British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[Human Factor]

By "Association of Flight Attendants", I presume you mean PCC.

I would suggest that their current role in the dispute is minimal but they may well have a greater role once it's all over and BASSA have been removed as a force.

[La Pouquelaye]

Thanks for your prompt responses, deeceethree and Human Factor.

Apparently, the "Association of Flight Attendants" is a trade union in its own right, and has no connection with the nascent PCC(C). According to its website Association of Flight Attendants UK (http://www.afalhr.org.uk/) it has 632 members.

My question is whether the "Association of Flight Attendants" has any members working for BA and, if so, what part they are playing in the current industrial dispute.

[ottergirl]

The Association of Flight Attendants has no members at BA. Some US carriers have UK based crews for example United. This Union most probably represents them.

[moo]

my reponse to the poorly produced, youtube video made by untie:

YouTube - The Truth - BA cabin crew put their case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0dNcxbU9f8&feature=player_embedded)

Time to put the record straight & refute some of UNITE/BASSA ‘truths’ here:

“FACT: BA have reduced crew numbers by between one and three per flight. This will impact on the level of service to customers”.

TRUTH: Crew have worked “one down” for years. This attracted a significant one-down payment. BASSA never had a cause to complain when crew were hosed down with cash to do so. Also, to clear it up, the previous claim that working without the extra crew member affects safety is also usual BASSA tripe, they’ve been doing it for years - it was never less safe then. Funny what hard cash can do to ‘principles’.

“FACT: Cabin crew are prepared to make sacrifices. Unite proposed over £100m in annual savings.”

TRUTH: No they didn’t did they! They proposed a poorly thought out TEMPORARY solution, not PERMANENT as requested by BA. Which was INDEPENDENTLY audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers to be worth £52m.
UNITE’s latest proposal actually INCREASES crewing levels onboard and proposes a cap on First class passengers and closing off zones in the cabin until crewing levels have been returned to last year’s levels! Priceless!


“FACT: Contrary to press reports, BA cabin crew do not earn a fortune. 75% earn a basic salary of £20000”

TRUTH: BASSA/UNITE have ‘conveniently’ missed a rather critical bit of information here too as it doesn’t suit their argument. BA cabin crew (especially those at LHR) have a rather lucrative allowances structure earning such things as: box payments/meal allowances/telephone allowances/cat lounge payments/working one down payments) in total these things amount to £12K on European routes out of LHR and £16K on Longhaul routes. So err, that means for the 75% of crew that BASSA/UNITE claim earn a basic pay of £20000, they ACTUALLY earn a gross salary of £32000 on s/h and £36000. LGW crew (who have been conveniently wheeled out for this argument earn HALF what their LHR counterparts do as BASSA/UNITE fed LGW to the sharks many years ago to protect fortress Heathrow. That is now coming home to roost. LGW perform the same service onboard the aircraft & have operated to MUCH reduced crewing levels than at LHR with UNITE/BASSA’s approval for many years!!

“FACT: Cabin crew believe BA should continue to be a premium service carrier”

So do BA. But even if BA didn’t, it’s not BASSA/UNITE’s decision to rule how the airline’s business plan should look/run. Their job is to represent cabin crew, BA’s job is to run a very large company.

FACT: BA cabin crew do not want to strike. They want a negotiated settlement. They are proud of their airline and want a future. Cabin crew care, negotiation not imposition

TRUTH: BASSA/UNITE were given a deadline back in the beginning of 2009 for coming up with the required savings. The deadline was JUNE 2009. After wasting that time by refusing to sign confidentiality agreements to openly view/audit the company accounts as BALPA did, BASSA/UNITE were given till NOVEMBER 2009 to try and come up with something worth more than £52m. They didn’t and BA had not choice other than to ram it down their throats Foie Gras style. They didn’t like that very much, but if it hadn’t have occurred I have no doubt that BASSA/UNITE would still be sat around a negotiating table now, while BA bled cash at the seams.

Selfish, lying union, run to protect the people who run it - high paid, old contract CSDs.

[Nearly Nigel]

A very erudite translation/interpretation of how things really are moo.

BA IFCE management should copy your post, paste it into a memo and post it out to each and every cabin crew member.

Lots of them already know much of what you say and, sadly, many others will remain in denial anyway, but I believe it would be a serious eye-opener for a significant number who have become used to believing everything BASSA say (because they've always been hosed down with cash for sticking to the union line in the past).

Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for our company's survival chances), times have changed.

The fact that, even with the imposition, they're still about the best rewarded cabin crew anywhere in the world seems not to be a factor in their thinking. It's all quite bizarre really, especially when you hear words like "I'd rather they go bust than get away with this". Where else do they think their lack of qualifications are going to earn them the equivalent of £30-36k per annum?

Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. :rolleyes:

[MarkSpeed]

At least one person is reporting on BASSA that they have received more than one ballot form...................

[Nutjob]

Ah, they've promised not to send both back though. So that'll be alright! :eek:

Oh dear.

[Nearly Nigel]

I smell another invalid ballot
At least one person is reporting on BASSA that they have received more than one ballot form...................

That's the last thing Willie needs.

This had got to be played out to its conclusion sooner rather than later because of the effect on forward bookings.

Or maybe that's the only weapon left in BASSA's armoury?

[Glamgirl]

Funnily enough, I've received a ballot as well...

Interestingly, the union has given 22 reasons to vote NO as part of the "literature". The ballot also comes with 19 issues.

The ballot itself has only one question on it: Are you prepared to take part in strike action. Options are yes or NO.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA

[MrBernoulli]

Funnily enough, I've received a ballot as well...Is that 'funny' Glamgirl, because you are/are not a member of BASSA (anymore)?

[strikemaster82]

Or maybe that's the only weapon left in BASSA's armoury?

You mean, keep issuing strike ballots knowing that BA will get them declared illegal due to irregularities, but knowing the damage being done by impacting on bookings? Also, tying the company in knots with the volunteer issue?

[IYCSWICSWICW]

Precisely NN, as I alluded to in my earlier post, bassa (the self-servers) could be planning a strategy of a slow, lingering death, by a 1000 cuts.

Clever, if it wasn't so serious.

GF :}

[Hotel Mode]

That's the last thing Willie needs.

This had got to be played out to its conclusion sooner rather than later because of the effect on forward bookings.

Willy doesnt actually need to take an injunction out though. Just tell BASSA that they believe the ballot is illegal, let them strike (which being BASSA and infallible they will), sack the strikers and then sue BASSA/Unite right back to the middle ages. Job done.

[IYCSWICSWICW]

..aha, but then BA won't force for the injunction, 'Go ahead punk, strike, make my day' - check mate Malone.

GF :}

[IYCSWICSWICW]

You beat me to it, I can't keep up.

[Glamgirl]

MrBernoulli,


Is that 'funny' Glamgirl, because you are/are not a member of BASSA (anymore)?


That is correct. I'm not a member of unite/bassa/amicus

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[TheTiresome1]

The Postal Ballot issue was always going to be "interesting", but I never expected it to go off the rails so quickly! Given the option between the union being very clever in incompetent, I know which I would choose.

Is this a completely internal ballot operation? Or is some external body operating it on behalf of the Union?

[MrBernoulli]

Ah well, Glamgirl, BA now has it's ammunition, if it wishes to nip this strike ballot in the bud. But it may also wish BASSA to effect it's own death warrant by going ahead with a strike on the basis of an illegal ballot. I wonder which it is?

Is this a completely internal ballot operation? Or is some external body operating it on behalf of the Union?Almost certainly an outside agency running it on behalf of BASSA, but with BASSA's own membership lists/adresses etc. Buffoons ....

[Andy_S]

Precisely NN, as I alluded to in my earlier post, bassa (the self-servers) could be planning a strategy of a slow, lingering death, by a 1000 cuts.

Do you really believe they're that smart?

[Nutjob]

MrBernoulli,

Quote:
Is that 'funny' Glamgirl, because you are/are not a member of BASSA (anymore)?
That is correct. I'm not a member of unite/bassa/amicus

Gg

Gg

Maybe you could provide Willie with the details and then let him use it as / if he sees fit.

Mind you, everything I've heard this week leads me to believe that BA now need BASSA to get a yes vote and call a strike. If BASSA limped away bleeding now, they may survive to see another year and another threatened strike. Alternatively, he can break the strike and have the militants (with two businesses, two degrees, loads of savings and who hate the job anyway) sacked and move BA on to a brighter future - with the PCC in place of BASSA.

Oh and to dispel a few myths on the BASSA Forum:

* 22 Flight Crew started and finished CC training this week, many more courses to come
* 40 Ground Staff started 20-day courses this week, many more to come
* The removal of staff travel from strikers is cast-iron (it's been checked out ;) )
* BASSA's "216 volunteers" is a red herring, designed to flush out the real number. BA are keeping it secret - for the moment. But let's just say that BASSA should be concerned; we are quite replaceable because of the relatively short length of training required.
* BA are spending millions in preparation to break the strike - a bluff BASSA? I think not! Vote YES and you ARE going to have to strike. That comes with grave risks.
* The CAA are inspecting both FC and GS courses and are happy with the standards involved. They will also be on the "Scab" flights when they happen. They may have concerns and are justifiably keeping an eye on things. BUT these courses have the same standards as all other BA CC courses - if you aren't good enough, you won't pass.
* I'll be advising my friends NOT to strike and to vote NO. I'd like to see them have a job after this is all over. Whether they listen is up to them but they can't say I didn't warn them!

...and we've barely seen the tip of Willie's iceberg.

[Human Factor]

Is this a completely internal ballot operation? Or is some external body operating it on behalf of the Union?

Electoral Reform Services (http://www.erbs.co.uk/) run the ballot process for BASSA (and BALPA funnily enough). They are highly reputable but are only as good as the membership list they are provided with. :oh:

[Snas]

Cabin Crew – I demand that you strike...!

My anger at what I have recently heard is hard to measure, out of respect for this forum I will calm myself down as I type.

A BA CC returning from a trip said that “lots” (her words) of the crew on that occasion were stating that they intended to vote yes and then go sick. (“It’s illegal to sack me when I’m sick” –more on this later)
To those that are planning the same I demand that you strike. I disagree with the strike on just about every level that I can think of, but, I completely support your right to strike.
If you vote yes you are voting not for a strike to happen, but for YOU to strike. To do anything less and cower in your bedroom hiding behind a sick certificate (more on this later) says a lot about your character as a person, and it’s all bad.

If you vote yes you must get your T-shirt printed with a suitable slogan (I suggest “my employer is losing money hand over fist and just wants me to work a little harder to support it and all the other employees, but I won’t”), wear that T-shirt with pride along with your donkey jacket and get yourself to a picket line having lawfully exercised your right to withdraw your labour.

That's what voting yes means.

You understand the issues at hand, you have not taken one received position as the truth, and you have done some of your own research and established the facts in question, you have done this haven’t you?

Right, so go and strike with your head up high, it’s your right and I support that right.

However, if you vote yes and then call in sick, you are a disgrace, to your fellow union members, to all your colleagues, striking or not and lastly a disgrace to people all over the world that have fought for their rights, some by just writing a stern letter to their MP, others by setting themselves alight. – and you don’t have the character to participate in a strike that you have voted for – shame on you.

That being said let’s have a look at this “It’s illegal to sack me when I’m sick or on strike” nonsense shall we.

Your union answers this question by saying that “yes, it’s illegal”. They tend to end their answer there, but there is more to be said. It’s illegal for me to steal your TV from your home, I can still do it, I may be punished, you may feel victorious, but you are still down one telly...No Gok Wan for you tonight.

A very limited effort on your part will establish the following text as being the UK law as it stands currently, however unfair you think it is, it's the law (I happen to think it’s unfair myself, but at least I know it is the case)
My bold


If a Tribunal finds in favour of the employee it can order:

• Reinstatement - getting their job back with no loss of money or security. However, Tribunals rarely order reinstatement

• Engagement - getting another job with the same employer

• Compensation - a basic award calculated in a similar way to a redundancy plus a compensatory award to compensate the employee for the financial losses incurred as a result of the dismissal

The maximum compensation award is currently £66,200.00* (and updated every year), but unless the employee is a very high earner, it is rare for Tribunals to award this amount. Most will award for loss of earnings to the date of hearing plus a limited amount to compensate for future loss.

Reinstatement and re-engagement are rarely ordered by Tribunals.

Compensation may be increased or reduced if either party failed to follow the new ACAS Code of Practice 1: Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. Visit www.acas.org.uk (http://www.acas.org.uk/) for the Code of Practice


The above applies if you are sacked, end of.... to summarise, you are out of work, you take employer to tribunal, you win, you get some cash, you are still out of work.

Vote yes ONLY TO STRIKE.

If you don’t believe me or simply don’t care and intend to do the sickness thing, when you present yourself to the doctor can I suggest one of the following ailments: -
No backbone, guts, spine, balls.
Yellowing of the skin
Weak character

Think hard, 2 seconds with a pen on that ballot could affect the rest of your working life.

Nuff said – good luck people.

*£66,200.00 - This figure changes yearly, I couldnt be bothered to go look at what it is now, I suggest you do though, as at best you will recieve a fraction of it - and you will still be out of work, did I mention that?

[Papillon]

BA's lack of response to the "216" claim re-inforces the suspicion that BA are now quite content to see a strike. If they wanted to head it off, they could have provided information to discourage a potential yes vote. They haven't.

The people I'm beginning to feel really sorry for are those on good packages who will vote no, and will break any strike if need be. When BA change all the contracts as an outcome of any strike, they too are going to come off badly.

[fincastle84]

The tone of the posts on here is absolutely fascinating. Whereas before the proposed Christmas strike there was a certain air of impending doom there is now a much more positive feel in the air. IMHO this is down to 2 factors:

1. The birth of the PCC. CC members can now see a way forward once Bassa is vanquished.
2. The briiliant idea to request & then train volunteers from throughout BA. This has given ALL employees a chance to participate in saving this great company.

Well done & good luck to you all.:ok:

[Beagle9]

Yes, and I notice on my ballot paper (to which I put a very large X in the NO box within a nano second of opening it) the question is just that: "Are you prepared to strike?"

No indication of what you are voting to strike for, of course, just like last time. Just nice and ambiguous, so you can make up your own mind whether it's about "imposition", New Fleet, pay freeze, size of Willies salary etc.

The accompanying newsletter, of course seeks to muddy the waters still further by rehashing a list of all the old issues.

Just to be clear, if you vote YES, it is simply about the Company making a unilateral decision (after 9 months of unproductive negociation)to reduce crew compliments. NOTHING ELSE. NOT any of the other issues.

So for BASSA to "win", BA would have to find 1000 crew to replace the ones that have now left. How's that going to happen without increasing OUR costs at a time when we can least afford it? (Not via BASSA's laughable suggestions, that's for sure.)

And I say OUR costs, because BA is OUR airline, not Willie's, or BASSA's or any single individual person or entity, but all of ours. What's bad for BA is bad for us. And that is the point that so many people seem to miss when they say "he just want to cut costs."

Actually, there is one way Willie could bring back crew compliments to what they were and still save money. He could recruit 1000 new crew to New Fleet and transfer all the work that couldn't be covered by the existing fleets when back up to the previous crewing levels. Oh, you don't like idea either.

Be careful what you wish for. Turkeys and Christmas and all that.

Don't vote YES for an unwinnable strike.

[the heavy heavy]

Papillon,

I think the strike breaking no voters will be accepting the deal as on the table from BA right now. ie ave allowances etc etc

strikers will be out on their butts, ciao.

The new recruits will quickly be put on new fleet contracts!

As for the numbers in each group?

