILCH ZERO NOTHING NADA ABOUT COMING IN ON DAYS OFF!!!

I am actually extremely tired and drained of having to explain the BA proposal to people now. They cannot use their own words; they simply spout BASSA crap and it usually goes something like this:


The pilots got a great deal and are getting it all back in two years time.:hmm:
Why are cabin crew being singled out and not other departments?:8
This is all due to bad management - price fixing/T5 blah blah blah:sad:
BA want us to take a paycut.:=
I want to work harder I don't want a paycut. :ugh:

Please, please please read and understand the BA proposal for yourself. BASSA are pepetuating myths for their own agenda. Do not get caught up in it.

[Glamgirl]

Highflyer,

I'm not getting my hopes up in regards to Bassa militants analysing things for themselves. Considering they're still comparing the LCY-NYC route with OpenSkies and saying it'll cost millions etc etc, even though we've explained plenty of times what's happening with that route and who's paying for it.

Mental block, fingers in ears anyone?

The people saying they're willing to work harder but for same money... This is the frustrating bit, because they won't accept less crew, shorter trips, fixed links, or anything else in the proposal. Is there someone out there (pro Bassa preferably) who would like to tell us how they're willing to work harder? I'm really interested to know what they'd be interested in agreeing to.

Gg

[Glamgirl]

Interestingly, the subscription fee for another section of Unite is being increased by 10%. This is not an airline section of Unite.

Is this to pay legal fees for BA taking Unite/Bassa to court, or to pay for the pay rises to the "managers" of Unite?

Answers on a post card please.

Gg

[HZ123]

A number of threaders have stated that there seems to be no plan for industrial action at this time. Were you to see the Waterside staffers involved in emergency / contingency planning for such an event it would seem to me that WW is not taking it very seriously as many members of the crisis teams would be hard pressed to plan a dog walking exercise let alone a free party? Yes its that bad!

[potopilot]

Time to polish up the old CVs then....Walsh doesn't back down...Cabin Crew walk (legally, as any competent union would ensure )...no question. I'd bet your pension on it.

[deeceethree]

potopilot, or Stallpusher, or Poof In Boots, or whoever you are - pride usually comes before a big fall.

Time to polish up the old CVs then Who's going to have you then?

[Dawdler]

Potopilot wrote: No full crew compliment...No flight..End of story

What's the big deal about being one CC down? It is clear that other centres operate different crewing levels to LHR without compromising safety. I am sure that if you asked the pax if they wanted to delay the flight or do without (say) coffee, you would get a pretty definitive answer! Most people have places to be and a time to be there (even if it is just a holiday) and having paid their money, want the journey to happen. Or perhaps you have lost sight of the fact that you are employed to provide a service to the paying customer.

D.

[StraightDave]

Walsh doesn't back down......................but Tony Woodley does:ok:

[nuigini]

What's the big deal about being one CC down? It is clear that other centres operate different crewing levels to LHR without compromising safety. I am sure that if you asked the pax if they wanted to delay the flight or do without (say) coffee, you would get a pretty definitive answer! Most people have places to be and a time to be there (even if it is just a holiday) and having paid their money, want the journey to happen. Or perhaps you have lost sight of the fact that you are employed to provide a service to the paying customer.
To BASSA, and many crew for that matter, it is a big deal to leave LHR with one crew down. BA actually needs dispension from the union to do so which is absolutely outrageous and I'm basing my opinion because I have been affected myself and stood on the ground with passengers on for hours whilst waiting for standby crew to arrive. In my opinion this is not to put the customers first.

[potopilot]

You guys make me laugh....you really do. Your on here yacking about the "whats the big deal" for cabin crew to work one down.You dont get your cappuccinos on board you go into a flight long huff.

BA have been systematically trying to erode Cabin Crew T&Cs for over 10 years now. For the most part they have been planning and scheming behind closed doors. If the LT were really interested in establishing an open an honest relationship with BASSA I have no doubts that BA would fly regularly with less crew when the circumstances dictated. Now I know some of you will not quite get the relevance of that....and some will not care and continue with your rather childish anti cabin crew rhetoric.:ugh::ugh::ugh: However, I know that the more enlightened of your brethren will see the truth in it and at least have the good grace to keep out of it.

Walsh may or may not back down.....Woodley will have no choice........BASSA will not back down on this one......errrrr BALPA already has.......again

[Human Factor]

Woodley will have no choice.

According to BASSA's last release, it is entirely Woodley's choice.

Which is it? :confused:

[potopilot]

Who's going to have you then?You see thats where you guys get it wrong again. Most cabin crew in BA are highly qualified and have a diverse range of skills. We are more able to readily adapt. I know lawyers,teachers,nurses,policemen....the list is endless. Me personally.....I have a degree in petroleum engineering....would walk into a job tomorrow( sounds like bragging....but you did ask)

Now you guys generally only know how to do one thing. In a world of decreasing flying capacity the word " extinct " springs to mind. You would be much better advised to get behind the cabin crew community on this one..........

[mandyconn]

Potopilot - Good well balanced post. You're like a breath of fresh air. :ok:

[potopilot]

Which is it ?


