British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V [Archive] - Page 7

Desertia

11th Jan 2010, 04:41

Oooh look... an update:

10/01/10

WAKE UP!

'...What is the Union doing about all our agreements being broken?...'

A lot of people are demanding an answer to this question from us.

They obviously have not read our last newsletter, or just don’t get it. So to these people, we ask you to read it again and then again.

Let us be blunt - the answer to this question is nothing. There is nothing we can do; that was the point of our communication.

We have complained via the phone, in person and in writing that our agreements are being routinely broken at the highest levels, the answer is that our management don’t care, and that they are doing it anyway.

This is what we have been trying to get across to you for a year now; they just don’t care what your agreement says.

We do not have any other options; if BA chooses to deliberately ignore our agreements then there is nothing we can do, apart from take them to court for breech (sic) of agreement and/or go on strike - and as you should already be aware, we are currently already doing both of these things!

To repeat - there are no other options, apart from your reps physically lying under the wheels of the plane to stop it taking off (we wouldn't trust BA not to order the planes to run us over)!

This is why we are having a ballot – That’s is (sic) why we need your support ***, before its too late, because currently your agreements are simply no longer worth the paper they are written on.

They believe that imposition is the future.

We do not; that’s why we are balloting. If you want your agreements to mean something then vote YES to protect them, if you don’t care then vote No – it’s as simple as that.

*** because otherwise we have to do some real work.

OK BASSA members, let me reiterate what it says:

If you want THEIR cushy numbers to mean something then vote YES to protect them, if you don't care about THEM then vote NO. It's as simple as that.

:ok:

binsleepen

11th Jan 2010, 08:42

Morning all

The above sounds like unconditional surrender. Well, at least until late Feb. BA management sound as though they are finally managing their own business.

Regards

Human Factor

11th Jan 2010, 09:30

... apart from take them to court for breech (sic) of agreement and/or go on strike - and as you should already be aware, we are currently already doing both of these things!

Sorry, confused. :confused:

I thought BASSA were taking BA to court for breach of contract. A breach of an agreement is something entirely different.

Are BASSA now saying that the imposed changes are no longer contractual?

Desertia

11th Jan 2010, 09:35

I'm not sure they have a clue, to be honest. Note that it doesn't mention a word of what UNITE are talking to BA about.

:}

Nutjob

11th Jan 2010, 10:06

Human Factor

You are spot on. I thought the repeated use of the word "Agreement" and lack of word "contract" spoke volumes.

Funny how quickly it's changed from the resolute belief that they would win, whatever, to acceptance that BA can actually run their business as they like and there's nothing BASSA can do.

Damn right too. We all want roster stability and to finish work when and where we were planned to. HOWEVER, in an airline, we SHOULD be flexible when the proverbial hits the fan. BA do not control the weather and it should never be an issue that we might not help our passengers out to the best of our ability. I'm thoroughly ashamed of the "can't do, won't do" actions of my colleagues. :(

Would Wonker, Lurker or Miss M care to comment on BASSA's own goal in refusing to implement the Disruption Agreement in the first place? Please, please tell our customers (you know, the ones you care about SO much) why you and BASSA won't go the extra mile to get them from A to B. :=

It's all falling apart at the seams.

Nutjob

11th Jan 2010, 10:14

Albert Salmon

The whole world knows about the dispute between BA and its LHR-based cabin crew. On the other hand, very little is made of the fact that LGW crews appear to be working, reasonably happy with their labour contract and their terms and conditions.

From personal experience, LGW crew seem to be less convinced that the world (and BA) owe them a living. Many came from other airlines and almost all (I ask a lot when I'm there) say that the pay, roster stability and working conditions are far better at BA LGW. Hence, a good appreciation of what they have.

It's not necessarily the opposite at LHR, but I think Wonker et al have given you a good insight into the differing attitudes.

Ironically, our LGW colleagues are sneered at by some others as being inferior. Long before your time on this Forum, Glamgirl (LGW Crew) was the topic of conversation on Crew Forum. It was decided that she was too articulate to be LGW crew and was hence an imposter. :rolleyes:

Glamgirl

11th Jan 2010, 10:36

Mr Salmon and Nutjob,

Yes, I can confirm that I've been the topic of Crewforum and deemed far too eloquent to be LGW crew (!). I was also threatened with physical violence for my views.

In my opinion, there are few reasons why cc at LGW would want to transfer to LHR: more money, they live nearer LHR, and some would like to experience different routes. Last summer, we saw around 80 LGW crew seconded to WWLHR. Some enjoyed it, some didn't. Most are very happy to be "home" at LGW again (although they miss the money of course...).

We do get sneered at by others within the company. Some treat us like the equals we are. There are lots of myths and rumours going both ways.

The main thing is that at LGW we are well known for getting on with the task in hand. Yesterday, several flights went a crew member down. Any grumbles? Not really. The crew understood that there simply wasn't any other crew around to operate. They will get a payment, of course - although it's only a fraction of what their colleagues would get 40 miles away.

For the benefit of some posters here: No, I'm still not bitter. I don't necessarily think it's fair, but that doesn't make me bitter and twisted. I'm proud to work at LGW, and I'm proud of the way we get things done here. I'm very happy with my decision to stay, and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather earn less money and be happy.

Also, it seems only around half of the LGW crew are in a union, so that might have something to do with the work ethics, I suppose.

Gg

wobble2plank

11th Jan 2010, 11:00

Albert,

From a drivers point of view I have always, without fail, found the LGW based crews excellent, motivated and, above all, fun to fly with.

Perhaps we should swap the crews over for a few years and maybe, just maybe we could get a balanced result across the company!

Shame BASSA have consistently thrown LGW to the wolves to keep the cushy LHR agreements and then, when similar working practices are imposed on LHR that LGW have had no problem with over the past few years, the whole thing becomes a health and safety issue.

East Enders couldn't write a more crooked script! :}

617sqn

11th Jan 2010, 11:54

I don't want to comment on how LGW got its terms and conditions as I believe that has been discussed.
Was it right or wrong to allow it to happen?Another 80 pages could follow and that too has been done.

When all the changes were made the LGW crew were given various options.No one had to stay there if they didn't want to.
The ones that stayed made that informed decision themselves.New crew were recruited onto new terms etc. In short,the crew knew when they were offered the job what it would entail and what their pay structure would be.That could possibly be why they are "happy" with their lot.

A new pay scale was introduced at LHR and crew joined with a new contract and were happy to do so.I don't think people would leave one job to go to another if they were unhappy at the outset.

Don't want to upset any one as I realise that this is an emotive thread.

3Greens

11th Jan 2010, 14:17

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 15:59

Would Wonker, Lurker or Miss M care to comment on BASSA's own goal in refusing to implement the Disruption Agreement in the first place? Please, please tell our customers (you know, the ones you care about SO much) why you and BASSA won't go the extra mile to get them from A to B.

No need because BA seems to take matters into their own hands and not care about what agreements are and what they actually stand for. For you customers, don't worry because you will be getting to your destination at the expense of BA completely ignoring current agreements for their cabin crew!

Dawdler

11th Jan 2010, 16:00

Andy_S

11th Jan 2010, 16:04

For you customers, don't worry because you will be getting to your destination at the expense of BA completely ignoring current agreements for their cabin crew!

That encapsulates your attitude perfectly. No need for me to add anything.

wiggy

11th Jan 2010, 16:06

MissM

No need because BA seems to take matters into their own hands and not care about what agreements are and what they actually stand for

BASSA and BA had a negotiated disruption agreement for use in the event of significant disruption...
The worse winter weather to hit Britain in decades causes significant disruption.
BA asks for BASSA's agreement to trigger disruption agreement.
BASSA says "No"...

It would seem in this case it's BASSA who don't care about what agreements are and what they actually stand for.

Juan Tugoh

11th Jan 2010, 16:22

It is worth noting that UNITE are the main contributor to the Labour party so with a general election likely to happen within 4 months or so; there is NO WAY they will want a public reation like the 12 day Xmas strike caused. They simply cannot risk the public turning their backs on what is already a wounded Labour party.
My own opinion is that this will be decided over and above BASSA's head and settled out of court at sometime before or during the imminent case.

I raised this issue in post 1566, but it seems that for the BASSA faithful it has been assigned to the Too Difficult pile. The "let's ignore it and perhaps it will go away" school of problem solving.

Sadly for the BASSA their petty squabble with their employer will not be allowed to disrupt the plans of UNITE to have the Labour Party re-elected.

TheTiresome1

11th Jan 2010, 16:23

MissM
For you customers, don't worry because you will be getting to your destination at the expense of BA completely ignoring current agreements for their cabin crew!

Surely one factor is that customers won't be getting to their destinations if there is a strike? How can that be of any benefit of customers (who presumably lose their money) or the airline (which is apparently losing £1m a day)?
The only beneficiaries would seem to be the cabin crews at Heathrow, who are virtually unaffected by the changes anyway, who will be able to flex their muscles and damage both the airline and the passengers - where is the real benefit in that?

the heavy heavy

11th Jan 2010, 16:26

No need because BA seems to take matters into their own hands and not care about what agreements are and what they actually stand for. For you customers, don't worry because you will be getting to your destination at the expense of BA completely ignoring current agreements for their cabin crew!

superb, the irony of this half-witted rambling is wondrful. This is why you have lost already.

I suggest you read your jpm's and get aquainted with scheme. Quickly. :O

TheTiresome1

11th Jan 2010, 16:30

Agreements? Such as the disruption agreement? Or this from another thread by someone claiming to be BA cabin crew?
I personally (although we are told not to do it) when taking the meal order usually take the orders based on FFP rank starting with gold cards, then silver and so on ending with Upgrades and then staff! That way the most important passengers in the cabin are least likely to be put out!

La Pouquelaye

11th Jan 2010, 16:48

Surely one factor is that customers won't be getting to their destinations if there is a strike? How can that be of any benefit of customers (who presumably lose their money) or the airline (which is apparently losing £1m a day)?
The only beneficiaries would seem to be the cabin crews at Heathrow, who are virtually unaffected by the changes anyway, who will be able to flex their muscles and damage both the airline and the passengers - where is the real benefit in that?

As far as I can see, no one benefits from a strike - apart from the union functionaries and their spokespersons on this site.

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 17:07

wiggy

Maybe BASSA and its Chairman said no to make a stand after what has been happening lately. Facts remain that BA completely ignored our agreements and decided to take matters into their own hands. Maybe they could have approached BASSA again and tried to find a solution!

But, it's obvious now and even confirmed by BASSA that our are agreements are Gentlemen's Agreements and not even worth the paper they are written on.

TheTiresome1

11th Jan 2010, 17:12

MissM

Where does BASSA stand in respect of its compliance with agreements?

cessnapete

11th Jan 2010, 17:18

During massive disruption, ie. now, your duty is to your customers (in my time called passengers!) not adherance to your roster.
Safety permitting you should be flying to the CAA limit to get your pax to their destination. As F/C we had/have no need for a Disruption
Agreement, we just got on with the job unless BASSA tried to interfere with the operation. 2 local nights, industrial limits etc. etc.
You should not mind getting inconvenienced now and again on your generous pay and allowances. ( ie WW Purser Lhr £40,000+ p.a.)

wobble2plank

11th Jan 2010, 17:19

But, it's obvious now and even confirmed by BASSA that our are agreements are Gentlemen's Agreements and not even worth the paper they are written on.

Miss M, with that singualr comment I think you have saved the Judiciary an awful lot of work come the February Court case.

Agreements are not contractual and therefore, if one side is being obstinate, and let's face it BA asked an awful lot of times for the disruption agreement, the other side can, indeed, side step them to keep the company and the customers on track.

BA is NOT THERE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CABIN CREW. BA exists to provide a service for the paying customer and, as in this case, the management have a remit to ensure that the service is provided.

Well done BA, a sensible decision timely taken.

TopBunk

11th Jan 2010, 17:21

MissM
But, it's obvious now and even confirmed by BASSA that our are agreements are Gentlemen's Agreements and not even worth the paper they are written on.

Maybe the relevant word in that is Gentleman. When you have Ms Malone calling the appointed CEO of a FTSE 100 company a c*** to his face (and reputedly recounting the story with pride), she is certainly no Lady.

It's good to see the CEO and Board taking back control of our company from the lunatic leaders of one part of the workforce for the benefit of the majority of employees, share holders and first and foremost, our passengers. Well done, Willie:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Snas

11th Jan 2010, 17:22

BA is NOT THERE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CABIN CREW. BA exists to provide a service for the paying customer and, as in this case, the management have a remit to ensure that the service is provided.

Bingo.... and there it is in a single statement.

Meal Chucker

11th Jan 2010, 17:22

Maybe BASSA and its Chairman said no to make a stand after what has been happening lately. Facts remain that BA completely ignored our agreements and decided to take matters into their own hands.

Sorry MissM please make your statement factually correct,

BA decided to take matters into their own hands AFTER BASSA and its Chairman completely ignored the agreements by saying said no to invoking the negotiated disruption agreement.

Pathetic and childish behaviour at best.

wobble2plank

11th Jan 2010, 17:24

Please can someone from the BASSA brigade explain, rationally, why Cabin Crew require 2 local nights rest on disruption when the flight crew can, legally, have minimum rest and then operate home?

Just curious as it would appear to be the tail wagging the dog?

LD12986

11th Jan 2010, 17:33

But, it's obvious now and even confirmed by BASSA that our are agreements are Gentlemen's Agreements and not even worth the paper they are written on.

Well if BASSA have, they have well and truly shot themselves in the foot for the February court case!

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 17:52

During massive disruption, ie. now, your duty is to your customers (in my time called passengers!) not adherance to your roster.

Which is what we are doing!

Maybe if you have been at work lately you probably would have notice that crew are more or less working as much as allowed. I did a trip the other day and duty turned out to be around 16 hours (non long-range btw!).

BA should be very glad time was on their side.

Safety permitting you should be flying to the CAA limit to get your pax to their destination. As F/C we had/have no need for a Disruption
Agreement, we just got on with the job unless BASSA tried to interfere with the operation. 2 local nights, industrial limits etc. etc.

You do have a nice sense of duty.

You should not mind getting inconvenienced now and again on your generous pay and allowances. ( ie WW Purser Lhr £40,000+ p.a.)

As money is being repeated all the time it seems more of a case of jealous than anything else.

Nutjob

11th Jan 2010, 17:59

Miss M

Maybe BASSA and its Chairman said no to make a stand after what has been happening lately.

If BASSA really wanted to take a stand, then they'd put aside their differences with BA and activate the DA for the sake of the customers. However, they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by refusing to activate it. The kind of behaviour that is barely fit for the school playground.

So glad I asked the question and thanks so much for the reply. True colours and all that.

Why the hell WOULDN'T you want to just get the job done under the current circumstances??? Other staff groups do. It pains me to think that us moderates will be tarred with the same brush as you militants.

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 18:02

Please can someone from the BASSA brigade explain, rationally, why Cabin Crew require 2 local nights rest on disruption when the flight crew can, legally, have minimum rest and then operate home?

wobble2plank

Maybe you could email BASSA instead and ask!

Jpax

11th Jan 2010, 18:04

Miss M,

I do not think people are particularly jealous of your earnings, surprised perhaps.

Nutjob

11th Jan 2010, 18:06

Miss M

Maybe if you have been at work lately you probably would have notice that crew are more or less working as much as allowed. I did a trip the other day and duty turned out to be around 16 hours (non long-range btw!).

True, but only because BA have enforced the DA and MADE us work to legal limits. If not for this, some of us would be going home the second we reached our industrial (not legal) limits wouldn't we?

(Not me, I might add ;) )

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 18:16

Glamgirl wrote:

Yes, I can confirm that I've been the topic of Crewforum and deemed far too eloquent to be LGW crew (!). I was also threatened with physical violence for my views.

Isn't that something? Wonker, lurker, MissM , care to comment?

Care to comment about what? About that she was threatened with physical violence?

If Glamgirl was that bothered with it maybe she should have contacted the moderator of CrewForum and asked for it to be dealt with. Nobody should put up with that nonsense. But, maybe it would have resulted in her being banned from CrewForum for reporting on here what was being said over there. Just a thought.

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 18:23

TheTiresome1

This agreement has nothing to do with a possible strike.

A strike would not be of benefit to anyone. Very few want to strike and I think most of us actually want this dispute to come to an end and have an agreement reached.

Some seem to think that we are doing this because it's fun. It's not!

Is this from another thread claiminig to be BA cabin crew? Not sure I follow you! Some crew do take order beginning with Gold and Silver Card holders and working down the list.

wobble2plank

11th Jan 2010, 18:41

Maybe you could email BASSA instead and ask!

Ha ha, nice reply, very funny.

Maybe I will but I will ensure that the swearing filter is on for the reply and I don't use words in excess of one syllable.

As BASSA members are so concerned at the safety aspects of breaking their agreements I just thought, maybe, that one of you could explain the rational behind it.

Obviously that too fits into the 'too difficult' draw.

TheTiresome1

11th Jan 2010, 18:44

MissM, I'm getting really confused now.

A strike would not be of benefit to anyone. Very few want to strike and I think most of us actually want this dispute to come to an end and have an agreement reached.