[TheTiresome1]

The people I'm beginning to feel really sorry for are those on good packages who will vote no, and will break any strike if need be. When BA change all the contracts as an outcome of any strike, they too are going to come off badly.

I tend to agree with Heavy. It would make little sense for BA to immediately set out to alienate those who voted 'NO' and helped save the company. Their changes in T&C would inevitably be as outlined already, and the 'NO' voters know that. Obviously it would be a different deal for new recruits, and that would be something affordable to BA [which is the original exam question, if my memory serves me correctly].

[Papillon]

It would be legally difficult, if not impossible to separate those who went on strike with those who did not, once everything was over.

I fully agree that BA would be keen to try to look after those who worked through, but changing terms and conditions, changing contracts, would apply to all staff, not just those who walked out. Non-contractual issues such as staff travel are different things entirely, and can be targeted. Based on the clear lack of guarantees for anything should a strike take place, those changes would be across the board.

[BABOBO]

Received my ballot form today and it is on its way back with a no vote (just like last time). Now, I am completely fed up with BASSA and their 'spin' and really want to leave the union now I have casted my vote.... however,.... sometimes it is better to keep your enemies close as they say.... should I maybe stay in this 'sect' so I can at least keep an eye on all the spin they feed their members.... and come in to work during the potential strike as a BASSA member just to show them a point.....???

[Snas]

should I maybe stay in this 'sect' so I can at least keep an eye on all the spin they feed their members


If you asking I would say no, for two reasons.
Firstly their spin tends to spill out of their world and into the real one from so many sources I dont see you escaping it if you wanted to really.
Secondly, falling membership numbers will tell them they are on the wrong track better then anything else.

Just my pennies worth...

[MrBernoulli]

BABOBO,

You voted 'No', so I assume you disagree with BASSA's stance on this. You are under NO compulsion to stay away from work if a strike is called. None whatsoever! I suggest you report for work as normal, as BA is going to pull the rug out from under the cocky so-and-sos who believe that a 'Yes' vote will get them all they want. The staff-travel withdrawal threat is merely a small opening shot. You don't want to be in line for the artillery salvo when it comes.

Preserve your job and show up for work. As for remaining in BASSA? Waste of time and money.

[Glamgirl]

Mabobo,

Nobody here can tell you what you should do, as only you can make that decision. People can advice you though, and then you will have to make up your mind based on that. All I'd like to say, is that if you want to resign from bassa, all you have to do is to inform pay services to stop the payment. There is no need for a resignation letter, unless you want to.

Good luck with your decision, and well done for voting NO.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Doors To Manuel]

From the archives:
For years, the company (Alaska Airlines) had kept all of its office personnel trained as flight attendants just so they could be used as replacements for striking flight attendants.[3] A traditional strike clearly was doomed to fail.

In 1986, thousands of TWA flight attendants represented by a different union had been permanently replaced by corporate raider Carl Icahn in a disastrous traditional strike.

FYI from memory TWA trained their res agents in 4 days apiece and were flooded with young enthusiastic ground based staff keen to get up in the air.
;)

[the heavy heavy]

Papillon,

think your missing my point. BA have no intention if having to deal with 2 groups post strike. By the time any strike date occurs all those who withdraw their labour will be in no doubt of the implications of their actions.

Ba wins in court next week and I expect it will be very simple to split the groups post strike. The no voters will continue to earn industry leading wages with a new allowance strucure. The yes voters who actually walk and the snakes who call in sick will be sitting on a grass verge somewhere watching the unite 'leadership' offer their support but little else. LaLa will have retired to la where commuting will no longer be an issue or even a possibilty.

The good news is hopefully the new entrant ex bmi/virgin/globespan etc etc crew will bring the same quality service and happy attitude that the temps who are returning delivered first time round. Work might be fun again!

We are all BA.

[Papillon]

Heavy heavy, I do know exactly what you're saying. That rather depends on BA taking the nuclear option - which I guess they might.

[LD12986]

Re: members receiving two ballot papers. Just how hard is it to run a macro on a database to identify potential duplicate entries?

[77]

The good news is hopefully the new entrant ex bmi/virgin/globespan etc etc crew will bring the same quality service and happy attitude that the temps who are returning delivered first time round

I remember working with ex Laker cabin crew in British Airtours a long time ago. They were very well trained. I don't think you will have any problems with the quality of new recruits.

[the heavy heavy]

Papillon,

we all have friends who know somebody who once heard etc etc etc. My ear is a bit closer to ground zero and what I'm hearing is that the gloves are all the way off!

This is a bar fight, not an episode of strictly come striking. Bassa are so far from their experience levels and unite so concerned about the election that neither actually knows how to win.

Time will tell.

[BABOBO]

Mr Bernoulli,

Thanks for your reply.... and you are wright, I don't agree one bit with BASSA's (or UNITE's) stance on the whole situation (for a lot of reason's of which most are discussed on this forum). I am aware that, even as a union member, I am under no compulsion to 'stay away' from work if a strike is called. That was and isn't my intention anyhow. I am backing BA, my colleagues throughout the airline and our customers and will come to work. And, like in December, I will inform the company about my intentions by putting my name on the volunteer list!!! I am trying to make up my mind what the best way is to get my point accross to BASSA..... leaving the union, or stay in the union and come to work if a strike is called. I have to say, I am leaning very much towards leaving as I don't actually see any point in staying with a bunch of people who are trying to bring our company down!!!

Thanks again and take care!!!

[TruBlu123]

To those CC about to embark on a suicide mission by voting yes! Be afraid, very afraid, the threat regarding Staff Travel is for real and WILL be enacted upon. Also, down route hotac IS a hot topic that will be looked at.

Thus for that part of the CC community who are in their jobs for the perks you will definately loose them if you strike.

[La Pouquelaye]

It will be very easy for BA management to ascertain who was actually on strike.

The company has made it absolutely clear that those flight attendants who go sick during any strike will have their cases very rigorously investigated.

This leaves a third group: those who turn up for work without reservation or equivocation. It is that group whose careers will flourish and which might even take a steep upward turn for the better.

Just a thought.

That's all.

[MissM]

The company has made it absolutely clear that those flight attendants who go sick during any strike will have their cases very rigorously investigated.

This isn't America!

We are called cabin crew these days.

[soberthought]

I disagree with much of the gibberish written on this forum but it is certainly valid to say if you 'choose' to vote in the ballot and you 'choose' to vote Yes then at least have the courage of your convictions and DO NOT seek the cover of what in essence is a false medical certificate from a doctor.

I have chosen to vote yes in favour of I.A. and if asked to strike I will.

[Human Factor]

Nice grasp of the unimportant, MissM. ;)

[Papillon]

The "Self Loading Freight" often refer to cabin crew as "Trolley Dollies". And for much of the industry, they're "hosties". Pilots are often referred to as "Nigels". We're all given nicknames we don't like, there's no call to be precious about it.

[fincastle84]

In the RAF, pilots were rightly referred to as 'The 2 winged master race'. !?

Why in civil aviation are Nigels known as Nigels?

[moo]

27/01/10
Court Case Update
You, Your Vote and the High Court case next week

Question:
Does the court case next week affect my need to vote in the ballot?

Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT

The legal case in the High Court next week has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your need to vote in our current dispute.

The court case is to determine one issue only, the contractual nature of crew compliments within your agreement. However – what is not in question is the fact that British Airways have actually already breached your agreement in many ways, specifically around crew compliments.

A dispute results with a union when agreements are broken, if this is not resolved it can lead to industrial action.

The ballot is about your right to respond directly to your employer about that beach of a binding agreement and those impositions, all of them, not simply the crew compliment issue.

Concurrently, our legal team shall be making representations on our behalf next week in the High Court as we believe that your contract has been breached as a result of your agreement having been broken.

Do not be fooled - Bill Francis is deliberately muddying the waters and constantly trying to create confusion by stating that your need to vote in this ballot is overshadowed by, and directly dependent upon, the outcome of the court case.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

THE COURT CASE AND THE BALLOT ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE.

THE OUTCOME OF THE COURT CASE WILL NOT, WE REPEAT, WILL NOT AFFECT THE LEGITIMACY OR THE LEGALITY OF OUR BALLOT.

The likelihood is that the final ruling of the court will not be received for some weeks. Our ballot ends on the 22nd February 2010 so your time to vote is now.

Make no mistake, your vote will send a very clear message to Mr. Walsh and his leadership team. Irrespective of the court’s ruling, you have statutory right to withdraw your labour in opposition to the current (and mounting) impositions, and the many other aspects of this dispute NOT being considered by the court - including:

· The continued dishonouring of existing agreements
· The lack of guaranteed longevity for existing terms and conditions
· The denial of the ability to transfer on current terms and conditions (between all bases and fleets) per our Op’s and Choice agreement
· The misuse and abuse of the disruption agreement
· The destabilising of current crew structures and promotional opportunities for existing crew
· Complete failure to properly consult and negotiate change with your trade unions
· The unilateral removal of crew from the aircraft


Do not miss your opportunity to be heard. The louder. The better.

VOTE NOW – VOTE YES

my bold. They STILL think that voting yes is about sending a message to WW!! There's no hope for them.

[fincastle84]

the contractual nature of crew compliments within your agreement (My bold text)

I hate to be picky, but assuming that this is a direct quote from Unite, I should point out that the correct spelling of compliments in this context is complements.

Yet another Unite :mad: up!

[midman]

Glamgirl,

Can you confirm if the ballot paper gives any advice not to vote if you are ineligible, or leaving the company?

I'd take the ballot paper into BA to allow them to use it as and when they need to.


MissM,
Any reaction to the continuing farce that defines your union's continued web of deceit?

[Entaxei]

Hi BlueUpGood

As you say, my comment on PCC talking to BALPA was based on the CC89 startup.

As BALPA are a professional organisation with a very good reputation, if PCC ask for and BALPA are willing to give, guidance on the setting up of offices, procedures and organisation, it can only be that BA will view this as a very positive step in recognising PCC, by their requesting advice and learning from a mature and respected organisation. Note: We are not talking about any political or other aspects of the current situation.

There was no intent to imply that BALPA were trying to undermine BASSA (Not that any foundations appear to exist) - but I can only assume that at some stage there may be a form of response that I for one will watch with interest, however that's another matter entirely.

Cheers Entaxei. :ok:

[Glamgirl]

Midman,

The ballot form itself states:


If you are leaving British Airways before 1st March 2010 you should not vote.



It also states:


If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment. However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than twelve weeks after you started taking part in the action, and depending on the circumstances may be unfair if it takes place later.

In the event of a vote in favour of industrial action only by the Executive Council, a Joint General Secretary or a Full Time Officer nominated by a Joint General Secretary are authorised for the purposes of s.233 or the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to call upon members to take part or continue to take part in industrial action.



Gg


I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Ten West]

...beach of a binding agreement

You'd think that with an income like theirs they'd be able to employ someone with a basic grasp of grammar, wouldn't you? Or at least someone who knows where the spell check button is.

I quite fancy a week on a beach that's bindingly agreeable myself. :cool:

[From Tunbridge Wells]

Compliments or Complements
Quote:
the contractual nature of crew compliments within your agreement
(My bold text)

I hate to be picky, but assuming that this is a direct quote from Unite, I should point out that the correct spelling of compliments in this context is complements.

Yet another Unite http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif up!



and Bassa won't actually confirm (after checking with their Legal Eagles) whether the loss of staff travel is legal or not. I rather think that if they confirmed that BA can indeed do so, the ballot result would be massively affected. Perhaps that's why they are leaving that one dangling.
Mislead, mislead, mislead:=

[fincastle84]

My compliments on spotting that one!

[Bluejay]

Firstly for all those CC that voted Yes for the strike at Christmas and all those who intend to vote Yes this time around - thanks for putting my job at risk, I have a wife and two young kids and we are struggling as we are last thing I need is to be put out of a job by someone elses selfish action.

To UNITE/TGWU - I've payed subs for the last 11 years to your organisation - that stops NOW I cannot be represented by a Union that bullies organisations into getting what they want - I truly hope that with mine and my colleagues resignation from the union that you crumble

Lastly unfortunatly I am unable to fly but if called upon I will be doing my bit to Back BA

I heard something today that I think somes it up

"Together we stand, UNITE we fall" - whoever said that - hear hear

[fly12345]

Together we stand, UNITE we fall" - whoever said that - hear hear:ok:

[La Pouquelaye]

This isn't America!

We are called cabin crew these days.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself'.

Don't worry, MissM; being described as a "flight attendant" will be the very least of your worries pretty soon.

[baggersup]

As one of the PPP (Premium Pax Punters) trying to sort whether or not to use BA before April, this bit confuses me:

I only know U.S. union/company law having dealt with it for years, but:

1. IF the High Court definitively rules that something the company does is not in violation of the existing union contract... and

2. The Union still goes ahead and ballots to strike based on their pre- and post-ruling assertion that the company's action is illegal and qualifies for IA...(even if there are other items on the ballot in addition to the "imposition" question...)

3. Which takes precedence? The High Court's ruling that the company was within its right to do what it did?

Or is the union legally allowed to call the strike on that issue anyway, even after it has been adjudicated by the High Court?

[MissM]

midman,

Many reactions. Their Youtube video was nothing but poorly made. They have also gone online now to Twitter. I can't really see the point.

La pouquelaye,

Not worried at all.

baggersup,

It's more of the principle of them imposing things without negotiations. Even if the court rules that crewing levels are non-contractual the ballot will go ahead as it was the principle of BA imposing.

[La Pouquelaye]

I suppose it is too late to wish BASSA's copywriter the complements of the season?:E

Has BASSA never heard of 'spell check'?

[ottergirl]

I believe that if the court finds for the Union, then BA has to restore the crewing levels, pay the WW crew their 'one down' payments then give 90 days notice of a change to contractual agreement in order to remove them again. In which case, there is no cause for strike until the 90 day notice is received.
If the court finds that it is not contractual, then the strike can still proceed on the basis of an unnegotiated change to agreed Terms and Conditions.
Happy to be corrected!

My opinion only, not that of my employer.

[soberthought]

TRUTH: Crew have worked “one down” for years. This attracted a significant one-down payment. BASSA never had a cause to complain when crew were hosed down with cash to do so. Also, to clear it up, the previous claim that working without the extra crew member affects safety is also usual BASSA tripe, they’ve been doing it for years - it was never less safe then. Funny what hard cash can do to ‘principles’.

As cc for 6 years i worked one down on NO, i repeat NO occasions. On the one occasion(an ABJ flt, approx 14 months ago) where the crew was one down on board the aircraft before departure, the flight was cancelled we were put on 12hr standby and put up in the same hotel as the passengers. I couldn't get my head round this financial thought process. The one down payment reflected in my opinion the unusual circumstances of working one down. The latest BA proposal makes it standard...Also surely inherent on reducing crew levels, safety standards(not withstanding service standards) are also proportionally reduced...whether you believe this is a significant reduction in safety standards is different but surely you must accept that safety is reduced?


TRUTH: BASSA/UNITE have ‘conveniently’ missed a rather critical bit of information here too as it doesn’t suit their argument. BA cabin crew (especially those at LHR) have a rather lucrative allowances structure earning such things as: box payments/meal allowances/telephone allowances/cat lounge payments/working one down payments) in total these things amount to £12K on European routes out of LHR and £16K on Longhaul routes. So err, that means for the 75% of crew that BASSA/UNITE claim earn a basic pay of £20000, they ACTUALLY earn a gross salary of £32000 on s/h and £36000. LGW crew (who have been conveniently wheeled out for this argument earn HALF what their LHR counterparts do as BASSA/UNITE fed LGW to the sharks many years ago to protect fortress Heathrow. That is now coming home to roost. LGW perform the same service onboard the aircraft & have operated to MUCH reduced crewing levels than at LHR with UNITE/BASSA’s approval for many years!!