Do you not see the political ramifications of what BA are trying to acheive here. They are attempting to rip up our contracts without any consultation. Do you not think that every other big company in the UK is watching this with great interest. If BA are successful you can say goodbye to Unite and every other union. Now whither you think that is a good thing or not is accademic......Woodley will most certainly see it as a bad thing. Wake up!

Oh...that and 14,000 yes votes and a change in the BASSA constitution who gives a rats ar*e!

[I-said_no]

Most crew would be happy to work one down as long as we get the agreed payment. 4 hrs etp at the higher rate per sector. Lets put the shoe on the other foot, would you guys be willing to do forced draft for no extra payment?

Yes as a captain you are incharge, but it does not give you the power to break agreed industrial agreements. For those that belive they can offload crew that are sticking to their agreements be very careful. What would you do if a grievance procedure was taken out against you, as the crew member was not doing anything against what has been agreed by BA and their respected union. I ask the above as I have experienced it myself.:ugh::ugh:

This is not a one off. At LGW incharge crew members are beeing asked to put J entilement staff pax in club without the extra crew member.

[Skylion]

The real world if you want to survive is about attitude and flexibility,-not the old mentally cramped one of slavish inward looking adherance to union agreements and to hell with the customer. It's also about your real quality of life. The satisfaction and fun in a service business-(and they don't need to be brain surgeons, petroleum engineers etc to do the job-just good normal caring and lively people) comes through going the extra mile, making it all work , especially when things are going wrong and walking away at the end of the day knowing you've made a difference. The prospect of walking away at the end of your career and being able to say "I won, I did as little as possible" is dismal. If BA people do not want to put the customer first then plenty of others do,- and the customers don't want to get on the aircraft wondering what sort of day it's going to be.Many avoid the airline for this very reason and it's a tragedy.

[old school]

quote 'deeceethree'

''And what you forget, NO JACKETS REQUIRED, is that other departments, including the pilots, have been changing their Ts & Cs and pay for several years - unlike the cabin crew. BASSA have harumphed, foot-stomped, hissy-fitted and more for years, and now the change that should have been made long ago, in small increments, is going to be made in one fell swoop.''

Were changes not made in 1997 - long before the so called Pilots' T & C's? Please keep up. There has been a gradual errosion of pay over the last ten years, changing trip structures etc meaning many now earn £3-9k less per annum. Is that not change? Is that not the 'small increments' you were mentioning?

[The Blu Riband]

Hi Potopilot
honest question.........
why are you doing this job when you clearly dislike it, and seem to have no interest in serving your customers.
You also have a problem with pilots, and maybe authority in general.
If you are so well qualified why don't you find a more satisfying position.
BA have probably marked your card by now so promotion is unlikely ( unlikely anyway soon ).

For info, pilots are not issued with crew industrial agreements; although we are usually aware of most of them.
I always check with the csd, and if some one asks, would always allow a phone call to be made.

Pilots are not interested in breaking agreements, but in maintaining a safe and punctual operation. We adhere to JPMs , which only specify minimum crew numbers.

However, if a crew member behaved in an aggressive manner, or threatened the chain of command, or the Capt's authority, then he would leave the Capt little choice but to consider suspending that individual.

[Human Factor]

For those that belive they can offload crew that are sticking to their agreements be very careful.

You are correct in your assertion that we cannot offload crew for sticking to their agreements. However what we can (and do occasionally) do is have an aircraft re-crewed with fresh crew who are within their agreements to operate. ie. replace the lot with standbys. Yes, there's a cost involved but it's usually cheaper than cancelling a service.

[Nutjob]

Potopilot (or PiB ;) )

Me personally.....I have a degree in petroleum engineering....would walk into a job tomorrow( sounds like bragging....but you did ask)

I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but here's the truth of what you'd face. Many others with a similar degree but with many years of experience and/or "recent experience" in that industry. If it wasn't in the petroleum industry, then I think you'd also be up against those made recently redundant who would work for far less than they used to, just to have a job. If all the candidates were equally impressive, those people would get the higher ranking jobs before you because of their (recent) experience. I doubt it would be the walk in the park you envisage.

Now, I don't disagree that you'd get a job of some kind but imho it'd be on the first rung of the ladder. You'd have to work your way up again.

I'm sure you'll disagree but we're used to being reminded of how far removed from reality you are.

[Dawdler]

Potopilot said, Quote:
You guys make me laugh....you really do. Your on here yacking about the "whats the big deal" for cabin crew to work one down.You dont get your cappuccinos on board you go into a flight long huff.

You clearly didn't read the post. I wrote:
I am sure that if you asked the pax if they wanted to delay the flight or do without (say) coffee, you would get a pretty definitive answer!
I was not advocating Always running one crew down, merely that should that potentially occur, the crew consider the actual purpose of the flight. i.e. getting the pax from A to B.

Your dispute with the company fundamentally affects those for whom the crew would clearly appear to be having less and less regard.

D.

[potopilot]

Hi The Blue Ribband ......Serious answer

I love my job and would be interested for you to quote me from a previous post that states otherwise.......you're statement is either spin or you can't read posts accurately.