My bold - I thought some 12,000 BASSA members voted for a strike? I won't go into whether they actually knew they were voting for 12 days of Christmas, or the exact numbers involved, but the evidence suggests a VERY large number wanted to strike. What have I missed?

wobble2plank

11th Jan 2010, 18:52

My bold - I thought some 12,000 BASSA members voted for a strike? I won't go into whether they actually knew they were voting for 12 days of Christmas, or the exact numbers involved, but the evidence suggests a VERY large number wanted to strike. What have I missed?

You missed the simple fact that BASSA has 'won' every one of its former disputes before a certain CEO took office by throwing toys out of the cot and blustering IA before weak and ineffective managers who wouldn't grasp the bull by the horns.

Now that BASSA realise, after 9 months of pointless hissy fit throwing, that BA won't back down in the face of their tantrums they want to 're negotiate' but only if BA return the company to the original status quo before the initial round of talks took place back at the start of 2009.

Oddly enough, as all the other departments within BA seem to have managed to reach an adult agreement, BA won't allow it.

BASSA are now trying to back down by saying that the 'mandate' was just to show the 'depth of feeling'.

Perhaps BASSA could give the politicians lessons in spin.

TheTiresome1

11th Jan 2010, 19:07

MissM - your 1646, last paragraph.

This thread Meal choice not available (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/401670-havent-got-your-choice-meal-available-why-does-happen.html), post number 2.

Apparently BA says you shouldn't do it, but some crew (including "apaddyinuk") press on and do it regardless? It's been said before, who runs BA? :=

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 21:42

wobble2plank

I'm sure she will appreciate your email!

Getting 2 local nights after a long-range diversion is not that "easy" as you would need to meet a certain number of requirements and I would think most crew do want to get to their destination or LHR. In case you remember BASSA also had in their proposal that long-range diversions should go down to 1 local night so they are not being completely perverse.

MissM

11th Jan 2010, 21:51

TheTiresome1

BA is putting on less and less catering and it can be difficult to make it work and give everyone their preferred meal. So, to ask those Guld card holders first what they would want to eat and leave staff members last is fair, don't you agree?

Rover90

11th Jan 2010, 22:26

MissM, you wrote

So, to ask those Guld (sic) card holders first what they would want to eat and leave staff members last is fair, don't you agree?I do agree MissM, especially as usually a few of those staff passengers in the premium cabins got there by virtue of the CSD mail drop in T5.

You know the type of letter, my parents/family/friend's are travelling on your flight today, anything you could do to make their flight more comfortable..........

Remember the BASSA outburst when BA alluded to the fact that it was contrary to company regulations to upgrade without good reason. Shock horror...we are not even allowed to look after our family now!

Don't think you want to go there MissM!

Perhaps we should get back on track to CC Industrial Relations before the Moderator rightly comes bearing down.

Desertia

12th Jan 2010, 05:12

If you wondered just how juvenile they can get, perhaps this will answer the question (from the Telegraph):

Disaffected British Airways cabin crew have resorted to pouring vintage wine down the sink on the plane and throwing away unused washbags in protest at what they claim is the airline's "disregard" for their working agreements.

Members of the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), a branch of the Unite union respresenting BA's 13,000 cabin crew, said they were opting for "passive resistance".

One crew member said it was the only way they could register their anger with a BA management, led by chief executive Willie Walsh, that won a court injunction to block a proposed 12-day walk-out over Christmas. The two sides have been at loggerheads since BA introduced new working practices to save £140m a year.

Unite is planning a new strike ballot on January 22 following a mass meeting of cabin crew at Kempton Park racecourse on January 18 – unless talks between the two sides resolve the deadlock.

While Unite's joint general secretaries Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley appeared to adopt a more conciliatory tone last week, some Bassa members are furious.

One said: "No-one is doing anything to help save costs any more. Whereas we used to keep unfinished bottles of wine in first-class to save money, now they're routinely poured down the sink. The washbags that could have been recycled, we're just throwing them away."

BA's demands for more flexibility in the cold weather have also irked crew. In an email to members, Bassa said: "Since the arrival of the snow your cabin crew agreements have, in effect, been ripped up."

Bassa said that after warning members to be "aware of what could and could not be asked of them", BA sent "within hours" a "threat of legal action" to Unite's offices, "claiming that if your union encouraged our members to be aware of their own agreement rules, BA would seek action against us for "unofficial industrial action" and seek to declare our impending ballot illegal, alongside seeking massive financial damages".

A BA spokesman said: "We were in contact with the union to ensure that as many of our flights could operate as possible, despite the extremely difficult conditions. We remain focused on the continuing talks with Unite."

I'm not sure where cheapflights.co.uk get their news, but here's their take on things:

After a judge squashed the planned British Airways union strike scheduled for the week of Christmas, BA union and crew members vowed to reclaim their place on the picket line following the holidays. News from the Unite union – the union representing the BA cabin crew – is that the new strike will take place in the next few weeks.

Under law the unions must give the airline at least a week’s notice, so the planned date of Jan. 22, 2010, has been penciled in for a reballot. The strike centers around frozen wages, the request for better health care and the airline’s request for longer working hours.

And while I'm at it, news on the premium cabins:

LONDON (Dow Jones)--U.K. carrier British Airways PLC (BAY.LN) Monday started work on a GBP100 million revamp of its first-class cabin, ending speculation the airline was planning to rid itself of the premium service.

Engineers at British Airways Maintenance Cardiff, or BAMC, began work on the first aircraft, a Boeing Co. (BA) 777 delivered recently, and the fitting will take about three weeks, according to an in-house newsletter.

"It's an exciting project, one in which we have invested around GBP100 million in enhancing levels of comfort and service," said BA Chairman Martin Broughton.

BA will upgrade and modernize all its aircraft that offer first-class services. The revamp came in response to customer feedback, a spokesman for BA told Dow Jones Newswires. The amount of space allocated to first-class accommodation will not change.

The airline has taken pride in its premium offering, but is facing stiff competition from rivals that are launching more luxurious products in an attempt to win passengers.

First- and business-class seats are lucrative to airlines as they command greater fares. BA has been particularly hard hit during the economic downturn due to its reliance on premium traffic, which fell sharply in the wake of the financial crisis.

However, Broughton said BA has always been innovative and "certainly not lacking in foresight."

At the end of September, BA pushed ahead with the launch of its all-business service between London City Airport and New York.

"Despite what some said, we knew it was the right thing to do and we are being proved right. It's a great success and will continue to be an asset to us," Broughton said.

Matt101

12th Jan 2010, 07:19

Disertia - I'm not entirely sure how accurate the wine thing is - I was not long ago at BA and disposing of the wine in open Bottles was a mandatory customs requirement then. I know some crew used to try and store it on the down route turn around but strictly speaking we weren't supposed to. Perhaps what it infers is that more is being binned than usual - for example rather than opening one bottle at a time open 2 causing waste - I have seen and heard of this happening before as a form of protest.

Used to brake my heart though - that jumbo used to drink better than I did!

Wash Bag wise - that is, as you say, somewhat Juvenile and rather cutting off your nose to spite your face given the financial circumstances.

Rover90
Remember the BASSA outburst when BA alluded to the fact that it was contrary to company regulations to upgrade without good reason. Shock horror...we are not even allowed to look after our family now!

Nice as the practice was for us all I was actually always under the impression that there were strict IATA regs regarding upgrades anyway?

Human Factor

12th Jan 2010, 07:25

Nice as the practice was for us all I was actually always under the impression that there were strict IATA regs regarding upgrades anyway?

There are. BA send out a reminder every few years, one of which was delivered a few weeks ago.

Desertia

12th Jan 2010, 08:30

Just listening to BBCWS who report that JAL will be allowed to slip into bankruptcy by the government, despite offers of around $2 billion from Oneworld and Delta.

Shares have dropped 45% today, before being suspended under technical regulations, as investors clamour to get out. There are lots more sell orders in the queue.

Like the US, whilst in bankruptcy protection they can restructure. In their case, it is anticipated that 13,000 people will lose their jobs.

Keep going BASSA, don't you worry about it.

IYCSWICSWICW

12th Jan 2010, 08:39

..united they stand, still planting the 'Iwo Jima' flag.

GF

HiFlyer14

12th Jan 2010, 08:56

Maybe BASSA and its Chairman said no to make a stand after what has been happening lately. Facts remain that BA completely ignored our agreements and decided to take matters into their own hands. Maybe they could have approached BASSA again and tried to find a solution!

But, it's obvious now and even confirmed by BASSA that our are agreements are Gentlemen's Agreements and not even worth the paper they are written on.

This is pure and simple :mad: stirring by BASSA.

If you are BA cabin crew, go to the ESS forum and read the thread on there about disruption. I don't wish to wash our dirty laundry in public, but a WW CSD has confirmed that after speaking to ops, there are no flights leaving with crew members down and, as a CSD, was particularly advised not to leave with less than the required complement. So it appears, contrary to the BASSA spin machine, that BA are doing their utmost to keep the operation going while complying to the usual agreements.

This bad weather is just another attempt by BASSA to stir up the masses into voting for a strike, by trying to claim that BA are again in breach of the agreements.

If as quoted on here "most don't want to strike" then they need to vote accordingly. BASSA clearly has no facts, or detailed evidence to convince people to vote for a strike, so they have now resorted to making them up - as in this bad weather instance.

Very poor taste BASSA - this is unadulterated rabble-rousing and proves you have stooped to new lows. BASSA have now proved themselves capable of being underhand, unprofessional, lying and even acting illegally (asking non members to vote).

How anyone can fail to see that and still think they are safe voting for a strike, is beyond me.

I am BA cabin crew and the above is my own view and not that of BA.

keel beam

12th Jan 2010, 09:53

You do have a nice sense of duty.

MissM

You and your colleagues are employed in the Customer Service role. The company is in the service industry.

Customers are fickle, when there is a large choice of whatever product to choose from, when not happy with that product, they will pick another. You will have read many examples on this thread.

I am sure, when you were employed, your job description wasn't "You will do your best to look after yourself before the customer"

The customer comes first!

If you and your colleagues find putting the customer first so repulsive, then you are all in the wrong job!

wobble2plank

12th Jan 2010, 11:45

In case you remember BASSA also had in their proposal that long-range diversions should go down to 1 local night so they are not being completely perverse.

I would be a little careful quoting any reference to the BASSA proposals! As we all know they were the biggest work of fiction this side of Gordon Browns 'End to boom and bust' speech!

Couple that with the small fact that the BASSA proposals were only for 2 years (then BASSA wanted the money back), the cost savings took into account, for BASSA, the entire cost of diversion/disruption from all departments and that no action could be taken without BA management going 'cap in hand' to the local BASSA rep.

Still don't think this is about a power struggle? BASSA don't give a stuff about the CC as a whole they will only whip up the masses into a frenzy with select tidbits and half truths in an attemp to cling onto their power base.

We work in a service industry where our role is the safe, comfortable and timely transportation of paying customers from A to B. As such, in order to retain customers and keep loyalty in a cut throat industry, we MUST ensure that the needs and requirements of the customer come first.

Cabin crew have not changed, fundamentally, their Terms and Conditions since privatisation. Thus, as the rest of BA has acclimatised over the intervening period, the fall and change will feel all the more severe. Some may say that the CC feel 'victimised' as 20 years of change happens at once. Simply not true, what other departments have achieved slowly BASSA have delayed until the very end. BASSA have cocooned the CC in a false sense of importance in the big scheme of things and this cocoon is rapidly unraveling. The resulting landing will be a hard one.

101917

12th Jan 2010, 11:52

28L

12th Jan 2010, 12:17

101917,

As I'm sure you are aware, the BA staff posting on this forum are only a fraction of the number employed by BA.

FWIW my impression (as a BA jumbo Captain) is that the majority of BA Cabin Crew are very angry with BA and intend to vote in favour of a strike. However whilst onboard they continue to provide service as normal.

Maybe see how your next two flights go before dumping us?

overstress

12th Jan 2010, 12:25

I have flown BA longhaul as a passenger within the past week and the service was very pleasant and friendly. There was no hint of any 'attitude'.

At T5 in the midst of the disruption, the ground staff were pulling out all the stops to ensure that passengers were re-booked, on BA and other carriers.

There are plenty of people who like to rubbish BA at the first opportunity.

As 28L says, give us a chance, we have an excellent product - T5 is great as well!

Desertia

12th Jan 2010, 14:00

A friend of mine flew in on BA last night and was full of nothing but praise for the CC. His only complaint was the general nature of the movies on the IFE, but I suspect that's because he's seen most of them on the cheapy chinese DVDs available in the local market :}

So fair's fair, well done to those that flew LHR-BAH yesterday.

Papillon

12th Jan 2010, 14:09

Well, just for what it's worth, BA remain my favourite carrier to fly on, bar none. It doesn't mean much, except to say that there are some of us who do still think this way.

And flying from Delhi, I still wanted to kiss and hug the CSD at the door when I finally made it through the hell of the airport! :)

TheTiresome1

12th Jan 2010, 15:59

I'm delighted to hear that BA CC, and indeed ground staff, are not letting the "issues" affect their relationship with the paying public. You would hope for nothing less, but given the vitriol that has been seen here, that reassurance is a comfort. Emotions have clearly been running high behind the scenes, but at least those who pay the wages haven't been penalised yet.

However, 28L notes: Maybe see how your next two flights go before dumping us? I would guess that depends on whether the flights people have planned and booked actually take place. It would be interesting to see how forward bookings have been affected since this sad story reached the ears of the travelling public. The issue is not standards of service, but whether there is any service at all.

Good luck to those involved, and even more to the uninvolved who will be the inevitable victims if BA/Unite cannot sort something out soon..

fincastle84

12th Jan 2010, 16:06

I'm delighted to report that both flights were absolutely perfect. Despite the fact that J was full both ways there was the usual high standard of service delivered with a smile by all the CC with whom we came into contact. There certainly seemed to be a degree of bewilderment at the union's tactics.
It is worth noting that the CSDs on both flights seemd very young to be filling such an important role. Maybe that's why they had such a positive attitude.
Anyway, thanks to all concerned for making our special trip such a great experience. I have already contacted BA directly with my individual congratulatory reports.

SweetChariotXV

12th Jan 2010, 16:13

I think the problem with BA's cabin crew IS and HAS been consistancy.

In the last 10 years that I have been within the industry, the airlines I have primarily flown have been Emirates and BA (with a little bit of Etihad and BMI on occasion).

What I have found with EK is that they are far more consistantly good. The crew generally seem fresh, enthusiastic, and eager. On the other hand with BA, I find it quite frustrating, in terms of consistancy; when I fly, to quote Forrest Gump "...is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you gonna get". I have had flights where the service has been outstanding, and I really wish that will be the case the next time I travel. But then I unfortunately find I'm on more flights where I have been less than impressed.

But this is the problem for BA that they urgently need to rectify; firstly distnguishing the deadwood from the good crew. And secondly, getting rid of this deadwood!

HiFlyer14

12th Jan 2010, 16:55

Fincastle - Happy New Year and Welcome Back - we missed you! Glad it all went well, after all the stress you were put through.

I would concur with what others have said - some of the rather unpleasant and unfortunate attitudes shown here by some of my colleagues would most certainly never be found on board a BA plane (certainly not one I was on anyway!!). There is a lot of huffing and puffing on here, but I hope that 101917 and others will judge us, like Fincastle did, on the standards onboard, and not upon regrettable and ill-judged comments made on a public forum. :uhoh:

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

MissM

12th Jan 2010, 17:10

If you are BA cabin crew, go to the ESS forum and read the thread on there about disruption. I don't wish to wash our dirty laundry in public, but a WW CSD has confirmed that after speaking to ops, there are no flights leaving with crew members down and, as a CSD, was particularly advised not to leave with less than the required complement. So it appears, contrary to the BASSA spin machine, that BA are doing their utmost to keep the operation going while complying to the usual agreements.

If that's the case I can't actually understand why BA asked for the disruption agreement in the first place. To be honest I can't even understand why they would ask for it because they seem to impose things as they go along. Second thought. Maybe they wanted to be a gentleman and honour our agreements.

It makes a bit sense now why they served free tea and coffee the other day at CRC!

Very poor taste BASSA - this is unadulterated rabble-rousing and proves you have stooped to new lows. BASSA have now proved themselves capable of being underhand, unprofessional, lying and even acting illegally (asking non members to vote).

Better luck with your council then!

fincastle84

12th Jan 2010, 17:20

Whilst on our celebratory trip we were staying in a great B&B in Camps Bay. We became friends with another Brit family who were over for the Newlands Test (well played England!)

Mrs ? was ex BA CC who retired nearly 30 years ago but is a BA pensioner. Without prompting she informed us that she had received a letter from Bassa inviting her to vote for a strike. She assured me that she was never a member of ANY union!

Da Dog

12th Jan 2010, 17:59

If you are BA cabin crew, go to the ESS forum and read the thread on there about disruption. I don't wish to wash our dirty laundry in public, but a WW CSD has confirmed that after speaking to ops, there are no flights leaving with crew members down and, as a CSD, was particularly advised not to leave with less than the required complement. So it appears, contrary to the BASSA spin machine, that BA are doing their utmost to keep the operation going while complying to the usual agreements.
If that's the case I can't actually understand why BA asked for the disruption agreement in the first place

Perhaps services left with the correct numbers of crew because displaced crew were shipped to the Park Inn and used to back fill operating services where crew failed to report, good for BA, at least they have now shown they have the balls to run the operation without any meddling from BASSA.