Again as a full time cc for 6 years, which should allow for any cyclycal or anomalies in the rostering system i truely do not recognise the salary figures that you quote. In those 6 years i have had one 9 day instance of sickness, yet the most i have ever earned in any tax year has been just over £24k. I was at LGW at the time when single fleet was introduced, BA management gave a choice, choose single fleet with it's reduced terms and conditions, transfer to LHR WW or EF or leave. I transferred to LHR. My personal feeling is that BASSA and LHR WW crew left LGW out to dry and BA management as predicted are now using the 'trojan' horse of the LGW terms and conditions as a precedent.

[Desertia]

Finn,

Why in civil aviation are Nigels known as Nigels?

No idea; perhaps you should ask the Ruperts?

:E

[TheTiresome1]

Thank you, ottergirl, for that cheerful summary of the position. On that premise this grief just goes on, one way or another, whilst BA continues to leach money. The only issue then seems to be when the inevitable strike takes place.

I shall be very happy to hear your view corrected. ;)

Matters will undoubtedly become clearer next Monday.

[AtlasDrawer]

hello all, received this text from BASSA today, wording on it quite interesting:

2010 ballot - its time to vote. If we are forced to strike it will NOT be at Easter and it will NOT be longer than necessary. Watch this space....


My bold, anyone care to give me feedback on their interpretation of this wording? And no-one's forcing us to strike, last time I checked.

And on my ballot paper its a big fat NO from me!

[midman]

As cc for 6 years i worked one down on NO, i repeat NO occasions. On the one occasion(an ABJ flt, approx 14 months ago) where the crew was one down on board the aircraft before departure, the flight was cancelled we were put on 12hr standby and put up in the same hotel as the passengers. I couldn't get my head round this financial thought process.
If a flight is a crewmember down, there will have been a request made to Bassa for an alleviation - standard procedure. As you night-stopped, that will have been Bassa denying that alleviation. I've been on many flights with a crewmember down - most crew loved it as it was a good pay day. It rarely happens now, if ever, because Bassa won't allow it.
The one down payment reflected in my opinion the unusual circumstances of working one down.
So in one cabin they would have needed a bit of help from the csd or another crewmember? Not exactly a great change in circumstances requiring thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew. Other airlines just get on with it, pilots just get on with it (if legal) other industries just get on with it


Also surely inherent on reducing crew levels, safety standards(not withstanding service standards) are also proportionally reduced...whether you believe this is a significant reduction in safety standards is different but surely you must accept that safety is reduced?

No, I'm afraid I don't. Manning levels are set to ensure doors are manned to ensure swift evacuation. BA set their manning levels well above the CAA mandated minima, extra crew members are there for service standards only. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where one fewer crew member would impact safety, especially as BA still have MORE than the legal minimum on the vast majority of their aircraft.

as a full time cc for 6 years, which should allow for any cyclycal or anomalies in the rostering system i truely do not recognise the salary figures that you quote. In those 6 years i have had one 9 day instance of sickness, yet the most i have ever earned in any tax year has been just over £24k.

The figures quoted are from Bassa! Blame them for putting such stuff into the public domain. See now why the rest of us don't believe a word Bassa say? As soon as anyone has their own knowledge of the facts, they can see the UNITE/Bassa fiction for what it is.

[Caribbean Boy]

1. IF the High Court definitively rules that something the company does is not in violation of the existing union contract... and

2. The Union still goes ahead and ballots to strike based on their pre- and post-ruling assertion that the company's action is illegal and qualifies for IA...(even if there are other items on the ballot in addition to the "imposition" question...)

3. Which takes precedence? The High Court's ruling that the company was within its right to do what it did?

Or is the union legally allowed to call the strike on that issue anyway, even after it has been adjudicated by the High Court?A union is quite entitled to ballot for a strike where there is an industrial dispute, even when the employer is behaving legally.

If Unite wins the court case, then that's probably bad news for Unite because BA, after reverting the crew changes, will have to find a whole lot of extra ways to cut costs ... at the expense of cabin crew. Something to think about ...

[Watersidewonker]

:DGot my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.:D:ugh::mad::8

[La Pouquelaye]

going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES

In that case why are you dawdling and wasting time? You are not "afraid" in the slightest.

[midman]

:DGot my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.:D:ugh::mad::8
Thanks wnker. We never expected to change the minds of the politically motivated. However, we've changed enough to have made it all worthwhile.

With a bit of luck, the intransigent will remain so, and won't come back after the failed strike leaves them isolated and facing a new way of working.

PS I understand that the cost of training the volunteers is all coming from the IFCE budget. I suggest you cancel that ballot asap!

[Snas]

I have been catching up on the employment tribunal stuff, after my earlier post was questioned when I suggested that reinstatement was rare, 7 cases last year btw, I'd call that rare considering the total claims were 151,000

Anyway, I was rather surprised to see this statement in their annual report: -


The total receipts figure for 2007/8 includes over 10,000 multiple claims
from Airline employees (cabin crew) that have been resubmitted a
number of times during the year. Excluding these suggests that there has
been a decrease of 4% in accepted claims between 2007/8 and 2008/9.


It seem the aviation industry is something of a major customer for them these days and by the looks of it business is booming....

Source: - http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Publications/publications.htm (http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Publications/publications.htm)

[Openclimb]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Im watching this with great interest now.

As someone just mentioned this is a bar fight and the protagonists are hard, seasoned fighters who have seen it all and (on the other side) a group who have done a step class once a month, have just watched Daniel Craig in action and think thats what real life fights are like.

I too have my ear pretty close to the ground on this one and say with total certainty thet in a short time they are going to be lifted off the ground, thrown into the air with a strength of force 10 times stronger than they believed could ever have existed, and then be punched into the middle of next week.

Then they will wake up in intensive care and realise that the life they had is no more and they are forced to make a commitment to a brave new world.

And all because "BA imposed".

Watching with great interest...

[Snas]

the protagonists are hard, seasoned fighters who have seen it all


Would that include the management and final result of the last vote?

[SlideBustle]

:DGot my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.:D:ugh:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif


Oh well! Shame! :ok:
Seriously though, I know you have probably voted Yes, but could you or any other Yes voters answer these questions (I AM fellow cabin crew like yourself btw):

1/What will a strike achieve do you hope? WW putting crew back on maybe and saying we don't need to save anything, or maybe just accept a temporary pay freeze??
2/WW and BF have both said that a cost of a strike (which will be quite a few million if it goes ahead!) will come out of the IFCE budget. So how do you feel that BA's proposals so far will be the tip of the iceberg if the cost of a 12 day strike has to come from us

Just a few questions that I hope you may be able to answer. I believe it is everyone's perogative to vote Yes and go on strike, and I am not anti-strike per se, I just personally feel that in this economic climate where the company has to save money and cannot be procrastinating like the union does how a strike will do anything. The possibility of the company going down if a strike proceeds is not just scaremongering.
People who are voting Yes; think fully about the implications before placing that cross rather than using emotions. We are all angry and worried but don't think striking is going to solve anything this time!

Slidebustle

This is MY own views and not the views of my employer BA.

[Rover90]

snas has illustrated what I have always maintained, you can win a case for unfair dismissal, you will get a financial settlement (significantly reduced if you do not take the new contract offered) but you will NOT get your job back.

Don't underestimate the 90 day option.

Second thought is a bit off the wall but "Do BASSA representatives really want to get a "Yes" vote?"

A "Yes" vote would inevitably lead to industrial action and there is now growing agreement that the destruction of the current BASSA heirachy would follow given the obvious resolve of Mr Walsh.

A "No" vote would enable them to reverse out of this particular "cul-de-sac" and surprise surprise, blame the membership for not supporting them and start uttering that all the subsequent changes were the fault of the membership not supporting the "executive".

IMHO, probable outcome of this ballot is going to be "Yes" but by a very much reduced majority.

So bye bye BASSA.

Complex things "Unions"

Just one final final thought. Did anyone else get the impression that A_Lurker came across as two different personalities. Pretty reasoned one moment and then a completely different person at other times. Perhaps we have the CC member sharing the handle with the partner who has the "Spud-u-Like" franchise, allegedly of course.

[MrBernoulli]

I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points acrossGoodbye WWW! Your YES vote is precisely the excuse BA needs to get the millstone off it's neck, and soon. Enjoy your new job, wherever it that is! :D

[Ten West]

...Perhaps we have the CC member sharing the handle with the partner who has the "Spud-u-Like" franchise, allegedly of course.Might explain why he took such obvious delight in handling such a .... Hot potato! :O

... I'll get me coat.

[MrBernoulli]

Rover90, I definitely got that impression a couple of weeks ago. One morning A Lurker had a complete rant, which was deleted by the Mods, or by Lurker him/herself. Later the same day another poster pulled up Lurker about the rant, even quoting it, and Lurker persistently denied that he/she had written anything of the sort! It was an interesting exchange. Lurker has definitely displayed a 'dual personality' before now.

But apparently he/she is not coming back. What a shame ........ :rolleyes:

[Carnage Matey!]

Maybe Lurker will reinvent him/herself as a 'New Poster'?

[M2dude]

With the departure of the lurking one, it is now so refreshing to see both 'sides' here generally returning to constructive and open debate in this forum.
Personally I believe that this strike would be a disaster, MAINLY for the CC that went out, but it would do no good, at least in the short-term for any of us. (Long term I tend to agree that breaking the BASSA/UNITE stranglehold will be a very good thing, both for our airline and the good folks in CC at LHR).
Do you guys and gals think that there is a reasonable chance of a 'NON' vote? I'm curious to hear what the concencus of LHR CC on this forum is. Your honest opinions would be very interesting.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Utterly Useless Information Dept. ( but Light Relief ? )


Why in civil aviation are Nigels known as Nigels?


I ' think ' ?? ( and doubtless I will be shot down ) it goes back to the mid-60's, when a satirical column in Flight International - before it became inflated with the International moniker - was published under the name of a fictional Roger Bacon, who when relating the exploits of co-pilots gave them the anonymous name of " Nigel " ( or sometimes " Hoskins " )

Unless you know better - or even care.

[soberthought]

If a flight is a crewmember down, there will have been a request made to Bassa for an alleviation - standard procedure. As you night-stopped, that will have been Bassa denying that alleviation. I've been on many flights with a crewmember down - most crew loved it as it was a good pay day. It rarely happens now, if ever, because Bassa won't allow it.


Correct, Bassa refused alleviation as the 'one down payment' was being witheld. This was confirmed by the 'cabin crew 89' CSD. The poster insinuated that working one down was a regular occurrence and they have personally been on "many flights", define "many". It may have happened regularly, but it is certainly far from the norm or ideal in terms of customer experience and in my opinion safety. These occasions do happen in large organisations where the norms are circumvented, but to accept it now as standard is disappointing. In the example mentioned, the expense of cancelling a flight and the related costs incurred then accommodating passengers and crew seemed illogical rather than pay each crew member a 'one down payment', especially since as you say, this had been done before and no precedent was being set.


So in one cabin they would have needed a bit of help from the csd or another crewmember? Not exactly a great change in circumstances requiring thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew. Other airlines just get on with it, pilots just get on with it (if legal) other industries just get on with it


"bit of help"..Again I can only speak from personal experience but working one down can have a significant affect on the customer experience, mainly with regard to time issues, but also the 'manager' ie CSD is not readily 'available' for passengers to vent their concerns or issues at a time convenient to the paying customer. Issues can fester and esculate and be taken 'off' the aircraft which is not satisfactory.

1. Ratio of crew to passengers is reduced.

2. Non face-to-face work increases per crew member.

As regards "thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew" I do not understand? On the occasion I mention a full flight was cancelled with the related expenses incurred. I do not know what the 'one down' payment figure is, at the time I was told it could be up to a max of £250 per crew member. This still seems illogical to me, considering accommodation etc and the inconvience to paying customers and their choice of which airline to travel with in the future.

'Other airlines, pilots and industries just get on with it' [Paraphrase]
Vague? Agreed working conditions i assume are not specific to British Airways plc?

No, I'm afraid I don't. Manning levels are set to ensure doors are manned to ensure swift evacuation. BA set their manning levels well above the CAA mandated minima, extra crew members are there for service standards only. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where one fewer crew member would impact safety, especially as BA still have MORE than the legal minimum on the vast majority of their aircraft.

As I stated, some may argue that working one down does not affect safety in any 'significant' manner, I personally disagree. I believe it is significant, however I do not understand the reply that safety is not affected in any way whatsoever? Many airlines are curretly legal and adhere to CAA minimums, yet i would not willingly choose to fly with them based on their track records. Also, I can think of several scenarios whereby safety would be impacted with one less crew member.

The figures quoted are from Bassa! Blame them for putting such stuff into the public domain. See now why the rest of us don't believe a word Bassa say? As soon as anyone has their own knowledge of the facts, they can see the UNITE/Bassa fiction for what it is.

I neither apportion blame, agree or disagree with the figures quoted by the poster. As to their source, I do not know. They may well be correct for some crew, however as stated I can only speak from personal experience and reiterate that in six years of full time flying my max salary has been just over £24k and not the figures quoted in the post.

[Glamgirl]

Sober,

I'd like to ask you a question (or two) if I may: You mention safety as one of your issues in regards to reduced crew levels. If the "one down" payment is given to each crew member, would it be more safe or less safe? Also, you mention that there are airlines that are to CAA minimums, but you wouldn't fly with them. Do you deem the BA LGW operation as less safe than BA LHR operation? I would certainly hope you don't.

I'm not sure as to what kind of safety you are specifically concerned about. For example, there are 8 doors on a B777, the minimum crew, leaving base, 3 class, is 10 (currently, for BA). That means there are 2 crew members more than doors. I'm not advocating that the crew levels should be cut further, by the way.

Please bear in mind that it is the CAA's rules we have to adhere to. If the CAA deems it safe, then that's the way it is. I really don't understand why, after LGW has operated with fewer crew for 3 1/2 years, that all of a sudden it's not deemed safe in your eyes. Please explain how you come to such a conclusion if you don't mind.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[fa_wannabe_20]

hi, anyone knows if there are still fa's who would not make or finnish the training? if that happens are they gonna send back to ther country of origin?

thx

[SlideBustle]

Soberthought,

Glamgirl has raised some very valid points.

CAA regulates the requirements that all UK airlines have to stick to. It is worth pointing out the UK requirements are very stringent and of a high standard compared to many countries (although if I am honest there are some aspects I think that could be improved and even stricter)

The CAA requirements are 1 crew member per door (or on narrow bodies, 1 crew member per pair of doors EXCEPT self help exits such as overwing hatches etc) PLUS 1 crew member per every 50 seats/pax.

Using this example. The max pax load for a general 747 from Boeing is 524. The max amount of seats BA 747-400s carry is 337 in a mid-J config. (got this from wikipedia! lol) That is almost 200 pax less seats that BA carry. On high J 747s we carry even less (slightly under 300 pax I think)

If a carrier was to fit a 747 with 524, to comply with the 2 manning requirements they would need 12 crew. Current crew compliments even with the reductions, is 14 so 2 more than minimum, even though we carry 200 pax less.

I, like glamgirl am certainly not advocating removing any more crew members. I would agree that having more hands is a benefit and I wouldn't want BA to operate to minimum levels. The extra crew members are carried mainly as a customer service benefit though and to ''ease'' the workload of crew. (Can you imagine 12 crew serving 524 pax! ugh!)

