British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[flapsforty]

As requested by many of you:



British Airways Plc v Unite the Union
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009

Case Digest


Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience

Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .

According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike.
Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.

Held:

(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite.
Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.

(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA.
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.

Application granted.

[Tiramisu]

I'm delighted that BA manged to get an injunction against Unite to prevent strike action. Sadly we will be damged through lost bookings to our competitors. Strike action isn't the way forward, get your Unions to negotiate, negotiate and negotiate!

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

[Mr Optimistic]

Presume NAPS is a defined benefit scheme for which I would think you become effectively a 'deferred' pensioner with your entitlement fixed in terms of number of years and salary but adjusted each year in line withe the rules (eg by rpi up to maximum of x% or, if you are luckly, fully indexed). Same as if you left the company. You could transfer out but be very very careful you understand what you are giving up (strong default is to stay put).

[HiFlyer14]

The pilots attempted industrial action was injuncted over the issues that they had chosen to ballot over - ours was not.

It was obtained by exploiting a legal loophole by a judge who was willing to allow, what is in essence a technicality, to push the balance of the law even further towards an employer that without conscience, was willing to use it.

The law is designed to make it as hard as possible for ordinary people to take industrial action; this ruling has made it even harder.

It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action


I'm afraid I would lose the will to live if I went through the latest BASSA update for inaccuracies but here are just a few myths and lies that need to be put to bed, from the excerpt above.

There is no verb, to my knowledge, to injuct. So one cannot injunct, or be injuncted. It is a noun (injunction) or adjective (injunctive).

So not content with making up content, are we now making up verbs?

"A technicality?" Err no, it is the law. Are all laws technicalities then? Sorry your honour for drink driving and causing mayhem on the roads, it was just a technicality.

"The law is designed to make it as hard as possible." INCORRECT. EMPLOYMENT law is designed to make it as easy as possible and Industrial Tribunals are written in clear language so that any individual can pursue one.

"It stemmed from a new and far reaching procedure" INCORRECT. It stemmed from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .

1992 - so the same ballot procedure BASSA used in 1997 and again 2007.
So not so new and far reaching.

I could go on, but WHAT IS THE POINT?.:bored:

As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time.

We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame.

A couple of weeks ago, my CV looked quite good with my years of BA experience and the different things I have done here. Now it is not worth the paper it is written on. And that is entirely BASSA's fault. Members of BASSA are paying for their own demise with their subscription fees. And they have achieved absolutely nothing.

If they cannot see that by now, then I'm afraid the cancer does, as stated earlier, need to be surgically removed.

[ottergirl]

Thank you Mr O,
One of the other contributors kindly sent me a PM explaining the future if the pension fund is closed. I think I understand the position better and am resolved to read up further.
Thanks again.

[Jadzia]

As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time.

We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame.Well said!

But I don't think that many Cabin Crew will be changing their mind. If the second ballot will go ahead, I'll expect a very strong YES result once again. BASSA have been brainwashing crew very well and I believe that CC will be even more militant than before.

Passengers will think twice before booking with BA, as our future is very uncertain at this stage. I'm not recommending BA to friends anymore and I've stopped selling Hotlines to them, as I couldn't bear the thought of them being stuck in IA or unable to go on holiday because of this very selfish fraction of our company. I used to be very proud of working for BA, but have become very embarrassed of what has become of it. Not only that the strike threat has given us a bad name, but the recent change of our inflight product make us look rather poor, too.

I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?! Doesn't it make the CC look ridiculous and a target for abuse from passengers? Customer at the heart of the business? Customer = person who pays for our wages???

[ottergirl]

they see these 'fat cats' sitting pretty on decent terms and conditions of employment

Its not easy to see our cabin crew on a basic of 12K as 'fat cats' even with the best allowances the Daily Mail can dream up. Nor do I think two nights rest in LAX qualifies for chubby pussy status. By comparison with McD's or even TGI's, a CSD earns a good wage but hardly up there with a training Captains, IT professional or a Banker. Perspective please!

I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?!

Like we had any say over that! As you say, its us that take the stick so we would hardly be choosing to serve something you speak of with derision! Believe me, its been hard to convince the crew to go out and deliver it with pride.

[midman]

Apologies for the length of this post, but hopefully it sums up where we are at the moment. Perhaps useful at the start of a new thread?!

I think Henky is pretty much spot on when he says that this isn't about money.
If it were, then I think it would be pretty easy to come to some sort of agreement after some hard negotiating.
In fact, the problems are more deep seated and will take longer to correct, IMHO.

Henky mentions that many of the cabin crew on here refer to BA as another entity, separate from themselves, rather than being part of BA itself and therefore part of the problem and its solution. The post today from Bassa describes cabin crew being the face of BA, yet most comments I hear from cabin crew refer to BA being the 'other side', the 'enemy', with them being on the side of Bassa who are the good guys in this fight. It's BA, those other guys, who have conducted nasty tricks, screwed up fuel hedging, messed up T5 etc. They don't see themselves as having ownership of the problems within the company, and as having a part to play in the recovery of the company.

The blame doesn't just lie with Bassa. When I joined I was amazed how the company abrogates most personnel management responsibilities and allows the unions to operate as the admin executives for many basic personnel functions. I myself experienced it a few years ago when I had to decide whether to take a short haul command or stay right seat long haul. I needed lots of info regarding pay scales, seniority levels, fleet movement etc. The manager I went to just said 'Ask your union'.

This applies in IFCE to an even greater extent where the union is seen as the source of unbiased fact ("the company will just tell you what suits it best, probably to your disadvantage") and the company allows this to continue. Any problems are referred to the union in the first instance, even to the extent that the union is contacted on board the aircraft if there is any discrepancy between what the Captain wants the crew to do and what they might want. Firstly, on board, the Captain should be the authority, and secondly, if anyone should be contacted, the cabin crew should ask to use the phone to speak to management. But that rarely happens - Bassa decide.
Bassa has also enjoyed an over-inflated influence over the operation, unknown in any other airline, to the extent that aircraft are diverted in flight, or flights are cancelled, purely in the defence of cabin crew agreements.

The problem with this set up is that, whilst it keeps management and admin costs down (the union phone line gets more use than the cabin crew admin line, I would imagine), there is a problem building up for the time when established practices have to change. Especially in a crisis when change has to happen quickly.

The time has now come where the company can no longer afford the downside of the strength of the union, and has to make the company more efficient. That means more work or less pay, and some specific inefficiencies have to be addressed.

This disconnect between the cabin crew and the company means that when the company has a financial problem, the cabin crew don't empathise with the company. They look to their union for the facts. However, the union has a different problem.
The changes that will increase efficiency also mean that the union is now facing the prospect of losing its influence and the status that its representatives enjoy. They come to work each day and know that they can influence the operation themselves, delays, disruption, cancellations, sicknesses are referred to the reps who can decide what happens.

WW has decided that this arrangement is a luxury that he cannot afford to allow to continue. The appalling effect that such decisions had on our operational effectiveness last February during the snow disruption were the final straw. The argument that Ottergirl uses that the adherence to such agreements makes for a fairer system as it avoids nepotism is a totally spurious one. The avoidance of nepotism is hardly an argument for commercial inefficiency.

So how do we move forward? I can only suggest a way of avoiding the problem in the future.
Henky says that the employees need to be more involved in the decision making in the company. I agree, but don't feel that is part of the union's role.
Cabin crew regularly complain that their leadership comprises very few experienced cabin crew members - to me that is a fundamental problem. The line between the cabin crew and the running of the department should be much more fuzzy, more on the lines of Flt Ops, where most of the managers are pilots - not just ex-pilots, but current pilots. There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. I was immensely proud that until recently there was a pilot on the Board, (there's still an ex-pilot there!!!), and I'm sure cabin crew would respect and trust their leaders much more if they knew the guys running their department. (At the moment they see their union as their leaders.)

There would be a greater connect between the two groups if they were effectively blended together at the edges, with mixing between the two.

The upside of this is that there isn't any need for union agreement - their influence will atrophy, but that will happen organically, without revolution. They will return to being just the guys who sort out the pay deal, and speak for the workforce on a few big issues, but will lose ther day to day input and importance.

The downside is that it won't happen overnight.

My argument won't solve our current issues but I believe it might give us a way of avoiding them in the future. And I think it explains why it's not about money, as Henky says.

[Juan Tugoh]

There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA.

I have worked in airlines where Flight Ops and IFCE are separate entities like BA and also in ones where the two empires are unified under a Director of Flight Ops. The DFO then represents both FC and CC interests to the Board. The unified approach is by far the more operationally sensible. There are no occasions where the CC managers order a diversion or decide when the CC need extra nights off or indeed anything else because they work for the Ops department and have a responsibility to the safe and efficient conduct of the operation. Simply put it works better this way.

There is no reason why a CC member should not rise to be the DFO - all they would need to do is understand the operational side of the airline. In the more dysfunctional BA model the CC generally have a great understanding of the IFCE side of things but generally a very poor grasp of operational matters. This is largely due to there being no need for them to have an understanding of the more technical side of the airline business - it certainly does not imply any lack of ability, more a lack of opportunity. Similarly the FC community are generally less aware of the day to day stuff that CC have to deal with for the same reasons.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Jadzia
wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?!

Ottergirl replied,
Like we had any say over that! As you say, its us that take the stick so we would hardly be choosing to serve something you speak of with derision! Believe me, its been hard to convince the crew to go out and deliver it with pride.



Well said, Ottergirl!
In most aspects of product changes to customers, we have very little or no say at all. That said, BA does work with us on the delivery aspects. The removal of sandwiches which was replaced by Skybites( birdseed) was part of the product cost savings. Naturally feedback on behalf of our customers has been given back to the company .

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

[Weather Map]

Midman

In the eighties and ninties there was the role of Fleet Director .They still flew as crew mostly to check out the CSD/PSR but they were part of the seniority list and flying agreement.It was a more friendly type of crew manager .However BA felt that the Performance Management of crew wasn't strong enough so the role changed to MCS (Manager Customer Service)some had flown so came in new to BA they were not part of the flying agreement. A slightly tougher stance was taken.

I can understand what you say and do agree in principle with you .However putting it into practice won't work (just my opinion) .

The problem with the crew community is winging is part of the culture it always has been and always will be.I would say most crew don't even like their CSD's on the day.It is part of the culture.When i was on Longhaul you would often see the CSD having breakfast by themselves.I have seen pretty nasty behaviour towards CSD's /PSR's who performance manage onboard crew don't like it .The easy way out now for crew is "your a bully"

I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.

There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew they think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.

IFS is a mess in BA.Take BMI cabin crew the enviroment is much more polished especially with SEP and uniform standards etc.Crew are not managed properly that is the problem.Please don't get me wrong cabin crew need to be managed in a supportive caring way beating someone with a stick is NOT the correct approach .However cabin crew need to take onboard that they work for BA .BA does not work for them .