No need because BA seems to take matters into their own hands and not care about what agreements are and what they actually stand for. For you customers, don't worry because you will be getting to your destination at the expense of BA completely ignoring current agreements for their cabin crew!

Despite what you may think or be told by BASSA, the traveling public (you customers as you put it) simply don't care about your cushy, gravy train agreements, they just want to get from A to B.

TheTiresome1

12th Jan 2010, 18:03

MissM, it seems nobody can win an intellectual argument with you.
If that's the case I can't actually understand why BA asked for the disruption agreement in the first place. To be honest I can't even understand why they would ask for it because they seem to impose things as they go along. Second thought. Maybe they wanted to be a gentleman and honour our agreements.
Perhaps you could consider that BA were sticking to THEIR side of the agreement regarding disruption, whereas BASSA refused to implement it. It must be most uncomfortable trying to sit on both sides of the fence whilst being so adamantly pro-BASSA.

Desertia

12th Jan 2010, 18:05

To be honest I can't even understand why they would ask for it because they seem to impose things as they go along

I don't think trying to negotiate with a bunch of pig-headed union rabble for ten months and then being forced into making the changes they were trying to negotiate from day one can possibly be described as doing things "as they go along" MissM.

I think when you've lost hundreds of millions of pounds and see no sign of any willingness to face reality from the other side, the imposition was nothing more than the only way out.

And having spent so long trying to get something fruitful out of the BASSA amateurs, why waste another ten months negotiating over disruption when action is needed NOW. I expect asking was probably common courtesy, but of course we all know BASSA were going to be a bunch of awkward numpties so I applaud BA for taking decisive action to help their customers.

And BAW175 all of the information you need is available on the back posts of this and its mother thread. 'Nuff said :E

romans44

12th Jan 2010, 23:42

As I'm sure you are aware, the BA staff posting on this forum are only a fraction of the number employed by BA.

FWIW my impression (as a BA jumbo Captain) is that the majority of BA Cabin Crew are very angry with BA and intend to vote in favour of a strike. However whilst onboard they continue to provide service as normal.

Thanks 28L.
Yes, you are absolutelly right the majority of us are angry at the way we are being treated. We are a group of professional people and will always be professional while on board an aircraft.
We will show our anger again in the new ballot.

romans44

12th Jan 2010, 23:54

And having spent so long trying to get something fruitful out of the BASSA amateurs, why waste another ten months negotiating over disruption when action is needed NOW. I expect asking was probably common courtesy, but of course we all know BASSA were going to be a bunch of awkward numpties so I applaud BA for taking decisive action to help their customers.

Desertia, that is your assumption that BASSA would have been a bunch of awkward numpties.
The fact remains that our agreement was broken again. The whole Country knew it was going to snow, it would have cost the company nothing to simply inform BASSA of their intetion of implement the disruption agreement.
What is the point in agreeing to an agreement when you have no intention of respecting it?
Sadly this will only work against the company, as people are now begining to see the true colours of the future.

Tiramisu

13th Jan 2010, 00:29

I began taking an interest in this and the previous thread, along with many other sources on the dispute sometime ago. I approached from a position of neutrality on the basis that there were two sides to the argument.

Over the last few years I have used every class that BA had to offer, including Concorde. However, after my next two flights, which were booked well before the dispute became public, I will not be using the airline for a considerable period.

I began loosing my neutrality a couple of weeks ago and, leaving aside the extremely vitriolic submissions by both sides and concentrating on the core arguments, it is my view that the pro Bassa supporters have not even come close to winning the debate.

In fact post number 1622 has finally convinced me there is really only one side to the squabble.

It is to be hoped, for all employees of BA, that Unite (not Bassa) have seen the light and that is why they have returned to the table, with the threat of imposition still in place
.

Hi 101917,
Just like my Cabin Crew and Flight Crew colleagues, I hope you do give us a chance. It's sad that you've made your mind up just by reading some very unfortunate posts by a minority of crew who do our airline and themselves no favours at all.
During your travels with BA having experienced every class of travel including Concorde, I'm sure you'll agree we have brilliant people all across the airline and some of your experiences must have been memorable. I hope you remember those rather than some of the provocative and unfortunate posts here.
I'm confident that an industrial dispute will not take place, BA and Unite are talking and I'm optimistic that a workable solution will be reached soon.
In the meantime, watch the space and here's hoping you stay with us.

I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of BA.

Tiramisu

13th Jan 2010, 00:34

Fincastle,
Welcome back and so glad you and Mrs Fin had a wonderful experience with us on both your flights!
Happy New Year to both of you.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 03:53

Romans,

Sadly this will only work against the company, as people are now begining to see the true colours of the future.

I'm sorry Romans, this makes no sense whatsoever. Everything BA has done so far has done nothing but gain the sympathy of the business community and the general public.

Telling its staff what to do to minimise the impact on its' customers is the very least they would expect.

Who are the "people" to whom you refer in the above statement?

Because if it's CC, then I think you'll find we've already established in this thread that BASSA are like the Iranian Guardian Council and BA are their "Great Satan", so I doubt BA really give a monkeys what BASSA think of them after they way they have behaved in the last 12 months.

You may be right, in a way, that 'people' are beginning to see BA's true colours. They are not going to be BASSA's biatch any more, and they have the support of most outside BASSA. :ok:

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 06:08

it would have cost the company nothing to simply inform BASSA of their intetion of implement the disruption agreement.

They did. No less than 6 times. They 'requested', in accordance with the agreements, from BASSA that the disruption agreement be implemented.

BASSA refused every single time so the company has to take measures to protect its customers from a single department of its own workforce due to an idiotic thick skinned Union official.

Quite amazing really.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 06:59

Romans said:
it would have cost the company nothing to simply inform BASSA of their intetion of implement the disruption agreement.

Wobble2Plank replied:
They did. No less than 6 times. They 'requested', in accordance with the agreements, from BASSA that the disruption agreement be implemented.

Hmmmm. So Romans44, were you under the impression that BA had not requested this? If so, BASSA have obviously kept this vital information from you. This of course would mean they are misleading their members again, falsely implying that BA callously ignored protocol before being forced to act.

Or were you aware of it and trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

Or is Wobble making it up?

I think we should know the truth. What say you Romans44? Wobble, do you have a source please?

Nutjob

13th Jan 2010, 07:48

Miss M

If that's the case I can't actually understand why BA asked for the disruption agreement in the first place. To be honest I can't even understand why they would ask for it because they seem to impose things as they go along

Ah, but BASSA were asked so they had every chance to act like responsible adults and give BA no reason whatsoever to impose. Guess what, they passed up that opportunity.

Romans
The fact remains that our agreement was broken again. The whole Country knew it was going to snow, it would have cost the company nothing to simply inform BASSA of their intetion of implement the disruption agreement.

BASSA were asked to help out by activating the DA. They refused. BASSA broke the intentions of the "agreement" first, by refusing to implement it in precisely the circumstances for which it was intended. BA then had no choice but to impose the DA to help out our business and our customers.

I think it's shameful that BASSA wouldn't activate the DA. Shows exactly how much they really care about their passengers. Indefensible.

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 09:37

Desertia,

The source comes from flight operations management from Waterside. BA asked BASSA for activation of the DA during the snow prior to Christmas as the lack of parking stands at LHR led to multiple diversions.

Then again during the initial post Christmas snow and the Snow of January 2010 (ongoing!) as the difficulties of de-icing and hold over times causes massive traffic jams at LHR with no stands thus leading to cancellations and diversions. Generally, over the past couple of weeks, personnel levels have not been the issue departing LHR it has been the delays incurred after diversion getting the aircraft in the right place.

The main reason for canceling the SH services is to provide some working space for the de-icing services (which, incidentally use the same personnel as the push back tugs leading to a shortage of both!) and parking stands for the LH aircraft thus reducing the risk/expense of diversion.

As we are experiencing the worst winter snows for 30 years one might have expected BASSA to put their petty differences aside for the protection of the customer. Guess that would be asking too much though.

The sooner we are rid of this obstinate 1970's style Union and get correct, responsible representation for the majority of our hard working Cabin Crew the better.

Perhaps Unites requirement to prop up an ailing Labour government on their run up to the election will focus Unites attention into slapping its errant child Union BASSA into touch.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 09:45

Watersidewonker

13th Jan 2010, 09:48

JazzyKex

13th Jan 2010, 10:04

[QUOTE]Why should BASSA let this regime give away the DA agreement as this forms part of our terms and conditions after all the imposition that came into force back in november. We are not playing ball as the other team are not playing fair with dirty tricks coming back again and again wake up and smell the sewage coming from Waterworld./QUOTE]

Because the DISRUPTION AGREEMENT is to be used at times of DISRUPTION!

If this doesn't count what does?

If BASSA don't consider this appropriate use of an agreement then when will they?

If BA wants to continue to do as its customers want, take them safely and in a timely fashion to their destination and the CC union wants to stop that from happening what do you expect the management to do? Wait for a thaw?

Please remember who employs you and who pays for those wages. The airline is not run by ANY union if they cannot see that and wish to make this a tussle for power when every ounce of common sense shows that only one side will ever win then they may as well begin to sound their death knell.

All this type of intransigence does is hasten their demise. Is this considered 'working to rule'? Could this be considered encouragement to take unofficial strike action? In situations like this union reps tread on very thin ice.

Nutjob

13th Jan 2010, 10:07

Wonker

Why should BASSA let this regime give away the DA agreement as this forms part of our terms and conditions after all the imposition that came into force back in november.

It wouldn't need to be "imposed" or "given away" if BASSA could be trusted to activate it when appropriate. You see, it's like kids, if they can't be trusted to act maturely, then a regime will have to be enforced all the more strictly.

You gotta be cruel to be kind sometimes. There won't be a BA for BASSA to get hacked off with if they continue with their immature games.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 10:23

Thank you Wobble.

So Romans44, do you accept this?

Were you aware of it or not?

It's still relevant, as I understand from my brother, still trapped but safe in a sleepy hamlet because the minor roads were never cleared, that yet more snow is falling not too far from LHR

Hi Desertia, no I don't accept this, unless I can see it in writing.
This is the word of a manager and to be honest ,lately, I have come not to trust people at 'wanderworld'.
As I said b4 this forum is full of speculation.
Wobble, can you provide the information with facts not hearsay?

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 10:44

Why should BASSA let this regime give away the DA agreement as this forms part of our terms and conditions after all the imposition that came into force back in november. We are not playing ball as the other team are not playing fair with dirty tricks coming back again and again wake up and smell the sewage coming from Waterworld.

I'm more concerned that once again BASSA seem to have lied to its members and accused BA of simply riding roughshod, when in fact they requested DA of BASSA as they were supposed to. Unless Romans44 was holding back on us.

So, how it works, BASSA say "No" to BA out of spite, completely neglecting their paying customers (again), thus forcing BA to react accordingly.

Then they blame BA for that reaction, slyly neglecting to mention that they've forced it upon them.

Wave bye bye to the moral high ground.

This union are so utterly predictable; no wonder they can lose a court case even when they've been warned in advance what they're doing wrong. I think Absolute Numpties is the perfect description.

:E

Romans44: Just read your last message. So it is clear BASSA haven't told you that BA asked. We only await confirmation of what has been said on here by both sides - that BA asked and BASSA said No.

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 10:44

Romans 44,

For crying out loud! I do NOT have access to Willie Walshs' personal correspondence. It is well and widely known that, during the coldest and harshest winter for 30 years, BA have had severe disruption and have attempted over the past month to activate the disruption agreement in accordance with the agreed stipulations without success.

If you want proof then seek it from your own obstinate Union.

As a last resort BA had no other choice than to implement the DA to attempt to minimise disruption to our customers. Those people that, sadly, a minority of Crew seem to think are a hinderence to their ongoing spat with the company.

If you have the inability to accept the blindingly obvious then that, I'm afraid, is your problem.

La Pouquelaye

13th Jan 2010, 10:54

In his message no.1689, Romans44 asked:

Wobble, can you provide the information with facts not hearsay?

It would greatly add to the cause Romans44 so vigorously espouses if he would do exactly what he asks from others.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 11:01

For crying out loud! I do NOT have access to Willie Walshs' personal correspondence. It is well and widely known that, during the coldest and harshest winter for 30 years, BA have had severe disruption and have attempted over the past month to activate the disruption agreement in accordance with the agreed stipulations without success.

If you want proof then seek it from your own obstinate Union.

As a last resort BA had no other choice than to implement the DA to attempt to minimise disruption to our customers. Those people that, sadly, a minority of Crew seem to think are a hinderence to their ongoing spat with the company.

If you have the inability to accept the blindingly obvious then that, I'm afraid, is your problem

Hi woble2plank, again pure speculation....
till you can prove your comments with true facts I am afraid I'll take everything with a pinch of salt..
By the way, please don't make it sound like I don't care. I do care but I also don't approve of bulling. People have died in the past to protect their rights, if you find that so hard to accept, I am afraid, is your problem.

Meal Chucker

13th Jan 2010, 11:03

Hi Desertia, no I don't accept this, unless I can see it in writing.
This is the word of a manager and to be honest ,lately, I have come not to trust people at 'wanderworld'.

Yet you're prepared to accept the word of Bassa, which has a proven track history of mis-leading us.

dubh12000

13th Jan 2010, 11:06

This discussion about the DA is pure school playground nonsense. Move on please.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 11:09

I do care but I also don't approve of bulling. People have died in the past to protect their rights, if you find that so hard to accept, I am afraid, is your problem.

Oh dear.

It seems the BASSA version is typically evasive; they only refer to Bill Francis thus:

He has asked for flexibility and yet has given none; since the arrival of the snow your cabin crew agreements have, in effect been ripped up.

Although if the terms of the disruption agreement are being followed on BA's side, then it would imply that he probably did ask, don't you think?

However, when looking for information, we have yet more utter BASSA nonsense to contend with. Have a laugh at this!:

Sadly, of late we have seen more people managed out of the company through EG300. Remember it is your right to representation at any meeting, be it with a manager or ARI team (EG300). We recommend that when you receive your invite to be interrogated over your absence, you request a rep, this includes stage 1 and 2 meetings. Stage 3 is final written warning Stage 4 is dismissal. Section 4 (long term sick) meetings should always be attended with a rep, when placed in Section 4 you are told that "this could lead to your dismissal", please do not have meetings over the phone, before or after trips, that will forfeit your right to representation. We insist that you get a UKM day for meetings at the company’s behest. We have seen that BA no longer provide you with a safe working environment, if a passenger or crew member complains about you, you will be suspended....

ATTEND ANY MEETING ALONE AT YOUR PERIL!

We have a complete breakdown in trust and industrial relations with BA.

BA have become morally bankrupt! You have seen in the press what the company think of us with their dirty tricks campaign, turning our own customers against us.

Your reps are here to represent you at all times, please use that right.....

UNITED WE STAND

Now call me Mr. Bobby Dazzler, but I think calling a 12 day strike over Christmas and New Year is what turned the public against you, but that's only me.

:}

Flap33

13th Jan 2010, 11:13

Hey Wobble, Romans will never concede this - BASSA rule 1, never let the truth get in the way of their "message".

Romans, is it snowing on Planet BASSA? For crying out loud, we have found a new depth to BASSA's behaviour. I guess you also think that the snow is being arranged by wicked WW.

Please, seriously, will you provide the conditions under which the DA would be deemed acceptable to BASSA

JazzyKex

13th Jan 2010, 11:14

OK Romans why not look at this from a slightly different angle.

Assume BA did NOT ask the union to implement the DA. They have just gone and unilaterally used the crews to the limits of their duty hours whenever necessary without the union being involved.

If this has been the case why have we not heard the union screaming from the rooftops that BA never asked us. If only they would have come to us first we would have gladly invoked the DA for the good of the customers!

Instead we only hear from BASSA that BA are doing as they please and they are powerless...

I agree it is dangerous to assume hearsay is fact, but it does seem pretty farfetched to assume BA would NOT have asked to implement an agreement designed entirely to cope with the situation it finds itself in!

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 11:27

I do care but I also don't approve of bulling. People have died in the past to protect their rights, if you find that so hard to accept, I am afraid, is your problem.

Sorry, I don't understand this bit?

Bulling? Like the bull that drips from BASSA as posted previously by Desertia? Or perhaps you mean bullying? Not too sure.

I will give up on the DA, as I can see that irrespective of the abject common sense that most of us must apply when dealing with day to day life, some people require cast concrete evidence of every little fact, even when the obvious stares them in the face. If it is proof however that you require and not hearsay then perhaps you could provide proof that BA did NOT request activation of the DA? The stream runs both ways.

as to:

People have died in the past to protect their rights

I find it somewhat repugnant that some people and BASSA start using completely inappropriate quotes and comments, eg. the Iwo Jima doctored pictures and quotes of people dying for rights, in a scenario that amounts to little more than an argument over an increase in personal productivity.