I suppose safety is benefited by having extra pairs of hands. But by having for example, 2 crew extra to the minimum levels on a 747 which has less crew than legally allowed for the type, I would say that BA still has safe manning levels for each aircraft. From both a legal perspective (ie.meeting CAA requirements) and also realistically as all our aircraft (including shorthaul) carry less pax than allowed. (Even A321s - charter airlines carry 220 pax we carry around 190!)

Again I am not advocating BA removing even more crew from our flights, and I am actually quite fussy over safety/security issues as I think it is very important. Give me a valid example as how it makes us unsafe?

[soberthought]

You mention safety as one of your issues in regards to reduced crew levels. If the "one down" payment is given to each crew member, would it be more safe or less safe?

I genuinely don't understand the question? Payment has no relevance to safety. Ideally a flight should have it's full crew compliment rather than leave one down, for both customer service reasons and safety issues. Circumstances do happen in large organisations whereby standard operating procedures have on occasions to be circumvented but this should be the exception and not the rule for exactly the reasons mentioned.

you mention that there are airlines that are to CAA minimums. Do you deem the BA LGW operation as less safe than BA LHR operation? I would certainly hope you don't.

Yes I believe BA LHR WW operated flights to have a greater built in safety margin compared to BA LGW as a direct result of having an extra crew member. It has nothing to do with the individual skills or abilities of each crew member.

I'm not sure as to what kind of safety you are specifically concerned about. For example, there are 8 doors on a B777, the minimum crew, leaving base, 3 class, is 10. That means there are 2 crew members more than doors. I'm not advocating that the crew levels should be cut further, by the way.

You want me to paint a possible scenario? I never wish anything like this to occur! ...eg. A medical instance on board during service, 1 crew attends flight deck to talk with medlink, 2 other crew dealing with the medical instant, other crew in cabin maintaining the service, a toilet fire occurs just after the last check in one of the rear toilets and goes unnoticed for AT LEAST 20mins until the next check as there is no presence in the rear galley as all out in the cabin(smoke filled cabin is time dependent)....My point is that there is a 'healthy' number of cabin crew to have on board over and above the minimum. Any decent 'system' has 'layers' of safety as back up. Do you have an alarm on your house? Do you leave the doors open? It's unlikely you will be burgled the very night you turn your alarm off and leave your doors open, but it's better to have layers of safety precautions is it not?.....At it's crudest, more crew = more eyes and ears for dealing with and avoiding potential problems. I believe we are either getting very close to or indeed are at an 'unhealthy' low number of crew. A layer of safety has been taken away with the new proposals.

As regards the customer experience and standards they expect of the British Airways brand, again this in my opinion is most definetly compromised by reduced crew.



Please bear in mind that it is the CAA's rules we have to adhere to. If the CAA deems it safe, then that's the way it is. I really don't understand why, after LGW has operated with fewer crew for 3 1/2 years, that all of a sudden it's not deemed safe in your eyes. Please explain how you come to such a conclusion if you don't mind.

There is nothing "sudden" in my belief that LGW is inherently a less safe operation than LHR through no fault of the crew operating the service.

[etrang]

[QUOTE]Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind/QUOTE]

Good for you. You should stand up for what you believe. In any case you can always vote YES now and then decide whether to strike/go sick/work later on.

[soberthought]

Again I am not advocating BA removing even more crew from our flights, and I am actually quite fussy over safety/security issues as I think it is very important. Give me a valid example as how it makes us unsafe?

My response to Gg summarises my answer to your question. I have never stated that BA is "unsafe". They would not be legal or hold a 'license' to operate as a carrier. I believe the proposals make BA less safe than before, in my opinion 'significantly'...It's is a sliding scale.

On the 747, during the safety demo, it genuinely worries me that the rear doors are unguarded. If for any reason there was a 'panic' scenario and passengers got up and blocked the aisle preventing the crew member from reaching the door to enable escape this could have disastrous consequences. Unlikely, yes, but it only has to happen once.

[Glamgirl]

Sober,


My response to Gg summarises my answer to your question


I'm sorry, but I can't see your response. Feel free to pm it, if you wish.

In regards to doors 5 on the 747, we've discussed that on this thread before (many pages back), and the CAA has deemed the current demo positions as perfectly acceptable. Whether any of us agree or disagree with that, isn't the point.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Desertia]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Do I believe that said poster intends to throw away their ST by actually striking?

No chance.

Which probably speaks for a significant number of "Yes" voters.

They can talk the talk (albeit not very well), but when it comes to walking the walk, we will be playing "spot the striker".

Can't wait to see Loopy Lizzie out there leading the line. I hope BA are ready to roster all reps for work if there is ever a strike date given. Let these "leaders" show how much they "represent" the members.

[Carnage Matey!]

My response to Gg summarises my answer to your question. I have never stated that BA is "unsafe". They would not be legal or hold a 'license' to operate as a carrier. I believe the proposals make BA less safe than before, in my opinion 'significantly'...It's is a sliding scale.


Less crew = less safety?

On many BA flights cabin crew take more than the minimum required rest, leaving only half (or less) of the cabin crew on duty. The minimum required rest can often be achieved by splitting the breaks into 3, leaving two thirds of the crew on duty at any one time. Would soberthought consider enforcing this 3 break regime whenever possible to maximise safety, or is safety only an issue when BASSA wishes to make it one?

In the end it is not the views of soberthought that matter. It is the view of the regulator and the view of the aircraft manufacturer that matter.

[soberthought]

Yes i would most definetly prefer a 3 break system and have stated this many times.....No matter, the same number of crew are accessible whether on break or not, they are not accessible if they are NOT there!

ps i cannot see my response to previous posts, yet you have quoted from it. Strange.

[fincastle84]

Again I can only speak from personal experience but working one down can have a significant affect on the customer experience, mainly with regard to time issues, but also the 'manager' ie CSD is not readily 'available' for passengers to vent their concerns or issues at a time convenient to the paying customer.

I can only reitterate my earlier post. We flew LHR-CPT-LHR over Christmas & mid Jan with not only a full J but full aircraft. Not only was the service faultless but on both legs the CSDs were approachable, available, pleasant & knowledgeable crew members.

We will shortly be doing a LGW-TPA-LGW so will be able to compare the LGW product. No doubt it will be as slick as ever. I'll report back.

I suppose it is like everything in life. Some employees are hard working, trustworthy & willing to go the extra mile. The others go on strike!

[La Pouquelaye]

Can't wait to see Loopy Lizzie out there leading the line. I hope BA are ready to roster all reps for work if there is ever a strike date given. Let these "leaders" show how much they "represent" the members.

I am convinced that, if there is an all-out strike, Miz Liz Malone will lead her troops from the rear, i.e. the comfort of her California bunker.

According to reports on this thread, the flight attendants' field marshal has been on prolonged sick leave. Why should she bother to come to the battle field?

[wobble2plank]

According to reports on this thread, the flight attendants' field marshal has been on prolonged sick leave. Why should she bother to come to the battle field?

Perhaps she could claim financial hardship as BA would withdraw her Staff travel privileges and she must be scraping by on her lowly part time CSD, BASSA rep £100 a day, ex-pat, low tax income!

Wouldn't do to have her hobbling about on her gammy leg now would it.

Just as an aside, is this the reason that ingrowing toenails were factored into the last EG300 bullying strike mandate???? :}

[RTR]

Is La La Land Lizzie still sunning herself in her pad in LA or did she just hop on a BA taxi to 'see how things were progressing?' How is her foot, poor thing.

The sooner BASSA goes the better.

[Desertia]

Regarding Das Uberfuhrer, I am rather hoping that this little spat is forcing her to spend more time than she would wish back in good old Blighty.

I'm fairly certain some bod at HMRC has someone counting the number of midnights she spends there ..... snigger :}

[binsleepen]

As I thought from my recollections of air law, the requirement for the number of cc required is based only on the number of pax and has nothing to do with the number of doors.

From JAR-OPS 1 Subpart O

JAR-OPS 1.990 Number and composition of cabin crew

(a) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 19, when carrying one or more passengers, unless at least one cabin crew member is included in the crew for the purpose of performing duties, specified in the Operations Manual, in the interests of the safety of passengers.

(b) When complying with sub-paragraph (a) above, an operator shall ensure that the minimum number of cabin crew is the greater of:
(1) One cabin crew member for every 50, or fraction of 50, passenger seats installed on the same deck of the aeroplane; or
(2) The number of cabin crew who actively participated in the aeroplane cabin during the relevant emergency evacuation demonstration, or who were assumed to have taken part in the relevant analysis, except that, if the maximum approved passenger seating configuration is less
than the number evacuated during the demonstration by at least 50 seats, the number of cabin crew may be reduced by 1 for every whole
multiple of 50 seats by which the maximum approved passenger seating configuration falls below the certificated maximum capacity.


Therefore if the 747-400 (in Slidebustle's example) was certified with 524 seats and evacuated in the required time with 11 CC and BA now operates it with only 337 seats in a mid-J config then you would need only 7 CC.

If the CAA have tighter regs with regards to doors I couldn't find them, but I am happy to be corrected.

Regards

[Crash_and_Burn]

Interesting that soberthought feels LGW is less safe, but BASSA in their infinite wisdom agreed to the crewing levels and allows its members to crew the flights. If it's good enough for BASSA (LGW), why isn't it good enough for BASSA(LHR).

As has previously been said, the CAA/FAA/JAA are the people who decide what is safe or not in Civil Aviation. Also please remember that the evacuation requirements on A/C design are that all pax leave the plane within 90 seconds using only HALF the doors. The idea of needing a CC per door is non-sensicle.

The safety argument is a scare mongering way of trying to defend the indefensible

CB

[Snas]

The safety argument is a scare mongering way of trying to defend the indefensible



...and often employed. Tube drivers going on strike on New Years Eve springs to mind, for my saftey..!

For me, I dont want unions deciding what is safe and what isnt, I'll take the CAA thankyouverymuch.

[anotherthing]

Let's please put the safety issue to bed. The CAA mandates the crew complement, individual airlines may choose to exceed the minima for the purposes of customer service... not safety.

If, God forbid, you had to evacuate an aircraft due to cabin fire, I'd argue that working one or two down is safer as it is less people to get out. A bit of a silly statemement maybe, but more true than trying to claim that working above CAA minima, but below previous BA staffing levels, is unsafe.

The safety issue is just another attempt by BASSA to muddy the waters. It only seems to be working on the diehard 'Yes' voters - the public have seen through it.

If you are going to vote 'Yes' make it for real reasons, not made up lies.

[FlexSRS]

.eg. A medical instance on board during service, 1 crew attends flight deck to talk with medlink, 2 other crew dealing with the medical instant, other crew in cabin maintaining the service, a toilet fire occurs just after the last check in one of the rear toilets and goes unnoticed for AT LEAST 20mins until the next check

How about in your scenario, lets imagine a LHR-JFK flight, we replace the 1 crew in the flight deck and the 2 crew dealing with the medical incident with 3 crew in the bunks sleeping, despite the fact that no horizontal rest is required or mandated. The crew have just rushed out the service to spend some time putting their feet up, nothing unusual there, in fact at LHR I would say it was fairly regular. Is this any more safe? Yes, you could say "well, we could wake up the crew", but by your very example, it's rather too late now, the fire has been going 20mins.

If reducing the crew in the cabin, unnecessarily, whether through BA reducing crew complements or 'sleepy cold tired' commuters slacking off in the bunks, has a detrimental effect on safety, then surely you would agree that on all flights not requiring rest, the Captain should lock the bunk areas to remove the terrible risk to safety of people taking unnecessary rest when they could be patrolling the cabins and checking for fire? I'm sure that change to SOPs would go down very well with your colleagues, especially the crew who have got up 10hrs before their duty even started to come in from BCN/LYS/NCE.

Fortunately the CAA decides what's safe, not Loopy Lizzy, and for that we can all be thankful.

Also, I'm pretty certain that safety levels are not one of the things that BASSA are calling a strike over....

[Carnage Matey!]

Who is to say that with an extra crew member on board the lav fire would be detected any earlier anyway?

[goaround2008]

Dumb question from SLF - don't the lavs have smoke detectors anyway?

[FlexSRS]

8Dumb question from SLF - don't the lavs have smoke detectors anyway?

They do, but sometimes passengers will try and block them up with yoghurt pots or wet towels to smoke, and then throw the cigarette in the bin with all the nice dry paper towels...

The bins also usually have an extinguisher that works by detecting when the bin gets very hot and firing an extinguishing agent in to the bin, but by then you are already in a bit of trouble.

[the heavy heavy]

Flex,

locking the bunker to prevent lala's storm trooper taking rest their not entitled to, there is a sobering thought! Love it!

How long before somebody brings up controlled rest again complaining how unsafe it is?

[FlexSRS]

And as good ideas go... I particularly liked this one I read at 'another place'

Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...

Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.

Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!

[TorC]

And as good ideas go... I particularly liked this one I read at 'another place'

Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...

Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.

Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!

Jumpseat facilities should be withdrawn as well, IMHO.

I am BA Cabin Crew. These thoughts are my own, not those of my employer.

[Human Factor]

It's generally one cabin crew member per 50 fitted seats, irrespective of actual passenger load (there are few exceptions due to cabin visibility requirements).

eg. a 100 seat aircraft requires 2 cabin crew but a 101 seat aircraft requires 3, etc.

TorC,

If staff travel is removed, so is the jumpseat facility. You need a ST ticket to travel on those.

[TorC]

TorC,

If staff travel is removed, so is the jumpseat facility. You need a ST ticket to travel on those.

Yes, but we were hypothesising(sp?) about ST being retained, but with a DOJ set to the date strikers had returned to work.

Just a bit of fantasy, as I for one, think the permanent withdrawl option to be the best.

I am BA Cabin Crew. These thoughts are my own, not those of my employer.

[Finnster]

staff travel is a perk why should ba give a perk to to people hurting the company ? current requirements for cabin crew say you got to live within 45 mins lhr/ gatwick ,france italy usa spain ! all 45 mins lhr ,lgw!

[the heavy heavy]

Jumpseats! :{

I'll be using this simple post strike formula. If you still have staff travel you can still have a jseat.

[FlexSRS]

Jumpseats won't be an issue.

Those strikers will be paying full fare, so will be guaranteed to have a lovely expensive seat in the cabin. Either that or they'll be off to hitch-hike to LGW to get the next EJ flight...

[winstonsmith]

I doubt Miss Malone - or any of the other reps - will be at the picket line.

I sent back my ballot this morning with a NO - next task is to speak to payroll and cancel my subscription.

Rumour is out that BASSA is deliberately sending out ballot papers to members not eligible to vote so that BA can get another court injunction.

[flying_chick]

Got my ballot paper this morning could not find the NO option so put a lovely X on the YES box and kissed the baby before posting it. :ok::D:)

Expecting a bigger vote than last time!!! :ok:

[Papillon]

Rumour is out that BASSA is deliberately sending out ballot papers to members not eligible to vote so that BA can get another court injunction.

Even they couldn't be that stupid. BA could take legal action after the event to demonstrate it was illegal and claim damages.

[winstonsmith]

flying_chick

You will enjoy all that lovely spare time with your baby when you are out of job - or when working on New Fleet doing SH and LH to scheme - then you won't see your baby that often!

[flying_chick]

:ok:aww don't worry about me not spending time with baby. Yes, vote it is..

[the heavy heavy]

I'm not worried flying chick:bored::):ok::ugh:

I'm just concerned that I'll be doing your job for up to three months while they recruit and train your permanent replacement. :eek::}

I'm looking forward to the challenges but I'll miss my inflight rest and first class food. ;)

Just had a thought, if I'm working as temp cc am I entitled to join bassa. If so when? Wonder if that means I'll get to vote as well!:eek:

xxxxx:O:*

(this post has been smilied in compliance with bassa smilie protocols):O

[Snas]

Yes, vote it is..