[the heavy heavy]

Seriously depressed now. Just read lala's latest missive and I'm lost for words. No matter how much you hate ww/daily mail/thatcher/capitalism/pilots you would have to be beyond help if you are unable to see past the lies, half truths and childish spin that it contains.

I now don't see what option the company had but to just fight bassa with it's own tactics. Go nuclear, hang the consequences. Remove the csd role, make them re-apply for their jobs and sack the ones you dint want to keep. 'cut out the disease.' Hey use the money saved (66% of the pay going to 33% of crew, solidarity sisters and brothers, but some pigs are more equal, Orwell not offence) to let the new contraact crew, most of you, keep what you've got. What options have unite/bassa left ww with? The constant mantra of negotiation not imposition flies totally in the face of the last years worth of talks, that cc are proud of their union after it's latest debacle is insanity on a stick!

I now expect that we won't survive. I was ready to strike over OS but that was before the present meltdown. Right now I'd pretty much give my right nut to keep this job being paid the same as my mates at easy and virgin but having read the likes of watersidew, fume, otter, pib etc etc I've accepted that I'll be starting again at BAOC mk2 on less than I've got now. Only time will tell if watching the crew live in the new reality will make my pill easier to swallow.

I retire from this thread wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas and a reflective and peaceful new year, one none of us in BA deserve. I hope we use the time to watch a country find hope in difficult times whilst in the company of family and loved ones and remeber that we where prepared to destroy that to prove a point whilst hastening our end.

I hope that I'm wrong but I'll be flying aircraft full of passengers who resent us
and crew who hold us all in contempt. Henky is right, we will get the future we deserve.

Adios amigo's, I loved it, I really did.

[Weather Map]

A few yrs ago BMI got rid of all their CSD's .I don't think that is the way to go .However i do think that the CSD's and PSR's who are wingers and not performing should be weeded out .The tone of the day starts from the briefing.Call me old fashioned but i do think that if you are doing a job it should be done properly .

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Weather Map
I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.

There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew crew think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.



Weather Map,
Inconsistency is one of our biggest problems and in all my years of flying, it's never changed and it never will. There are set standards in all procedures and aspects of our role, however many see the job as a popularity contest and won't performance manage.
I agree with you that it starts at the top, and those CSDs and Pursers who don't perform should be performance managed themselves.

[the heavy heavy]

Is that in the same way I find bassa's use of war poetry and imagery offence. I've had the pleasure of being part of a real one which had ethnic cleansing, mass murder random rape and destruction. I watched hate, lies, distrust and misunderstanding destroy a country and now I get to see it destroy my company.

I lost my mother to it a young age and given it's effect on my life I fully understand it's a word that carries emotion. It's about as perfect a word as I can find to describe the actions of your union within our company.

No disrespect intended to your loss, I'm sure we both hate the word given what it's cost us. I feel it's appropriate, I respect you don't. I in no way seek to trivialise it but given I have no desire to upset you it's changed.

Rgds.

Ps. Really am off, will miss you 2.

Edit due to a change of heart and in respect of the too many mums and dads lost to early.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by A Lurker in response to Weather Map
Some good points - whenever I pull crew over their uniform or the various attachments that they adorn their bags with they look at me as if I am an alien!

The problem is - crew have never been managed correctly - again due to the fact that there has been a weak 'manage down' policy within BA


A Lurker,
Uniform standards has been and is one of our biggest problems. It's one where I really draw the line, it's either black or white in my case. The trouble with crew when they are 'corrected' on the day as I call it, they'll fly with someone else the next day who'll take a different stance and it's all back to square one if you know what I mean.


(This is really getting scary as I find myself agreeing with you yet again!
I promise it is the last time!)

[SlideBustle]

Weather Map I TOTALLY agree with you. There are MANY truly excellent CSDs and PSRs and they need to be commended and rewarded as such to motivate them to continue. These are the ones who lead by example, have high standards in both safety and service standards and who encourage and motivate other crew to have the same and manage any crew who do not perform. Unfortunately speaking as a main crew member who do have many poor performing CSDs and PSRs which is actually frustrating for me as a main crew member as I do like to do things properly and do hate complacency particularly with SEP standards, but also with service. I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now :sad: who do make me proud to work for BA!

Shame not all are like that but as Tiramisu says it is a long standing problem - and probably is at many other airlines although I think a new performance management system for these people should be introduced, as some people do not peform as they know they can get away with it!

[SlideBustle]

Just as an aside, I'm sure I've read somewhere some airline like Virgin and either qantas or Air New Zealand have their CSD/FSMs who fly with crew but also have some management responsibilities. I don't know but that could be a good idea to keep the CSD role ''alive'' if you know what I mean and also give PSRs another level to reach and also means that managers actually fly with crew on the line. Obviously there would be a problem that CTMs (crew team managers) would be out of a job but couldn't they work purely on the ground just managing the CSDs. Just an idea. I know this is slightly off track but it is still slightly related lol.

[Tiramisu]

I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif who do make me proud to work for BA!



Slidebustle,
Both you and I know that every pre-flight briefing should be carried out as per 'Inlight Service Preflight Safety Briefing Checklist' which every CSD/Purser should be in possession of. It is a 'Red Notice/OMN' and a mandatory part of every briefing.
If the SCCM does not carry out this required part of the briefing, they should be reported by CC.
I know this is easier said than done!

[SlideBustle]

True Tiramisu, it is easier said than done though. I know lot's of fellow crew love it if a sccm doesn't ask these questions but it is mandatory. Personally, I don't actually mind being asked questions, it keeps you thinking about your drills so they are fresh in your mind but that is just me!! But yeah they should be reported. However it can be hard especially as MC to report someone more senior. Although it shouldn't be as we all have a responsibility to SEP.

[Jean-Lill]

I agree very much with A Lurker, it is very offensive to some people to see the word cancer used when descibing anything to do with this topic. You never know if anyone reading these threads is suffering from cancer or lost someone to it.

Like Lurker I lost both my parents this time of year.

Please try and use alternative words to decribe opinions.

[Desertia]

A Lurker, my mother died of a heart attack, does that mean we can't use the words "heart" or "attack" in our posts?


Romans,
I am pretty sure that if the company removed the imposition tomorrow BASSA would not expect things to return to normal overnight. As I said in previous posts, there are ways of going around it, especially as the winter schedule is coming. I truly believe that, were there is a will there is a way.

Romans, you don't get it. BA CANNOT remove imposition. It cannot afford to. The company has lost about 1 billion pounds in the year up to last June. It is probably still losing 50 million pounds a month. It has a pension deficit of 3.7 Billion. The company is valued at (optimistically) 2.2 Billion. It has cash reserves of 2 Billion to draw on (borrowed at disadvantageous rates due to it's weak credit rating) which are needed for new aircraft if it is to survive.

Are you still not getting the point?

No doubt Lizanne tells you that 2 Billion is a "fighting fund" or some such nonsense. Well the answer is, it isn't there to fund the cushy lives of BASSA members.

I actually wonder if BA will be able to reveal even provisional figures for 2009 before your union next attempt to destroy the company. A figure of 500-600 million pounds lost would normally make people think twice.

I prefer to think of BASSA as a parasite on the company. Those who've lost relatives to tapeworm, you have my deepest sympathy.

And for the odious Malone, Rudyard Kipling? For God's sake woman, how long before you and your bumbling colleagues start quoting Rupert Brooke?

Which would be ironic, because you are the generals sending the privates to the slaughter.

Notwithstanding the potential destruction of a great company, I suppose there is very little point in banging one's head against a wall.

Who's for a game of football between the trenches? :)

Ironic that we talk of early deaths on the morning young Brittany Murphy collapsed and died of cardiac arrest at the too young age of 32.

May I wish the very best for the festive season to all PPRUNER's, and hope and pray that some common sense prevails, and that this isn't the last Christmas we will be talking about British Airways in its current form.

[Desertia]

Here is the ruling on the Metrobus case, of which BA were clearly aware. What mystifies me is how UNITE didn't know this was coming. Wasn't John Hendy the QC representing them last week?


Where an employer sought an injunction to restrain a strike, a union’s failure to comply with its obligation under s 231A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practicable of the result of the ballot could justify the grant of an injunction restraining the strike. S 231A, and also ss 226 and 234A, were not disproportionate restrictions on the rights of association conferred by art 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The obligations under those sections could not be regarded as onerous so that they could be said to constitute a serious impediment on a union’s ability to call a strike.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the defendant, Unite the Union, from the decision of King J on 9 October 2008 by which he granted an interim injunction restraining Unite from calling a strike by members who were bus drivers working for, inter alia, the claimant, Metrobus Ltd. The judge found that there were fatal defects in the notice of the ballot, in the two strike notices, and in the failure of Unite to notify Metrobus sufficiently promptly of the result of the ballot. Unite contended that the grounds on which the judge granted the injunction constituted a serious impediment on its ability and that of any other union to call a strike.
LLOYD LJ said that Unite submitted that the provisions of the 1992 Act as regards industrial action were to be seen in the light of fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association including the right to form and to join trade unions conferred in art 11 of the Convention. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that collective bargaining and strike action were important means by which a citizen’s rights might be protected without any formal recognition of either as an essential element of the art 11 right (see Unison v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497) and had now recognised that the right to collective bargaining was an essential element in that right: see Demir and Baykara v Turkey(Application No 34503/97) 12 November 2008. Unite also submitted that EC law recognised the fundamental nature of the right to strike: see International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line (Case C-438/05) [2008] ICR 741. Unite submitted that the relevance of the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction was that restrictions on the ability of a trade union to call a strike had to stand up to scrutiny under art 11. Were they appropriate? Such restrictions could be justified in the interests of members of the union, who were entitled to be protected against the calling of a strike which did not have the support of a majority of the relevant members, not that such restrictions could be a necessary protection for employers. In his Lordship’s view the legislation did take account of the legitimate interests of employers. A balance was necessary between the rights afforded to workers by art 11 on the one hand and the rights of the employer under art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention on the other. The binding effect of art 11 did not restrict the scope for a wide variety of different legislative approaches. Such variety was to be expected and was permitted by the margin of appreciation permitted to member states as regards conformity with the Convention.
Section 231A of the 1992 Act imposed a freestanding obligation on the union to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practical of the outcome of the ballot, regardless of the union’s decision as to industrial action, and His Lordship agreed with the judge that the union had not complied with it. This point affected also the ballot notice and the strike notices. Unite might have misunderstood the application of s 226A(2C)(ii). If so, it ignored the assistance provided by the Code of Practice. In assessing the reasonableness of the legislation it was legitimate to take account of the fact that that code was there to help in cases of doubt or difficulty. The requirement of an explanation was not an onerous obligation. Nor was it unreasonable for a trade union, when supplying information from its own sources, to be obliged to say something about how the information supplied had been arrived at. Assessing the requirements imposed by ss 226A and 234A, it did not seem to His Lordship that the obligation to provide an explanation of the figures could be said to be unreasonable, excessively onerous or disproportionate.
MAURICE KAY LJ and SIR MARK POTTER P delivered judgments concurring in the result

Appearances: John Hendy QC and Simon Gorton (instructed by EAD Solicitors LLP, Liverpool ) for the union; Charles Béar QC and Paul Gott (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell ) for the employer.