People have indeed died for their right to protest in the face of tyrannical or despotic Governments/Religions. Those people who are prepared to lay down their lives for a just cause are to be admired and applauded. This is hardly a comparable case so leave out the rhetoric please.

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 11:30

BA have become morally bankrupt! You have seen in the press what the company think of us with their dirty tricks campaign, turning our own customers against us.

Erm, forgive me if i'm wrong, but arent they BA's customers not BASSAs? I know there's a pretty inflated sense of worth and entitlement in BASSA but this is ridiculous.

As employees of BA, BA are effectively your customer.

jetset lady

13th Jan 2010, 11:31

I do care but I also don't approve of bulling. People have died in the past to protect their rights, if you find that so hard to accept, I am afraid, is your problem

Can we please, once and for all, drop the dramatics and the references to bullying and harrassment. It is nothing but an insult to those that have suffered the horror and humiliation of the real thing! Ironically, in my experience, if I mention any of this current mess to the pilots onboard, they instantly clam up, petrified of being pulled into the office. And as far as I'm aware, no one in BASSA has yet sacrificed their life to protect "our" rights. We are not in a third world country, nor are we living back in the dark ages. This is an industrial dispute. No more. No less. A serious one, I'll give you, but still just an industrial dispute!

With regards to the DA agreement, a quick question. Since it came into being, have BASSA ever agreed to it being activated? If so, what were the circumstances? And as already asked by Flap33, what are the conditions surrounding it? Are there criteria that must be met? Or is it all, as I suspect, a bit vague?

dubh12000,

I'm sorry but I disagree. The current issues surrounding the DA agreement are highly relevant, in that they give a good view of the whole BASSA mindset.

Jsl

Edited to add: Damn! Way too slow. Back to SLF and JB for me then...:(

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 11:33

Yet you're prepared to accept the word of Bassa, which has a proven track history of mis-leading us.

hi Meal chucker
No, I am not prepared to accept the word of BASSA. I have always challenged BASSA the same way I challege people on here.
Life has taught me not to believe things unless I see them in black and white and that goes for both parties
I believe that BASSA is the lesser eveil of the two, but that is my opnion.
Correct me if I am wrong but BASSA has not broken any agreements yet, have they?

dubh12000

13th Jan 2010, 11:34

Well it is relevant, but the pro-BASSA arguement is like something you would hear behind the bikeshed........you all have to accept that.

JazzyKex

13th Jan 2010, 11:42

Correct me if I am wrong but BASSA has not broken any agreements yet, have they?

It would be interesting, as has been mentioned by others, to know what the criteria are for implementing the disruption agreement.

If those have been fulfilled by the recent snow episode and BASSA have not allowed it to be used does that not count as breaking their side of an agreement?

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 11:49

OK Romans why not look at this from a slightly different angle.

OK Romans why not look at this from a slightly different angle.

Assume BA did NOT ask the union to implement the DA. They have just gone and unilaterally used the crews to the limits of their duty hours whenever necessary without the union being involved.

If this has been the case why have we not heard the union screaming from the rooftops that BA never asked us. If only they would have come to us first we would have gladly invoked the DA for the good of the customers!

Instead we only hear from BASSA that BA are doing as they please and they are powerless...

I agree it is dangerous to assume hearsay is fact, but it does seem pretty farfetched to assume BA would NOT have asked to implement an agreement designed entirely to cope with the situation it finds itself in!
Hi JazzyKex,
you will find that BASSA told its members straight away that the agreement was being broken.
If u are cabin crew and a BASSA member you would have recieved and email and a post on the BASSA website.
The only thing BASSA can do, is to challenge all this in court and/or ballot for industrial action.
As you may be aware they are already doing both things.
You make a very valid point when you say it seems pretty farfetched to assume
However the truth is that we are talking about a company who has already broken our agreement and will continue to do so unless we stand up to them.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 11:49

There is one factor that may be an issue here. If Unite are actually having productive talks with BA, then it is not in UNITE or BA's interest to pour oil on the fire by publicising BASSA's lack of co-operation and giving them another opportunity to squeal about being picked on, and the press to do yet more damage to their reputation.

If this is the case, then I doubt BA would be willing to publicly acknowledge that they asked for DA and were refused.

(Of course, if the talks aren't successful by the time BASSA have their next backslapping, whooping and cheering meeting at Kempton, then it becomes irrelevant to the issue, apart from possibly in the February court case).

you will find that BASSA told its members straight away that the agreement was being broken.
If u are cabin crew and a BASSA member you would have recieved and email and a post on the BASSA website.
The only thing BASSA can do, is to challenge all this in court and/or ballot for industrial action.
As you may be aware they are already doing both things.
You make a very valid point when you say

Romans44,

We all saw this email from BASSA, and I quoted from the published version of it when I said that Bill Francis "asked for flexibility".

The court challenge is over the November 16th imposition.

I would think you would require some legal activities on February 1st to add any of the DA-related activities to it - that's assuming it is appropriate to do so.

Note how BASSA did not exactly rush to obtain an injunction.

We are getting to the point now where BASSA's only basket left is IA, and the sensible eggs are going to start getting out of it and walking off.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 11:52

It would be interesting, as has been mentioned by others, to know what the criteria are for implementing the disruption agreement.

If those have been fulfilled by the recent snow episode and BASSA have not allowed it to be used does that not count as breaking their side of an agreement?
Hi JazzyKex, if you have to ask this question I am assuming you are not familiar with our agreement.
It is all there in black and white page 76

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 11:58

Stop trying to be clever Romans. Your agreements arent exactly top secret.

Key section in bold. There can be no doubt that this was exactly the situation the disruption agreement was written for. Lest we forget BASSA refused it previously during last years snow when they were not in dispute. Care to justify that one?

Disruption Agreement

When significant events outside the control of British Airways cause severe disruption to the operation, the following changes to the scheduling agreement may, after agreement with the Trades Union has been reached, be enacted for an agreed fixed period of time, to maintain the integrity of the operation and facilitate the return of the operation to normal as soon as possible.

The IFS Operations Manager will contact the chairperson of each of the Trades Unions to inform them of the situation and recommend a timescale for which the disruption agreement will be required. With the agreement from the aforementioned confirmed, the details of options to be used will be verified in writing.

The IFS Operations Manager will log the occasions that the agreement is utilised and will fully debrief the Trades Union at the following week's Operations meeting. Details will also be recorded in the Worldwide Steering Minutes.

During the specified period of disruption, the report centres at LHR and LGW will display signage to the cabin crew informing them that the Operation is in a period of disruption.

Examples of occasions where this agreement could be enacted are severe weather, acts of terrorism, ATC failure or the collapse of power/communications supply. This list of examples is not exhaustive and other events that are outside of British Airways control will need to be considered.

20.1 24-HOUR AVAILABILITY

Crew on 24-hour availability can be contacted to move forward on a purely voluntary basis. If the crew member agrees, the following applies:

• Notification of the trip may be reduced from 24H, but it must not be less than 12 hours notice.
• The rostered trip immediately after the 24H becomes flexible, but subsequent trips are fixed. If there is sufficient 24H to allow the trip and MBTR to be allocated, the subsequent trip remains fixed.
• 1 MBTR can be flexed to maintain the forward roster - Agreements on B2B/long-range Box 1 operations apply.
• MBTR cannot be reduced below 3 nights.
• Crew can be contacted between 1200 and 2200.

20.2 REST DAY WORKING

When the disruption agreement has been enacted, rest day working will be available to counter shortfalls in the operation. Messages will be circulated via Voice, Crewlink and other media to communicate the availability of rest day working.

The following conditions apply for rest day working on Worldwide:
• Crew can register to work on their last MBTR only. You cannot apply for RDW if you only have 3 MBTR.
• Crew can volunteer to undertake RDW by registering on Voice after their clear time on their last working day.
• Voice will accept RDW volunteers up to 1200 for the next day's operation. Likewise RDWvolunteers can withdraw their names up to 1200 prior to the next day's operation.
• RDW volunteers can access Voice from 1800 to ascertain whether they have been allocated a duty, which will not report prior to 0800 the following day.
• Allocation of RDW must be within grade.
• 1 forward rostered trip will be flexible and the following duties will remain fixed.
• RDW cannot be achieved on part-time days or annual leave days.
• Crew cannot volunteer for RDW if they are sick.
• RDW can be undertaken on no more than 1 occasion in a calendar month.
• For work allocation crew will be considered in time of bid order on the basis of best fit.

Crew cannot express trip preferences.

• When triggered, details of the rest day working operated will be provided to Worldwide Steering, but ad-hoc lists can be provided by the Worldwide IR Manager on request.

20.3 WORK TRANSFER

Worldwide 767 operations can be operated by 767 licenced Eurofleet crew, under the following rules:
• All services will be operated to the Worldwide agreement in all respects.
• Other rules to be agreed between Eurofleet and Worldwide IR/TU teams.

Item still to be negotiated by Worldwide and Eurofleet representatives.

20.4 OPERATING ZONE CLOSURES FROM BASE

If full crew complements cannot be achieved for all flights, certain flights may be nominated to operate with closed zones, according to the following rules:
• An aircraft matrix will determine the complements required for each type of zone closure.
• Where the required gaps exist to enact a zone closure on a nominated flight, the CSD will be advised of the zone closure.
• The zone closure will be retained for the whole itinerary unless the flight can be recrewed by positioning.
• In the event a crew member needs to be removed from a service with a full crew complement:
• Volunteers to move services will be sought by the Operations Team.
• Open Zones will retain their full purser and main crew complements.
• The replacement trip should fit within the boundaries of the original rostered trip, or the crew member can volunteer to flex 1 MBTR to
accommodate the new itinerary.
• If there are no volunteers, crew members will be removed by juniority within grade. In this case, MBTR may not be flexed to accommodate a new itinerary unless agreed with the crew member affected.
• In the event that there are more volunteers than needed, the most senior crew member will be removed first.
• Zone closures and 1 down arrangements cannot be applied to the same service.

20.5 OPERATING ONE DOWN FROM BASE

Working down arrangements, are the last option to be used after all other disruption options have been exhausted. Clear evidence of a direct cancellation must be provided. In the event that 1 gap exists on a specified 777 or 747 service from base:
• CSD will be advised of change to crew complement.
• CSD and Purser complements must be maintained.
In the event of down-route sickness in a one down operation, a zone of the aircraft would need to be closed for the return service.
In all other cases, zone closures and one down arrangements cannot be applied to the same service.

20.6 ADDENDUM TO WORLDWIDE DISRUPTION AGREEMENT

• The use of call forward on 24-hour availability, zone closures from base and work transfer may be sought by the company from Trade Union reps on a planned or tactical basis, as an alleviation from the Worldwide agreement. Any remuneration will not be bound by the disruption agreement, but will be negotiated in good faith taking in to
account previous arrangements.
• Rest DayWorking and operating one down from base will be used exclusively within the WW disruption agreement.

Andy_S

13th Jan 2010, 12:05

Hi JazzyKex, you will find that BASSA told its members straight away that the agreement was being broken.

I think you missed JazzyKex point.

The point being that if the DA was invoked by BA without making the request of BASSA first, then surely BASSA would have used the opportunity to score a PR victory by making a hue and cry about how they would have happily agreed to it if only BA had asked....... The fact that BASSA didn't do so speaks volumes.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 12:08

The point being that if the DA was invoked by BA without making the request of BASSA first, then surely BASSA would have used the opportunity to score a PR victory by making a hue and cry about how they would have happily agreed to it if only BA had asked....... The fact that BASSA didn't do so speaks volumes
Andy S, I think time will tell.

Human Factor

13th Jan 2010, 12:11

romans44,

Wobble, can you provide the information with facts not hearsay?

Short of publishing the BA Operations Log here, which you've got less chance of happening than seeing BASSA winning this dispute, you'll have to take his word for it. It will have been detailed in the log.

Your lawyers will see it in February.

Edit: Some say the log shows BASSA were asked to implement the DA and declined....;)

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 12:12

When significant events outside the control of British Airways cause severe disruption to the operation, the following changes to the scheduling agreement may, after agreement with the Trades Union has been reached, be enacted for an agreed fixed period of time, to maintain the integrity of the operation and facilitate the return of the operation to normal as soon as possible.

Hotel mode,
I am not trying to be anything.....read the above part of the agreement.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 12:19

Hotel mode,
I am not trying to be anything.....read the above part of the agreement.

Yes, and by not agreeing to it in the exact circumstances specified, BASSA were breaking the intent of the agreement.

By the way, excessive use of smilies seems to be a disease imported from Crewforum and BASSA forum that makes your argument look weak.

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 12:20

A reminder of the Telegraph's view of things:

The agreements make it clear that managers at BA can only make decisions on matters that cause "severe disruption", such as the weather, "after agreement with the Trades Unions" including "contacting the chairperson of each of the Trade Unions" and "fully debriefing the Trades Unions", with decisions recorded in the "Worldwide Steering Minutes".

It sounds like someone has reached back to the 1970s and pulled the document straight off a dusty shelf marked "industrial relations from a different era".

On that snowy weekend, senior BA sources have told me, the quickest and most passenger-friendly thing to do was fly the plane back from Prestwick the next day to London. OK, everyone would be a day late, but at least they would be at the right destination.

But this, the managers say, clashed with the workplace agreements on two nights off after a long-haul flight. The pilots were happy to fly. The cabin crew were happy to fly. But the unions said no.

So, with no cabin crew, the plane flew back to London empty, taxis had to be called for the stranded passengers to get them to Glasgow and onto other domestic flights to London. Everyone wasted more time and there was more disruption. Passengers were sacrificed on the sacred altar of "workplace agreements".

The Unions said no, when the crew said yes.

<shakes head>

This is what BA proposed in June this year:

Operational Recovery Procedure

The current Worldwide Disruption Agreement will be replaced with immediate effect with the following Operational Recovery Procedure which will apply to all fleets.

The overriding principle of the Operational Recovery Procedure is to put the ‘Customer first‘ in the event of any disruption to British Airways' planned schedule or other operations. This requires all employees and unions to adopt a flexible approach to their normal working arrangements in order to resolve any disruption to operations as soon as possible.

BA may invoke the ‘Operational Recovery Procedure‘ at any time when BA considers that planned schedules or other operations have been disrupted for any reason. Once invoked, and notwithstanding any other contractual provisions otherwise applicable to unions or Cabin Crew, British Airways may take such steps, and require Cabin Crew to take such steps and perform such duties, as it considers appropriate to resolve the disruption. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Re-plan and re-route services to repatriate our Customers.

• Cabin Crew may be required to vary their scheduled roster and to undertake such additional or different duties as may be required to continue to provide our services.

• Use 24 hour availability with 12 hours' notice to call forward Cabin Crew in order to gap fill.

• Restrict Eurofleet Cabin Crew from requesting 18 hours off in the event of a delay.

• Contact Cabin Crew at home to advise of a roster changes during disruption.

• Introduction of Willing-to Work.

• Operate with reduced crew complements.

In implementing the Operation Recovery Procedure BA will take reasonable steps where practicable to minimise the impact on Cabin Crew's normal working patterns. The terms of Cabin Crew's contracts will be deemed to have been varied temporarily during the period of disruption in order to comply with such steps as BA requires pursuant to this Operational Recovery Procedure. BA will continue to comply with scheme limits.

The use of the Operational Recovery Procedure in respect of any particular disruption will be reviewed, jointly with the Trade Unions, at the appropriate fleet Steering group after the period of disruption.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 12:28

Yes, and by not agreeing to it in the exact circumstances specified, BASSA were breaking the intent of the agreement.

Hotel mode,
the truth is that you can't prove that, can you?
Do you have anything in writing from either parties that can sustain your statment?

Stoic

13th Jan 2010, 12:29

For what it is worth there is an interesting article in this week's Spectator magazine which spells out the danger to Gordon Brown's election prospects posed by Unite.