Why have you voted yes?

[Juan Tugoh]

When is the ballot result announced?

[winstonsmith]

The ballot closes on 22nd of February - I would expect the result to be announced any day after.

[TheTiresome1]

Amidst the euphoria of various CC being able to vote YES or NO, and hoping personally that some level of common sense will prevail, I couldn't help but notice this post:
Let's please put the safety issue to bed. The CAA mandates the crew complement, individual airlines may choose to exceed the minima for the purposes of customer service... not safety.

It seems to me that many customers have commented here, and elsewhere, about declining standards of service on BA. On the premise that the dire emergencies so often referred to hardly ever happen [I have never, ever seen even a minor one], there are a couple of simple questions I would pose:

Leaving aside emergencies, why are the standards of service to passengers perceived to be falling?
Why is it necessary to over-crew the aircraft beyond the legislative safety requirement if not to provide better service?


Sorry to be awkward, but there is a core issue being lost in all the rhetoric.

[Wobbler]

I'm interested to know too what you hope to achieve by voting 'yes' - or indeed if the court case goes in favour of BASSA and BA have to reemploy 1200 people to get the crewing levels back up. Those 1200 WILL be recruited onto New Fleet. One way or another the savings have to be made or BA ceases to exist. Reduced crewing levels seem like a sensible option to me making savings of arond £125 million, with little impact on most crew. Alternatively you could each sacrifice £8000.

What is your plan and negotiating standpoint when you have you big yes strike mandate?

[KitKat747]

Flying Chick

Good on you for voting YES.

I was concerned that they might get a NO vote. I am hoping this strike goes ahead and BA can can sort out the mess the cabin crew have caused them and their customers once and for all.

Perhaps BA can then get back to being the good airline they always were with real cabin crew who take a pride in customer service.

BTW., life on the dole is very hard.

Well done for voting YES.

[TheTiresome1]

Last edited by KitKat747 : Today at 16:42. Reason: grammar

I look forward to a further edit "for failing to understand the Exam Question". Please explain your thinking. How on Earth does a YES vote conform with your statement?
I am hoping this strike goes ahead and BA can can sort out the mess the cabin crew have caused them and their customers once and for all.

[flying_chick]

ok, I am going to have anice cup of tea and kit kat this thread is getting boring.. :ugh::ugh:

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future... :ugh:

One day(probably very soon) it might just be your turn. :eek:

[midman]

So you think the city have no idea what's going on, and the threat of financial damage to the company will make the city force WW to back down and reinstate you all on previous manning levels and Ts and Cs.

Oh I see the sense in it all now.

Silly me.

(Note to self: Cut and paste this quote for posterity)

[winstonsmith]

I sincerely hope some of the most militant members will get the earliest flights on the first day of the strike - it's easy today to say you're going to work - but wait until that day when you have to make that decision.

[winstonsmith]

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future...

I think they already know - and they think it's wrong that BASSA is running the airline - WW has their support.

Fighting for your future? You are working one down! How can that possibly have anything to do with your future?

[TheTiresome1]

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future...

I didn't think there was any question about that. The Airline is run by Mr Walsh on behalf of the shareholders and the Board. I suspect the City is well aware of that fact, as it is well documented at Companies House and other places.

The perception that BASSA and Unite run the airline is undocumented, lies outwith Company Law and, I suspect, strikes a degree of nervousness in the City.

[FlexSRS]

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future...

I think the City are fairly certain about who is running things now. Did you see the share price plummet when the CC announced their second ballot and BA asked for volunteers to strike break.......No. Neither did I. That's all you need to know about the City's view.

[flying_chick]

A flying shame for British Airways | Guardian careers | guardian.co.uk (http://careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/a-flying-shame-for-british-airways-ruth-spellman)

we are simply the best... :ok:

[Snas]

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future

Good grief...! That's a new one at least.

I have thought for a while now that many voters had little grasp of what they were actually voting for, you dont even seem to know what your Union says you are voting for, as twisted as their statements are "sending a message to the city" is a classic.

Have you looked at BA's share price recently by the way?

[anotherthing]

TheTiresome1

In lieu of a reply from the poster, I think KitKat was alluding to the fact that if there is a 'Yes' vote, it means tha BA have a good chance of destroying BASSA and getting rid of militant CC once and for all, whilst maintaining a service through the use of volunteers to man aircraft.

I believe Kitkat knew exactly what they were saying i.e. they want to get rid of the militants and for BA to prosper. Some people believe that a Yes vote will help this along.

[Snas]

we are simply the best


OK, lets address this for a moment shall we.
Some BA cabin crew are indeed the best, some are quite frankly bloody terrible. Overall you come out somewhat average in my experience, which I am sad to say actually - it's a shame, I'm British and would quite like my national carrier to be the best.

Do you fly BA, as a passanger, and with your rivals regularly, I do....

I have been on some flights, BA and others, when I would have been better off with no crew and a vending machine frankly.

A better approach to all this agro would have been to raise your game lots, raise your employers revenue then go in saying "look what we did" - Then argue for changes to T's&C's...

[FlexSRS]

So, even from your friends at the Guardian;

We can feel reassured that senior executives at BA would not approve such action if they felt for a moment that passenger safety was at risk,

and

Walsh may hold onto customers, but if the reaction to this crisis is badly handled, he may face losing his staff instead.

I can think of a fairly decent chunk of staff that BA and it's passengers would gladly 'lose' to be honest.

The angry CSD who says he/she earns more money through their sideline in the potato world would be good start...

[Papillon]

It does concern me somewhat that you hear some CC say that they deserve such generous salaries and T & Cs because they're better than everyone else. You aren't, you really aren't. I like BA, but some people really need a reality check on this.

[FlexSRS]

It does concern me somewhat that you hear some CC say that they deserve such generous salaries and T & Cs because they're better than everyone else. You aren't, you really aren't. I like BA, but some people really need a reality check on this.

Part of the problem is that throughout the decades, legion upon legion of cabin crew 'managers' have fed them this bull about them being the best, in order to pacify the crew community, because the managers have always used a ridiculously fluffy and gentle manner with the crew, because often they are dealing with prima donnas akin to Violet Beauregarde or Violet Elizabeth Bott, and the trouble is, after a while crew start truly believing it. (well, crew that haven't worked anywhere else anyway)

[TheTiresome1]

TheTiresome1
In lieu of a reply from the poster, I think KitKat was alluding to the fact that if there is a 'Yes' vote, it means tha BA have a good chance of destroying BASSA and getting rid of militant CC once and for all, whilst maintaining a service through the use of volunteers to man aircraft.
I believe Kitkat knew exactly what they were saying i.e. they want to get rid of the militants and for BA to prosper. Some people believe that a Yes vote will help this along.

My apologies to KitKat if that's the case. I re-read that post several times before reacting. Smilies are helpful when HEAVY sarcasm is involved! :oh:

Meanwhile, as I noted earlier:
It seems to me that many customers have commented here, and elsewhere, about declining standards of service on BA. On the premise that the dire emergencies so often referred to hardly ever happen [I have never, ever seen even a minor one], there are a couple of simple questions I would pose:

Leaving aside emergencies, why are the standards of service to passengers perceived to be falling?
Why is it necessary to over-crew the aircraft beyond the legislative safety requirement if not to provide better service?

Sorry to be awkward, but there is a core issue being lost in all the rhetoric.

[Human Factor]

By voting yes the city will start asking question about exactly who is running this airline and the fact that we are fighting for our future...

Just like they did last time. I think they got their answer then. ;)

[KitKat747]

Flying Chick,

You are so correct, the tiny imposition made by BA to your amazingly generous T & C's is becoming very boring to everyone.

If the expected strike was about something serious there would be more support from other airline workers and the general public. We all know what the root of the problem really is.,NF.

[winstonsmith]

BASSA wants crewing levels to go back to as they were before because it is not safe or healthy.

Has BASSA ever during this dispute suggested that LGW should get more crew on their aircraft?

[dubh12000]

From that Grauniad article....

passenger groups have raised concerns about in-flight safety,

Who? What? Passenger group?

[fincastle84]

Yet, as an employer, BA has a responsibility to its staff. People are, and should be, at the heart of any organisation. The success of a business is heavily dependent on staff happiness, morale and job satisfaction.
Supporting BA employees through all this turmoil has to be a priority for Walsh and his management team.

For once the dear old 'Gruadian' (my spelling), has it right. WW & his team are supporting the majority of BA employees who are loyal to BA & want the company to survive. These same loyal employees will be the ones who turn up for work whilst the BASSA strikers freeze on the picket line.

[winstonsmith]

I can't help but laugh at following statement given by UNITE.

It is a sad indictment when the leadership team of our company is determined to drive basic rights backwards to the 19th century rather than their staff forward into a brighter 21st century future.

That's rich coming from a union still living in the '70s - maybe they should also drive forward into a brighter 21st century.

[Looking Up]

Is it just me, or does that photo caption appear to be overtly disingenuous?

A flying shame for British Airways | Guardian careers | guardian.co.uk (http://careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/a-flying-shame-for-british-airways-ruth-spellman)

A pilot being trained on a British Airways flight training simulator. The airline claims it could get pilots meeting safety standards within five days.

LU

[Papillon]

By the way, is this the anti-BA, scathing article on the whole question of using other staff that we had been told was on the way in the Guardian? Bit of a letdown really isn't it?

[1 FLEW OVER]

3 Days Actually
:e

[1 FLEW OVER]

I THINK WE ARE UP TO 22,222 VOLUNTEERS NOW :} :ok:

GO PCC!!!!!

[617sqn]

Even though I do not agree with the yes voters,may I speak in their defence?

The literature that was sent with the ballot papers is very persuasive.
The list is very long ,so here are a few examples:

If you want BA to crush you union vote no.

If you feel it was justified having your salary leaked vote no.

If you enjoy being public enemy no 1 vote no.


For those cc who do no research and follow the party line,it is very easy to get caught up in the hysteria.
Remember,anyone who dares to speak out against the union on CF is banned.
A lot of crew do not read ess or choose to disbelieve Bill "liar" as he is called "over there".

Any ideas how to get these crew to think for themselves?

[M2dude]

Anybody else wonder why it's taking BASSA/UNITE/KGB so long to conduct their ballot??? The 'vote for extinction' began on Monay the 25th January and will not close until Febraury 25th!! Even accounting for long haul trips, leave etc, there is absolutely no way that the period of the ballot needs to be a whole month. It's more to do with maximising the potential commercial damage to our airline, thank goodness whether the vote is 'yes, I want to destroy the airline', or 'you've got to be joking!!', this will be the last yahoo of these militant idiots.

[Beakor]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

Anyone see any flaws with this plan? Best result for BASSA would be a no vote or BA to contest the ballot before the strike takes place. Neither of these is likely.

[SlideBustle]

M2dude, I agree with you it really doesn't have to be and shouldn't be this long!! The longer it goes on the more damage!

Just read a news bulletin from a couple of days ago on BASSA website. It mentions a manager ''lying'' in Intouch days and actually names her/him (not mentioning the name on here for legal reasons) Apparently this manager has been going in Intouch days saying ''hundreds of crew have left BASSA recently'' (well theres a surprise!:rolleyes:) BASSA do not like this one bit and they are saying only 11 members (really?) have left BASSA in the last 9 days (1 by mistake)

Who's telling the lies I wonder??

[im1234]

"BASSA do not like this one bit and they are saying only 11 members (really?) have left BASSA in the last 9 days (1 by mistake)"

erm... the same BASSA whose website on 23/01/2010 stated they had 10524 members, and tonight claims 10434 ? I'm sure they were claiming 10800+ earlier this month but didn't record the actual number.

Don't suppose that this info could be posted on the BASSA forum ?

[Caribbean Boy]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

So, if strike action starts on 1 March, protection ends on 24 May.

[Watersidewonker]

10,000 or 11,000 somewhere in between who cares as long as a vast majority vote YES then thats all we care about. Our union members are sick and tired of the way BA has tried time and time again to shaft us. Forget the Willies Wailing Wall @ Waterside, floorplate meetings,Phone calls from desperate managers,Press outings to posh london hotels etc etc. The chess game starts once again next week who will come out on top who knows but for sure i only know of one or two No voters and thats a choice they make, life is too short.:D

[Dairyground]

Assuming the strike takes place, will BA want it to end before all those willing to strike have demonstrated their committment to BASSA by doing so? Might they wait to act until all CC have been rostered to turn up, if not necessarily to fly, at least once after the start of the strike before acting against the strikers?

That way, leaving for Sydney on the day before the strike would not give protection to BASSA enthusiasts or anyone else.

[cheeky chappy]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

So, if strike action starts on 1 March, protection ends on 24 May.It may be unlawful for BA to sack you within 12 weeks but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
All it means is that BA would face an industrial tribunal which would most probably take a year or more to resolve and which they may or may not lose. If they do lose they would have to pay you some compensation which would probably be less than the wages you would've earned.
Keep in mind the fact that during this time you may not be able to find yourself a new job and even if they lose the tribunal they are not obliged to offer you your job back.
Of course if the ballot was found to irregular like the last on it wouldn't even be unlawful to sack you.
It's not a position I'd like to find myself in...

[binsleepen]

Caribbean Boy

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

You are absolutely right but as has been posted on here before it is also illegal to murder, rape, pillage and commit genocide but people and groups still do it.
The old phrase "if you can't do the time (or in this case pay the fine) don't do the crime" comes to mind. For BA the benefits of the crime of sacking all the militants and those who wish an end to BA may be worth the fine imposed by a tribuneral in a couple of years.

There is also the possibility the strike, again, wasn't lawfully organised and therefore all those striking are doing so illegally.

Think carefully before you strike.

regards

[Dairyground]

Caribbean boy says:


This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.



There have been suggestions in recent posts that ballot papers have been sent to non-members, so the chances are that BA will be able to invalidate this ballot just like the first one. The questions are whether they will do so, and if they do, whether it will be before or after the strike starts.

[TheTiresome1]

From the Gruniad picee, quoting Mr FlyBE - no commercial interests there, then ;) - and with heavy sarcasm on my part:

Doing a job well also necessitates using skills acquired over time and knowing how to deal with certain situations because you have encountered them previously.
Presumably BA crashes aircraft frequently, thus enabling CC to practice their emergency evacuation skills? Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.

Last but not least, it's about aptitude and passion for the job. These things cannot be easily taught in three weeks and, by inferring that they can, BA is not only at risk of undermining its staff, but may be in danger of being regarded as an organisation that doesn't take enough pride in those who are, in essence, the face of the airline.
Ah, aptitude and passion. That wouldn't refer to the ones who hate the job and hate the company and find passengers an inconvenience? The ones who actually relish the prospects of a strike, to show who actually runs BA? Who regard damaging BA far more important than an adjustment to LEGAL manning levels at no personal cost?

I would think BA's "pride in those who are, in essence, the face of the airline" may be slightly influenced by what happens over the next few weeks. :)

[binsleepen]

crossed posts with cheeky chappy:O

[Juan Tugoh]

Hi Caribbean Boy

This has been a mammoth thread/s and I can understand a new joiner not reading back through it all. But...

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks

This was done to death previously. You CAN be sacked for taking IA, but at your Industrial Tribunal you will automatically win an unfair dismissal case. Damages up to a set maximum, £66K approx but in reality likely to be significantly lower, will be awarded. Re-instatement hardly ever happens. The Tribunal can take months to happen and never looks good on a CV.