.

Ah yes, I checked:

In response on Thursday, John Hendy QC for Unite said the union had been "assiduous" in its efforts to comply with the law.

[Desertia]

Opinion piece from Graham Robertson:

British Airways crew dig the hole even deeper
By Graham Robertson

Its hard to look anywhere these days without hearing about the British Airways strike. I was very reluctant to write yet another post about something that’s been covered to death in both mainstream media as well as in the blogesphere, but now that the strike as been called off I feel I can add my two cents.

So what caused the flight crew to walk off the job over Christmas? Mainly, BA’s proposal to cut one staff per flight and freeze pay for two years. To be totally honest, I don’t think even that would be enough to stop the bleeding - BA lost £401m last year and it looks like it’s only going to get worse.

My first reaction to this was disappointment. Those of us that actually work in the travel industry have been through one of the worst years anyone can remember. We’ve all made sacrifices, we’ve all taken on more work than we thought we could handle and we did it happily because we had faith in our organizations as well as our industry to rebound. It will be very sad if these unions have destroyed BA’s chance to recover in 2010. There has already been murmurings that the strike may only have been postponed, further damaging consumer trust with the vague threat of a strike still looming.

I am all for employee rights and it’s never a good thing when someone loses their job, but sometimes these things cannot be avoided. Hopefully BA can get through this without any lasting effects; if not they will join the ranks of the many other UK airlines to go bust this year.

And one from Greg Hunt:

Tampa, Florida - A little winter sun was being spoiled by the possibility of having to deal with the mayhem caused by the planned 12 day British Airways (BA) cabin crew strike.

I believe a public service organisation, such as an airline, taking action at one of the major holiday periods of the year is nothing short of disgusting. And, anyone who takes part in such an action should lose their job - not that I have strong feelings.

Designed to pile pressure on management of the airline, the only losers would have been the one million stranded customers - but it could also bring the airline down.

Gordon Brown’s government would not allow BA to buckle under the pressure as it would trumpet an avalanche of similar actions.

The main arguments behind this strike action for the union members is a pay freeze and the reduction of one crew member on long haul flights - from fifteen to fourteen.

My only question - is the union complaining because the crew reduction would put passengers in danger, or does it mean that cabin crew would have to work harder?

If it’s the latter, well boo hoo! Now suck it up and get on with your job, at least you have one. If it is the former and it can be proved the airline management will have no other option than to acquiesce - which they haven’t.

You should also know that BA cabin crew, according to British Civil Aviation Authority figures earn, based on average total pay, twice as much as Virgin crew and more than £9,000 per year more than the next closest airline crew. Seems they could have afforded a 12 day unpaid holiday/strike. And, maybe that financial comfort is part of the problem. Conversely, BA is already facing some poor financials and the loss of £300 million revenue would certainly not have helped.

No employee is indispensable and every company is vulnerable. A 12 day strike is the sort of action that can cause irreparable damage to a company and anyone that cannot see that probably has the ego of a person who heads a large union.

Unite union leaders, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, would have you believe that strike action is the last option in their arsenal and nothing to do with the media attention they get.

Even after admitting that the proposed strike action is, “probably over the top”, they expect you to believe they have exhausted all avenues for discussion and that it was pure bad luck that a strike was scheduled for the most inconvenient time of the year.

Well, they have already been proved cheats by the High Court. The strike ballot was illegal and therefore so is the strike.

Maybe they are scumbag liars too.

Well, I won’t be in Florida longer than expected, but my view would still be let the strike go ahead and even let the airline collapse.

Let the 92 per cent of union members who voted for strike action join the ranks of the unemployed. I can always fly with another airline; let’s see how unemployment pay compares to having to do with one less crew member on a long haul flight. With the existing £3.7 billion deficit in the BA pension fund they may also find themselves stacking tins of chicken or fish on supermarket shelves in their retirement. Be careful what you wish (or vote) for.

[deeceethree]

BASSA's latest missive, posted at #6595 on the other preceding thread (now closed), is a tour de force in untruths - plain and simple.

Firstly, we need to clearly state that the legal injunction received by British Airways was absolutely and categorically nothing to do with the legality of the issues over which the ballot was held ....Wrong! BASSA broke the law by allowing members, who were taking voluntary redundancy, to ballot for a strike which would be called for after those members had left the company. That is illegal! You can only ballot members who have a direct interest in the the strike and its outcome.

BASSA had a copy of a spreadsheet (info regarding union members and salary deductions) and that included the names and leaving date (30 November 2009) of all BASSA members who were taking that voluntary redundancy, and Liz Malone had personally seen it. BA warned Unite that it was risking invalidating the ballot. Someone asked on the BASSA forums if a person taking VR could vote - Liz Malone personally replied on the forum, that such people could vote. Malone screwed up! Despite being warned at least once in person, and twice in writing, by BA, Unite chose not to ensure that BASSA members taking VR were given a clear warning not to vote. Unite screwed up! Between them, Malone and Unite transgressed the law, as clearly stated in the judgement.

This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge.If BASSA and/or it's members can't be arsed with keeping the records accurate, that sends a clear signal about apathy for detail. The devil is in the detail and if you don't look after the detail it bites you on the bum!

However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave.

British Airways declined to provide that information.Wrong again! The spreadsheet mentioned already provided that information (see above). Malone and BASSA didn't bother to do anything with it.

Legal advice indicated that as they were employed at the time of the ballot and as their leaving date/offer was not guaranteed, they were entitled to vote; therefore excluding them could, in itself, be grounds for a legal challenge.Bad luck on using poor legal advice! The law is pretty darn clear.

Our QC - one of the most respected experts in industrial law - was confident that the inclusion or indeed exclusion, had not affected the ballot in any significant way; after all, the disputed number was only some 800 people and over 9514 people had supported the yes vote, with just 772 voting no - a 92.49% unequivocal vote.Irrelevant! The law was broken even if one person taking redundancy was allowed to vote! Law broken, so entire ballot invalid. And law was broken by incompetents who, despite several clear warnings, chose to do nothing about it. That problem of attention to detail, again.

On top of that, the union had worked very hard to ensure that our lists were as accurate as possible, given that is was an almost impossible task to individually identify these people.Utter nonsense - BASSA and Liz Mallone had a spreadsheet from BA which had a leaving date of 30 November 2009 against the names of those leaving. So, BASSA didn't work very hard at all, did they?

Virtually all of the media’s own legal correspondents universally agreed that BA had no case, yet somehow they won; most experts were astonished.Really? No empirical evidence provided for that sweeping statement. Has BASSA and Unite counted up all the opinions of the legal correspondents and experts and found an astonished majority? Utter tripe!

The vilification that crew suffered was simply outrageous; most of it deliberately induced and inspired by our own management who were more than willing to publish misleading and inflated salaries and comparisons, to assist and actively encourage this false reporting with an unprecedented “dirty tricks” style campaign.I think you'll find that the 'Yes' voters brought that upon themselves. Unfortunately, the 'No' voters and non-union members will get lumped together with the militants. And BASSA militants forget that that they are first-rate at vilifying any in the cabin crew community who don't toe their outrageous line. Pot calling kettle!

They even went so far as to leak personal details to The Daily Mail, in an attempt to smear your Chairperson and other reps. Conveniently forgetting that this info could have easily come from the disaffected within their own community.

They say the first casualty of war is truth, and this has proven to be the case.Spot on! BASSA and Unite are the biggest source of untruths going at the moment. All the above refers!

Public support would have been nice and we didn’t get it, ....
If we had received more public support, ....Hysterical! Vote for a 12-day strike over Christmas and New Year, and you want support and sympathy? Who do BASSA and Unite think they are? Unbelievable! Since when did the public owe that to you?

Unite has already notified British Airways of our intention to re-ballot at the beginning of January; the process will be arranged during the Christmas break and database checking will take place, through the night if required.Well, if it was that simple, why wasn't it done with the first ballot? Incompetents.


Plenty of confirmatory evidence in this latest BASSA scribbling of the root of the problem - that it is never BASSA's fault. It is always everbody else's fault - the law's fault, the court/judge's fault, or a dirty tricks campaign by the company, or some such other hallucination. BASSA and Unite are never going to get anywhere until they take some clear responsibility for their own serious, and very public, shortcomings.

(And as for reporting pilots to BASSA for telling the public that the strike is off - good grief! Just goes to show the level of the idiots the company is dealing with.)

[MrBernoulli]

A Lurkers post didn't last long at all! Goodness gracious me!

I think the point that was being made by Desertia was that, as tragic as it is to have someone close to you lost to cancer, it really is not a reason to stop using the word 'cancer', here on this forum or anywhere else. If one is easily offended by the word, then bow out and stay away. No problem.

[TOM100]

Weathermap/Tiramisu - couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ?

[MrBernoulli]

For information sake, how often, and by whom, do BA cabin crew get checked on revenue flights? And how on earth did they allow BASSA to get away with not allowing managers to listen in on pre-flight briefs? Incredible! Seems like a lot of the old-school types have some deficiencies to hide? And if that is the case, it says that annual SEP training days are even more 'cosy' than they seem!

[henkybaby]

I'm off to sunnier destinations today. All of it on BA.

One last word about the way (some of) you conduct yourselves here. Don't focus so much on who is right or wrong. As we by now have established the truth is a very subjective matter. Establishing who is right or wrong will only make things worse.

Ask yourself if you would rather be right or rather be happy?

Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!)

I wish you all the best and remember: an important difference between us and animals is that we can choose how we react.

[ExSp33db1rd]

#6521 on the previous, now closed, forum.

Tercarley .......... Spot on !

If it weren't for a continued desire to see my pension cheque arrive each month, after the way we have been treated by B.A. and W.W. with S.T. 2009, part of me would actually like them to go to the wall - at least W.W. would also lose his - lifetime you note, unlike us - staff travel concessions, too. As well as his 750k salary.

He can also forget getting my support for the 3rd runway, unless of course there is a quid pro quo - and we get the concessions we worked for re-instated - everything is negotiable !

Wot chance ?

[Tiramisu]

couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ?


TOM100'
Now there's a surprise!
When the CAA audited our pr-flight briefings at BA we failed. Hence the new 'Inflight Service Preflight Briefing Checklist' was brought in to ensure consistency. I'm surprised as Slidebustle mentioned in an earlier post, that this mandatory part of the briefing is not carried out. Managers are supposed to audit our briefings twice a year, I had mine two months ago. Unfortunately, some SCCMs perform on the day just to pass. No one is taking responsibility.

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

[Tiramisu]

henkybaby!
I love your posts and will miss reading them!
Please come and work for BA!
We could do with someone like you!
Very best wishes for a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!:)

[dave747436]

Romans44...
On the previous incarnation of this thread you replied to a comment about the pilots 'SCOPE' clause, pointing out that CC had a similar agreement of their own.