Charlie Whelan’s war
Iain Martin (http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/author/?searchString=Iain%20Martin)
9 January 2010
Gordon Brown’s chief fixer is ensconced in Unite, the increasingly militant union. Iain Martin asks if the comrades can be persuaded to hold back a wave of strikes
Where is Charlie Whelan these days? What’s the old rascal up to? The trade union fixer, spin-doctoring confidant and close friend of the Prime Minister was on my mind after I returned from a trip to my native Scotland for Christmas. I had booked a rail ticket to take me northwards in time for the big day — £112 first class with Virgin. My only choice, seeing as the Unite trade union had engineered a British Airways strike, rendering my £190 British Airways ticket bought months ago useless. That the industrial action was then cancelled, and that I had two tickets, was no consolation. Thousands will, like me, be out of pocket — and wondering what sort of people could even consider a strike at such a time of year.
But what was most interesting about the proposed strike was the silence of the government. Gordon Brown has passed comment on the death of Michael Jackson, The X Factor and the victories of the English cricket team. Yet he had nothing to say about the trade union which was out to cause havoc for the travelling public. It was then I remembered Charlie Whelan. He is now the political director at Unite, regarded by his (many) Labour enemies as one of the most powerful people in the very union outfit that tried to ruin Christmas for BA customers.
To say that Gordon Brown and Charlie are politically close is an understatement. They are Labour blood brothers, never happier than when they are cooking up an assault on their opponents — either external or internal. From their perspective such a get-together could only be bettered if Ed Balls was available to join in the plotting. Whelan is one of the oldest Brown praetorians, who had to resign as his spin doctor after helping bring down Peter Mandelson (who loathes him). Behind the scenes he has an absolutely essential role at the heart of Team Brown — doling out advice on strategy, and making sure Unite stays on side with its donations flowing to the party. The last thing he needs is strikes by his own union getting in the way.
And as the new decade opens, plenty more strikes are in prospect. Four days before Christmas a walk-out by baggage handlers at Heathrow was halted on the eve of action. On the London Underground the workers responsible for electrical maintenance are furious about pay and overtime rates. They opted for a strike beginning on 22 December, to run over Christmas, with a shutdown then only narrowly averted. The union involved? Whelan’s Unite, again.
It has been suggested that these developments are rooted in in-fighting, with various factions attempting to prove how robust they can be ahead of an eventual tussle for control of the union.
All this is profoundly problematic for Whelan. Until now he and Brown have had considerable success encouraging their comrades not to cause too much trouble. Even when the Prime Minister was at his most vulnerable, no significant union figure of influence joined the efforts to remove him. Amid Labour’s difficulties there have been the usual warnings — from the giant public services Unison and the CWU last year — of funding being withdrawn from the party. Now check the electoral commission’s most recent register of donations and you’ll see that the threats have not been acted on. The trade union funds continue to pour in for Labour.
But inflation — the mother and father of pay disputes — is spiking in Britain and could easily be running above 3 per cent by the spring. It is wildly premature to talk about a government potentially ending amid industrial strife and discontent, but just as the busiest months for pay negotiations begin, union members and their negotiators can feel the ground shifting below their feet on prices. Very soon the worker looking not to be left behind may regard a 2.5 per cent settlement unfavourably.
For the Prime Minister this is a situation pregnant with obvious dangers. Will the unions take all this calmly? Already, even before the pick-up in inflation, the movement’s leaders were condemning the prospect of anything resembling a pay freeze as an outrage. It is unlikely that they will be any more sanguine as the situation worsens. Whelan and Brown’s trick in dealing with this will surely have to come in persuading union leaders to hold back from any action because they would get even lower settlements in the event of a Conservative victory at the election. Labour must hope that grass-roots officials and individual members buy this analysis and lay off. Let’s see.
The Conservatives — keen to avoid making enemies — have presented themselves in recent years as a party willing to make peace with the brothers. In a different economic era in 2008, David Cameron even appointed a union emissary, former MEP Richard Balfe, to undertake this unlikely missionary work on his behalf. The Tory leadership said in the autumn that talk of widespread industrial action on pay is merely sabre-rattling. Do they actually believe this? If so, they look to be in for a shock.
Reliable reports are emerging that a war chest of up to £25 million has been prepared by the unions to take on a Tory government if Cameron wins the election. This money would be used to test Cameron’s nerve: to lead resistance to cuts and to fight for increased pay for members. Those with memories of the Heath government will know that Tories who are squeamish about the need for radical reform do cave in, if the pressure is strong enough. So how might Cameron respond to the threat of all-out industrial war? For a new prime minister it would be quite a test.
Whelan, employing his never less than colourful language, will doubtless explain to union leaders that their fight will be made much easier if Cameron is denied a working majority. Come on mate, go easy. Want to fight Tory cuts? Then allow Gordon a little bit more slack now. For old times’ sake, hold off the strike action, comrade. Strengthening Gordon’s hand means weakening Cameron’s. And let’s not forget who the real class enemy is.
But if such attempts at diplomacy fail there could be strikes much sooner. Then it wouldn’t be long before the connection gets made between the resulting disruption, the Prime Minister’s jolly bag-man Whelan and another Labour PM struggling to control the unions. That’s the last thing Brown’s party needs ahead of an election: an explosion of militancy stirring bad memories.

Human Factor

13th Jan 2010, 12:33

romans44,

You obviously missed my earlier post (I say "obviously", you may have chosen to ignore it):

romans44,

Wobble, can you provide the information with facts not hearsay?
Short of publishing the BA Operations Log here, which you've got less chance of happening than seeing BASSA winning this dispute, you'll have to take his word for it. It will have been detailed in the log.

Your lawyers will see it in February.

Edit: Some say the log shows BASSA were asked to implement the DA and declined....;)

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 12:34

I post this more to illustrate the concept of "customer care" for those that may wish to understand it.

While I was typing my last missive, I received an email from Gulf Air in response to a comment card I'd filled out for a flight from Manila in November, in which I bemoaned the lack of a working IFE system.

Not only did I get a very well written apology, but they have credited me with 14,000 air miles, not insignificant in their very good Frequent Flyer scheme.

Now I take my own entertainment on board for just such occasions (these things happen), so it wasn't really much of a loss, but it is this demonstration of desire to keep my custom that will ensure my continued business.

Something BASSA would do well to consider when they decide how much they are going to :mad: off "their" customers this time.

Da Dog

13th Jan 2010, 12:47

A simple question..............:ok:

After the worst snowfall in 10 years, in your opinion should BASSA of agreed to the disruption agreement?

please answer "yesor no"

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 12:54

Romans44,

Where is you written proof that BA failed to enter negotiations with BASSA over productivity enhancements?

Where is your proof that BASSA 'Won' as they state a full court hearing instead of being granted the full hearing as normal after their request for injunction was denied?

Where is your proof that BASSA didn't ply the lack of information tactic to make voters assume the worst when they wrote 'will you take strike action yes/no' on a ballot card?

Where is your proof that Willie Walsh only wants conflict with the Cabin Crew and not rationalisation of contract in line with all of the other departments in BA in order to take the airline forward in a tough environment (look at JAL but take away the Government subsidies!).

Where is your proof that BASSA adhered to all of the rules with respect to granting DA and didn't just petulantly say 'no' as an act of spite thus leaving BA with no choice but to implement.

Where is you proof that BASSA are acting in the best interests of all of the Cabin Crew and not just back slapping each other trying to keep their 'elevated' positions.

Proof, proof, proof blah, blah, blah.

We can all denigrate arguments by stating that 'if you haven't got it in writing it ain't true' but the facts are there, in the workplace, for all to see. If your ability to 'see' is clouded by your own perceptions then that is an entirely different story.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 12:56

Short of publishing the BA Operations Log here, which you've got less chance of happening than seeing BASSA winning this dispute, you'll have to take his word for it. It will have been detailed in the log.

Hi Human Factor,
No, I am not ignoring you, I just don't want to go around in a circle.
I have been in this industry for far to long to simply believe everything cabin crew say. We could be our worse enemy when it comes to speculation and rumours .
Give me facts and I will be the first one to apologies.

Human Factor

13th Jan 2010, 12:59

Give me facts and I will be the first one to apologies.

Very gracious, romans. Thank you.

I can wait until Feb 2nd. ;)

Da Dog

13th Jan 2010, 12:59

A simple question..............

After the worst snowfall in 10 years, in your opinion should BASSA of agreed to the disruption agreement?

please answer "yes or no"

Any chance of an answer?

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 13:00

Now discussion seems to have drawn to a close on crewforum, perhaps interested parties would like to read the thread?

BA Imposes the Disruption Agreement - CREW FORUM - Page 1 (http://www.crewforum.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26666&FID=51&PR=3&PN=1&title=ba-imposes-the-disruption-agreement)

And yes it has been open to all comers since it was started.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 13:06

After the worst snowfall in 10 years, in your opinion should BASSA of agreed to the disruption agreement?

please answer "yesor no"

Da dog, as long as the agreement is respected then yes a very big yes....

Human Factor

13th Jan 2010, 13:06

From the first post by Easytiger747 (aka Idi Amin, so he/she says :eek:):

I have been informed that BA asked lalalady today for implementation of the disruption agreement. She refused.[my bold] BA have ignored procedures and now IMPOSED the disruption agreement.

Please note that the message put out on the BASSA site this morning that we should be working to our agreements despite the weather still stands. There should be no leaving base one down. We must stand by our agreements.

Standing by to be "sued". :rolleyes:

Edit: Don't worry romans44, I can still wait a couple of weeks for your apology.;)

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 13:16

From the first post by Easytiger747 (aka Idi Amin, so he/she says ):

Yup that was the post...

Mind you NJR@D1Ls at top of page 2 is a classic of the genre.

And it seems BASSA really cant spell negotiate :ok:

Dear BA,

Go f*** yourselves and take your disruption agreement with you.

It has to be jointly agreed.Due to the fact you have treated both your crew and union reps with such contempt,you ignored our 92% YES vote,oh yes and IMPOSED,yes IMPOSED reduced crewing levels because you have NO ABILITY TO NEGOGIATE .

So in short,b******* to you!!.

NJR.
edited to add more stars!

Desertia

13th Jan 2010, 13:24

My God there are some real gits on there, aren't there! :yuk:

One person posted this:

I believe you reep what you sow and if BA had accepted the bassa offer in the summer the agreement would have been implemented and be even more flexible than the current one!

Not that I know what reeping is, but does anyone know about this bassa "offer in the summer"? :}

Or was it just not discussed on this or the previous thread?

Other choice phrases:

Sorry to say, my mortgage and way of life is a way above passengers travel plans on my priority list.

Heard a volunteer manager got a slap in T5 this morning
Now if they are looking for volunteers, I'd happily go in on my days off and slap a couple

But it's nice of them to leave a copy of the WW agreements laying around.

I shall have a little read this evening

:D

MissM

13th Jan 2010, 13:28

Forum spies, what would be you be discussing if you couldn't quote CrewForum all the time?

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 13:42

Very gracious, romans. Thank you.

I can wait until Feb 2nd. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Human Factor, regardless of the outcome on the 2nd..the truth remains that our agreement was broken.
Now I am going to take a break from this forum as it is worse than banging my head against a brick wall.
Take care

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 13:46

Just to put your mind at rest access to the BASSA Forum, CrewForum, BALPA Forum, BA Forum are not private and can and will be posted in other places.
Actually, BASSA forum is a private forum for BASSA mebers only.

jetset lady

13th Jan 2010, 13:52

romans44,

Nothing on the internet is truly private and anyone that thinks otherwise is, sadly, very naive.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 14:02

I am not disputing people cutting and pasting information from the BASSA forum.
However to be able to access the BASSA forum, unlike this forum, u must be a BASSA member. In my book that makes the forum a private forum.
Can we agree on that?

jimd-f

13th Jan 2010, 14:03

just tried to look at your link to crew forum, but get access denied.
that did not take long to bar us all from their views then, did it?

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 14:07

just tried to look at your link to crew forum, but get access denied.
that did not take long to bar us all from their views then, did it?

Yes, not suprising. Still the clueless muppets had left it open to all for the last week.

Since the link has been elsewhere (on a forum that clearly is more private!) for a week, I suspect its contents are very well known by now.

Lord Bracken

13th Jan 2010, 15:09

Forum spies, what would be you be discussing if you couldn't quote CrewForum all the time?

Probably speculating as to whether BASSA really have the best interest of BA's customers at heart.

Fortunately, no need to speculate.

La Pouquelaye

13th Jan 2010, 15:44

Now I am going to take a break from this forum as it is worse than banging my head against a brick wall.

And the next in line is . . . . . . . . ?

wobble2plank

13th Jan 2010, 15:56

Now I am going to take a break from this forum as it is worse than banging my head against a brick wall.

Taking a break from a forum is worse than banging your head against a brick wall?

A truly stalwart forum poster!

:}

Human Factor

13th Jan 2010, 16:12

I guess poor old romans44 feels he has lost the argument. Bring on the next victim.

Give watersidewonker his dues, he may talk bolleaux but at least he's still here. :ok:

TheTiresome1

13th Jan 2010, 16:34

It's truly wonderful to see an open, and vigorous, debate on this Public forum. It gives such an interesting insight into such matters as the power of Trades Unions, integrity, open-ness and the regard some people have for the paying customers.

I would hesitate to use the word "selfish", because there is clearly more involved than that. However, the occasional quotes from the BASSA website suggest that there is deep-seated anger towards the company. How this manifests itself in customer anger towards a company that, despite its best efforts, is unable to deliver a service will undoubtedly be discovered over the next few months. "Market Forces" is the term, I believe.

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 16:43

I thought it was quite funny. A fairly typical story of some visitors on here. Spend all day going on and on about how something isnt true/cant be proven etc etc. Then as soon as they're proved wrong (in this case straight from the horses mouth), they stalk off claiming they're banging their head against a brick wall.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 17:29

Glad to see that I was missed....I am back now so feel free to abuse me as much as you want. As long as you are polite I can take it:)..
What shall we talk about now?
btw hotel mode you have not proved me wrong yet:ok:

TheTiresome1

13th Jan 2010, 18:00

What shall we talk about now?

Customers? :rolleyes:

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 18:06

Customers? :rolleyes:
Sure, what would you like to say about Customers?

HiFlyer14

13th Jan 2010, 18:10

This is now going beyond absurd...

I mean we have on here, Romans & co. saying they haven't been proved wrong, but where are their facts?

Can the BASSA supporters provide examples of where BA have imposed the DA? Have they read the ESS forum where there are several WW CSDs saying a) BASSA should have agreed the DA and b) BA have not imposed the DA, and c) CSDs have not been asked to operate with less than normal crew complements, etc?

So, I'm afraid that unless they can provide contrary evidence, then it does mean that BASSA are rabble-rousing and using this extreme weather as yet another excuse to stir support for their ridiculous cause. Romans actually states that BASSA SHOULD have implemented the DA, but yet is prepared to defend them to the hilt for not doing so.:confused:

Then we have statements like "people have died fighting for their cause". I mean is this serious? Yes, people have died trying to get minority groups the right to vote, freedom of speech, fighting dictatorships, World Wars, etc. To my knowledge, no-one has died because of working a little bit harder on an airbus or a boeing.:rolleyes:

The frightening thing is that some of these BASSA inspired people seriously think that their cause (let's remind ourselves again of this wholly worthwhile cause - ONE CREW MEMBER OFF AN AEROPLANE) is on a par.:O

And then we have on other forums (fora?) BASSA indoctrinated folk now blaming BA for the disruption and how they are now having to deal with angry customers, due to yes...BA's incompetence. Que?

Are there any psychologists out there who can make head or tail of it? I am genuinely concerned that this is now seriously out of control. The deep-seated anger towards anyone and everyone who disagrees with their point of view is actually incomprehensible. It is also rather worrying for those of us who have to work alongside them.:eek:

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

TruBlu123

13th Jan 2010, 18:11

Heaven forfend, customers! Who are they, what role do they have in all this? Get real the last person on the BASSA radar is the person who pays for their current lifestyle. The only time the customer comes into play is when they try use them as pawns in their particular game of chess. Otherwise they are an inconvenience. To be fair the vast majority of cabin crew do not have that mindset just the inner sanctum.

TheTiresome1

13th Jan 2010, 18:20

TruBlu123 - I couldn't possibly comment.
However, it will be the customers who bring this farrago to an end, by simply going elsewhere.
BASSA and BA can then fade into history, along with all those other carriers in recent years.
"Slow-Motion Train Crash" is the phrase, isn't it?

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 18:27

Highflyer
we are just going around in a circle here..read the previous posts.
Or refer to page 76 of our agreement.
The disruption agreement was not agreed. It is as simple as that. How can I prove it?
If you have access to the BASSA website then please go there and read the news section of the site, it is all there in black and white.:ugh::ugh:
Can we move on to next subject now?

Rover90

13th Jan 2010, 18:28

La Pouquelaye

13th Jan 2010, 18:39

What shall we talk about now?

Restoring a normal service to the fare-paying passengers would be a good start.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 18:59

Think the disruption agreement issue has been flogged to death.

Nice to see Romans44 back and perhaps a view could be sought from him.

If the current talks do not reach an agreement and there is a breakdown in negotiations then we are led to believe that BASSA will ballot again as planned.

We are also assured by posters in the "Romans" camp that BASSA will get another mandate for industrial action and that may take the form of a strike or some other measure.

Could I ask, and I have asked you this before, what would you imagine to be the options for BA in response to your strike call. You have the tool to strike, what tools do you feel BA have in retaliation?

Perhaps you could save a few exchanges by skipping the obvious topics "agree to reverse imposition, honour our agreements etc etc"

Seriously, if push came to shove, what do you think BA have up their sleeve and are you ready for it? Do you really want to see their hand?

I really am a polite person and hope that I do not offend but it would be good if we could get some insight into how you see the other side. You appear to hold your employer in very low esteem, the evil employer that has paid your salary every month on the nail for over 20 years and probably popped your family into a "more comfortable seat" when you have taken them away with you on a trip on a few occasions

Hi Rover 90
Please rest assure that I have given plenty in the last 20 years including loyalty, I know it sounds strange that such a terrible person like me could in fact be a loyal one but it is true, I am.
I am very proud to be part of this family, however that is not to say that I will let anyone destroy what I have without putting up a fight.
How could I possibly know what they have in store for us?
Do you honestly think that if I did I would keep it a secret?
Yes, of course they will have a plan 'B' but that is for them to know and for us to find out.
Are we ready for it? Guess we need to wait and see.