Please do take the time to be fully educated as to what can and cannot happen should you go on strike. Please do your own research as BASSA will not tell you the full details, they will tell you it is illegal to sack you for taking IA, but they will stop there, they will not tell you that you could still lose your job.

[fly12345]

It may be unlawful for BA to sack you within 12 weeks but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
All it means is that BA would face an industrial tribunal which would most probably take a year or more to resolve and which they may or may not lose. If they do lose they would have to pay you some compensation which would probably be less than the wages you would've earned.
Keep in mind the fact that during this time you may not be able to find yourself a new job and even if they lose the tribunal they are not obliged to offer you your job back.
Of course if the ballot was found to irregular like the last on it wouldn't even be unlawful to sack you.
It's not a position I'd like to find myself in..


yes, but. BA still needs to crew aircraft with yes or no voters so I guess sacking indiscriminately any strikers it would be counterproductive.
I just hope some common sense on the day will prevail, it is too easy to destroy and a lot more difficult and complicated to rebuild./

[midman]

10,000 or 11,000 somewhere in between who cares as long as a vast majority vote YES then thats all we care about.

But a Yes vote carries no weight - we've already had one and have your complements changed?

The strike is a different animal altogether.

My guess, out of 13500 cabin crew and 10000 Unite members:
6000 vote Yes, equating to about a 80% Yes from 75% turn out. (7500 don't vote Yes)

2000 don't turn up on Day 1 when all cabin crew instructed to attend whether on leave, sick, MBT etc. (9000 do turn up, 2500 crew down route)

BA operate a 50% schedule on day one, increasing by 10% a day.

1000 don't return to work after a week. (12500 cabin crew working plus 1000 volunteers)

Within a week BA running a full operation, 1000 inflexible cabin crew removed, Bassa in tatters.

Anyone disagree?

[the heavy heavy]

:ugh:

It's been explained a million times, it's very simple.

BA can do what it wants. You will be able to claim against BA at an employment tribunal. They have the power to award you damages, a pittance, but not to make BA give you your job back.

Vote yes, go on strike, get sacked, get a tribunal date, get another job to pay your bills in the 12mth wait, get damages, get on with life outside BA.

It's that simple. For clarity ask your reps why they attempted to get de-rostered for the last dates?

[Human Factor]

Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.

If FlyBE happens to operate the same route, BA gets 15%. ;)

[Juan Tugoh]

I guess sacking indiscriminately any strikers it would be counterproductive

It all depends whether the sacking was indeed indiscriminate. Sacking the first 100 who fail to turn up for work would probably scare the living daylights out of the majority of workers. Especially if you are a long time crew member with out of date qualifications for a job outside aviation. Gaining an entry level job in any industry with a take home pay similar to that enjoyed by long time BA CC would be very hard to secure in the current economic climate.

[Looking Up]

From the Gruniad picee, quoting Mr FlyBE - no commercial interests there, then http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif - and with heavy sarcasm on my part:
Doing a job well also necessitates using skills acquired over time and knowing how to deal with certain situations because you have encountered them previously.
Presumably BA crashes aircraft frequently, thus enabling CC to practice their emergency evacuation skills? Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.Flybe are partially (15%) owned by BA. So there are commercial interests there; just not as you imply.

Cheers,

LU

[IYCSWICSWICW]

Midman - yup, sounds good to me.

bassa, their ballot is flawed already.

BA, won't contest. Go right ahead baaaaaaassa.

Strike, Strike, Strike. Lemmings/lambs over the cliff-edge.

Midmans scenario plays out.

GF :}

[Ten West]

...for sure i only know of one or two No voters and thats a choice they make, life is too short.

My friend, if I was working alongside your good self in a metal tube all day I'd tell you I was a "Yes" voter too just so I could avoid the earache! :p

Sensible and genuine question though:

As you so obviously harbour such hatred for your employer why not leave and go elsewhere like anyone else would have done long since?

[greatwhitehunter]

watersidewonker.

Please, Please strike, the rest of your colleagues in BA want to see you and others like you gone. People in my area have volunteered in droves to replace you. We are aware of the conditions our company is operating in and we want it to survive. BA may not be paradise but it's a lot better many other companies out there and miles better than the dole queue.

[cheeky chappy]

Great minds eh...

[TopBunk]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

More likely:
Court case in February, BA likely to win.
However if BA lose Court case:
BA immediately issue 90-day notification of termination of contracts under SOSR to all Cabin Crew on 2nd February
BASSA in the stew and under intense pressure and likely to implode/capitulate during February (and certainly ostracise Amicus/CC89 as Satan - again)
In the meantime continue flying until 1st March (earliest strike date)
Plan 1st March schedule to operate key flights on B777 and A320 (and A318 LCY-JFK) flights during any strike
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike announced on/after 22nd February
[we are now already 30 days into 12 week strike protection period]
If it comes to a strike:
Any strikers/sickees will be noted!
Strike fails within 12 hours
BASSA denounce everyone (including their own members for liking foresight) and crawl back to lalaland to lick their wounds, never to be seen again in their current 1970's format.
BA resume normal operations and impose revised disruption agreement to not a whimper of discontent (and other contractural changes, including STR arrangements at LHR for EF)
BA announce New Fleet as previously announced as being either A320/B787and B777 or A320/A380 and B777 (remember crews can only be 'licensed' on 3 types at once) on market +10% on mixed flying and leave the dinosaurs to either continue flying the B747 + a reducing (non long range proportion of the) B777 fleet or for them to migrate to New Fleet for promotion.
Game, set and match to BA .... bye bye BASSA

[TheTiresome1]

My thanks to those who explained the FlyBE/BA link. His comments may not be popular with the airline that owns 15% then. Oh, well, just another complicated dimension in this incredibly confusing saga. :confused:

[ltn and beyond]

Over 1000 pilots have already said they will work as cc, and by the end of Feb will all be trained, trainers at Cranebank are happy to train them as they dont want to strike or see to company fail.

All other departments are talking of similar numbers wanting to help BA too..

The only losser here will be Bassa/CC. My thought is that after Bassa have been wiped away, the strong teamwork of BA's flexible staff will see the company go on to be stronger than ever before..

That gets my vote of support for BA !!!!!!

[LD12986]

If BA wins at the High Court you also have to factor in the fact that BA will make a claim against Unite for its legal costs, and whether the internal politics at Unite come into play and BASSA gets reigned in.

[Litebulbs]

If Unite win?

[Clarified]

Good evening,
you are right re. legal strikes and dismissal. However,don't forget breach of contract. So even though the strike is lawful the person striking has in effect ripped up their contract. Therefore, the terms they return on could be different from those they left on!
They may also be locked out until the employer decides they can return, (unpaid). The lockout days are added to the 12 week protection period.
Ultimately, I think they could be dismissed within the 12 week period, but as the strike is protected they can claim a defined amount of compensation. If the employer then doesn't reinstate them they can claim again, I think the figure they can claim here is more uncertain.

There are loads of postings on this subject.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

My thoughts re. a previous post, not representative of my employer or anyone else.

[LD12986]

If Unite win?


BA may seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

I'm not clear as to what remedies will be available for CC for the period between imposition of changes and the date proper notice of changes to contracts take effect (I would not assume everyone will get a "one-down payment", that may be determined by the courts and may involve more litigation).

BA will have to go through the proper process to change contracts, so it will have to serve 90 days notice of change to contract, possibly with a lot of other changes as well...

[Litebulbs]

How many flights do BA operate a day from LHR? What would the cost of 1 down payment be?

[Litebulbs]

True, but would BA be allowed further imposition if they were appealing a ruling for imposition?

[strikemaster82]

BigBrutha, what's your likely scenario for the strike?

e.g. Do you think they'll sack any strikers or just note their names and bin their staff travel?

[LD12986]

True, but would BA be allowed further imposition if they were appealing a ruling for imposition?


Unite has already failed to obtain an injunction to block the changes so I can't see anything in the interim.

[wascrew]

WATERSIDE WONKER

Maybe I should applaud your perseverance and loyalty to BASSA but you simply havent read any of the posts here regarding the consequences of a yes vote both to yourselves and the company. Maybe you have read them but chosen or been blind to the arguments and in particular where you will legally stand as a striker.Also you can`t have read what the company have offered you as a safeguard.
If you were a person of reason and understood the precarious state of the business you will see there is need for changes.
Few will affect you in reality.

FLY LADY
To quote you
``Got my ballot paper this morning could not find the NO option so put a lovely X on the YES box and kissed the baby before posting it.``

Did you kiss your job goodbye at the same time???? Because if there is a yes vote effectively you have!!!
As with wonker you have refused to listen to the counter arguments and reason things through.
I wish you both luck in your future career outside of BA
Please read the customer comments on here.. (you know them , the people who pay your wages) and you will see the level of mediocrity from cabin crew they have to put up with.

[midman]

The hearing is to decide whether the imposition of reduced cabin crew is contractual or not.

If BA lost and appealed, there is nothing to stop them imposing anything else they might like. They are not answerable to this court on IMPOSING changes to cabin crew working agreements, only on the specific case of cabin crew complements.

A more likely scenario is a 90 day notice to make the changes fully legal even if Bassa won the case.

(20% chance of that, IMHO)

[Caribbean Boy]

Some people think that BA will sack striking CC within the 12 week protected strike action period, but can point to little evidence that BA will do such a thing. It's easy to get worked up over such a possibility, but now is the time for cool heads.

Just bear in mind that BA will surely shoot itself in the foot for acting illegally. Remember, BA now has the upper hand in the PR battle due to Unite's blunder in calling for a 12-day strike over Christmas. And this is quite important: the strike isn't just about Unite v BA, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the public who are thinking about whether to do any more business with BA. Right now, the score is Unite 0 BA 1.

[ExSp33db1rd]

........Staff travel will be taken away..........


As www has already taken it away from the longest retired - and then he had the gall to write and ask us to sign a petition supporting his plea for a 3rd runway !!

Fat Chance. " You play ball with me, and I'll stick the bat right up your ........ "

Be very aware.

[AtlasDrawer]

Hello, just received two texts from BASSA, and an email. The texts are reminding me to vote yes and the mail is about the 'Wailing Wall' - some wall at Waterside that people have left messages on about backing BA, according to BASSA some of it is derogitory (sp?) to crew. Haven't seen it myself so cannot say. It would appear that BASSA are sending out texts to garner support, and why? Do you think that the removal of staff travel from people who strike is really making people think voting no may be a sensible option? Speaking to people on line, it really seems so.

No Staff Travel = No job = No income

Been speaking to my friend about the proposals, and reasons for going on strike, we cannot agree on it because:

1. Although he knows the strike is about the imposition, it's 'What if we get our wages reduced? What if we get starved of work?

2. This fixed payment - lots of people think that that payment replaces our WHOLE payment structure when it does not, and this pointed out to him. It just covers the CAT and EDP etc, not the meal allowances ( we are on EF).


I am trying to get my points across, but having great difficulty because of all the propaganda from BASSA. So to all you wavering voters out there, a final plea:

You are striking over the imposition, is it really so bad in this day and age? Lots of friends of mine in the airline industry are being made redundant and are looking on gobsmacked that we are going on strike over this issue. BA are in a bad way, and you want to strike? What do you actually expect to achieve? What is your desired outcome? I am not against striking, infact I very much believe in it, but would it not be better to wait until New Fleet is introduced, and then ballot? I honestly think that if we had waited until New Fleet was here, we may have had greater support, but no. The strike at Christmas finished that off.

Rant over...
AD

[Snas]

Just bear in mind that BA will surely shoot itself in the foot for acting illegally


Actually I'm inclined to agree with you in that I dont imagine mass sacking taking place. Where I disagree is that were they to start doing so I really dont see it being a PR issue for them, I dont imagine the general public will give a hoot, the shareholders certainly wont and it would appear that many other non-BASSA members would do litle more than shrug either..

Far more likley, and effective in my view, is just to sack a bunch on day one. Given CC's history of throwing in a sickie when they should be striking I dont see them staying brave once 10, 20, 200, whatever, have fallen on their swords.

[Litebulbs]

Fair point Midman.

Do you agree or disagree with this.

My understanding of the minimum negotiating rights of any recognition agreement is pay, hours of work and holiday. Working down attracts a payment, therefore comes under pay, which forms part of your contractual terms and conditions.

[Snas]

My understanding of the minimum negotiating rights of any recognition agreement is pay, hours of work and holiday. Working down attracts a payment, therefore comes under pay, which forms part of your contractual terms and conditions.


Ah, but is the "pay" defined in your BA issued terms and conditions of employment, or in an agreement with your Union?

Is it in fact, pay therefore?

Best let the court decide that one I say :ok:

[Melissa1510]

The wall in WTS has messages from people telling why they are backing BA. something like... our customer deserve better, i am proud to fly the flag, i like my job, i am skint, ect... there is nothing derograty or insulting about the crew. it seams to me that again some crew only see what they want to see and not the reality. However I am happy that many choose to think with their own brain.:ugh:

[Melissa1510]

one of my colleague is doing the SEP to train as voluntary crew. Being an ex crew it will only take 5 days. He said that the trainers are tougher on the voluntary crew than the other as they need to insure safety standards are met and above. CAA is monitoring this closely. Our volunatry crew will show just the same amount of professionalism as the others. If only all 40.000 of us would work together to get this company better we would not be where we are now. We all make BA, front line operations and admin staff, we should all work as a team but i guess i live in a dream world.

[AtlasDrawer]

It's good that someone else has seen that wall and quite frankly I don't believe anything that BASSA send me anymore (although I have actually left the union). I just wish I knew how I could counteract some of their propaganda once in a while.

Oh and the latest beaut of a rumour is that it is against EU law to take staff travel away. I pointed out to my friend that BA could take the staff travel away and then two years later an EU court MAY decide that BA have to give it to you back and then MAY have to reinstate it. But then thats two years of having to pay your own tarvel costs, and whats to say you would win?

ps .. well done on backing BA and hope to see you out on line , I hope I can prove you that we crew are not all power-mad muppets intent on bringing the company down.

[Juan Tugoh]

Some people think that BA will sack striking CC within the 12 week protected strike action period, but can point to little evidence that BA will do such a thing

You have a fair point, but and sadly it is a big but, there is a risk that they will sack people who strike. Past actions and behaviours are no indicator of how BA will act this time - WW is a very different person than his predecessors.

It would be a large gamble to take with your job and life to be a striker on day 1. Hence in the past CC went for the sick out - wanting to absent themselves from work but not having the moral courage of their convictions. That is a behaviour that IS likely to be repeated. That is why the company has issued warnings about being sick on possible strike days.

Walking into this minefield without a full understanding of what can happen and the consequences of the risks taken would be plain recklessness. BASSA have shown a great reluctance to fully communicate ALL the ramifications of striking. It is therefore important that you educate yourself as to what can happen.

Personally I think it far more likely that Staff Travel will be withdrawn permanently as an opening gambit. Giving 90 day notice and making everyone reapply for their job on a new contract is also a viable legal option for the company, allowing it to change T&Cs but also letting it weed out those that it wishes to get rid of.

[the heavy heavy]

Some people think that BA will sack striking CC within the 12 week protected strike action period, but can point to little evidence that BA will do such a thing. It's easy to get worked up over such a possibility, but now is the time for cool heads

Cool heads! I've been told to FoxOscar by lala whilst she was telling lies about BALPA and threatened by unite in their official press release. I've watched open jawed as crew celebrated the planned destruction of christmas for millions and the company I've commited my working life to. I've listened to crew proudly tell me they would rather see BA crash than work 1 down then diving in the bunk 1hr40 into a jfk! where to stop....................

cool heads, the only cool heads I see in this whole mess are the LT your leadership despise so much. You can believe lala as much as you want but I hope you have a plan B whilst waiting for your tribunal.