We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight. This number is determined by the delivery of the product and the workload required by each crew member...... (my bold)

Just to recap the pilots SCOPE clause...
"Any aircraft with 100 seats or more operating from a UK airfield will be flown by BA pilots from the master seniority list" (Paraphrased)

Contrast with the CC agreement....
"We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight, with regard to passenger load, destination and other factors" (Paraphrased)

The difference between these two arrangements is perhaps best illustrated by an example:

BA schedule a B777 flight from LHR to JFK.
It is operated by 2 non-BA pilots and 10 non-BA cabin crew.
Has BA broken the pilots agreement? YES (this is why Openskies could not be based at LHR)
Has BA broken the CC agreement? NO (this is why New Fleet is potentially such an issue for current crew)

To the best of my knowledge the current CC agreements dictate how many BA CC are required on each aircraft - but doesn't stipulate that it must be BA CC in order to comply with the agreement.

I believe the original poster who raised this issue was just trying to point out that a SCOPE clause for CC would be a desirable thing for BASSA to achieve as it would mitigate the effect of New Fleet on existing crew.

Hope that makes some sense!

[Weather Map]

I never thought I would post this .I don't blame BASSA anymore.I blame BA they are far to soft in their approach in dealing with BASSA.WW needs to get tougher far tougher with BASSA and IFS.Cut out all the pandering to them. Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,.This is what is wrong with this workforce theyhave been pandered to for far to long.Weed out the p...takers there are genuine cases however they are outnumbered by p... takers.It's a holiday camp retirement home rolled into one .

[wobble2plank]

It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action.

This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge. However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave.

I liked this one from Lala lady. Especially as it was apparent both from the BASSA forum, this forum and the CF forum that the vast majority of crew who were taking VR and also receiving a ballot paper were actively encouraged to vote in favour.

Apparently there was no defence whatsoever when the BASSA QC was questioned as to whether reasonable measures had been taken to ensure that those accepting VR packages or those who had left or leaving the Union were informed they were not eligible to vote.

Injunction granted. :ok:

Oddly enough many of us 'ranting' pilots warned of this discrepancy almost a day after the initial ballot issue.

But then what do we know in the face of the BASSA mantra machine.

[TopBunk]

Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,.

I have long been of the opinion that if you go sick for or report conveniently slightly late for (in SH) a trip (and it can be demonstrated to be pattern sickness/unpopular trip/etc), that your forward roster should be wiped and you should be re-rostered the same trip next. Go sick for that and be re-rostered it twice. Fail to turn up then and you're out (three strikes etc).

Now, can anyone explain how Lalalady has managed to be off sick for 12 months without any apparent sanction, and now miraculessly is fit for work again, just when it appears BA are after her and 5/6 other BASSA reps on a disciplinary?

[Desertia]

Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!)

Good idea.

How about BASSA accept the need for the changes during this disastrous financial period for the company, and withdraw the strike motion to avoid any further damage.

But then ask BA for some kind of profit sharing, or shares agreement, so that their hard work during this period of great difficulty is rewarded when their efforts lead the company back into financial success?

Let's not forget that during a three year period when BA reported a profit of one billion pounds, they paid 1.8 billion pounds into the pension fund which is still teetering on the brink.

Does that not seem like a reasonable idea? How about it BASSA supporters?

[MrBunker]

Another gem from another place. This is the surreal nature of what BA are dealing with.

too hope the snow brings misery to all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period, people have no idea whats happening and have only there own interests at heart.. I would love to see the tables turned onto them.. but the snow will do for now BRING IT ON

[Desertia]

all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period.

BA should identify this person and discipline or even fire them.Who would want to be on a plane with this kind of poisonous individual?

[Desertia]

I am rolling on the floor with laughter at that - after some of the postings on here from supposed colleagues - that has made my day

Not really an answer is it, Lurker? Assuming there are people flying who actually might support some of BASSA's argument, what good would it do to treat them like "horrid" people" and put them off flying? Have BASSA not alienated enough customers already?

[MrBunker]

AL,

I'm sort of with you - insofar as I don't agree that simply badmouthing our colleagues will get us anywhere. I hope you'll understand that I posted that because it displayed a singularly underwhelming attitude towards our customers and thus becomes writ much larger than the inter-departmental spatting that goes on here and elsewhere.

[pvmw]

Quote:
BA should identify this person and discipline or even fire them.Who would want to be on a plane with this kind of poisonous individual?

I am rolling on the floor with laughter at that - after some of the postings on here from supposed colleagues - that has made my day

As a customer, I’ve watched but not spoken, until now…………

Those “horrid people “ are your customers. Without them you would have no job. The way you are driving them away you will soon have no job anyway.

Do I care? Not in the slightest, I’ll just use the competition. Do you care? You, should, ‘cos soon you’ll be flipping burgers at the local McD.

Whoever wrote that should certainly be fired. Would I want service from someone who has that attitude to their customers. Not bloody likely.

Goodbye BA. With staff having an attitude like yours you won’t be missed

[MrBunker]

As a customer, I’ve watched but not spoken, until now…………

Those “horrid people “ are your customers. Without them you would have no job. The way you are driving them away you will soon have no job anyway.

Do I care? Not in the slightest, I’ll just use the competition. Do you care? You, should, ‘cos soon you’ll be flipping burgers at the local McD.

Whoever wrote that should certainly be fired. Would I want service from someone who has that attitude to their customers. Not bloody likely.

Goodbye BA. With staff having an attitude like yours you won’t be missed

And that's why comments like the one I posted matter very much indeed.

[MrBernoulli]

Interesting that you should focus on that point A Lurker! Shouldn't you be more conecerned about how a notable number of the cabin crew community are making statements like this about passengers - the very source of revenue that pays the wages? Having people like that weeded out is a valid point.

But then, you have already had one vicious post removed today, have you not? At least Desertia made a valid point!

[MrBernoulli]

What a change from earlier today A Lurker! I seem to recall you were claiming offence at others postings (and got your post deleted) - what changed?

[BAOREY]

A Lurker

I work in the service industry as well and also have feelings like that to the OCCASIONAL customer but the issue here is that they have written this on a forum which is easily accessed by the media and now also "Horrid" people like myself.

The inference which is a very strong one is that it applies to ALL of the people flying with BA this Christmas. At least by flying EY I can sleep easily realising that the crew on my flight will not hold me in such disdain or at least not before they meet me:ugh:.

There was another great posting and along similar lines on the SLF forum last night which thankfullt was removed.

[interpreter]

Most who contribute to this forum seem to have voted against the strike but with another threatened you are going to have to face a possibly embittered “for” voter who will not be open to discussion. It is therefore imperative that you can persuade them of the counter argument. Or to put it more correctly persuade them to see that there is a counter argument and that it might be better for them. However, with my business experience hat on may I make some suggestions.

When you come across someone who was clearly angry at the judgement don’t retaliate by arguing but just ask them what they felt would have happened if the strike had gone ahead. Let them talk. Then ask them how did they feel that would have affected them personally. Let them talk. Then ask them against the background of the company’s parlous state what do they feel that would have done for the company. Let them talk.

When they have had their say ask them how they feel the company would have reacted to a strike. Let them talk. Ask them how the resulting company action might have affected them. Let them talk

Finally, simply say to them that you feel that with the present financial situation of the company you would not wish to jeopardise your own future nor that of your colleagues by disrupting the company’s earnings. In very, very many instances people in these situations talk themselves into a more rational response and that would be not to strike. That is why I emphasise time and time again that you must let the other person think through and talk through ALL the consequences of their action.

Remember those who voted for the strike simply had another view – possibly driven by the union who do not have the same agenda as most employees. The fact that they sided with the union merely means that they did not comprehend, did not wish to listen –we are all guilty of that sometimes – or had had a difficult situation with the company at some time and they are “getting their own back”. They are just coming from another angle.

You have a great deal of work to do. Good luck.

[MrBunker]

AL,

Almost, I didn't say that it would drive passengers away, the passenger posting did so - I merely highlighted the fact and the sense of outrage the previous statement can cause in our fare paying public.

Like so many things in this world, perception is everything and, right now, the public perception of the CC is generally rather negative. Statements like the one I've posted above only serve to reinforce that point of view and, like it or not, the public do get to choose ultimately. Despite your assertion of the CEO's "Ratnerisation" of the airline (a lovely analogy, by the way), it's not a view that's widely held by many people outside of the CC community. The city is strongly backing the CEO's plans, most of our passengers (whether through skilful use of the media - not BASSA/Unite's strong suit in this dispute) believe the fault for this mess lies at the door of the crew and their union, rightly or wrongly and it's really only a few select (and mostly ultra left-wing) commentators who are backing the crew. I'm sure you've seen, just as I have, the seizing upon articles by the crew that they normally, with their political leanings, wouldn't give house room to? George Galloway, Socialist Worker, Daily Star and an op-ed internet piece on the Guardian.

I'd argue that the old "It'd be a great job if it weren't for the passengers" (which I've heard said in many a galley and fully understand it's a joke) is a little different from wishing misery on all the "horrid" people and hoping their plans are ruined. That, of course, is merely my take on it. We all respond and react differently to the use of certain words and phrases which makes the written word such a complex and pitfall-laden area of communication.

[Desertia]

have BA scored a massive own goal by publishing alleged pay of their crew and turning the media/press/public against them

No.

I think a lot of the crew are actually apprehensive about the flights they are due to take out and they are building it up in their own minds that people are actually going to be horrible to them.

I think this is probably true. But if they provide cheerful and courteous service and get moaned at for nothing, the passenger is in the wrong.

[MrBunker]

AL,

BigBrutha's referring to the judge who heard Unite's injunction some months ago who declared at the start of the trial he had trips to CapeTown booked, not Justice Cox.

MrB

[BAOREY]

A Lurker

Neither you or your colleagues should have any worries about my mood when I fly in future as I have finally decided to give up BA for the forseeable future.

[pvmw]

- have BA scored a massive own goal by publishing alleged pay of their crew and turning the media/press/public against them -

A Lurker:- amazing – reality seems to completely pass some people by.

However much in your deluded mind you may wish it, the media/press/public haven’t turned against BA.

The media/press/public have turned quite clearly against BASSA and the dinosaurs of the Union movement, who seem fixated in the politics of the ‘70s. Read the posts on here from your customers. Read the comments pages of the papers. Don’t believe and parrot the nonsense spouted by the union.

Every argument you have made on this forum has been shot down by the few remaining people with common sense. Your response has been abuse and vilification. If you are truly representative of BASSA then there are only two outcomes I, as a (probably ex) passenger can see;

1. BASSA is destroyed and replaced by a union with a modicum of intelligence.

2. BA ceases to exist and you end up serving in McDonalds

Which is your preferred outcome??