Hotel Mode

13th Jan 2010, 19:08

however that is not to say that I will let anyone destroy what I have without putting up a fight.

Which proposal exactly is it that "destroys what you have"? Not what you think might happen in 2 years, Now.

The only people likely to destroy everything you have are the BASSA leadership.

Rover90

13th Jan 2010, 19:25

Hi Romans
Yes, of course they will have a plan 'B' but that is for them to know and for us to find out.
Are we ready for it? Guess we need to wait and see.I think that is where I have a different view.

You are really saying that you feel that you are happy to cross that bridge when you come to it.

Surely in any dispute you should consider the "What ifs". Just think about all the ways that it could pan out and make a decision based on that. I think the BA plan 'B' or maybe 'Z' might resemble a Chieftan Tank.

You seem to be betting the farm on this without considering the downside.

Just an opinion but I think I will have some support in my view.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 19:51

Just an opinion but I think I will have some support in my view

Hi Rover90, I am sure you will get plenty of support in this forum.
I was brought up believing that bullying is not the way forward and always to stand up to them.
I have given plenty of thoughts about the consequences of an industrial action, please give me more credit than that. I know that many people on this forum have a very low opinion about cabin crew but please don't brush an entire comunity with the same brush. I am sure your partner would agree with that.

28L

13th Jan 2010, 20:35

I know that many people on this forum have a very low opinion about cabin crewI know it's been said many times before, but it's worth repeating:
Most people on this forum have no problem with cabin crew. It's BASSA they/we have a problem with.

SweetChariotXV

13th Jan 2010, 20:53

I was brought up believing that bullying is not the way forward and always to stand up to them

Bullying???! If anything, statements like this disrespect people who have really been victims of bullying. If you believe this is bullying, then you must had a very sheltered life!

Romans44, with all due respect (and if you can handle this without curling up in the corner crying), you really are a numpty making yet another statement like this trying to pull the bullying card. I don't know who you're trying to fool. Pathetic.

The Blu Riband

13th Jan 2010, 21:01

from Bassa 's statement re Disruption Agreement

He has asked for flexibility ............................
..................... disruption agreement at LHR has NOT been agreed

So there is confirmation in Bassa's own words that they declined to agree to implement the DA during this severe weather.

Romans
You must know that Bassa are leading you using the wrong strategy.
Even in their latest statement they say

Please be reassured we are comfortable with where we are, we are exploring all options but we will not deviate from what you have already requested us to achieve.

which means what exactly??

fly12345

13th Jan 2010, 21:22

The ballot has to go ahead regardless. If we lose the court case the company will be playing dirty again we need the ballot to fall back on. Trust this lot as your peril.

Nice attitude!:ugh:

ciaotasso

13th Jan 2010, 21:25

There has always been a career path for cabin crew to reach senior management positions in BA. Joy Hordern who was Head of Cabin Services was a crew member.
The current IFCE Senior Management Team is actually predominantly made up of Senior Managers who used to be Cabin Crew.
Sally Munro-Smith - Manager Transformational Change
Glenn Reynolds - Manager Eurofleet
Anne Bell - Manager Safety and Quality
Mike Grimes - Manager Gatwick Fleet
Tony Smith - Senior HR Business Partner

All of the above used to fly and have gone on to be Senior Managers managing IFCE. Bill Francis was determined to appoint ex crew in his team. Thats probably why there is so much happening! As these people know exactly what the crew lifestyle, culture, salaries etc are first hand and know what needs to change.

Know matter whether there was a career path for crew right up to the board - most crew have absolutely know respect for anyone who works on the ground let alone those who have manager in their job title.

Crew have always believed that they are untouchable - our time has now come to get in the real world. One crew member less is not an issue atall and most of us know it.
I voted NO last ballot and I feel even stronger about it this time. The UNION are behaving apallingly and I know once I have voted NO again I will resign from BASSA as indeed will many crew.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 21:39

So there is confirmation in Bassa's own words that they declined to agree to implement the DA during this severe weather.

Hi the blu riband, declining an offer usually implies being asked. without going in a circle again, do you have written confermation of any comunication between the company and BASSA?

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 21:54

I voted NO last ballot and I feel even stronger about it this time. The UNION are behaving apallingly and I know once I have voted NO again I will resign from BASSA as indeed will many crew.

Hi Ciaotasso,
I am one of the few who voted yes and believe me I feel so much stronger about it this time around.

Funny you say that many crew will leave BASSA, are u including the 90+% who voted yes?
how many of you voted no?
remind me again?
I guess, we would have to wait and see.

fly12345

13th Jan 2010, 22:04

Ciaotasso, you should have left last time around, the attitude of the union has not changed and won t change until they are destroyed or Ba is destroyed, spend you £15 on something else more useful. I have!

TOM100

13th Jan 2010, 22:05

romans44

BASSA are bullies, very personal and can actually be quite nasty.......just look at the CF/BASSA forum - do they moderate this out ?? Nope......

They walk out of meetings, turn up an hour late, text thru/during meetings, spout 70's rhetoric, totally unprepared, argue/sl*g off CC89/Blair/AW (until recently becoming bosom buddies) and villify Willie Walsh et al in a very personal way - this is Ok with you is it ? Vote @no negotiation", then "no negotiation with imposition" but UNITE quickly and correctly override this. Refuse to activate DA with worst weather conditions for decades, vote to ruin hard working peoples' Christmas plans.......Conduct of a forward thinking, progressive, customer focused TU, securing the long term future of its members.....with principles that does not bully and harrass (sp) ??

The Blu Riband

13th Jan 2010, 22:30

My previous 2 CSDs told me, unprompted , that they had recently left Bassa.
Apparently over 500 crew have left the union recently, and only 3500 have voted in the online poll.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 22:47

BASSA are bullies, very personal and can actually be quite nasty.......just look at the CF/BASSA forum - do they moderate this out ?? Nope......

They walk out of meetings, turn up an hour late, text thru/during meetings, spout 70's rhetoric, totally unprepared, argue/sl*g off CC89/Blair/AW (until recently becoming bosom buddies) and villify Willie Walsh et al in a very personal way - this is Ok with you is it ? Vote @no negotiation", then "no negotiation with imposition" but UNITE quickly and correctly override this. Refuse to activate DA with worst weather conditions for decades, vote to ruin hard working peoples' Christmas plans.......Conduct of a forward thinking, progressive, customer focused TU, securing the long term future of its members.....with principles that does not bully and harrass (sp

Tom100, I totaly understand your point and, correct me if I am wrong, I never said that BASSA are the perfect Union or the angels of the situation.
I respect your views, hope you respect mine.

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 22:54

Apparently over 500 crew have left the union recently, and only 3500 have voted in the online poll.

the blu riband,
apparently seems to be the word of choice in this forum.
I have just flown with 3 people who were not even in the union, they are so angry at the way we are being treated that they have now joined BASSA..
Guess we could say, some you win some u loose..

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 22:56

And no roman44 I cannot prove this but all will soon be revealed
:):)
I rest my case, more and more speculation........:D:D

TOM100

13th Jan 2010, 22:58

romans 44, absolutely respect your views (even if I don't always agree), just think sometimes BASSA/Crew should think of the bigger picture rather than being parochial and think about the benefits of taking the moral high ground. IMHO crew/BASSA are playing out WW's strategy, without him having to do anything (knee jerking all over the place, with ill thought comms etc), they need to show a little more political nous (and at times professional restraint).

They are playing the evil villains/no compassion/selfish card to many/the public, they need to be a bit more cute in their approach......

Having been bullied by BASSA reps (frequently) and witnessed their often very unreasonable approach, I feel sufficiently qualified to comment.....from my humble POV of course. They are not a progressive, forward thinking bunch on the whole.......they do need a big kick up the a**e from the people who pay their subs and realise it is 2010, not 1975 !

Stop looking backwards and embrace now.....(yuk, sounds corny). They also need to become a lot more commercially savvy and professional in their approach, conduct and interaction with BA. Turning up hours late, if at all, disrepecting people, texting in meetings, dissing colleagues etc just doesn't cut it for them to be taken seriously by others. Sadly, this aint going to happen with the current lot.....they just aint capable, behaviours too conditioned/culturally engrained, BA enemy etc etc......evolve, change, be relevant or die !

Also they don't seem very joined up with the UNITE people !

Rover90

13th Jan 2010, 23:05

Romans44 wrote:

I have given plenty of thoughts about the consequences of an industrial action, please give me more credit than that. I know that many people on this forum have a very low opinion about cabin crew but please don't brush an entire comunity with the same brush. I am sure your partner would agree with that.Virtually all cabin crew are extremely hard working dedicated individuals and it is a mystery that we are represented by such a narrow minded group of individuals.

How will you feel on Day One of a Cabin Crew Strike if you are looking at your P45. Believe me it is an option and it can be done and that is certainly the downside.

You talk of only working to written agreements and needing to see things in writing. Where is it written that I should be bombarded by letters in the T5 CSD drop file with requests for upgrades, to be paged whilst in a briefing to collect a note that is a request for an upgrade, to be constantly faced with family of crew members expecting to be upgraded. Whilst I am sorting that out, as I have always tried to do until you lot stirred it up, I was not giving the fare paying pax my full attention during boarding. Guess you would want to ignore that practice as it is not written down but very much part of the cc culture, basically it is theft from the company but you know we choose to ignore that and say it is just custom and practice.

Life is not all bad and it is certainly no worse after the "imposition" of the new regime for the CSD's who were always hands on. All I can say is "get with the program".

And this is a CSD talking Romans!

SlideBustle

13th Jan 2010, 23:12

Ciaotasso -further to your point about crew going into management. I also think opening a new position above CSD would be good - ie.having the CSDs fly most of the time but also do some management work (if they wish to move onto this of course :ok:) I think there are other airlines (ANZ, maybe Virgin I'm not sure, all I know is that there are some airlines who do this) who have their CSD/FSMs who part fly and also have some management responsibilities on the ground. I know this is digressing every so slightly but would be good to have people who manage on the ground, managing and leading onboard, and also helps our CSD colleagues who would like to further their career (especially the ones promoted quite quickly into the job who still have many years left)

Digressing, I do apologise, and I don't know how this will benefit BA financially anyway so maybe not such a great idea :ouch: Or maybe it is as it protects the CSD role but also means productivity for the airline; some managers fly also - but keep CTMs aswell!

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 23:20

Hi Tom100, thanks for not biting my head off for disagreeing with you.
It seems to me that you have a problem with BASSA reps not with the concept of a trade union.
I happen to agree with you as far as some of the reps are concerned, however the majority of the reps are hard working people and some of them were only young children in th 70s.
We have the right to vote for new reps every 2 years, it was a shame that only 38% of the membership bothered to vote for new reps last time. I guess people are happy with the current reps.

TOM100

13th Jan 2010, 23:37

romans44

you are spot on, I think a modern, progressive TU have a really important role to play, but they must be commercially switched on and be prepared to take some tough decisions and move away from the mantra of management = evil. It is in everyone's interest for a company to be financially successful, it secures and creates jobs. Equally, the TU's are right to try and get the best for the workforce, to share in that success (but if no success, no workforce !).

I do take issue with the behaviours and approach of some of the BASSA reps, their aims may well be benign but they are not (in my experience) professional, balanced in their approach or pragmatic. Unfortunately, even those who were not around in the 70's (not all reps were, agreed) are 'handed down' the way we do things and how we work with BA, and hence perpetuating archaic behaviours and a spent approach (how many times have we heard the phrases thrown "macho management" and "union bashers" when debating with reps, a position they don't agree with !!). These kind of behaviours saw many great British institutions confined to the dustbin because they could not get themselves/their work practices 'fit for purpose' in a modern era. You can't (laws of economics) compete in a price sensitive, competitive market place with unproductive, uncompetitive methods/costs. The cash will eventually run out, lack of investment will be very apparent in your product, exacerbating your uncompetitive offering.......

BASSA need to think about their strategic objectives, how they make themselves relevant in 2010 (which IMO, they are failing at miserably) instead of playing out a short-term ego war against BA. They will just extract more extreme behaviours from BA management.

Negotiate 'intelligently' concede this to BA, for example, in return for future assurances, ways of working etc (a la BALPA scope agreement etc - I have nothing to do with BALPA by the way). Behave professionally, bite their tongue sometimes, sometimes accept they need to concede a point but try and get something out of it for the future). Accept the case for change ! It does not have to be "the shape of things to come" if you use opportunities to build in future things, but that might mean giving up things now......you can't argue with the current economic situ.....

romans44

13th Jan 2010, 23:39

Virtually all cabin crew are extremely hard working dedicated individuals and it is a mystery that we are represented by such a narrow minded group of individuals.

How will you feel on Day One of a Cabin Crew Strike if you are looking at your P45. Believe me it is an option and it can be done and that is certainly the downside.

You talk of only working to written agreements. Where is it written that I should be bombarded by letters in the T5 CSD drop file with requests for upgrades, to be paged whilst in a briefing to collect a note that is a request for an upgrade, to be constantly faced with family of crew members expecting to be upgraded. Whilst I am sorting that out as I have always tried to until you lot stirred it up, I was not giving the fare paying pax my full attention.

Life is not all bad and it is certainly no worse after the "imposition" of the new regime for the CSD's who were always hands on. All I can say is "get with the program".

And this is a CSD talking Romans!

Ah Rover 90, I knew that there was a CSD hiding somewhere in there. Glad you have decided to come out.
Since you ask, there is nothing written about CSD being bombarded by letters with request for upgrades.
in fact, correct if I am wrong, upgrading is against company rules and with dismissible consequences.
If I may say, and with all due respect, u are totally missing the point of the imposition but I want be going on about it again.
Finally, may I ask a question? Is the phrase ' get on with the program' something they teach at CSD school for when they ran out of fuel for a discussion?

romans44

14th Jan 2010, 00:21

romans44

you are spot on, I think a modern, progressive TU have a really important role to play, but they must be commercially switched on and be prepared to take some tough decisions and move away from the mantra of management = evil. It is in everyone's interest for a company to be financially successful, it secures and creates jobs. Equally, good to try and get the best for the workforce, to share in that success (but if no success, no workforce !).

I do take issue with the behaviours and approach of some of the BASSA reps, their aims may well be benign but they are not (in my experience) professional, balanced in their approach and pragmatic. Unfortunately, even those who were not around in the 70's (not all agreed) are 'handed down' the way we do things, and hence perpetuating archaic behaviours and approach (how many times have i heard the phrases "macho management" and "union bashers" when debating with reps !!). These behaviours saw many great British institutions confined to the dustbin because they could not get themselves 'fit for purpose' in a modern era.

BASSA need to think about their strategic objectives, how they make themselves relevant in 2010 (which IMO, they are failing at miserably) instead of playing a war against BA. They will just extract more extreme behaviours from BA management.

Negotiate 'intelligently' concede this to BA, for example, in return for future assurances, ways of working etc (a la BALPA scope agreement etc - I have nothing to do with BALPA by the way). Behave professionally, bite their tongue sometimes, sometimes accept they need to concede for the greater good (but try and get something out of it for the future). Accept the case for change ! It does not have to be "the shape of things to come" if you use opportunities to build in future things, but that might mean gibing up things now......you can't argue with the economics.....

Anyway, I feel a little bit churlish talking about such things (I hope this is not a crass, insenstive comparison, really isn't meant to be) when you see those poor buggers in Haiti who have lost everything and we get excited about a dusting of snow and working a little harder.......we really have it easy in comparison

Tom100, totally agree with you and as a progressive union member I always welcome modernization. However I feel it is a bit unfair to put the blame entirely on BASSA. As you may be aware these changes were planned long b4 the recession, but really we don't need to go on about things that have been discussed for a long time now.

I too feel sorry for the people of Haiti and find it a bit sad for you to make such a comparison, I wish I could save the world single handed but I can't.

TOM100

14th Jan 2010, 00:58

Hi romans

You are right about that Haiti stuff, have taken it out, not too different to BASSA WW2 comparisons though......

You are right, addressing the underlying BA cost base was almost certainly in plan before current recession. Recession or no recession, if your costs are out of kilter with the prevailing market rates in a highly competitive trading environment, they MUST be addressed. Airlines need to make c10% margin in order to reinvest in their equipment/products and pay an acceptable dividend to shareholders (would you loan someone huge amounts of money for nothing, when you could get a decent return placing your money elsewhere ??). Post 9/11 BA didn't pay a dividend for years. Those 747-400's were introduced in 1988 ! They are fuel inefficient and becoming maintenance hungry.....

On many routes, they have to match VS/SQ/U2/TG/CX etc on price (and with threat of IA probably have to undercut them) and yet operate with significantly higher costs and a more unproductive workforce - it is not sustainable.

Recession or no recession, BA has to tackle this for long term viability. Simples. The recession has just made addressing it even more urgent.....the aviation market is very different from just 10 years ago. EZY were formed in '96 with a couple of a/c - now look!

BA has offered to negotiate, but there has to be some acceptance on BASSA's part that savings and productivity efficiencies need to be permanent and real. Taking an entrenched position (BASSA) to "not negotiate" and refuse to have an open book approach (view the accounts with confidentiality agreement etc) isn't really a helpful or progressive approach. Still can't fathom the rationale around this ???