I always respect the authority of the Captain and the FO but only until he/she over steps the mark and tries to influence a situation that has nothing to do with them. You are ill informed if you think that while on stand with the door still open the captain can instruct crew members to break their agreement....it just aint gonna fly:). CC agreements have nothing to do pilots. Flight deck have no say in the matter. If this becomes a problem and crew become regularily intimidated by flight deck, BASSA will look into the possibility of refusing crew to go the the aircraft until the full compliment is at the report centre. Flight deck are meddling in things that not in their sphere of responsibility.

[potopilot]

No need to apologise Nutjob....no bubble to burst

[JayPee28bpr]

I thought this story from the BBC might be of interest in the context of BA's ongoing attempts to improve operational efficiency:

BBC NEWS | Business | SAS to cut more than 1,000 jobs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8196694.stm)

It's about a further round of cost cuts at SAS. I know SAS is a bit of a basket case generally, but it's interesting how similar the review there appears to be to that currently underway at BA. The only difference is one of scale.

SAS is looking for further job cuts (it announced an initial cull back in February), as well as a 10-20% cut in flight crew and cabin crew pay and benefits. Note the reasoning behind these further cuts:

"...it is essential that we now completely close SAS's cost gap with our competitors"

[potopilot]

Dawdler

There is a more than adequate disruption agreement available to the Company. However it will only be sanctioned when the Company is not trying to ruin our lives....funnily enough.

Nobody enjoys delaying aircraft, afterall its us that have to recover the situation during the flight. We do not refuse to work one down because we are lazy. Only those a little dense would think that. It's a point of principle. When pilots were threatening to strike over the Open Skies debacle there was no mention of concern for our customers. They did not call off the strike because they couldn't sleep at night.

I cant imagine that flight deck are so stupid that they believe all the anti cabin crew rubbish thats sometimes written on here...I can only assume it's spin designed to undermine the CC comunity in a desperate attempt to save their own agenda.....Guys.....forget it....storm's coming

[I-said_no]

Human factor it's a problem for BA at the best of times getting a qrs out, as there are only a handful of crew that get qrs rostered. Most crew are on 2hr standby. Can you imagine trying to get a whole crew.

Did a YVR about 8 months ago BA would not authorize the 1 down payment so waited over 2hrs for standby and a further 2hrs for a slot.
It could be argued did BA have the best interest of their customers that day. It works both ways. Its a sad state of affairs that crew do not have any respect for their leaders.

[The Blu Riband]

Are there any crew prepared to leave Lhr one down?

Do all BA crew really want to potentially cost the company 1000s of pounds, and upset our fare paying customers - and forfeit a nice payment as compensation for possibly working a bit harder, but possibly not if the a/c is not full - just because one of their colleagues went sick ( or got delayed) at the last minute.

Pilots don't want to infringe agreements, but are these agreements totally sacrosanct; is there never to be any discretion.

What if all the crew wanted to leave 1 down, get the payment, not lose a lucrative trip.

[flying_chick]

Leaders? Don't you mean employers? Or am i missing something?

[dave747436]

Protopilot,

I hold views which are unpopular with some, but if I am required to defend them I try to do so politely, respectfully and with a genuine attempt to see the other sides point of view.

For instance.... as a captain I value the CSD, and recognise that their people skills will often be far more sharply honed than my own. I frequently consult crew on issues where their experience or skills are more relevant than mine.

I personally would far rather the CSD did not become a working position, I think it may reduce their effectiveness at their primary task, PR.

I only share this with you in an attempt to show that I am not in the least anti-crew, quite the opposite in fact.

But I read your posts and shudder.

It may or may not be your intention, but your posts come accross as extremely aggressive.

You threaten ("BASSA will look into the possibility of refusing crew to go the the aircraft until the full compliment is at the report centre")

You gloat (""We'll show them" I heard ...that is until Willie showed them")

You are insulting ("You keep pulling your stick and flicking your switches")

And ignorant ("You guys merely drive the bus and have no contribution to the customer experience")

In short, you have a perfectly valid argument........
It is not my job as captain to undermine your agreements.

If BA didn't want any particular agreement, they shoudn't have agreed to it in the first place.

But in your attempts to get the message across you alienate 99% of your audience, many of whom would have agreed with you before you started typing.

I set down these thoughts only in an attempt to persuade you that your posts are counter-productive, and only make more likely that which you seek to avoid.

Your point is valid - moderate your style and other people may agree with you.

But as things stand you are doing your fellow crew a great disservice.

[I-said_no]

employers, dictators, etc are a form of leaders, as they lead us. Well they are from the countries I have lived in the past ( South America)

[flying_chick]

yeah well not here, BA certainly our not leaders. :rolleyes: anything but actually they are JUST my employers. In fact my true leaders are the older cabin crew who fought tooth and nail for what we have, they are excellent with the passengers and have been my leaders onboard. Juts to let you know you are not in South America here and we do not have dictators, even BA are trying damn hard!! :yuk:

[I-said_no]

The Blu Riband, most crew would be happy to work with one crew member down, I say only, if BA will pay us the agreed payment. Working one down is not the problem. The problem is that BA would like us to work one down without the payment that they agreed on.