[romans44]

Romans, you don't get it. BA CANNOT remove imposition. It cannot afford to. The company has lost about 1 billion pounds in the year up to last June. It is probably still losing 50 million pounds a month. It has a pension deficit of 3.7 Billion. The company is valued at (optimistically) 2.2 Billion. It has cash reserves of 2 Billion to draw on (borrowed at disadvantageous rates due to it's weak credit rating) which are needed for new aircraft if it is to survive.

Are you still not getting the point?




Hi Desertia,
No, I guess I am not getting the point just like you are not getting mine.

Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you?
I believe that the only way forward is for both parties to come to some sort of agreement on how these talks can start again.
I believe that removing the imposition slowly over a period of time, while BASSA provides other savings, it is possible.

[Carnage Matey!]

Why remove imposition slowly over time? The only thing thats been imposed is the reduction in crewing levels. Nothing else. Are you saying that if BA restore existing crew levels then BASSA will provide equivalent savings? If you're not prepared to make the savings through productivity measures then are you willing take the hit in your pay packet?

[romans44]

The above was your first post in June, nothing more until Dec 18th, now the count is 50+?
BASSA put-up merchant/hardliner or what?
Whatever is the case, you still haven't earned the art of reading and listening.


Hi Topbunk, I am sorry that you feel this way. Just because I am trying to point out the other side of the story does not make me a ' merchant/hardliner'
If I may say, your reply is so typical of someone who is not interested in hearing both sides of the argument...
I have been attacked left and right on this forum but I still listen to what people have to say. I respect their point of view and I certainly don't offend them because they don't agree with me.
I have sent you a private message explaining why I have not been on this forum since December

[MrBernoulli]

A LurkerI genuinely do not get your point - unless you do not see the point I am making! Your comment that passengers should not be offended by nasty remarks that any cabin crew make about them doesn't fit with your outburst earlier today (subsequently deleted), about how offended you were with someone else's, posting. You can't have it both ways!

And if you still don't get it, thats fine. Shouldn't ask to much should we.

[romans44]

Why remove imposition slowly over time? The only thing thats been imposed is the reduction in crewing levels. Nothing else. Are you saying that if BA restore existing crew levels then BASSA will provide equivalent savings? If you're not prepared to make the savings through productivity measures then are you willing take the hit in your pay packet?

Hi Carnage Matey,
Yes, I am saying that.
BASSA has already said that a while ago. Of course I wouldn't expect it to see it on this forum...
BASSA has offered a pay cut, the company is simply not interested in us offering a pay cut for the simple reason that they are after our T&Cs. My apologies for repeating myself but a question was asked.

[Desertia]

No, I guess I am not getting the point just like you are not getting mine.

I wasn't aware you had made any that I hadn't refuted.

Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you?

Absolutely. With no preconditions.

I believe that the only way forward is for both parties to come to some sort of agreement on how these talks can start again. I believe that removing the imposition slowly over a period of time, while BASSA provides other savings, it is possible.

Maybe I am missing something, but the last time BASSA came up with some savings, they quoted 175m pounds, but an independent audit showed they were worth, in fact, 54 million pounds.

BASSA have had the best part of nine months to come up with alternative savings, but have failed to do so.

So why do you think they are capable of coming up with the required amount now?

[Desertia]

Errrrr their comment was about Cancer which I find highly offensive and do please get it right - I don't do outbursts - I made a comment

A Lurker, I'm sure we all find cancer highly offensive, I've lost two great friends this year to it, and lost my Godmother to it as well.

But indignation at the use of the word in a different context means either one should not be participating in a forum that is too tough for one, which is the choice of the individual, or perhaps one is trying to get posts they don't like removed, such as the Jeremy Clarkson story, even though it was a cross-post from a reputed newspaper (I assume).

Please let's not get off topic here with semantics.

I was hoping I could get a comment from you and Romans on Post #41. I am interested in hearing your respective points of view on the subject.

Regards,
D

Added:

Judges send down hardened criminals who hurl abuse - and you think that because a plate layer says something on a forum they would investigate? That is pure quality mate

If an offence has been committed, calling the police in is an easy way to legally obtain personal information on the individual concerned. The offence may be minor, but the investigation removes all anonymity.

Perhaps this is the reason. Without seeing the posts in question, I couldn't say.

What BA might do if they can legally be given access to this information, I don't know. What the press would do with it, I do.

[MrBernoulli]

A Lurker,
Errrrr their comment was about Cancer which I find highly offensive and do please get it right - I don't do outbursts - I made a commentNo, again, not correct. That poster used the word 'cancer', sure, and you had an outburst. The word was used in a sense that had nothing to do with your personal situation, but you chose to jump aboard the Outrage Express. You didn't need to, the word was used in the context of its meaning, but your entire post was in bold and amounted to an outburst. If it was just a 'comment', why was the post deleted?

[thunderbird7]

"Thanks for setting me straight BigBrutha - that's all I need to re-afirm my thoughts on certain members of the pilot community"

Yeah Lurker, you could say the same about some single minded members of the cabin crew community. Go have a look in a mirror.

"Shiny bogroll? Right brothers! We're out!"

[Desertia]

I was under the impression that they asked the company to withdraw the impositions then re-negotiate ( my understanding from an off the record conversation was that now EVERYTHING would be open to discussion ) At the moment WW is waiting for the outcome of the Feb hearing before engaging in any meaningful talks.

I don't think BA can afford to remove the impositions - they need the savings NOW.

So would you not accept it if BASSA were to approach them now and say "OK, we will accept what you have done on November 16th as a vital measure to cut costs, but we want to discuss some proper bonus-type arrangements for when the situation recovers, which adequately compensate us for our part in both the recovery and future success of the airline".

[Godd]

Well I must say that it's very refreshing to read posts by people who appear to be talking sense.

I'm BA cabin crew and one of the few who voted no to the destruction of our airline.

Most of what you guys have said is totally true. Bassa are, and have been for a long long time, talking complete rubbish.

The only reason they want a strike is that they have no hope of winning the case due in court in February. By then it will be too late to take any action. They galvanise support through totally empty promises with absolutely no foundation in reality.

There are times to fight as a trade union and times to suck it up and accept it....this is the later but unfortunately very few ba cabin crew, including those I thought we're very intelligent, have proved themselves capable of thinking for themselves.

I really do hope they see sense in the coming weeks/months!!

P.S. I'm just about to resign from Bassa!!!

[anotherthing]

Being part of a Union doesn't mean you can't think for yourselves. Unfortunately despite the ravings of BASSA a lot of the members still think that they (BASSA) are as pure as the driven snow.

Considering the role of CC and the fact that the (fortunately few) times they need to be sharp and be able to think on their feet during emergencies, it does make me worry about the ability of 'thinking out of the box'.

Maybe a bit of a generalisation but it does make you think. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, either for or against uindustrial action in this particular case, but to not be able to understand or accept what is going on in the background is worrying.

You can accept that the ballot was illegal and still want to vote yes in a new ballot. At least have the intelligence to understand the basic premise of illegal ballots and the fact that your union, despite warnings, went down that route.

As forIf she is flying on the 23rd with BA - do you feel that that would have swayed her judgement somewhat?That is a contender for the most ridiculous statement during this dispute. Only a contender mind you, because BASSA seem to trot out a new contender every day.

Wake up and smell the coffee - BASSA staged an illegal ballot - as Union members you should be worried that the do not have the balls to admit the mistake - chances are BASSA leaders are the type of people who will not learn their lesson :ugh:

[Tiramisu]

Posted by A Lurker
for all you 'customers' out there - don't be offended - there is after all a saying that goes "this would be a great job if it wasn't for passengers"

Ask anyone who has done a Nice flight !!!!!


A Lurker,
I disagree, I haven't heard that saying before. The saying I've heard or hear, is that 'If not for the passengers, we wouldn't have a job!'

As far as Nice flights go, most crew have preconceived ideas about Nice passengers. The difference with Nice passengers is that their expectations of the whole in flight experience is different. Treat them like royalty and they'll be putty in your hands. Try it and you'll be pleasantly surprised that 'Nice' passengers are really quite nice! In my experience anyway!

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Godd
P.S. I'm just about to resign from Bassa!!!


Godd,
Welcome to PPRuNe and well done!:ok:
Join the club and you're of many crew who are fast coming to their senses.

[Runway vacated]

romans44:

Yes, I am saying that.
BASSA has already said that a while ago. Of course I wouldn't expect it to see it on this forum...
BASSA has offered a pay cut, the company is simply not interested in us offering a pay cut for the simple reason that they are after our T&Cs. My apologies for repeating myself but a question was asked.

Ok, this has got me wondering.... when did BASSA ask their membership what sacrifices they were prepared to make in order to meet the cost savings? BASSA simply copied the pilot's reduction in salary, but NOT the reduction in flying pay, and offered it to BA without so much as a "by your leave" from the membership.

Leaving aside the fact that this proposal came nowhere NEAR the savings required, AND leaving aside the fact that it was offered as a temporary solution, to be repaid in full, is THIS the sort of democratic (they are keen on that word, after all) representation that you deserve?

Sure, YOU may be happy with a pay cut, what about the other 12,000-odd BASSA members? What do THEY want? Don't know the answer?

WELL HOW ABOUT ASKING THEM?

The ONLY people to have actually polled the cc is BA, who concluded that the majority of cc did NOT want a pay cut, so the terms of the imposition have left pay TOTALLY UNCHANGED.

BASSA had 9 whole months to actually behave in the democratic manner of which they seem so enamoured, and yet have NOT ONCE actually sought the opinion of their membership. Major, major industrial relations issues have been decided on a grotesquely undemocratic show of hands in a throwback to 1970s style bully-boy unionism.

Now do you see why the opinion of BASSA is regarded with such little interest? By a combination of wilful misrepresentation, bullying, intimidation, propaganda and outright lies have BASSA managed to convince a large majority of the cc that a strike is their ONLY way out of this mess, when the truth is that the entire situation could have been avoided if they had behaved more like a union and less like sub-sect of the moonies.

[anotherthing]

I have read this thread and the previous one - all I can say is A Lurker, there is no hope for you.

It was a limited strike directed against bosses who were attempting to completely bypass the trade unionBASSA refused to negotiate - nine months worth of dithering about trying to block the process.

Regardless of whether you want to vote yes or no, at least try to understand the fact that your union has screwed up :ugh:

[pvmw]

A Lurker. Its like trying to teach a three year old. The judgement said:-

Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.

The strike contravened employment law. The strike was therefore illegal. Is that too difficult to understand???

[Ancient Observer]

Pre-pack Administration

I realise that many of the posts here are still in "what happened" mode.
However, I'm keen to take you to "what might happen" mode.

If I were on the Board of an airline with such a cantankerous - and, yes, cancerous - group, and with such a huge APS/NAPS pension fund deficit, I would insist that the Board should be fully briefed on the pros and cons of arranging a pre-pack administration.
I would want the Board to be briefed on how it could remove all staff who were too expensive compared to their market place, to be fully briefed on how the various historic TU agreements could be removed, and to be fully briefed on whether or not pre-pack administration could be used to remove the overly onerous Pension fund liabilities.