BASSA's response has been totally predictable, hence my assertion that they are playing out WW's strategy without him having to do anything much at all. If they took a different route, or turned their negotiating position on its head, they might just catch BA off guards. Yet they seem to just wheel out the same approach they have (admittidely successfully - sp ?) done for the last 30 odd years. I just think they have underestimated the gravity of the financial situ of the company/structural changes in the market and the resolve of WW. Look at the evidence, WW said, we must reach agreed changes by June 30 or we will impose. He has imposed. BASSA said they would not negotiate unless imposition was removed, UNITE are currently back in negotiations........

Also, whoever is advising BASSA on their PR strategy in terms of public support must be nuts.....they're just not playing a very intelligent/clever game. In fact, again imho, they are just adding nails to their coffin.

With a General Election in the middle of all this, UNITE need to consider carefully their position. I do think this time it is terminal for BASSA, whatever way this goes I just can't see an upside for them, win or lose court case/ballot result.

Hopefully a new progressive group will form after this is all over (as I said I think such a union of people have an important role to play) but will take a more enlightened approach. BA (IMO) have gone past the point of no return with this relationship, they can't take all this pain, forward booking pain etc and not see the job thru to completion. They have a right and were appointed to manage a business and shareholders demand a decent return on their investment. They will try to push thru 'regime change' - they have little choice. Willie may well be (and he probably knows and agrees) the sacrificial lamb at the end to put workforce relations on an improved level post all this. However, he would have put BA on a more solid financial footing, and addressed a real issue where successive leaders before him have failed.

Rover90

14th Jan 2010, 05:17

TOM100

I have just read your post twice and feel that you have summarised the current situation perfectly.

Going to defer to the more intelligent posters and withdraw from this thread, a discussion that is no longer going anywhere useful but that is probably down to me in part.

Take care :).

williewalsh

14th Jan 2010, 05:42

Just to revisit the DA again briefly...
There seems to be dismay and icredulity that Ms Malone, aka Mrs Slokham refused the implement the agreement.

Its quite clear why. When she was called to implement the agreement for snow, she took one look outside her window at home and thought...snow? what snow? Living out of touch with reality mentally and physically

The relationship with Bassa is beyond repair. There is only one way forward. Destroy them and pick up the pieces.

Desertia

14th Jan 2010, 06:23

The relationship with Bassa is beyond repair. There is only one way forward. Destroy them and pick up the pieces.

In fairness, having seen what utter rubbish BA are paying for on that CrewForum thread, I can only agree with you. No wonder they felt the need to secure it. How absolutely embarrassing.

If this is representative of the calibre of people that blindly support this union, then destroying it and getting rid is the only sensible option.

With that level of intelligence, no wonder they believe the garbage that BASSA drum into their rather thick and obviously somewhat empty skulls.

Good to see at least two posters asking serious questions about the wisdom of turning down DA; didn't exactly get a rousing welcome did they?

I feel so deeply sorry for the sensible members of cabin crew that have to work with this rabble.

:sad:

Rescue3

14th Jan 2010, 06:27

Concerning crew going into management - ie who part fly and also have some management responsibilities on the ground.

Wasn't this the role of a Fleet Director? - what happened to them then?

La Pouquelaye

14th Jan 2010, 07:17

Romans44 wrote:

Yes, of course they will have a plan 'B' but that is for them to know and for us to find out.
Are we ready for it? Guess we need to wait and see.

Surely if BASSA/CC89/UNITE were worth their salt (and worth paying £15 a month in subs to) they would have their spies in Willie Walsh's private office?

Very remiss if they do not!

La Pouquelaye

14th Jan 2010, 07:25

I also think opening a new position above CSD would be good - ie.having the CSDs fly most of the time but also do some management work

Does British Airways really need yet another layer of superfluous management at a time when it is losing a million pounds a day, and struggling to pay its pension fund obligations?

Think again, or wait for palmier times!

wobble2plank

14th Jan 2010, 07:30

I also think opening a new position above CSD would be good - ie.having the CSDs fly most of the time but also do some management work

They are called, in ascending order, First Officer, Senior First Officer and then Captain.

That should be enough levels of management above the CSD.

Nutjob

14th Jan 2010, 08:59

BigBrutha wrote

Hot off the press:

Ballot papers were sent to cabin crew who were never members of BASSA or CC89 last time round. BASSA cannot understand how that has happened but suspect their database is corrupted (in an unsalvagable way, apparently).

Standby for another legal challenge if papers are sent out again. BA have irrefutable evidence.

romans44
BB has had a habit of being uncannily accurate with his postings. Might be worth considering his claim as a little more than speculation. Otherwise, the Feb court ruling and BA's next legal challenge to BASSA's balloting may come as a bit of a surprise.

Interesting few weeks ahead.

romans44

14th Jan 2010, 09:14

romans44
BB has had a habit of being uncannily accurate with his postings. Might be worth considering his claim as a little more than speculation. Otherwise, the Feb court ruling and BA's next legal challenge to BASSA's balloting may come as a bit of a surprise.

Interesting few weeks ahead

Hi nutjob, without being dragged into a speculation talk and with all due respect to BB, that scenario is totally unlikely to happen.
BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.
It sounds to me like another Daily Mail story.
Also as I mentioned before, regardless of the outcome of the February court, Bassa will still go ahead with the ballot.
Looking forward to next few weeks too

52049er

14th Jan 2010, 09:25

BASSA's muddled thinking strikes again.

They take BA to court over agreements that they believe are contractual.

They then refuse to implement the Disruption Agreement.

So are agreements (A) a legally binding contract (in which case they win the court case but get sued for breaking a legally binding DA contract) or (B) just agreements in which case they can get away with not agreeing to the DA but lose the court case?

Or are some agreements just agreements (ie the nice ones to have) and others (ie the not so nice ones) not? Lunacy.

wobble2plank

14th Jan 2010, 09:25

Romans44

BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.

Can you prove that? Do you have it in writing? If, perhaps, you did then surely the fiasco of the last ballot could not have happened?

I would suggest that the database maintenance of BASSA is not as 'leak proof' as you would like to speculate.

Odd as well that the company took the time and effort to inform BASSA that there were irregularities with their balloting procedure but BASSA politely (or possibly not in Lizanne Maloneys case) refused to listen. Where have we seen that before?

StoneyBridge Radar

14th Jan 2010, 09:28

Romans opined:
BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.

She who must be obeyed ( the future Mrs Stoney, not Loopy La La ), left BA in 2005 and has not paid anything to BASSA since then.

Perhaps you could explain how she managed to receive a ballot paper through the post for the first drubbing, and perhaps you could explain why, when she contacted them, their response was that they obviously couldn't ask her to do anything illegal, but that her vote would be counted if she chose to support her ex-colleagues by filling it in and returning it.

If your wonderful BASSA lack the ability to maintain even the most basic of data bases, and are so morally bankrupt as to make such a request of her, I wonder how you can place any faith in anything else they do.

These people are leading you to the slaughter house and will gladly be the ones who lock the door behind you in the pursuit of their own selfish goal of self-preservation and maintaining their own cushy T&Cs.

Regards.

SBR

saintjoseph

14th Jan 2010, 09:35

romans 44 , fwiw, bassa subs do come out of salary. amicus subs not necessarily so. small point, but bassa members note that ba know who you are.

romans44

14th Jan 2010, 09:52

Juan Tugoh

14th Jan 2010, 09:57

BASSA maybe many things but I do not believe that having been humiliated in court that they will be stupid enough to screw up a second ballot due to database errors. They will simply misjudge the public reaction, and BA's reaction to this strike.

The real issue will be how they can sustain a strike if they lose the court case in Feb, the vilification heaped upon them in Dec over the failed strike will return. This would allow WW to impose a lot more upon the CC community than they are seeing at the moment.

BASSA missed a massive PR coup when they refused to implement the DA - put simply they looked petulant and it achieved nothing as BA imposed it anyway. This will be brought up again in the press when BASSA try to say that they have the interests of the traveling public at heart. Even being correct now may not be enough, strikes do need public support - or at least no public antipathy to succeed, being hated by the British public can persuade many weak people to break a strike.

Desertia

14th Jan 2010, 10:11

Would you agree with me that maybe, only maybe, we would probably be in a stronger financial situation if the above errors were not made?

Put simply Romans, NO. All of the above were accounted for long before the current downturn, and in the case of the fines, they were probably eclipsed by the excess profits that led to them in the first place.

This is an old BASSA line and it was refuted a long time ago.

I think you're also right in saying that the relashionship (sic) between the company and the union have reached an all time low

I'm afraid that was always going to happen as soon as this sorry bunch of Union reps decided that working a service was below them and basically hindered every attempt by BA to stem the massive losses they have been incurring.

And if the relationship is poor, it is because BASSA have essentially poisoned the minds of many of their members with a continual stream of lies which has led us to where we are now.

It is cringeworthy to read poorly-educated cabin crew spewing badly spelt BASSA bile (such as their favourite word "twunt") about their employer. They should be replaced with people who actually want the job.

romans44

14th Jan 2010, 10:12

There are dozens of ex staff that were sent ballot papers last time round. Not just those that took VR recently, but ones that retired/left YEARS ago-Stony above refers.

BA have the names, the ex staff are cooperating by sending in their (unused) ballot papers. The trick is BASSA have to be able to find these "needles in the haystack" and ensure they are not sent papers again. That's why your esteemed Branch Secretary has been on a disciplinary for trying to filter the database when he should have been at work flying.

This is a MASSIVE car crash. When will BASSA members snap out of this trance?

Hi BB, if you were at the hight court, and I was, you would know that all BASSA has to do is to show they have done everything in their power to send the ballots to active members only.
You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.
Lets wait and see , shall we?

MrBunker

14th Jan 2010, 10:25

Hi BB, if you were at the hight court, and I was, you would know that all BASSA has to do is to show they have done everything in their power to send the ballots to active members only.
You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.
Lets wait and see , shall we?

Just as BA did before the ballot result too, didn't they? They warned Unite of serious flaws in their ballot and Unite pressed on regardless. Yet when the high court tells you, they're doing you a favour. Interesting.

Desertia

14th Jan 2010, 10:30

You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.

I think you'll find BA tried to do you a huge favour by telling you that the ballot was flawed before you even went to court.

I think you will probably find that it doesn't matter what the ballot says now, anyway. Everything seems to hinge on the Feb 1st court case, and based on past record, I don't much fancy BASSA's chances to be honest.

Whether BASSA want to drag people into another futile attempt at IA will probably end being irrelevant.

La Pouquelaye

14th Jan 2010, 11:02

Romans44 has been on duty now for more than 24 hours; he must be tired.

Where is Watersidewonker or MissM when they are needed?

Mabbs9

14th Jan 2010, 11:56

BASSA must be a smart bunch. They need the High Court to tell them how to ballot. A quick internet search would have probably been a more painless and less embarrassing way of finding out.

The High Court was also able to point out to UNITE that a number something like this.. 071209 may in fact be a date! (In this context a leaving date).

Tragic. It would be funny if it wasn't threatening so many peoples' livelyhoods and travelling publics important plans.

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 14:23

They are called, in ascending order, First Officer, Senior First Officer and then Captain.

That should be enough levels of management above the CSD.

I think you'll find that that is the chain of command. The levels of management above a CSD are Crew Manager, Fleet Manager, Head of IFCE, Directors, Willie! Only one pilot in that lot!

Where is Watersidewonker or MissM when they are needed?
Given this is a Cabin Crew thread there's a better than average chance they are flying!

Wasn't this the role of a Fleet Director? - what happened to them then?
There are one or two still flying as WW CSD's but most have left. Their role has changed name three times since then! Currently the job is performed by Crew Managers but they don't fly.

TheTiresome1

14th Jan 2010, 15:09

The problem of who is where is likely to be solved in the near future, it seems. Some CC will be flying, and some will be job-seeking. And some passengers will be flying with carriers who are not threatened by disruption.

Miners and Railwaymen and Postmen and Bin-Men were/are able to [try to] hold the country to ransom. Somehow I don't think BA Cabin Crew have quite that level of impact. That is the tragedy of this entire dispute; it's just "Baying at the Moon", and the only losers can be Cabin Crew [on BOTH sides of the dispute] and the airline.

If there was ever a lose-lose dispute, this is the one.
If CC win, BA loses and goes bust as it cannot sustain £1m a day losses., so they're out of a job.
If BA wins, they save money - but they have lost passenger confidence, so revenue diminishes until BA implodes, and CC are out of a job.

It really is bizarre. :ugh:

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 15:23

If there was ever a lose-lose dispute, this is the one.
If CC win, BA loses and goes bust as it cannot sustain £1m a day losses., so they're out of a job.
If BA wins, they save money - but they have lost passenger confidence, so revenue diminishes until BA implodes, and CC are out of a job.

Blimey, you're a cheerful soul. They could of course, thrash this out around the table, find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face and then we all stroll off into the sunset and save JAL instead! Going by past industrial disputes in BA (a few of which I've lived through in 22 years) my scenario is the way it usually plays out, so lets hope you're wrong!

Taking cover now!!!

TheTiresome1

14th Jan 2010, 15:30

Ottergirl, I sincerely hope that your "Third Way" turns out to be the end result. For EVERYONE's benefit, even the Heathrow CC who will basically carry on as usual [apart from the CSD who may have to do a bit of/more work during service] which is not a life-changing scenario in the big picture..

So much old, negotiated benefit being [at last] called into question. We all resist change, but it seems that this one is long overdue [from what I have read here so far].

I just wonder [seriously] how much financial damage has already been caused too BA by this dispute.

Dawdler

14th Jan 2010, 15:33

They could of course, thrash this out around the table, find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face and then we all stroll off into the sunset

I seem to recall that BA wanted to do that all along, but BASSA wouldn't avail themselves of the knowledge to so (look at the books) and then screamed "No negotiation":rolleyes:

FlexSRS

14th Jan 2010, 15:51

To complicate matters in terms of negotiation, in terms of pay and how it is divided up, HMRC have announced the new rax rates for BA pilots and CCrew today.

There is a big change coming for CC, have BASSA been upfront and told you about it yet? They know what your new tax rates are, and you will find them out via your pay slip if BASSA don't tell you.

It may well determine what sort of pay structure would be most beneficial for ccrew, in terms of getting the most tax efficient deal.

midman

14th Jan 2010, 16:09

....find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face ...

I think Bassa lost face a long time ago. The laughing stock of the airline and the industry.

Bassa will have to give up a lot to get away without a strike ballot being needed, there's no way BA will accept an easy compromise now.

On the subject of Bassa's ability to work for its members, what taxation rate has Bassa been able to negotiate for allowances? Any news? ;)

TheTiresome1

14th Jan 2010, 16:10

New "rax tates" ;) are an interesting addition - would that perhaps relate to financial benefits that have, to date, eluded HMRC?
ooops.

I thought we all declare our income, from all sources, including benefits?
Or had BASSA established a "relationship" with HMRC that previously circumvented some of that? ;)

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 16:16

have BASSA been upfront and told you about it yet?

FlexSRS, if that question is directed at me I'm not a BASSA member so don't receive letters or access to their website so I have no idea whether its been mentioned or not. Certainly, I haven't seen or heard any reference to it from Unite Amicus. Is it something you could put on the forum or would you rather not? (Quite understand if it's confidential info you're in possession of!)

:)Otherwise I have the delightful In-Touch training this month so I can see if our BA managers have any knowledge!

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 16:25

New "rax tates" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif are an interesting addition - would that perhaps relate to financial benefits that have, to date, eluded HMRC?
ooops.

This is an ongoing process that HMRC go through with all airlines on a regular basis due to the unusual way that our earnings are made up. It deals with the proportion of meal allocation which is eligible for tax. There is no question that anything has eluded HMRC or that any 'deals' have been done by any of the unions or BA.

FlexSRS

14th Jan 2010, 16:27

Ottergirl,

Sorry, perhaps I should have made that clearer, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just CCrew (all of you, whether members of BASSA or not, have your T's and C's negotiated by them whether you like it or not, that's just how collective bargaining goes)

The new pilots rates are no secret, HMRC and BALPA have written to all the pilots. Our rate goes from 82% tax free, down to 79% tax free on our TAFB (Time away from base payment, our fixed hourly payment that we have instead of your meal allowances)

I think BALPA probably know the new rates for CCrew, but they are not telling the pilots, as I think there is about to be a backlash amongst the CCrew when they find out their new rates. I await with interest to see who BASSA try and blame. My money is on either HMRC being called corrupt, or HMRC accused of being in leagues with Walsh.

Perhaps if BASSA get around to telling the crew about the rates, someone could enlighten us all.

Cheers.

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 16:37

We have two different rates, one for Long-haul and one for Eurofleet. Can't remember what WW's is but I know what mine is on Short-haul. Do the pilots rates differentiate between the two types of flying or is there a one-fits-all approach to the new rate?

If HMRC wrote to you guys then maybe they'll do the same for us. As a Eurofleet CSD, allowances are not a particular feature on my payslip at the moment, so it may be a while before I even notice. The tax on 'not much' is likely to be 'not much'!

overstress

14th Jan 2010, 16:38

FlexSRS has a point. Whose fault will it be this time in the global conspiracy against BASSA?