Can BA be trusted that if crew worked one down that this would not become a regular occurrence. Lets not forget it was not so long ago that the removal of No16 was a temp measure, only for BA to go back on its word.

[Glamgirl]

To the newbies (recently arrived from CF by the looks of it),

Do you seriously not realise that your posts make you sound like you're from another planet? The way you come across is ridiculous, you sound like kindergarden kids. If I was a potential passenger, I wouldn't book a ticket with BA as I wouldn't want to risk you being on the aircraft.

Please kick your brain into gear, behave like an adult. Stop slagging people off and try to prove to us what you "love" about your job and how you provide "the best service".

Gg

[jetset lady]

This is not a one off. At LGW incharge crew members are beeing asked to put J entilement staff pax in club without the extra crew member.

Strange, as that's never happened to me or any other senior crew that I've spoken to at LGW. The J entitlement staff are upgraded to the trigger and no more. Occasionally, the dispatcher may be unaware of a trigger on a particular route, but reminding them of it will always bring apologies and a solution.

I don't understand why you don't get the one down payment. If this is an agreement, is it not automatic? On the few occasions I have had to operate one light at LGW, and it is nowhere near as common as people would have you believe, the payment has never an issue. So what's different at LHR? Why do you struggle to get it up there?

Jsl

[Nutjob]

Potopilot / PiB

8% of the workforce unemployed, highest unemployment since 1995 but you would walk into another job?

Your arrogance is unbelievable.

P.S Highest number of graduates EVER on the unemployed pile. Still think you're going to sit at the top of that pile?

[potopilot]

Nutjob...I dont mind debating these issues with you but could you please at least read my posts as they are written if your going to quote me. Did I say I was going to be top of the pile...try and stop spinning everything unless, of course, you realise its the only way to get your point over.

There seems to be a myth amongst the flight crew community that cabin crew came straight from school, or the job center or wherever. Actually, most of us gave up good careers to come flying. I know my posts do sound arrogant but between you and me its just a bit of sword play. The fact is I love flying...not of all it..the politics suck and the current LT are cowboys. I will, however, fight for my T&CS right to the bitter end. If it means losing my job then so be it. You are underestimating how much the cabin crew is committed to seeing this through...we will not back down. Not this time.

I have kept up with my qualifications...there are in recency. I was asked the question what I would do if I lost my job flying. I would go back to Canada and get a job in the oil industry....maybe at the bottom of the rung...but a well paid job nevertheless. Thems the facts

[Hotel Mode]

maybe at the bottom of the rung...but a well paid job nevertheless. Thems the facts

You are obviously in the fortunate position of having both another country and another job to go to. The vast makority of your colleagues do not. Regardless of your personal ability to chuck your job at BA in, you will almost certainly find sufficient CC accepting any SOSR change of contract rather than staring unemployment with nil benefits in the face.

[overstress]

You are underestimating how much the cabin crew is committed to seeing this through...we will not back down.

PiB, sorry, Potopilot. The word some is missing. Many of your colleagues will quietly sign any agreement put in front of them. You see, not everyone is an oil industry whizzkid with a guaranteed job in Canada.

Many of the crew I have spoken to are fearful for their jobs, which they actually need....

[deeceethree]

potopilot,
...are you for real. Do you read other posts on here......some of them are just full of vitrolic nonsense. This forum is infamous for mindless CC bashing.Ah, so you've recognised your 'vitriolic nonsense'? Outstanding! That means we might be making progress.

But, on second thoughts, perhaps not?

You just cant stand anyone (pilots, cabin crew, anyone!) who thinks for themselves, can you? And it is only those of your ilk who consider any criticism here as 'CC bashing' - there are cabin crew who post here that are perfectly capable of elucidating their thoughts in ways you can only hope to do so. These cabin crew have formulated opinions based on doing their own research and thinking, instead of blindly relying on the Soviet-style propaganda that pours out of BASSA.

What you like to refer to as 'CC bashing' is actually reasoned criticism of those that only wish to hear BASSA, instead of opening their eyes to the real world! You don't like it because it is aimed at your slavish adherence to the mutterings of a clueless union.

And you think that your contributions over on the 'other' forums don't amount to vitriolic pilot/company bashing? If you can't stand it, potopilot, you are free to leave! If you dare! But you just can't help yourself, can you? :)

[Ancient Observer]

I've asked a few questions on this thread, and I've posted a few opinions. Thank you for the various sensible replies.
However, the "ranting" characters on both sides who have no interest in reaching any sort of agreement are making this thread very boring.
Other than the dates, which have slipped a bit, CM had it about right many posts ago.
Is the thread going to just be assertion and counter assertion, or is anyone going to come up with sensible, creative ideas for a solution?
I'm sure that GG doesn't really want to create a new union, but may be that's the way to go.....

[Pacific Blue]

What everyone is forgetting here is that a demotivated frontline workforce is detrimental to the customer.
If an employee is made to feel a burden and not worthy, then the customer suffers.
Also, the less rest time downroute affects health significantly which also affects the customer by being served by tired crew.

In this rush to save costs from the frontline, the plan is doomed to fail.
Where the focus should be is saving from the top of the pyramid, the chairman, chief executive and all the other layers of management, then, only then come to crew and ground staff.