As Board Directors have specific responsibilities associated with their duties to shareholders, I would be extremely surprised if such advice has not been taken already. Maybe it will be tabled at the January Board meeting.

A note on the use of the word cancerous. My father died from cancer. What the doctors described, in terms of how it works, sounds just like how a particular TU has worked, so I stick by the usage of the word.

[Desertia]

“A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year,” (BBC)

What business it is of Justice Cox to express her opinion on a matter that should have had no bearing on the ruling handed down. It was obviously at the forefront of her mind to the point where she felt quite happy to attack a democratically arrived-at decision in her summation.

A Lurker, as I understand it the clause in the law that was being used refers to "Reasonable". Was it "Reasonable" to fail to ensure the ballot was legally correct before calling a strike at the busiest time of the year.

Brucie boy argued the merits of the case to say it was not.

Johnny boy argued the merits of the case to say it was.

On the balance of reason and the law, Justice Cox decided it was not.

Brucie and Johnny probably wandered off for a glass of Taylors at Raffles to celebrate their ginourmous fees.

I think this is water under the bridge now. And BASSA aren't appealing it, which should tell you something (and don't think it's just that they can't wait 12 weeks).

[romans44]

So would you not accept it if BASSA were to approach them now and say "OK, we will accept what you have done on November 16th as a vital measure to cut costs, but we want to discuss some proper bonus-type arrangements for when the situation recovers, which adequately compensate us for our part in both the recovery and future success of the airline

Hi Desertia,
How could BASSA do that?
The imposition on the 16th, was the the reason for the ballot in the first place.
Who is not getting the point now?
If the company took the 2.6% ( I don't remember the actual percentage now but it was more than 2) x 14.000 of us, long b4 the 16th of Nov. The savings would have been farther greater than they are now. Wouldn't you agree?

[MrBunker]

All,

I must've asked this a few times now but can we please, please try and steer clear of personalising the issue. I've no love lost for BASSA and their tactics but can we just state calmly what it is we think without resorting to trying to allude to a diminished mental capacity on the part of the poster. A Lurker may not share your, or indeed, my view on the current situation but he/she does post in a broadly calm and rational manner and, let's be honest, we lack a good number of people on here willing and able to try and argue the BASSA/CC point of view.

Would you rather they gave up and we were occasionally treated to Flying Chick's level of debate?

[LHR27C]

A Lurker

So you don't think that if the Judge is flying with BA she would have had this at the forefront of he mind

“A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year,” (BBC)

What business it is of Justice Cox to express her opinion on a matter that should have had no bearing on the ruling handed down. It was obviously at the forefront of her mind to the point where she felt quite happy to attack a democratically arrived-at decision in her summation.


This is false. You can read exactly that passage in the High Court documentation released after the hearing, and posted by flapsforty at the beginning of this thread, it is fully within her rights and has every bearing on the ruling. All it does is explain the logic behind the balance of convenience assessment in the decision and was part of the legal proceedings of the case. Any judge would have said basically the same thing as part of that assessment.

[Desertia]

If the company took the 2.6% ( I don't remember the actual percentage now but it was more than 2) x 14.000 of us, long b4 the 16th of Nov. The savings would have been farther greater than they are now. Wouldn't you agree?

(a) The savings were only temporary.
(b) They were not worth the 140m BA needed, but added up (with the others suggested by BASSA) to just over a third of what was required.

How could I agree when your numbers do not add up?

Added: Remember BASSA could have looked at the accounts and seen exactly where the company stood, had they accepted the (fair) conditions regarding protecting that valuable, confidential information.

[Andy_S]

If the company took the 2.6% ( I don't remember the actual percentage now but it was more than 2) x 14.000 of us, long b4 the 16th of Nov. The savings would have been farther greater than they are now. Wouldn't you agree?

Except, of course, that it would have been temporary and repayable.

[TOM100]

I think we can assume that any paycut iso complement reductions, to deliver the 140m targeted savings would need to be considerably more than 2.6% and the pay cut would need to be permanent. Permanent because the company are looking for structural/fundamental changes to their cost base. Are the BASSA folk really going to go for that ??

BA also need to be able to take day to day operational decisions without BASSA dictating.

[romans44]

Leaving aside the fact that this proposal came nowhere NEAR the savings required, AND leaving aside the fact that it was offered as a temporary solution, to be repaid in full, is THIS the sort of democratic (they are keen on that word, after all) representation that you deserve?
Hi runway vacated,
in one word, YES it is...
Bassa's proposal would have been put to the membership and voted on by us the members.
If we the members did not like it, we would;ve had a chance to turn it down.
Tha's how democracy works.:ugh:

[Desertia]

Bassa's proposal would have been put to the membership and voted on by us the members.
If we the members did not like it, we would;ve had a chance to turn it down.
Tha's how democracy works.

Sort of like the proposal to go on strike for 12 days over Christmas then, eh?

Oh. Hang on.

[romans44]

Except, of course, that it would have been temporary and repayable


Hi Andy S
Yes u are right.
Would you say that given up a month salary is a temporary or pernament change?
I am interested to know what you think about that?
I would be very happy to vote for permanent changes but as I said many times before, changes should start from the top and work their way down.

[romans44]

Sort of like the proposal to go on strike for 12 days over Christmas then, eh
Yes, Desertia exactly like that.
We were told at a branch meeting that this time we were not going out on strike for one or three days...
When you vote to support industrial action you do not vote for the lenght of the strike but you vote because you will support the union in an industrial action. It is as simple as that.
Surely you must know that.

[anotherthing]

Sort of like the proposal to go on strike for 12 days over Christmas then, eh?

Oh. Hang on.
I'm not defending BASSA (they sound like complete amateurs), but that is not how you ballot for strike action. The ballot is about whether or not the membership are willing to strike to achieve what they want to achieve. It should have nothing to do with when or for how long the strike will be held. A lot of members may have wanted to strike, but would have voted 'no' if they had been told about the 'twelve days of Christmas'.

That makes the vote totally pointless. The vote is about whether to strike or not. You then hope(!) that your union is not stupid enough to choose such an emotive time such as they did.

As a union member you have to accept that not every single thing will be put to the vote - otherwise nothing would ever be achieved. By paying your subs, you are agreeing that the union executive has some autonomy over certain things.

You are putting your trust (and your money) in the union. The fact of the matter is, had BASSA conducted a legal ballot, the resulting decision to strike over the 12 days of Christmas was extremely short sighted.

Throughout this farce BASSA have shown themselves not only to be incompetent (illegal ballot), but also short sighted (proposed date of strike), and arrogant/unremorseful (bleatings about the judgement in court etc). If members of BASSA have not realised by now that the union has abused the trust on so many levels, then there really is no hope.

Cabin Crew need to stop and think - you are paying these people money!! Is BASSA providing you, the Cabin Crew, with the leadership and support you deserve?

Some Cabin Crew are bleating on about BA screwing them over, yet they are happy to contribute to screwing each other over by accepting BASSA at face value. FFS think!!! The least you can do is call for an extraordinary AGM to vote on a no confidence motion wrt your executive!


A union is only as strong as its membership. Unfortunately often the union executive seem to think that they are what matters. What matters is the members - you have the power, don't be led like donkeys by people who haven't done an honest days work in years!

[Desertia]

When you vote to support industrial action you do not vote for the lenght of the strike but you vote because you will support the union in an industrial action. It is as simple as that.

Which implies that you accepted a 12 day strike over Christmas. And you would accept a month long strike that would bankrupt the company and cost you your job.

Without having the right to say "Hold on a minute, have you thought this through?".

I have to say I would vote NO if it meant letting former members of the communist party (fact), other left wing individuals with their own political and personal agendas (fact), and a bunch of amateurs who have demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of both trade union and employment law, as well as public support (arguable, but you'd better have a good argument), make decisions without my approval which could very well cost me my job.

But that's just me. The criteria in the previous paragraph can all be substantiated again, but the relevant facts are all to be found on the previous thread, so I won't clutter this thread up with reposts of information available in the public domain.

[Andy_S]

I would be very happy to vote for permanent changes but as I said many times before, changes should start from the top and work their way down.

I hear what you're saying, but that's not where BA are going to find the cost savings they need. You could cut Willie Walsh's salary in half and would be a drop in the ocean.

One of the things I've noticed in this dispute is that the Cabin Crew community seem determined that everyone else in the company should make sacrifices before they do.

[Freehills]

"Hi runway vacated,
in one word, YES it is...
Bassa's proposal would have been put to the membership and voted on by us the members.
If we the members did not like it, we would;ve had a chance to turn it down.
Tha's how democracy works"

However, that is not how democracy works in business. One share, one vote at AGMs and EGMs.

[Desertia]

Interesting, because again I don't know enough about BASSA's constitution.

Are BASSA members permitted to request that the membership vote on such things at AGMs or EGMs?

Does this have to be in writing before the event, or can it be brought up at the meeting by any member?

Would the Sandown meeting be considered an EGM, or is there nothing to stop BASSA convening a meeting and not only deciding what is on the agenda, but what can be voted on?

Was there an "Any Other Business" item on the agenda for Sandown, and would anyone have been able to ask for a show of hands on who agreed with the 12 Days of Christmas strike plan? (I only ask if you would be able, willing to do so with the hardcore around is a separate issue).

Because if none of these recourses were available, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.

[True Blue]

I have been following this story for months and made one post, my first, a few days ago. I am SLF, I fly BA, but have no connection with BA or travel industry in any way. Just two points I would like to make:
1. I cannot believe the attitude that some CC have towards pax.
2 To those CC who support the idea of industrial action, think on this. In this modern world that we live in, competition has never been at the level it is now. If BA cannot compete with all the other airlines out there economically, then there will be no BA. That is fact, no matter what way you try to look at it. So the CC community either realise that things have to change, or accept that you are driving BA to the wall and you are going out of a job. It is not BA's fault that competition is the way it is, that's the way of the world. All other industries have to cope with this and change, why are BA CC exempt from this?

True Blue

[henkybaby]

...now can I?

I am sitting at the AMS BA Lounge reading this while waiting for my flight and I am amazed at how quickly things are becoming nasty again. Is there nobody out there who can rise above him/herself?

All this:

"I am right because xxxx"
"You are wrong, let me prove it by yyyy"

is so boring.

Let me go Dr. Phil on your @sses and ask:

How has this been working for you so far?

Play nice. There is no point - I repeat: NO POINT! - in trying to convince the other side arguing positions this way and it is even worse to argue them into a corner and gloat. If any of you think that approach is the resolution, let me tell you that I am happy you are not negotiating for either side. We are not in kindergarten here...

The problem happens to be that all parties are stuck in this blame game and unless someone manages to break with tradition we be here till hell freezes over (if it not already has, that is... brrr, it's cold!).

If we - on this forum - cannot even reach some kind of understanding towards each other (and understanding comes before resolution!) than how do BASSA and BA Management stand a chance?