Surely the leadership of BASSA will implode soon in an event of cult-concluding proportions?

Most cults seem to end with the arrest of the ringleaders after the membership have been brainwashed and then coerced to self-destruct in some way. Can anyone see any similarities unfolding here?

TheTiresome1

14th Jan 2010, 16:40

No problems, Ottergirl

But - Oh, goody - a new subject called "taxation of benefits in kind". Wish I had some!! :)

Perhaps this deserves a new thread, unless IA is linked to this?

wobble2plank

14th Jan 2010, 16:42

Ottergirl,

I think you will also find that the chain of command refers to those working on board the aircraft, as the post alluded to. Another person working onboard the aircraft taking the 'management' role aspects off of the CSD.

Whilst the aircraft is dispatched from base the Captain IS the onboard manager responsible for the crew.

midman

14th Jan 2010, 16:50

Dare any Bassa member email their reps and ask what they've negotiated?

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 16:55

wobble2plank

That is surely so but I have yet to see an FO or even Senior FO 'manage' any of the Cabin crew! I'll look forward to it now that we've had this discussion though! :eek: On Eurofleet we are sadly often cut adrift down-route with no-one to manage us and we cope splendidly.

What we are quibbling about here is the difference between performance management (people) and shall we call it operational management (situations). There may be some who are the exception to this but I have yet to have my performance managed by a Captain although they will give feedback if solicited (sometimes reluctantly); I rely absolutely on their management skills when it all goes Pete Tong as it has frequently in the last couple of weeks. Yesterdays Captain was 'awesome'!:ok:

ottergirl

14th Jan 2010, 17:08

BA 'unable to close final salary scheme due to a little known pact, called the 1948 Redeployment Agreement, goes a long way towards explaining why BA hasn't already shut its retirement savings scheme to existing members'.

Slight deviation from thread but what do you all think of this? Is it likely to be true? Off-line for a bit, back later.

Human Factor

14th Jan 2010, 17:21

Hotel Mode

14th Jan 2010, 17:37

Slight deviation from thread but what do you all think of this? Is it likely to be true? Off-line for a bit, back later..

The opinion of a pensions trustee who is also a BALPA rep is that there's virtually nil chance it applies in this case sadly.

wobble2plank

14th Jan 2010, 18:44

That is surely so but I have yet to see an FO or even Senior FO 'manage' any of the Cabin crew!

Ottergirl,

Be careful what you wish for, there are an awful lot of very, very experienced ex-military or 'previous employment' Captains in the right hand seat of many a BA jet! Not every FO is a 20 something 'wet behind the ears'.

Ironically being 'cut loose' tends to mean, 'I'm tired, I'm going to bed' downroute on SH. As to performance management that is exactly why the CC should be brought directly under the banner of flight operations and thus the russian roulette of 'what scheme are we working today' goes out of the window and if the Captain decides its legal and safe, it goes.

TheTiresome1

14th Jan 2010, 18:48

wobble, you'll be saying next that ex-Mil aircrew are "leaders of men/women" ;)

Da Dog

14th Jan 2010, 20:28

I m told that BASSA already know the result of the HMRC audit results and the subsequent negotiations yet they don't disseminate amongst their members.

Why is that? Answers on a post card BASSA members.

wobble2plank

14th Jan 2010, 20:28

TheTiresome1

Where they lead ...... others follow......

But only out of idle curiosity! :}

:ok:

Da Dog

14th Jan 2010, 20:30

You have way to much trust, in my experience the Army/Navy/air farce could not lead a camel to water even if they were standing in an oasis.:ok:

To claim otherwise is a folly..........now back to BASSA V BA thank you

Desertia

14th Jan 2010, 20:33

Blimey, you're a cheerful soul. They could of course, thrash this out around the table, find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face and then we all stroll off into the sunset and save JAL instead!

Ottergirl,

You've always struck me as one of the more articulate posters on here. Could I ask you if that was a flippant comment, or if you understand why the future of JAL is actually quite important to BA and its partners?

In my experience, "losing face" is such a puerile third world concept.

La Pouquelaye

14th Jan 2010, 21:36

A cartoon in the February 2010 issue of "The Oldie" depicts a group of seated passengers, with the caption "Ladies and gentlemen, we are starting our descent into bankruptcy".

Watersidewonker

14th Jan 2010, 22:05

So at least the snow has cleared up just in time for the next BASSA meeting and we all know how pleasent things have been since the last meeting. This goes from taxation to pensions to DA then to court cases then chain of command oh help me I'm still feeling rather lost. When I hear BASSA did this wrong that wrong it makes me laugh as if the credit crunch could be blamed on BASSA I'm sure some of you would believe that. Fact 1 we the 92.49% give or take a few who left under VR will never trust Villie and Billie to do anything for the good of cabin crew. Fact 2 The only way to make this company understand is through taking action as they don't want a settlement.
I don't want you all to think I have gone away but I just thought a little rest to observe the twaddle day in day out anyway 1st Feb and the new ballot something to look forward to for the month ahead.
To all you Cabin Crew on here remember to vote YES again yippie

Watersidewonker

14th Jan 2010, 22:22

Not going to lose sleep over this one at least if I pay a little more tax Mr Brown will waste it rather than me after all it's only money.

FlexSRS

14th Jan 2010, 22:22

BASSA were very quick off the marks when threatening to name and shame cabin crew who wouldn't participate in the tax receipts exercise back in 2008. (because they couldn't afford to / didn't want to / someone else will do it / commute and don't pay uk tax anyway)

They don't seem to be so quick to tell you all how it went!

Seeing as these rates are going to apply from a few days time, and we are potentially talking about £100s per month out of your pocket, I'm very very surprised that there have not been hoards of crew emailing BASSA to demand to know what's going on, and demanding to know how many times they have met with HMRC to try and get the most for you. (Hint: I think you will be disappointed, although, if honest, probably not surprised)

midman

14th Jan 2010, 22:41

What is ironic is that this exercise assessing allowances is actually going to impact the take home pay of current Bassa members over the next 5 years far more than the possibility of a New Fleet.

The difference is that negotiating New Fleet means the reps can walk into a meeting room, chests puffed out, thump the table, and make demands and threats. But dealing with HMRC requires patient analysis, persuasive powers, knowledge of taxation law and an ability to process spreadsheet data.

Look what result Bassa have achieved for their members.

They charge money for this kind of representation?

MissM

14th Jan 2010, 23:00

La Pouquelaye
Where is Watersidewonker or MissM when they are needed?

I was at work and in the middle of a B2B!

What is it? What did I miss?

overstress

14th Jan 2010, 23:21

Wonker Fact 2 The only way to make this company understand is through taking action

I don't think they're interested in BASSA's point of view anymore,TBH.

I look forward to their attempts at 'action'.

Nutjob

15th Jan 2010, 05:25

Wonker

Not going to lose sleep over this one at least if I pay a little more tax Mr Brown will waste it rather than me after all it's only money

The arrogance is frightening. This extra tax will really hit your lower-paid colleagues hard. Still, I'm sure BASSA are blameless yet again. £100+ pcm = easy come, easy go. One crew member down = strike! No wonder BA find it hard to make these people understand logic.

Blind to the truth.

wiggy

15th Jan 2010, 06:00

With reference to increased taxation on allowances, I wonder how long it'll be before the phrase "sweetheart deal" is being used? :oh:

Desertia

15th Jan 2010, 06:53

Hey Wonker,

It seems the whole European Aviation industry shares your view that Willie Walsh doesn't know what he's doing, and will soon be replaced.

Err, hold on....

The FINANCIAL -- The Association of European Airlines , AEA, has announced that Willie Walsh, Chief Executive Officer of British Airways, will chair the Association in 2010.

Willie Walsh takes over from Dr. Ivan Mišetić, President and Chief Executive Officer of Croatia Airlines.

"Under Mr. Walsh’s Chairmanship, the AEA will redouble its efforts in supporting a global solution to deal with aviation’s emissions; will seek to minimise the burden of regulation on its member airlines; will continue to support the highest standards of safety and security; and as the global economic crisis continues, will seek to ensure that Europe retains a competitive and sustainable airline industry," AEA says.

Mr. Walsh also welcomed three new members, Air Baltic, Aegean Airlines and Montenegro Airlines, to the Association, which now comprises 36 major European network carriers.

dave747436

15th Jan 2010, 07:39

Watersidewonker,

Both of your 'Facts' are in reality 'Opinions'.

And confusing the two may well be the root cause of all your/BASSA's problems...

Human Factor

15th Jan 2010, 07:45

£100+ pcm

From what was suggested by various cabin crew earlier on in this thread and its precursors, some cabin crew take home £1200 per month (I know, I know!). There was some quite forceful debate on this very subject. Given the extra tax, they will now take home what amounts to 11 months salary for 12 months work. Well done, BASSA.

Still, it's only money isn't it, Watersidewonker. :rolleyes:

SweetChariotXV

15th Jan 2010, 11:36

Fact 1 we the 92.49% give or take a few who left under VR

Well 92.49% is not really fact then is it. If you want to start sprouting facts, how about get your numbers right first.

617sqn

15th Jan 2010, 12:28

Sorry if this appears to be going off thread but it does concern Terms and conditions.

Why would hourly rate pay be taxed differently to allowances?

May be obvious to some but I have never studied tax.

Sorry don't think I made my point clearly so have reposted.Why are allowances going to be treated more harshly than hourly rate?

Carnage Matey!

15th Jan 2010, 13:27

Because HMRC now know what proportion of each is typically spent on eating and what proportion goes home to pay the mortgage. As the proportions have been proven to be different the taxation will be different.

Slickster

15th Jan 2010, 13:29

In a nutshell, the Revenue will tax you on any part of your allowances that they consider to be "income" rather than "allowances". Remember, the idea of allowances is that they are there for you to feed yourself whilst at work. Of course we all know that everyone views, and treats a lot of their allowances as income these days, hence the Revenue's recent receipt gathering exercise, to find out how much we all do actually spend.

Say for the sake of argument, that your meal allowances for a nine day trip are £1000. Do you actually spend £1000 on food and drink during that nine day trip? If the Revenue reckon you only spend £300, they will tax £700 of your allowances as income (ie at your tax rate), and let you have £300 tax free.

This is why the recent receipt gathering exercise was so important - to prove to HMRC that we do spend all our allowances, and therefore should be given a decent chunk of them tax free. Sadly, many pilots and CC were, frankly, quite selfish, and couldn't be bothered to partake, or up their spend to prove the point. The pilots seem to have got off quite lightly, through some hard work by reps, but I gather the same is not true for the CC.

But in any case, Wonker doesn't seem to mind handing Gordon Brown another few hundred quid out of his pay packet; he's more concerned about imposition! No doubt it's a conspiracy between HMRC, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Willie Walsh, and the pilots anyway.......

617sqn

15th Jan 2010, 13:37

I understand the bit about allownces coming back into the UK but if pilots are doing that with the hourly rate wouldn't the same principal apply?

Only asking as someone has posted that allowances are going to be treated more harshly than hourly rate.I wondered why that would be.

Slickster

15th Jan 2010, 13:43

Ir's not so much to do with being in or out of the UK, but what the allowances are used for. In essence, with an hourly rate, the pilots earn a lot less in allowances, compared to the CC meal allowance system, and hence they are taxed less.

To sum up, HMRC think that £2.79 per hour (what the pilots get) is a more realistic figure for spending money whilst at work. I doubt they think £1000 for a nine day trip is realistic, hence it will attract a higher rate of tax, because they know you're spending/saving it as income, not on your food down route.

617sqn

15th Jan 2010, 13:47

Would cabin crew be better off on hourly rate?

I think I may just have opened a can of worms!!

wiggy

15th Jan 2010, 13:48

I think Slicksters got it about right. From what I'm hearing the issue is not just about how the allowances were "allocated" (hourly rate vs. destination specific), it's also that for reasons various the two communities and their respective Associations handled the receipt gathering and subsequent negotiations with HMRC in entirely different ways. Therefore HMRC has decided to tax the two communities at different levels.

Human Factor

15th Jan 2010, 13:59

Would cabin crew be better off on hourly rate?

I think I may just have opened a can of worms!!

I think you may....

To be fair, it depends what the hourly rate is set at. If it is set at about the same level as the pilots, it's probably reasonable to assume the tax level would be about the same. Significantly higher and the tax level will be higher.

It's ok though, BASSA know all this..... :E

FlexSRS

15th Jan 2010, 14:12

This is what the present issue boils down to;

Pilots: £2.79/hr. Tend to pretty much always go out and have dinner, even on a 12hr30 nightstop. Receipts exercise showed this. Hence 79% of hourly rate is tax free as that is what HMRC see as reasonable.

CCrew: Meal based allowance system. Tend not to go out, especially on SH. On a ZRH standover, about £500 allowances. Cost of a few pot noodles = £5. Hence only 1% spent, hence 99% taxable. Ok, so this is an extreme example to show the kind of numbers at one end of the spectrum. At the other end is an African trip where the whole amount may well be spent. So, you might end up with an average of about 50% being spent, but taking in to account all those crew who didn't even bother to participate, for various reasons including the fact that commuters don't pay tax so lots of them didn't bother, and in a very varied and disparate community there is not much desire to sacrifice a months allowances for the greater good. (its all about ME), I think the crew are about to get clobbered by the tax man.

You could see it coming a mile off. How were crew ever going to spend a GVA lunch payment on a there and back, never stepping off the plane, especially when most of them weren't even bothering, and most of the others weren't willing to help them out.

You reap what you sow...

FlexSRS

15th Jan 2010, 14:18

And a secondary point;

I can't believe BASSA still hasn't told crew their new tax rates!
(actually, I can very well believe it, sadly :suspect: )

The only reasons I can think of are;

1) They are waiting to announce it at the rally on Monday, to help get everyone riled up and angry at BA. It will somehow be blamed on BA, BALPA or the Pilots. (who will be accused of getting a sweetheart deal)

2) They are waiting till after the rally, so that when crew realise how they have been let down, and let each other down, they won't be able to ask embarrassing questions of the leadership

3) They are still trying to think who they should blame, and are hoping the whole thing will go away.

Anyone care to email LALA lady and find out?

(just out of interest, does she pay uk tax..?)

IYCSWICSWICW

15th Jan 2010, 14:23

..actually Flex, you reap what has been sown by the elected reps..

..BASSA, have, yet again, failed their members. And this time they can't spin a victory, surely?

GF :}

617sqn

15th Jan 2010, 14:48

It's ok though, BASSA know all this

Frankly that is what I find so terrifying about all this mess.

BASSA have always resisted the idea of hourly rate.If it turns out cabin crew would have been better off on this and that would have been a more tax efficient way of being paid then that is disgraceful!!

Thank you for all your replies.Backed up what i thought actually but just wanted reassurement.

La Pouquelaye

15th Jan 2010, 15:12

No doubt it's a conspiracy between HMRC, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Willie Walsh, and the pilots anyway.......

Not to mention the shareholders, the communications media, the public at large, the disgruntled passengers, the banks, the man in the moon . . .

ottergirl

15th Jan 2010, 15:40

Back from work now so here goes a catch up

Ironically being 'cut loose' tends to mean, 'I'm tired, I'm going to bed' downroute on SH.
Sweeping generalisation! For what its worth I would estimate that I go out and eat 80% of the time. Sometimes the 'rapport' in the team doesn't quite justify it or I've done 3 sectors and spent 9 hours talking to several hundred people and am talked out. This month I have dined in BCN, ZRH, HAM and MAD. I am not, however, a post 1997 crew member struggling to pay my mortgage and am always careful not to put any pressure on my crew to go out in case they can't afford to. Cut loose to me means nightstopping without pilots! Next time one of my crew needs telling their uniform is too tight or their attitude below par I'll find an ex-military FO to sort them out!

You've always struck me as one of the more articulate posters on here. Could I ask you if that was a flippant comment, or if you understand why the future of JAL is actually quite important to BA and its partners?

In my experience, "losing face" is such a puerile third world concept.
Thank you, I think!? Yes Desertia, mainly flippant but the message stands. As for JAL, as a Customer Service Trainer I deliver business updates to the Cabin Crew community so feel confident I have a grasp on the issues and benefits to our alliance. In my experience, losing face is a global concept, here in the west we don't always acknowledge its impact. It is probably a key feature in gang behaviour.

Would cabin crew be better off on hourly rate?

I think I may just have opened a can of worms!!
Not a can of worms but there are certainly differing opinions. I belong to the CC Union which voted to accept it in principle but the deal wasn't quite the same as that offered to the pilots. As I recollect, theirs was tied up in a rationalisation of pay rates which shared the salary points out more evenly. Our rate was never finalised as the other union chose not to explore it. Certainly on Eurofleet, we have had occasion to be pleased about that since the 'sterling to Euro' rate fell out of bed as we would have lost out overall. For WW I believe that hourly rate is the only way that BA can envisage a bidding system having any chance of success so there is another incentive apart from HMRC. Have e-mailed Amicus to ask what our rate will be.:eek: As there was never an hourly rate negotiated, it's impossible to tell who would have won or lost!

Pausing for breath to read some more.