You could say this has been done already withh 500 managers removed, but when certain ones have been re employed on £1000 a day contract, the whole argument becomes laughable.

BA will never move forward until the mentality of the top leaders changes dramatically, focussing on the customer and its most valued asset, its frontline staff.

[flying_chick]

of course most crew are fearful for their jobs, but not in the way you think. Most crew are fearful for what is to come. Under BA new proposals I can almost assure you that the job wouldn't be worth coming in for.

They literally want to take the union and have crew work hard and under disgusting term and conditions, for two years and leave.

In fact, most crew are not going to silently sign anything. of course there will be (dumb) crew that will do just that and in two years they will be the ones in tears when they see that the job they once did is no longer the job they do now and believe me that will happen.

I will fight to the end and I will support my union. Bring it on!! :}

[Glamgirl]

Flying chick,

Could you please explain to me what's so disgusting in the proposal? I would like to know your factual and detailed opinion. Thanks.

Gg

[flying_chick]

one nightstop on worldwide??? 9 days off a month on Eurofleet? One day more than office workers in healthy environment!!! One in charge on the 767?? Late finish on your last day? 10pm?? Disgusting!! :\ Actually BA wanted midnight but the union was the one that come with 10pm which is fine, they had no choice.

So don't you dare tell me as cabin crew that these things are acceptable. If you have them at LGW that is your problem not ours and all the crew who transfered from LGW who are wonderful by the way, are totally up for a good fight too. After the stories I have heard I don't blame them. Bring it on!!! :}

[Shaka Zulu]

What amazes me is that the initial savings required of the CC community was around the £80m mark. (don't quote me on figures). This of course is not a temporary loan but a permanent saving.

The proposal BASSA put forward saved according to them £150m+ (albeit some of it temporarily). PW & C's estimation of those savings was in the region of £50m actual savings.
Seems to me that an extra £30m wouldnt have been that hard to find to keep all of you in a job and +/- on the same money as you are now but just working a little harder!

Failing to come to a conclusion has now upped your targeted savings because the company's financial position has deteriorated.
To me it looks like, if your union had actually been able to come to the discussion table without shouting 'No no no' and let the deadline pass, we wouldnt be in this situation we are in now.
And 2000+ CC weren't looking down the potential barrel of unemployment.

I hate to say it guys/girls, no one has ever asked you for a paycut. Just a savings requirement which for 70% could have easily been achieved by improving efficiencies far away from your bottom line.
The 30% paycut is a complete myth. New Contract Crews (post '97)/ LGW T&C's are fast becoming a big group in BA and unfortunately they tend not to be the ones at the forefront of your Unions mind.

Ask yourself the question, are you being properly represented or not. Are YOUR best interests at heart?

[potopilot]

Shaka Zulu.....its actually potentailly 35% and its exactly the post 97 crew that it will effect the most as their poportion of salary to premium and allowance payments is lower.

Sorry....you obviously have the difinitive results from the recent audit..would you mind posting them so we can have a look.

This is not about any current proposals. Its politics. Walsh wants BASSA gone so he can enforce is real agenda. Their new contract proposal is the tip of the iceberg. Please please dont listen to the company orientated propaganda on this forum. Its incredibly ill informed.

[Glamgirl]

Flying chick wrote:

one nightstop on worldwide??? 9 days off a month on Eurofleet? One day more than office workers in healthy environment!!! One in charge on the 767?? Late finish on your last day? 10pm?? Disgusting!!

So don't you dare tell me as cabin crew that these things are acceptable. If you have them at LGW that is your problem not ours and all the crew who transfered from LGW who are wonderful by the way, are totally up for a good fight too. After the stories I have heard I don't blame them. Bring it on!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


FC,

Night stop on some routes, but do keep in mind that some of the 14 destinations do not depart every day, so would be more than one night.

9 days off is acceptable, although not ideal. I'm sure office workers don't necessarily feel they're in a healthy environment with aircon, dust etc.

Single supervisory role on 767 is on Eurofleet, not WW. Do you really need 2 supervisors on a short haul flight?

Finish time before days off. Well, at LGW (I know you don't care, but anyways) we have to have chocks on by 22.31 before a day off (at the latest - otherwise you get another day off).

How many secondees have you spoken to? Some might say what you state, but not all, I'm sure. Some actually want to come back to LGW asap as they're not having a nice time at all. We're all different (thank goodness).

Gg

[potopilot]

Geardown107

There has been a fine display of CRM on this forum. I know hundreds of who you refer to as militants who have fought this company tooth and nail to keep our contracts. They are still here..will be here tomorow. Please inform me of any you know of that have had to visit the job center.

And who's going to initiate the afore mentioned sending to the job centre.....certainly not you old chum.

[2 and 70]

So don't you dare tell me as cabin crew that these things are acceptable. If you have them at LGW that is your problem not ours

Oh deary me. United you stand? BASSA 100%? Only if your face/fleet fits....

[Glamgirl]

poto,

I'm still waiting to hear where you got the 35% loss of earnings from. Did you make it up? You cannot talk about things that may happen in the future. You will have to deal with it as and when that happens. Concentrate on the current proposal.