[Clarified]

You said
[quote]
Some people think that BA will sack striking CC within the 12 week protected strike action period, but can point to little evidence that BA will do such a thing. It's easy to get worked up over such a possibility, but now is the time for cool heads.

Just bear in mind that BA will surely shoot itself in the foot for acting illegally. Remember, BA now has the upper hand in the PR battle due to Unite's blunder in calling for a 12-day strike over Christmas. And this is quite important: the strike isn't just about Unite v BA, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the public who are thinking about whether to do any more business with BA. Right now, the score is Unite 0 BA 1.
[/quote

I agree, although some may disagree with your scoring.

[Litebulbs]

Snas,

I suppose it comes down to an implied term/custom and practice. This can be seen in law as contractual, but as you say, the courts will decide.

I would imagine that if the court agrees with Unite, then there is a potential for BA liable for monies lost, which would eclipse any savings made to date. It would give Unite a negotiating position, but that is chasing the ultimate flush.

[midman]

Fair point Midman.

Do you agree or disagree with this.

My understanding of the minimum negotiating rights of any recognition agreement is pay, hours of work and holiday. Working down attracts a payment, therefore comes under pay, which forms part of your contractual terms and conditions.

But if the contractual terms and conditions don't stipulate working complements on board, which is what BA claim (and which most reasonable observers would agree is something that the company should be able to decide), then you aren't working one down.

Secondly, I'm not sure that such payments constitute part of your pay.

[SlideBustle]

I find it amazing though that even if this is found at court next week to be non-contractual and BA win this Unite are still going to go ahead with a strike.
I know it's about the principal of ''imposition'' as many crew say (whatever next!?!? one day it is crew complements next day it is your CATs) but surely a company can impose changes that are NON-CONTRACTUAL if they feel they need to. Especially if they have talked with the TU for 9 months.
Obviously I can understand if it was contractual, but if the changes are, then all BA has to do is recruit these crew on a new contract, or put some crew back up full time, and stop any new part time offers, and hey presto! (Or like someone says they would just probably give 90 days notice of change of contract and then reduce the crew again'!)
So why do we need to strike when we are going to court next week.

Or have I missed the point? :hmm:

[Litebulbs]

Midman,

Just imagine this conversation in court!

Most, but not all reasons for payments outside of basic pay, are because you have done something extra. The argument here would be that an establishment figure has been set for a place of work.

As it stood, if that establishment figure had been varied, then a compensatory payment would be made. There is nothing to stop a business varying establishment figures, but because you have a procedure to compensate for this and that is pay and as pay is a basic negotiated term, then it is a contractual position.

[Snas]

Ah, the discussion turns towards the legal horror that is custom and practice, in essense the argument that something has been such a way for long enough for it to now be considered part of my terms and conditions of employment - put very simply.

For those of you that are not BASSA drones and like to do a little research yourselves this (Practice makes custom perfectly binding (http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l1160002.htm)) is a fairly good bit of text to start with that will increase your understanding of the issue at hand.

Have a look in your contracts btw, there may be a line in there specifically stating that a perk, favour, etc is not to be considered a term over time, rather common way of avoiding this whole issue for employers these days.

Anyway, happy reading ..!

P.S The legal details may all be rather mute as right or wrong unions dont have a good track record of beating companies when they end up in the courts..

[MissM]

Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time.

[Juan Tugoh]

As it stood, if that establishment figure had been varied, then a compensatory payment would be made. There is nothing to stop a business varying establishment figures, but because you have a procedure to compensate for this and that is pay and as pay is a basic negotiated term, then it is a contractual position.

Fairly simple to deal with that argument. You also have a mechanism to compensate you for meals you are forced to buy while away from home on duty. These are allowances and are as such paid only for those periods when the situation arises that would trigger such a payment. Same as working one down, the payment is only triggered when the situation arises, as such it is obviously an allowance and not pay. The argument that it is pay and a basic negotiated term is therefore specious.

[Juan Tugoh]

Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time

Beautifully argued using well reasoned logic, thank you, your post illustrates the BASSA position perfectly.

[Litebulbs]

Snas,

This is a good read -

Acas - Advice leaflet - Varying a contract of employment (http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=816)

These guides seem to be the bench mark in tribunals today.

[Litebulbs]

Allowances make up part of your pay. They are a contractual term. To vary allowances requires (well legally, as I see it, but could be proved wrong very shortly) agreement and generally appear on a pay packet.

[SlideBustle]

MissM,

Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time.

I think that chance is 50/50 at the moment, we will wait and see BUT:

Scenario: Unite win next week (may couple of days to reach a result) What do you reckon both sides will do? Do you think BA will back down and say ok, we give in no changes now? Actually, how do you think the crew members will be put back on? The whole reason crew were offered VR and part time was to facilitate the reduction in crew complements. So with the headcount numbers reduced we would have to recruit more crew. Do you not think that this could be the birth of New Fleet/or the new contract?

This will not change the fact that BA are wanting to make savings. These crew complements save around £40m in two years the other £100m will be in New Fleet/FlexiFleet proposals BA have proposed. If crew complements have to be restored, then we have another £40m of the budget to be saved on top of the £100m in savings BA have put their proposals at. EEK! Where will that come from if not from crew complements?

Also, will BASSA/Unite still be balloting until BA accepts their proposal?? Which saves only a 1/3rd of what BA need and has some rather weird proposals in there (although if I'm honest i'm not totally against it)

[Snas]

Agree, tribunals run to the ACAS docs first, the courts, I'm not so sure.

Whilst we are batting this ball back and forth I dont see that the court could / would decide that the crew reduction was a contractual issue, just the loss of the one down payment at best. ..and then it perhaps doesnt happen often enough, in the eyes of the court, to have become a contractual issue?

It is far from a clear cut thing for either party in my view, but I dont see that anyoutcome is really a loss for BA in any way other then a degree of embarrasement, crew levels will remain the same and the payments would cease again after 90 days, and god knows what else at that point...

If you force your employer to change contractual terms they may as well get a few more bits done at the same time perhaps?

[LD12986]

(may couple of days to reach a result)

It could actually take much longer for the court to hand down its judgment.

[midman]

Midman,

Just imagine this conversation in court!

Most, but not all reasons for payments outside of basic pay, are because you have done something extra. The argument here would be that an establishment figure has been set for a place of work.

As it stood, if that establishment figure had been varied, then a compensatory payment would be made. There is nothing to stop a business varying establishment figures, but because you have a procedure to compensate for this and that is pay and as pay is a basic negotiated term, then it is a contractual position.

My learned response would be:
The one-down payment is made in the event that less than the established complement operates on the day.

The established complement is changed permanently for business reasons by the company.
The new complement does not attract the payment as it is not below the established complement.
The payment is now made at the established figure -1 complement.

[Litebulbs]

Hmm, this will take a bit of thinking about after those two responses.

[La Pouquelaye]

C'mon you guys, stop all this unnecessary bickering; you are playing right into Willie Walsh's hands. Miz Liz Malone and her lackeys are also enjoying every moment, too.

Have none of you ever read about "divide and rule"?

Vote - either YES or NO - according to your consciences and be done.

[eticket]

Some random questions if I may:

1. Do you think that an out of court settlement is likely? Or do you see it going all the way to a judgement? Presumably the two sides are talking in the run-up to the trial. (Is BASSA's least worst outcome from this mess some kind of out of court settlement, linked to withdrawing the threat of IA?)

2. Instead of strike call #2, and assuming a Yes vote, could BASSA opt for a work to rule? Or are they in effect doing this already? Presumably this might save them from some of the potential damages claims, keep the reps in power and still inflict some on-going damage on BA. (Until any 90 day contract changes are introduced that is.) The reduction in crew levels will be difficult to reverse so realistically is this the only way that BASSA can get out of the problem? ie they continue to fight but by way of an on-going work to rule. Over time the reason for the work to rule will be changed to another cause and the original reason quietly dropped.

3. If BA implements the permanent withdrawal of travel benefits for strikers, does the joyous welcoming of this move by other departments at BA, in effect give BA the go ahead to impose it in any future strikes by other departments? Say things go pear shaped in the future and a different department really does have a justifiable strike situation, then wouldn't it be a bit rich to complain about any loss of travel benefits that are then imposed on that department?

4. Would an incentive be for BA to offer a small number of shares, (say 15), to everyone at BA who works on a BASSA strike day, as a thank you for keeping the business running? ie everyone at BA, not just those doing different jobs, would get the same number of shares per strike day worked. This would enforce the feeling of everyone mucking in for the long-term benefit of the company.

As a largely paper based exercise it wouldn't cost BA much in actual readies out of the bank account and any strike won't last long. If recent history carries on then it will cost very little in the long-term as BA is not exactly renown for paying dividends. They could hide the shares in another wrapper / nominee account so the shareholders' names won't appear on the official list of shareholders and then BASSA won't be able to tell who was breaking the strike. (ala hiding shares to avoid animal rights protestors getting hold of names and addresses.)

5. After tackling an already docile and broken ITV workforce, is Adam Crozier going to be WW's successor?


(I am nothing to do with BA.)

[Litebulbs]

If BA had reduced the level of service to cater for the reduction of headcount, at point of imposition, then the reason for being compensated would have been removed. You could argue that you would then enter into a standard redundancy situation. You could then have restructured the operation around this.

This was not done though. What happened was that you would have to work harder to achieve less total pay.

[Litebulbs]

eTicket,

If the courts rule in favour of Unite, then they gain a favourable negotiating position. Say average crew compliment of 9 and 200 flights a day for 3 months, then £50M in crew down payments owed (absolutely fictitious figures, so please do the maths).

Unite then say we want to protect future earnings of all current crew to counter any threat of New Fleet, but for the future of BA, accept a bit harder work, with a very quiet sweetener. Work out a mechanism to do this and shake hands outside of court.

Or is that a dream?!

[FlexSRS]

This was not done though. What happened was that you would have to work harder to achieve less total pay.

Err, isn't it the same now, because they took one crew member off, but now the CSD helps with the service = same as before

'But wait' I hear you cry, when the CSD is serving tea, they can't be resetting the AVOD etc, (the number of times I hear that bull, how difficult can it be? A 5yr old can work a video player), the service is suffering - this is a standard BASSA line.

So you might say the level of service has been reduced. In this day and age, with 10s of thousands of people losing their jobs, in the real world, I don't think the Judges are going to be hugely concerned with some overly pampered, over paid (compared to the rest of the UK c-crew) having to merely work a bit harder.

Whilst working slightly harder might seem like a crushing hardship, akin to the mines being closed, in the minds of BA crew, trust me when I say for the rest of the world it just looks like a ridiculous tantrum from a bunch of spoiled brats.

[FlexSRS]

Or is that a dream?!

Yes, this is a dream, because if IFCE don't make their savings, none of the other departments have to make theirs, and WW looks like he can't control the staff; It simply won't happen.

What a lot of crew are realising is that given the various ways of making the savings, 1 down is actually the least painful, because they have realised that it isn't actually that bad at all now they have done it, and it is certainly better than taking a pay cut.

BASSA on the other hand have made this whole thing about putting the crew numbers back to how they were. What are their suggestions for making the savings now? Middle East B-2-Bs - don't make me laugh. By their own hubris they are ruling out the solution that most crew would have probably chosen anyway, a constant mantra of normal crew is "we don't mind working a bit harder, we just want to keep our pay" - ie exactly what they have now. Doh!

[Litebulbs]

I hope any court would not take any external influences into account. It will be decided whether BA are in breach of a contractual term, as it was in November.

[the heavy heavy]

In a war of ideology there are only ever winners, losers and converts.

Anybody who thinks regardless of the legal outcome that WW will be handing out payments to crew neither a student of law or people. Bassa's panacea may involve a victorious day in court, buckets of cash being delivered for dispersal and a return to old practices but everybody outside lala ashram can only see sceismic implications to a BA defeat. For everyone.

If your voting yes then I beg you not to seek comfort in fantasy. If you win the court case BA will invoke 90 day notice. If you lose and strike, I think it will be over in a matter of days, who returns to work will be up to BA not bassa. Either way your reps have either by design, manipulation or sheer studity discarded the oppurtunity to be involved in the managing of the pain of change.

It's the colosseum ladies, it's doesn't matter if ww is Nero or agustus, you are the lion feed and the rest of us are the legion. Good news is the spectators are the British public and press and they are baying for blood. :ok: is unlikely.

[Litebulbs]

If Mr Walsh can achieve a 1000 relative headcount reduction within IFCE, but with the remainder protected for the future, would that not be seen as a win?

[Snas]

What are their suggestions for making the savings now?


Lets have a recap shall we: -

Increase to contract type
Cancel unpaid leave
Defer part time offers until 01/04/10
Zone close
Cap First Class
Shorthaul surplus to WW
Temps to LGW - LGW transfers
Specific Flight Cancellations
LGW main crew member returns to purser

Source: - http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/TheWayForwardcombi.pdf (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/TheWayForwardcombi.pdf)

[Jpax]

Litebulb,

That is a dream.

I have taken several J flights since the CSD has to do a few hours serving. Some have been wonderful and made it work with little effort.

On a recent flight the youngish male CSD obviously put every obstacle in his way to ensure the service was the worst I have experienced. This rubs off on the other cabin staff in J who were miserable and did not smile once. No hot towels or second rolls offered. These are the people who should be replaced. There are a lot of very good cabin crew who out number the poor performers.

BA need to identify the poor performers and those who have no interest in the customers, problem is how do they decide who those crew are?

Sadly for the customers the union feeds false information to turn them against BA. I am all for New Fleet because it could result in fresh faces who will speak to the customers. The sooner New Fleet is brought in the better and BA will prosper.

I have no fear in flying with volunteer crew, they cannot be worse than the grumpy grannies and grandads we frequently see on the long range flights.

Short haul flight cabin staff seem more adjusted to working with less crew. I somwtimes fly on the A320 where they still have 4 cabin staff.

I hope they all vote yes for strike action and carry it through. Of course the union reps and hard faced militants will wriggle out of working on the first day of the strike. They will not risk anything for themselves, sadly some of the good crew will be in the firing line.

As far as EU law preventing staff travel removal is concerned, how is it when people go sick their staff travel is removed, where is the EU law to stop that?

[the heavy heavy]

Litebulbs, how?

Bassa want crew reinstated before they will talk! I'm afraid you can't protect all you have, nobody can!

You work for a loss making company. You are one of the reasons it's making a loss. Work it out!

[the heavy heavy]

http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/TheWayForwardcombi.pdf[/url]
]

eh aren't theese the means by which Bassa want BA to cope whilst replacing the crew they paid to leave?

Please explain how caping first, canc flights and zone closure generate revenue from which our pay is delivered?

[Litebulbs]

I can understand why you would want to reinstate crew complements, before a High Court ruling. If they did not, there would be no reason for going to court. It is about negotiating positions. Hopefully everyone knows the court ruling is pivotal in this.

The outcome come of the ruling will either be a hard battled draw or an absolute mullering. I am sure we agree who sits where with the result.

[Snas]

I know, quite funny really.

The BASSA blurb that came with the ballot stated, and I quote word for word, "Our comprehensive proposal was dismissed with a one line response".

I cant say I'm surprised when they were proposing dropping flights and customers...! It's a shame that voters didnt recieve a copy of this silly suggestion as I'll bet most havent seen it.

[FlexSRS]

I hope any court would not take any external influences into account. It will be decided whether BA are in breach of a contractual term, as it was in November.