And I'm an onboard manager, which suits me. I don't do offices...:rolleyes:

Gg

[Shaka Zulu]

You've completely missed the thrust of my post.

Your initial savings target could have been reached before the 31st of June with very little change to any bottom line. Merely doing away with some ancient old agreements that hardly affect your day to day life or paypacket could have given you enough savings to make the overall impact on your pay/lifestyle relatively small.

AT NO POINT HAS A PAYCUT BEEN TABLED!!

added for info:
With a sensible hourly rate your Post 97 crew would be far less dependent on premium trips.
(and do read SENSIBLE as it's intended). The impact of sickness over your ''premium'' trips on your pay would be vastly reduced and financial planning made a lot easier.

[flying_chick]

9 days is not ideal?? Too right it is utterly disgusting. :\ I have to say i have yet to fly with a LGW crew who want to go back to LGW after being at LHR. :rolleyes: I'm slightly confused there.

Some of have said how they miss the crew etc and the fun but certainly not the lack of money and T & C.

[Glamgirl]

It's an old saying, but here goes anyways: Money doesn't make you happy.

So, Flying chick, what are you willing to change?

Gg

[jetset lady]

one nightstop on worldwide??? 9 days off a month on Eurofleet? One day more than office workers in healthy environment!!! One in charge on the 767?? Late finish on your last day? 10pm?? Disgusting!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif Actually BA wanted midnight but the union was the one that come with 10pm which is fine, they had no choice.

So don't you dare tell me as cabin crew that these things are acceptable. If you have them at LGW that is your problem not ours and all the crew who transfered from LGW who are wonderful by the way, are totally up for a good fight too. After the stories I have heard I don't blame them. Bring it on!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


As cabin crew, I'm daring to tell you that these things aren't just acceptable, they are the norm in most places, other than up on your little cloud above the golden runways! In fact, having come from a charter airline, I can tell you that you have no idea what hard work is really about. I have never before come across such a bunch of deluded spoilt brats! But I blame the company for that. For years, they have pandered to you, scared of upsetting the apple cart. Well, no more. They can't afford to do that now.

The sad thing is, up until now, I've had some sympathy for the crew up at LHR. I know it's not great to have to change your work practices. It was no picnic when SF came in at LGW, but without it, I very much doubt BA LGW would even exist anymore and, hard though this may be for you to believe, not everyone wants to work at LHR. Yep, even some of those secondee's want to come back! You obviously haven't met them yet. Or maybe they think it's easier to keep quiet rather than risk the discussion which will, undoubtedly, follow.

Can you not understand that this is happening, whether you like it or not? You can threaten all you like, but as many, many people have already stated, in this economy, the company are the ones holding the all the cards. BASSA had the chance to minimise the damage, but they failed. It may now be too late. I hope, for everyones sake, it isn't.

But you don't want to hear any of this, do you? You aren't interested unless a post conforms to your idea of what should happen. If it doesn't, it gets filed under anti-crew or crew bashing. :rolleyes:

Jsl

[nuigini]

I still think if BASSA had negotiated properly in the first place we could have avoided the one night suggestion. It won't include every destination as many destinations are not a daily service. MEX, MRU, PHX and PVG are a few of them that wil be longer than a nightstop.

It's the same with the pay cut and pay freeze. All suggested by BASSA and I can't think about it without getting upset.

BASSA has placed us in this situation and they are to blame for this mess and now you are placing your future in their hands? It's unfortunate that some crew are far too naive to realise it.

[flying_chick]

Money doesn't make you happy. I am the first to admit that. I just want enough to pay my mortgage, food, bills, you know the usual and save some at the end of the month. I am not greedy.

I am willing do Worldwide flights, mixed flying. I am willing to operate with less crew but obviouly the service will never be the same again. I am not willing to have one day less off a month, do fixed links etc. I believe all crew should have the chance to sit at a table, eat and digest something before doing another flight. :ok:

[Glamgirl]

FC,

So the only thing you're willing to change to save money is to work with less crew. Would this be LGW crewing levels? Or is that too much work for you?

Mixed flying at LHR at present t&cs would actually increase costs, as far as I'm concerned, so no saving there.

What about the 18 hour rule during disruption? Any willingness there or is that "disgusting" as well?

I'm afraid you will have to change more than what you've said you're willing to change.

Gg

[potopilot]

Shaka Zulu

2 points really.

Firstly. Bill Francsis's proposals were unacceptable even at face value. We could debate the details of that proposal but I fear we would never agree. You may consider the monetary sacrifice to be minimal...we did not. But lets put aside the cash side of things for a moment. Its the operational elements of the proposal that horrified us all. Crewing levels,MBTs, losing 14 double nightstop trips and most of all the disruption agreement. BA want full control of the operation during any disruption. They would retain the right to interpret any situation as disruption, unilaterally. They could call us back to work on our rest days.part time week holidays....any time the dammed please. We could check in for a Hong Kong at 7pm to be told we were not need and to come back the next day for a Miami.....the potential horror stories are endless.

Secondly. This is phase one. Once the company minimised the influence of BASSA they would enforce their next agenda. Don't want to even think what that would be.

With good cause, we do not trust this LT...give them full control...anything is possible.

Now you make think this is just neurotic ramblings yaddah yaddah. I'm not sure what role you play in the company...pilot, cc whatever...This is real. Walsh wants career cabin crew gone.....thats 14000 guys who have got homes and families. One of the reasons I get so bleedin angry on this forum is the complete disregard most posters have for the livelihoods of their cabin crew colleagues.

Glamgirl.....Why do I have to focus on this current proposal. Are you mad? You're asking me to look at the watch while my pockets are picked,car repossesed and made homeless....you're either unbelievably niaive or you've got a photo of Walsh on your mantlepeice

[Glamgirl]

Potopilot,

I will ask you the same question as I asked Flying chick.

What (from the current proposal) are you willing to change?

I'm not naive, by the way, but there is no point speculating about what MIGHT happen in the future whilst watching the company losing millions right now.

Gg

And I don't have a mantel piece. :rolleyes:

[potopilot]

Our proposal is off the table....no longer available to Walsh. When he comes back to the table with a new BA proposal I'll answer your question then.

[Glamgirl]

Your proposal is off the table? That's not what I asked...

Let me rephrase it then:

What part of the current BA proposals are you willing to agree to? As in which changes are you willing to live with?

Gg

[nuigini]

Why are certain EF crew reluctant to do mixed links? It would actually mean shorter duty days instead of having to spend hours at the CRC waiting for that last flight.

[jetset lady]

Oh well, I appear to have finally become invisible! :(

Think I'll go play on the military threads for a while.... :E

[Glamgirl]

Poto,

So I take it you're not willing to change anything in your t&cs?

Let me rephrase again: What in your current t&cs would you be willing to change? Pick anything you like, whether it's been in a proposal or not.

How's that? Better?

Gg

[potopilot]

If you are asking me Re the proposals that BA tabled 3 weeks ago....thats a bit different. What would I accept....anything on it that didn't differ from our proposal document...you have to realise that BA presented their proposal as an all or nothing document....so you your question is accademic.

[Glamgirl]

Jsl,

You could never be invisible. You posted truthful words, and certain people don't want to hear it. :(

Gg

[Glamgirl]

Poto,

I'll say it once again: I take it you're not willing to change anything then?

I'm trying to figure out what you as a person would be willing to change in order to save money for the company.

Flying chick did at least answer. I might not agree with what she/he said, but at least my question was answered.

Simple, really.

Gg

[Glamgirl]

Poto,

Well if you'd answered my question in the first place this wouldn't have been so lengthy.

You have showed us you have no individual opinion, good for you if that's what you're happy with. May I remind you that Bassa proposed a pay cut the company asked for and by your last reply this means you agree with a pay cut. Well done. :rolleyes:

Gg

[welshboy1982]

This thread and it's arguments never cease to amaze me!

For what it's worth, I don't understand how BASSA will ever win this fight. If BA are so intent to change the T&C's so they are similar to LGW, then how can BASSA ever appose these changes as they have already allowed them to happen at another base?

As an ex-temp, I feel that the amount of crew who have no desire to do that job or be on that aircraft is quite astonishing - I've done trips to Hong Kong, Sydney and New York where, out of 15 crew members, I was the only person interested in doing anything down route, flown with crew that can't be bothered to do anything onboard, saying no to the simplest of requests but because they are senior enough they are also lucky enough to choose a position where they can hide down the back of the aircraft and seemingly get away with it.

I've got a couple of friends that work at LGW and having seen the good times they have on trips, the social side of the crew etc., I would give anything to work at the LGW fleet. Money certainly doesn't buy you happiness but at LHR it buys you a workforce that don't really want to be there.

Of course i'm not speaking for everyone, i've had some great trips and met some great crew, but sadly those that tarnish the bunch seem to be the ones who get their voices heard.

[nuigini]

Why would you accept a pay cut when BA did not even ask for this? Is it because BASSA ignorantly suggested it?

[Keirhardie]

I have been reading this thread with interest for some time, and have now decided to join the fray.
May i just say that I find the constant harping about grammar and spelling offensive. I am fairly sure (reading between the lines) that some of the members of the forum posting do not have English as their first language. So a little tolerance would be the well mannered thing to do.

Secondly, The posters who are continually harping on about Tony Woodley having the right to stop a legal ballot are blatantly ill-informed. Mr Woodley's permission indeed must be sought to proceed with a ballot HOWEVER he has no right to say no, his role in this issue is competely ceremonial. To give you an example of similiar circumstances, in the United Kingdom for a bill to become law it passes first through the House of Commons where it is debated, tweaked and proposed and then passed to the House of Lords where it may be debated and held for up to 366 days at the most and then passed to the Queen for Royal Assent, i.e. her permission is asked for the Bill to become law. This is ceremonial, the Queen is not legally allowed to hold up the law of the land.

Mr Woodley's role in this is ceremonial, If the proposal is in administrative order i.e. the branch officials have correctly filled out the assosciated admin, then the Ballot must go ahead.

Thirdly, Mr Woodley has no intention of refusing this request.