Sorry, but I think you are going to be dissappointed. Just as in the last strike injunction, a lot is going to come down to what is 'reasonable'. Just as Loopy Lizzie didn't make any 'reasonable' efforts to stop people who were leaving BA voting (in fact she encouraged it, and it was her own stupid post on the bassa forum that did most to sink their case), the aspect of what is reasonable will come up again.

Ie, in the harshest trading conditions in a generation, with airlines going bust left & right, in the midst of a global recession, with people up and down the country losing their jobs, is it 'reasonable' for BA to ask its cabin crew, who are already paid way more than the nearest competitors, and who are in some cases (EF)about half as productive, to work very slightly harder?

What do you think?

[Litebulbs]

It will be about a point of law. The law is not a fluid thing in my opinion. We will see if that opinion holds any water!

Thanks for the debate tonight, especially the excellent two pronged approach from Snas and Midman. Good Night.

[Desertia]

Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time.

MissM,

If you can tell me now that you have voted YES, and you will be out on strike from Day 1 and will give up your staff travel permanently (and answer honestly), then I won't point out that if BA are ORDERED to recruit staff back to previous levels, then BA will be able to do it on their own terms.

After all, if they advertise CC jobs at market rate +10% they will have no trouble filling positions from all of the unemployed FlyGlobeSpan, BMI, etc., crew who will happily work for that kind of salary.

As has been pointed out on this forum, it doesn't really matter if BA win or lose the BASSA-instigated court action. All of BASSA's cards are on the table. BA have several choices by which to achieve their aims.

But as you have yet to acknowledge that your union have lied to you and the public, I don't expect you to acknowledge that they are bereft of a plan B right now.

So come on - given that your union leaders are a proven bunch of liars, will you go on strike when they order you to, or are you just blustering like they are?

[vanHorck]

SLF here

I am constantly reminded of the Air Traffic Controllers strike in the USA in the early eighties.

20. The Air Traffic Controllers' Strike (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm)

There are obviously major differences such as the fact that these were government employees but one thing stands out:

No company or organization can allow itself to be held at ransom in such a destructive long term way.

Respect for the fact that both sides are allowed to exchange views here.

[fincastle84]

On a recent flight the youngish male CSD obviously put every obstacle in his way to ensure the service was the worst I have experienced. This rubs off on the other cabin staff in J who were miserable and did not smile once. No hot towels or second rolls offered. These are the people who should be replaced

I hope you have filed or will email an unsatisfactory crew report.:bored:

On our recent LHR-CPT-LHR we received excellent service.:ok: I discussed this with the respective CSDs & was invited to forward to BA my comments, including names & employee registration numbers. One even took the trouble to give me a form to complete.

[La Pouquelaye]

I hope any court would not take any external influences into account. It will be decided whether BA are in breach of a contractual term, as it was in November.


Just which "external influences" would they be?

[Dawdler]

Quote:
Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time.
MissM,

If you can tell me now that you have voted YES, and you will be out on strike from Day 1 and will give up your staff travel permanently (and answer honestly), then I won't point out that if BA are ORDERED to recruit staff back to previous levels, then BA will be able to do it on their own terms.

After all, if they advertise CC jobs at market rate +10% they will have no trouble filling positions from all of the unemployed FlyGlobeSpan, BMI, etc., crew who will happily work for that kind of salary.

As has been pointed out on this forum, it doesn't really matter if BA win or lose the BASSA-instigated court action. All of BASSA's cards are on the table. BA have several choices by which to achieve their aims.

But as you have yet to acknowledge that your union have lied to you and the public, I don't expect you to acknowledge that they are bereft of a plan B right now.

So come on - given that your union leaders are a proven bunch of liars, will you go on strike when they order you to, or are you just blustering like they are?Desertia,
You forget that in an earlier post Miss M said she hoped not to be involved in the actual strike by dint of her days off and part time basis.

Miss M. If your erudite post comes to pass, how long do you think the "victory" will last? A whole 90 days perhaps?

[strikemaster82]

If you have a complaint such as the 'obstructive' CSD as mentioned above, you can go to this link (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/custrelform/public/en_gb?refevent=contact_us) and it will be followed up.

On-board feedback forms can be binned if they don't read as the crew would like...

[La Pouquelaye]

If Mr Walsh can achieve a 1000 relative headcount reduction within IFCE, but with the remainder protected for the future, would that not be seen as a win?


Now you are clutching at straws. A "win" for whom: BA management - or BASSA intransigence?

No one is going to "win" this dispute, but a hell of a lot of flight attendants, cabin crew (call them whatever you like) are about to get hurt. Many will find themselves unemployed very soon after going out on strike.

You will not see your union reps or your union leader Miz Liz Malone out on strike. They will have made their own contingency plans to assure their economic futures.

No, it is the rank and file cabin crew members, perhaps having to care for terminally ill parents at home, who - blinded by BASSA's propaganda and rhetoric - who will be faced bang-on with no job, no money, no future and no way of caring for their otherwise helpless nearest and dearest.

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to write the above: it's the situation as I see it.

Think on, ladies and gentlemen, I implore you.



[Posted by a rank and file passenger who does not wish to see wholesale misery]

[Wobbler]

Quote:
Get over it. UNITE will win next month and BA will have to get the crewing levels back. Payback time.

Miss M - Not quite sure how you figure that one out. BA would have to recruit new cabin crew - and it would be straight onto New Fleet........but then they have to come back looking for the savings some other way - and I suspect any other way in making the savings you'll find an awful lot more painful than working one down! Payback time maybe - but not for cabin crew!

[m4rx]

Guys,

I feel very saddened when i read this thread. Do the pilots among us want to destroy BASSA or the cabin crew? :confused:

Despite what has been released to the press between 60 and 70% of BA cabin crew are on a post '97 contract and earn around £25k per year in total (This is a FACT - try talking to your crew and listening to them), do our pilots believe that to be too much? and if so why? :bored:

Are you not happy with your own renumeration package from BA? :ok:

You see, love or hate BASSA ( i have my own very strong feelings on this one) it is true that the company figures just don't add up. In order for the savings wanted by Willy and the team to be made - there HAS to be a hidden agenda. And it definately won't include share options when the company returns to profitability in a few years time (at who's expense though?)

I have given 20 years of my life to BA, i love my job, i love my company and i have respect for ALL of my colleagues and am open to their views but not to the open hatred that is in these threads. When THEY (our pilots) voted for strike only two years ago, i didn't berate them, it was THEIR CHOICE, for THEIR AGREEMENTS and THEIR VOTE. They must have had their reasons for the decision they made and i respected them for that.

Even after 20 years my salary is nothing like the lies printed in the Hate Mail :( i really wish it was though. But should my salary be cut by a third after 20 years because it is alleged that a starter at virgin earns less. Does a new employee in every company not earn less and build their salary up over years of service. I now have a family to support too!!

Yes we are not pilots! we don't have your training! But we do respect you and don't begrudge you your agreements, it would just be nice for once to have that returned. We are not all 'trolley dolleys' and some of us are highly trained with other skills, we choose to fly because we love the work and have something to offer our customers and our company.

Please stop the slagging the cabin crew off, if truth be known their are people lining up to take ALL of our jobs, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE - and they would do anything to get them and on cheaper, new contracts. There are pilots on dole queues too!!!!!!!!!!! :=

As mentioned earlier, the BA figures just don't add up, and if they succeed in crushing the cabin crew, How long do you think they won't add up for again before they look elsewhere for savings?

And where do you think they will look then? :sad:

And who will be standing alongside you to support you??????????? :(

I have my vote on the side in the kitchen, i am at a crossroads. Can i afford to trust Willy and his team (who will all still be paid bonuses this year and continue to latch up fines like collecting confetti at a wedding with no sackings for incompetence) Can i afford NOT to trust a union i despise (who still manage to pick and choose trips with BA managements knowledge).

Support is what we need, Unity is what we need, Negotiation is what we need. We do not need people sitting and judging from higher up with only one way to go!

[keel beam]

I hope any court would not take any external influences into account.


It will be about a point of law.

The court will deal with facts and facts only. No speculation, just pure facts.

TBH, do any of us know ALL the facts? I certainly do not and I suspect most, if not all, of the contributors on this thread do not know either!

[bealine]

Yesterday,may colleagues and I were treated in a very hostile manner by a certain Cabin Services Director (who shall remain nameless). My colleagues wanted to report him, but I talked them out of it because there are far too many "EG fizzers" going through the company at the moment and far too much tittle-tattle! I am not into getting someone into trouble - doesn't float my boat at all!

Since WW asked for "volunteer wannabe crew members", we have, all of us on the ground, noticed a distinct "attitude" among many crew when dealing with us or even just walking through the terminal! (Of course, some of what we think is "attitude" may just be because they feel a little apprehensive of talking to us and choose to stay aloof rather than provide an opportunity for confrontation. I added this bit later after I thought about the situation a bit more!)

Please, can I implore you, to continue to behave in a professional manner towards us and to remember:

1. Not all ground staff (in point of fact, very few) have joined WW's Volunteer Army.
2. Quite a few Ground Staff support you.
3. Many Ground Staff, like myself, don't support industrial action, but do understand the reasons behind it and will heed out unions' request and boycott WW's Volunteer Army.
4. Some of the guys who have joined the Volunteer Army are not doing it out of spite, but because they are (misguidedly in my opinion) youngsters who secretly "wannabe cabin crew!" We've tried telling them that this ain't no fastrack route to 36,000 feet, but you know what kids are!

So, please guys and gals, when you see Bealine, come back to being the chirpy, smiley people I know you are! Whatever happens, I love ya, and so do most of my colleagues!

[FlexSRS]

The court will deal with facts and facts only. No speculation, just pure facts.

I think this shows you don't really have a firm grasp of what happens in court.

The law is not black and white, no matter what Bassa might try and say to simplify it down for their members. "You can't get sacked"etc.

If it was just about black and white facts, they would be presented, the Judge would look up the answer in the big book of law, and the whole thing would take about 10mins.

How many times a week to you read about decisions in court that are not like this? Decisions that are made, unmade, overturned, revisited by higher courts etc. If the law was black and white, you or I would be up there earning £500,000 a year as a QC just looking up the answers. In truth the law is full of infinite shades of grey, open to all sorts of interpretations, and full of lovely woolly terms like 'reasonable' 'as far as practicable' 'to the best of their ability' and so on. Just look at the Iraq enquiry, half of it would be over in about 10mins! "Did res 1441 allow for legal military action against Iraq ... Hmm ... Its on page 1852 ... Ah, here it is. No it doesn't. Thanks for coming everyone"

So, no, the judge might not "speculate", but the QCs on each side sure as hell will, because this is going to come down to interpretation and intent and all sorts of lovely subjective areas. The real world is not as simple as Liz Malone, or her newsletters.

[m4rx]

Bea -

Please accept an apology from myself in regard to my colleagues treatment of you, it was unacceptable behavior by somebody that should know better.
Being ex ground staff myself i have nothing but admiration for what you and your teams do. Nobody should be treating anybody with anything other than respect.

This infighting has to stop, no matter who you are and where you work!!!!

[Flap62]

Bealine,

Can you please expand on

unions' request and boycott WW's Volunteer Army

[keel beam]

FlexSRS

I put my hands up, I am not fully conversant with court proceedings and judgements.

The point being though that facts are a factor. Interpretation also.

At the end of the day, a definitive answer is needed. In this case ASAP. The company cannot afford to wallow in this uncertainty.

KB

[Litebulbs]

Ok, win is not a word that should have been used, unless coupled with "- win".

With regard to the whole point of the court hearing, the end result is black and white, either contractual or not. If it is non contractual, then BA are already halfway to their end game. If it is, then they owe existing crew quite a substantial amount of money. That gives Unite stronger bargaining power to protect against any future changes.

[Snas]

Keel, off to HMV with you old bean, a box set of Rumpole has your name on it..:ok:

The fact is that the court case is the most important and unimportant next stage in this sorry affair perhaps.

Both sides seem dead keen on ignoring it to a degree.

If the court rules in favour of BA I believe BASSA intends to continue the strike action anyway. If the court rules in favour of BASSA then BA will change the terms of contract via 90 day notice.

No..?

[FlexSRS]

Ok, win is not a word that should have been used, unless coupled with "- win".

With regard to the whole point of the court hearing, the end result is black and white, either contractual or not. If it is non contractual, then BA are already halfway to their end game. If it is, then they owe existing crew quite a substantial amount of money. That gives Unite stronger bargaining power to protect against any future changes.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you again (although it is nice to be able to have a sensible debate about these things without descending in to the " you must hate all crew " or " you failed your CC selection")

Anyway, the way I see it, and it is only a considered opinion is as follows;

It may be a win-win, but it will be a win-win for BA only at this point.

a) If it is not contractual, BASSA look like idiots, BA are free to continue, and the strike looks more and more ridiculous. BA can pursue Unite/Bassa for costs, members loose faith, Malone & Co lose face, and BA have the upper hand in terms of PR etc, the momentum is on their side. You will be striking over something (although not the issue directly) that has been shown to be legal. Yes, it was still imposed, but it was legal. A tough call just got tougher, and the wavering crew will come down firmly on the 'turn up to work' side I reckon, especially those wanting their staff travel.

b) If it is contractual, BA are now in the position where they are required to recruit about 1000 people and pay tens of £millions in 1 down payments (I think last time someone calculated it it came to about £4 or 5k per LHR-WW crew member, don't know the answer, but it is a lot.) Now, BA have some options


Pay up and come back to the negotiating table with their tail between their legs - not going to happen. They can't afford to. Literally.
Pay up and recruit 1000 new people on to New Fleet; They will be swamped with applications from ex Virgin, BMI, Globespan crew. This will a) Send a very powerful message and b) Allow them to start recouping costs by flying the New Fleet exclusively on the highest paying routes. Meanwhile they will issue a 90 day change of contract to existing crew writing in the new crewing levels, or their ability to change them at will. All the 'protections' that were offered to existing crew are off the table. Prepare to have anything that isn't contractual decimated. Hotels etc will be just the tip of the iceberg.
The nuclear option. Delay paying up while they appeal and appeal and appeal (see the Holiday Pay case, still going on after years) On the same day, issue 90 days notice to all crew, and offer them a new contract which has the new crewing levels on it and probably a new disruption agreement, and some tinkering with EF productivity.
The thermonuclear option. Issue notice to all crew to re-apply for their old jobs on very similar terms, agree to not strike with the alternative being 90 days notice of New Fleet contracts. Seniority is re-started, with the person who re-applies first becoming no1 on the list, and so on. Stand back and watch the stampede.


What I really do not see happening is BASSA coming out any better off as a result of this court case. They are either going to lose and have to try and get some face saving measure, or win, and really force BAs hand, and that is not something that is going to be good for cabin crew.

However, I am standing by to have my opinion changed by some well reasoned argument (seriously - I am open minded and willing to be persuaded by some clear thinking and logic - I am in the fortunate position of not having to nail my colours to the mast and risk my career directly by having to have blind faith in one camp or the other)

[Litebulbs]

I imagine that there will be long conversations between Unite FTO's and BASSA reps, if the courts rule in their favour.

Normally, a business threatens job cut because of reduced work, unions don't agree etc etc etc and sometimes a strike happens.

In this case, the job reduction has happened and the headcount has already been reduced. However, the fear of New Fleet is still there and BA will be probably be liable for all that crew down money. You could use BA's words back at them to say no existing crew will be affected but ask for guarantees that existing levels of total pay will be maintained.

Hey, but that is negotiation. If Mr Walsh does not engage then, it is purely Union busting. If Unite pursue reinstatement of all pre imposition conditions, then it will be SOSR/90 day contract and recognition agreement notice at God knows what will be left in the end.