Fourthly, I am completely speechless as to why any group of workers would seek to involve themselves in the discussions re the Terms and Conditions of any other group.
I have utmost respect for the industrial agreements and T&C's of our Pilot community and would not dream of behaving in a derogatory fashion either onboard or outwith the jet, I find most of the attitude's displayed on here childish and demeaning and quite frankly unworthy of such a respected and distinguished position as British Airways Pilot i'm thinking of the person named StraightDave and also DeeCeethree. The minute anyone stoops to personal remarks or sarcasm is when they lose the argument.
Manners maketh the man. Attack the argument,not the person please.

[flying_chick]

welshboy, maybe all you want is fun and sun LGW is for you but for me and I think the majority of the crew I fly with we would rather LHR . we do a damn good job and I don't care for fun in the sun.

I like to save my money and pay my bills and go away with friends to enjoy all that. I do have fun on nightstops sometimes but for the most part I do it for money and enjoy my money in free time with my family and friends.

[747-436]

BA want full control of the operation during any disruption. They would retain the right to interpret any situation as disruption, unilaterally.

BA wanting to take full control of the operation, how dare the company that owns the aircraft intend to take full control of its assets to get the schedule back on track.............

Why would any situation be interpreted as disruption, surely this would make BA's life more difficult?!??!

I don't think it says anywhere they want to call people back to work on days off forcefully! I think it means that, as per a lot of airlines, people could volunteer to work days off to help out. And surprisingly this works for some crew as often it helps them out if they can change their roster slightly. Its all about being flexible, from both sides!

[LD12986]

I think the Mail has taken the comments in the circular out of context - it's not as though they've sent a specific warning to investors of a protracted dispute.

If you read the document online, you can see it features over six pages of risks facing the company and "what if" scenarios, which you would expect to see in a document for a transaction of this type and for any airline. Even if there wasn't the current dispute, there would still be something in the document about a possible breakdown in industrial relations.

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2031X_1-2009-8-10.pdf

[welshboy1982]

I'm not saying all I want is "fun in the sun", indeed I would love a career as cabin crew and beyond (training, recruitment etc) and I certainly think that such a thing is within my reach (so please don't give me that "monkeys/peanuts/graduates who'll quit after 2 years thing). What I don't understand is why people would want to do a job that takes you away from your family and friends for several days at a times, gives you fabulous opportunities and then choose to sit in a hotel room and not show your face until the plane arrives to take you home?

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with all of BA's proposals, the proposal itself is not half as bad as BASSA are trying to make out. I can certainly see where BA are coming from and understand there reasons for these changes. These 'proposals' are already in place at many other airlines, airlines which have been actively recruiting even during this 'recession', if it works for them why can't it work for BA? It already does at LGW doesn't it?

In a company the size of BA, I can see why a union is a valuable tool for the employees to ensure that the company does stick to agreements, maintains acceptable working conditions etc., but when it comes to BA having to ask BASSA's permission for everything, it becomes clear that BASSA have perhaps become the bullies in this game.

[flying_chick]

That is fair enough Welshboy, however, we don't just sit in our rooms. I am sure most people do other things, go out, have a walk, study open uni, read books,go for a drink in the evening, learn a language in peace and just enjoy whatever comes their way. It's just I don't care for going away days on end with in the sun.

I don't agree with BA proposals and I am behind my union they are not bullies, if it were not for BASSA some (minority) we wouldn't have what we enjoy now. I am standing by the majority of crew and BASSA and will not let BA get their own way. They should have been honest from the start. temporary solutions. They don't want that they want more and more.

Anyway, I am happy with what I have now and will fight to the bitter end to keep what we have. They won't accept BASSA proposals then I won't accept their pathetic proposals either.

[nuigini]

I still believe that if proper and straight-forward negotiations had taken place in the first place the situation we have today could have been avoided.

IFCE needs to save a lot of money compared to other departments and many feel BA is coming onto us really hard. Why? Because we haven't had our terms and conditions changed since ages. BASSA has put us in this situation and the fall is very deep and I honestly hope it won't be a too hard one. Maybe if they had taken their responsibility and agreed to previous negotiations a lot of this could have been avoided.

Unions are there to protect its members and it's a great comfort to have it to rely on should you need support if they are run properly. They can also be a growing tumour and I hate to say it but this is exactly what has happened with BA. BA is running the operation. BASSA is not.

Ask yourself if you want to place your future in the hands of a union which suggested to both a pay cut and pay freeze without the company asking for either, miscalculated its entire proposal, which was put together in a hurry, by a very large number and this was presented a week later after the proposal.

BASSA is fooling around and living in a fantasy world which is placing a lot of people on the line.

This may come out very harsh but those of you who still stand behind BASSA and placing the rest of us at a great risk of losing our jobs and should you chose to strike, I hope they will dismiss you over the rest of us who are actually willing to make changes to our terms and conditions to save our jobs.

[overstress]

flying chick: just trying to understand you. What is your bottom line? How far are you prepared to go? Will you put yourself on the breadline? (you will not get benefits if dismissed for striking, for example) :confused:

[flying_chick]

Yes, Will put myself on the bread line.Everything will done legally. I am quite prepared to take a risk, I am not the only one I assure you. Geardone I have no interest in you so don't me anything.