Here is an exercise for you! Try and politely give a voice to the other's side argument for a while. Don't be clever and make ridiculous statements because then you are making your own argument again, just in a different manner. Sincerely try to reason the other position (or preferably interests).

So ALurker is now very much against BASSA and IA to reach a solution and Desertia is now pro union and pro strike.

Let me conclude that I find it utterly uncivilized to make fun of people's point of view like is being done to ALurker and Romans44. I commend them since without them there would not even be a debate and most of you would simply be preaching to the choir.

Regarding the heated posts that may appear on crew forums: who hasn't let off steam in his life? These are emotional times and closed forums should not be seen as an indication how people will behave while on duty. Respect their right to privacy I would say.

[cessnapete]

I have just received a 'round robin' text message advising me that the Judge who heard the Injunction last week is flying BA in the future and a specific date was given. The texter asked me to pass it on as ''something is terribly wrong here''

I find this a mildly threatening to the Judge and could effect the care of her in the cabin the said flight, and I have passed this info to an approptiate BA dept.
I am not CC but retired BA FC, and the text was sent to me by one of my CC friends in error.

The subject of possible conflict of interest was covered in previous postings. In Chambers before the case was heard all the Judges available to take this case at short notice, had travelled or were travelling on BA in the future,lots of people do, or did before this proposed IA!
A conflict of interest was not therefore deemed to be present.

[911slf]

:)

Henkybaby.

If you are Netherlands based and CHOOSE to fly BA you must have the patience of a saint. I would choose not to fly BA. But on the whole I would like the choice of BA or not BA to remain open to us in the future. I fear it may not.

[Neptunus Rex]

AL,

English is a language rich in imagery, with many words having more than one meaning or shade of meaning. 'Sanction,' for example, has two completely disparate meanings.

In the dictionary, following the medical definition of the word cancer, another definition is shown:

• figurative: a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate

By the way, I lost both my parents to cancer.

Aye,

Neppie

[deeceethree]

LHR27C,

In post #94 you stated:
You can read exactly that passage in the High Court documentation released after the hearing, and posted by flapsforty at the beginning of this threadI'd like to expand on that. The quote used by A Lurker, whom you addressed your post to, was apparently taken from the BBC. The trouble is, it was truncated, changing its meaning somewhat (whether that truncation was by the BBC or A Lurker, I can't say). The full sentence is (missing text in italics):
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.The judge could have allowed BA to claim for damages, had the illegal strike occurred, but the financial damage to BA would have been immense, but a damages claim against Unite and BASSA would have utterly bankrupted both those unions. The judge saved the union's sorry arses, averted illegal disruption to the travelling public, and allowed BA to keep its schedules on fairly reasonable track (even though some damage was done). BASSA and Unite should be grateful they were given an opportunity to reflect on their incompetence.

And who knows, BA might have sued named individuals as being central to the whole fiasco. Nothing to say they won't still do that.

[Crash_and_Burn]

If, in fact the judge is flying BA in the near future and only found in BAs favour to keep her flight flying, then why dosen't BASSA/UNITE appeal??

If she found for BA due to a conflict of interest and then failed to disqualify herself, or failed to get agreement from BOTH parties that she was fit to hear the case BASSA/UNITE have a valid reason to get the ruling overturned.

Why the whisper campaign, text messages and conspiracy theories. Facts are Facts, test them in a court of law. Stop spreading rumours like a bunch of 7 year olds in the play ground.

It could also be fact that BASSA/UNITE are casting libelous and unfounded rumours for thier own purpose. No doubt if the judge does feel she had been wronged by these comments, the not very anoymous members of CF will find themselves are the wrong end of a lawsuit.

BA won an an injuction and the strike is off.. Deal with it.. Move on. You have another chance to ballot and BASSA/UNITE and BA have a chance to negotiate.

If BOTH sides are reasonable and have adult discussions, there is no reason this cannot be resolved. No preconditions.

CB

PS is anyone else totally flabergasted at BASSA/UNITES demand for £400,000 per week, rather than re-instating the crewing levels?!?! I though a crew off was a saftey issue?!?!? Obviously one that can be resolved with a supply of cold hard cash. Also what part of BAs requirement to save £140m does an extra payment of £400k per week satisfy... What planet are these guys from?

[hyatt_1_alpha]

The fact that the judge commented on the timing of the strike and the effect it would have over Christmas is irrefutable evidence of prejudice.

The matter concerned technical issues surrounding the ballot. The fact that BA had refused Unite's request to inform them as to who was leaving the airline and should not be balloted, the fact that the result was overwhelming even exluding those who were "wrongly" balloted and the fact that she made these comments on the timing of the strike all point to a massive and glaring bias.

The other possibility, that nobody had even questioned is that she herself or her family or friends may have had travel arrangements with BA over Christmas in which case she had a conflict of interest and should be struck off for not declaring it!

Two grounds, then, for an appeal.

As for the £140m savings being sought after, from CC, Ryanair has 7,000 total employees for 210 aircraft, BA has 39,000 for 231 (of which 23,000 are not CC or pilots). Walsh just doesn't get it, does he. It's high time investors booted him out, as this is someone whose penchance for dust ups instead of doing good businesss is risking the survival of BA.

[cessnapete]

It was brought up and considered by the parties before the case was heard. No conflict of interest for reasons given in previous postings.

[Crash_and_Burn]

Hyatt,

Unless you have some cold hard facts I'd be very careful.. and use the word alleged.

If I was in her situation and people were spreading malicious rumours about me, I'd be sharpening my pencil and writing up a few lawsuits.

As I said, BA won the injunction, the strike is OFF. Deal with it; Move on.... you can't change what has happened in time to have the "12 days of Christmas" strike.

What do you want BASSA/UNITE to do for the next 6 weeks to resolve this situation? What are your suggestions for CC to save £140m per year going forward?

CB

[Carnage Matey!]

The fact that the judge commented on the timing of the strike and the effect it would have over Christmas is irrefutable evidence of prejudice.

No it is not. It is irrefutable evidence that the judge has considered the wider context of the dispute and the cost to each party, as she is required to by law.

The matter concerned technical issues surrounding the ballot. The fact that BA had refused Unite's request to inform them as to who was leaving the airline and should not be balloted

False. BA had informed them.

the fact that the result was overwhelming even exluding those who were "wrongly" balloted

It's immaterial. The ballot was flawed legally, and deliberately so, and BA had the right to seek an injunction.

and the fact that she made these comments on the timing of the strike all point to a massive and glaring bias.

See my first response to you.

The other possibility, that nobody had even questioned is that she herself or her family or friends may have had travel arrangements with BA over Christmas in which case she had a conflict of interest and should be struck off for not declaring it!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are BA cabin crew, given that you have merely repeated the lies they are desperately peddling on their own forums in an attempt to save face.

[hyatt_1_alpha]

Carnage

If you are right on the "wider context" then no matter how perfect Unite or any union in any industry in the future conducts ballots, judges will be forced to ru;e in favour of the employer.

I might sound like CC to you, but you sound like a complete Nazi to me!

[anotherthing]

hyatt_1_aplha

BASSA were warned by BA to the effect that they needed to be careful who they balloted, months ago.

They (BASSA) were also supplied with the information (by BA) that would have allowed them to ballot the correct people.

They chose to ignore the warning and the information.

Had they used the information supplied to them and then, after following every precaution, they still ended up balloting some ineligible people, BA would not have had a leg to stand on in any court case.

However, as pointed out in numerous posts and as mentioned in court proceedings (and actually proven in court through previous conversations), BASSA did not take adequate notice nor precaution. This is why your statement aboveIf you are right on the "wider issues" then no matter how perfect Unite or any union in any industry in the future conducts ballots, judges will rule in favour of the employer.
is complete rubbish. BASSA did not take adequate notice of information that had been given to them. In fact a senior union member encouraged ineligible people to vote on a forum. If BASSA had acted responsibly then the ruling would have been completely different. In fact I imagine BA would not even have gone to court. :ugh:

Instead of bleating about injustice or 'bent' judges, BASSA members need to look closer to home to see who has caused them injustice - after all it is BASSA members who are paying these people who have made a fool of them :ugh:

[AlpineSkier]

@ Romans44

"Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you? "


I have to say that this is wishful thinking or fantasy on your paet.

There have been a very large number of posts in the above vein but from only a handful of people over the last days.

My opinion is that , of people posting on here , a majority ( no proof, just gut-feel ) believe that BASSA is no different from a savage dog that has gone out of control more than omce in the past, attacking its own family.

I think these same people now believe that the only way to be safe from a mauling is to take the dog and give it the benefit of a twelve-bore cartridge.

Then bury the cadaver, a few people sob but most breathe a heartfelt sigh of relief that a rabid menace has been put down.

[The Blu Riband]

Hi Hyatt
unfortunately Bassa have not been entirely ( at all) truthful about this ruling.

Bassa had the information req'd and simply had to inform the retirees not to vote.
They failed to do that; in fact they encouraged these crew to vote.

The law is the law. There was no grey area here.

The only real decision the judge had to make was whether to award BA damages.
She decided not to - possibly saving the union from financial ruin.

If there was any doubt at all then Bassa would appeal, they have not, which says it all.

[MrBunker]

Hyatt,

Welcome to the fray. The technical failings of BASSA's ballot have been fairly well documented and discussed. The issue of using Xmas or any other wider interest has been widely misinterpreted as prejudice. I believe the legal requirement for the judge to consider is known as "balance of convenience" - Google it for a fuller explanation and you might see why the judge ruled in the fashion she did.

MrB

[romans44]

hear what you're saying, but that's not where BA are going to find the cost savings they need. . You could cut Willie Walsh's salary in half and would be a drop in the ocean.

One of the things I've noticed in this dispute is that the Cabin Crew community seem determined that everyone else in the company should make sacrifices before they do.
One of the things I've noticed in this dispute is that the Cabin Crew community seem determined that everyone else in the company should make sacrifices before they do.

See And S,
this is what I don't get about this forum.
If we pro union people don't answer your questions, people start saying all sort of things. Yet you did not answer my question, which required only a simple yes or not.
So I am going to ask the same question again in the hope you will answer.

Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?

You could cut Willie Walsh's salary in half and would be a drop in the ocean.

We have been asked for 170 milions in savings, which accidentelly is by far more than any other departments, If our CEO would take a permanent pay cut of 50% it would be almost 400 milions in savings.
If that is a drop in the ocean, what would you say 170 milions is?




.

[MrBunker]

Romans,

I'm struggling with your maths here. A 50% paycut by the CEO would not be £400 million saved it would be £400,000 p/a. So, yes, surely a drop in the ocean in comparison to the requested savings of the CC.

If I've got the wrong end of your point, I apologise!

MrB

[MrBernoulli]

Do the sums romans44 - there are nearly 14000 of you! Of course you have been asked to save plenty. :rolleyes:

[Andy_S]

See And S,
this is what I don't get about this forum.
If we pro union people don't answer your questions, people start saying all sort of things. Yet you did not answer my question, which required only a simple yes or not.
So I am going to ask the same question again in the hope you will answer.

Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?.

I didn't answer because I didn't really understand the question. Not being paid isn't really a change, and since it's not being proposed it's hardly applicable to this dispute..... But OK, I'll bite. I guess if you agreed not to be paid for one month on the understanding that your pay would revert to normal for one month then it's temporary.

.

We have been asked for 170 milions in savings, which accidentelly is by far more than any other departments, If our CEO would take a permanent pay cut of 50% it would be almost 400 milions in savings. If that is a drop in the ocean, what would you say 170 milions is?
.

Aren't CC the biggest department in BA? It stands to reason that you would be asked to make the biggest contribution.

Are you sure Willie Walsh is paid £ 800 million?

[romans44]

If, in fact the judge is flying BA in the near future and only found in BAs favour to keep her flight flying, then why dosen't BASSA/UNITE appeal??




I think it is important ,first of all, to ascertain whether this rumour is true or not.
I happen to think that it isn't only because I can't believe she would be so naive.
If it is true, I believe that there would be serious questions about her integrity to be answered here.
Would BASSA appeal?
I don't know, But if it is true I hope they will.

[romans44]

Mr Bunker, you are right I got it wrong, didn't mean to say milions.
Still the savings would not be a drop in the ocean for an airline on the bleank of collapse.

[MrBernoulli]

..... bleank of collapse.Got me there romans44! Spell checker says 'No!'

[MrBunker]

Cheers Romans,

Wasn't sure if it was my weak maths brain (always been a bit happier with words than numbers!)

MrB

[Litebulbs]

Merry Xmas all, from an old troll ;)

Can we have a little go at the negotiation process.

Imposition has happened and the workplace headcount has been reduced, like it or not and as far as I understand, it has all been voluntary so far. A ballot has happened and has been deemed illegal. So, as of now, the new service is being worked and there is no industrial action. Draw a line under that, that is where you are and publicly throwing mud at each other, is not solving anything.

The management team keep saying that nobody will loose money, but they are expecting people to work harder, because that is what is required when times are hard. But, the crew are saying that the service standard has lowered because of this. This is a thing for the future, not now. If BA is prepared to reduce its service level, in a bid to save money, then that is a management decision, which it may or may not, pay for in the future.

If the management team is true to its pubic comments, then nobody currently employed will be loosing money. There appears to be a fear of a new fleet or at least a new contract, with new terms and conditions, but that should not be a problem, if they are prepared to stand by there word.

What you should be looking into, is a way to protect and guarantee total future payments and employment (the employment part meaning not being selected for any future redundancy, just because of your level of pay), to at least maintain what you take home today and why would the management team not allow this? Put the ball back in the managements court. Use their public words as a bargaining tool. If they won't then there is an obvious ulterior motive.

No matter what happens, BA as a whole will have to sort out its industrial relations. A 10000+ vote against the management teams actions is a strong mandate, whether legal or not.

[romans44]

Andy S,
my apology did not mean to say milions.
Still 400 thousands pounds of saving can hardly be seen as a drop in the ocean.

Not being paid isn't really a change, and since it's not being proposed it's hardly applicable to this dispute..... But OK, I'll bite. I guess if you agreed not to be paid for one month on the understanding that your pay would revert to normal for one month then it's temporary.


This all mess is about saving money, is it not?
Would it matter how the money was saved?
I never suggested people should not being paid..
The sugestion, to save the airline money in that way, came from up above.

Aren't CC the biggest department in BA? It stands to reason that you would be asked to make the biggest contribution.


Yes, we are the largest department but our are cost is not the highest.
I am not going to put any numbers though, lesson learnt:)

[Skipness One Echo]

you sound like a complete Nazi to me!

How the Hell do you negotiate with that kind of teenage nonsense? That's BASSA for you.

[thunderbird7]

Lalalalala! The judge is flying BA so made a decision that could lose her her job if she was 'found out'!!!!

How much does a judge earn?

How much does A Lurker earn?

Who can afford a taxi to Geneva while someone else s standing on a picket line?


Lalalalala! Go and join the Ostriches! :ugh:

[romans44]

Got me there romans44! Spell checker says 'No!'
Sorry English is not my first language. My apologies for any spelling mistakes I have made. Will try and be more careful next time:)

[TopBunk]

Romans44

Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?

Which ever, Willie will never see that salary repaid. I don't recall any time in the last year BASSA ever making any concession that was not to be repaid after a period of time.

You are displaying all the traditional BASSA denial symptoms - blame everyone but themselves by trying to distract attention from the basic facts.

The facts are well documented:

1. BASSA knowingly and in full possession of all the relevant necessary data, conducted an illegal ballot, despite being warned on several occasions,and then Bugsy worsened the situation by actively encouraging VR staff to vote!

2. Any judge would likely have made the same pronouncement on the case - maybe her pension fund invests in BA shares, should that preclude her for sitting on the case?

3. Unite apparently tried to council BASSA against the disproportionate action

4. BASSA repeatedly refused to negotiate, refused to sit in the same room as their new best buddies from CC89, refused to sign a NDA to view the company books, refused to listen to presentations from BA

5. BASSA held a meeting at Sandown which they orchestrated to get a vote of 'no negotiation' through by whipping up everyone present into a frenzy

6. BASSA never consulted the membership at any stage and have repeatedly bullied and harrassed those who question anything

The faults for where BASSA fing themselves lies clearly and irrefutedly an only one door, that of Bugsy Malone and her inner council.

Is negotiation to be welcomed as a next step - very much so. To get there will require recognition by both sides that firstly there are issues that require addressing and that the way forward must be free of the threat of industrial action. Are both sides big enough to move this forward? That is the million dollar question. Let's hope that egos can be reined in during the season of goodwill.

Personally I think the egos within BASSA will have to dragged kicking and screaming to the table by Unite, and it is for Unite to make the first move.

[romans44]

Do the sums romans44

Better not Mr Bernoulli, I have already proved that my math is terrible:).
As I said earlier, yes we are the largest department but we are not the one who cost the most.
I am going to try and explain this but do not quote on this.
I believe that we as CC cost about 540 milions pounds per year.
Pilots cost about 440 milions per year.
Now, there are about 14000 of CC and about 3000 pilots.
You do the math and tell me who cost the most.

[Desertia]

Romans. Please confirm these figures.

400,000 pounds is about 1/1000th of what BA have lost since June. Please review the numbers.

BA valued at 2.2 billion.
Pension deficit 3.7 billion.
BA losing 50 million a month.

400,000=0.4 million=0.0004 billion=drop in BA ocean.

[finncapt]

Why don't both sides take a break.

There is a court case in February, the outcome of which will determine whether imposition is correct or not.

If it is not correct, BASSA will have their way and BA will have to back down and negotiate alternative cost savings.

If it is correct, then BA was right and BASSA will have to accept imposition and engage the company knowing BA have won the court case.

In the meantime, nobody loses any pay and the passengers can enjoy flying with the best British Airline.

What does concern me is that BASSA want, it was they that asked for the original injunction, to push the issue before the court case.

To what purpose?

[romans44]

Topbunk, we have covered all those points before.
I am afraid, we would have to agree to disagree. :)

[romans44]

Desertia, I won't be dragged into a mathematical debate....I wouldn't stand a chance:)
I was only trying to make a point that if you ask your staff for permanent changes as our leader you should be the one leading the way.
Would you agree with that?
ever heard the phrase ' Every little helps?'

[Golden Ticket]

finncapt. BASSA have very poor negotiating skills, BA management too sometimes, this is why they don't negotiate. If they'd sent out a questionaire to find out what the members wanted, if members had gone to the union office or emailed them that may have helped. BASSA keep setting up situations which they hope will make the management back down, this may have worked before but there's too much at stake now for the them to back down.

Personally, I think that the damage done is too bad and we'll be looking at more brutal cuts being necessary next year, any cuts being compulsory rather than asking a few staff.

When those redundancies come and they will ground staff,engineers, pilots and cabin crew will lay the blame squarely at this unions door.

[stormin norman]

Romans

I think i see where your coming from but your posts read like a script from Allo Allo

Good moaning to you

[TopBunk]

Romans.. we have covered all those points before.
I am afraid, we would have to agree to disagree. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Humour me (I won't ask again, I promise), point by point, either identify by post number or directly, where I am factually incorrect.

Failing that, I will have to agree with Finncapt. It is pointless debating this incessantly with people unable to see what is staring them in the face, that of BASSA denial.

[jackdp]

I know I could trawl this rather large subject and eventually fall exhausted on the answer, but I am sure that one of you chaps has the facts at his/her fingertips and will help me out;

How soon will the next ballot be - any date yet?
and then...
How long then before the first possible industrial action?

I’m looking for that magic window to safely use up some flights late Jan early Feb
Ta!

[Glamgirl]

It seems to me that we all agree on one thing: Negotiation is necessary.

Can we also agree that we need to cut costs/save money urgently.

Now, we need to find a way to do this. My suggestion (fwiw):

The new crewing levels have been in force for over a month (on wwlhr), and apart from teething problems and some unwillingness from some individuals, there hasn't been any major dramas (please note the word major).

The company knows that unions/crew aren't happy with imposition, it was proven with the result of the ballot.

The union did not follow the law when balloting. This was proven in court.

The company say they're willing to negotiate any time, without pre-conditions. The union say they're willing to discuss anything as long as the imposition is removed.

We know that due to people taking VR/part time, it isn't possible to remove the imposition - also, BA cannot afford to. Part time crew who want to temporary increase their contract won't work either, as it costs too much money.

Where do we go from here? Firstly, can we stop the kindergarden stuff. Let's all be adult about this. Hey, we might even get famous if we can find the perfect solution ;) (I know, I know, not likely.)

Another thing to bear in mind. The strike was ruled illegal by the courts. I don't believe that Justice Cox would put her job and integrity on the line for any reason.

Personally, I think it would be union suicide to go straight into another ballot. We have seen the reaction from crew, colleagues, customers and media. We have been ridiculed in the press, and there is no faith or good feeling about BA from the public.

We need to change this perception (sp?). We need both sides, with a mediator (possibly Henkybaby...)/ACAS, to sit and talk. No pre-conditions. If both sides won't listen, then we don't know what each side want. Leave to imposition in place at the moment, at least, as we all know why it's here. We must get both sides together to talk. There is no other option.

I don't like to think that there are plenty of people out there who want to see BA fail and up to 70,000 people out of a job (directly or indirectly linked). I know feelings have been running high, lots shouting, plenty of tears and too much stress on individuals.

I do think that the union must listen carefully to their members, and what the members want. It is vitally important for the union to survive (and to be taken seriously, if I'm honest). I think BA must listen to the employees and the union, and vice versa.

What has to be remembered is that listening is an artform. Just by listening doesn't mean you have to agree. You only agree to hear what the other "side" has to say.

Unfortunately, we haven't been dealing with pure facts for the last year or so. Mistakes have been made on both sides, but I understand why we get frustrated with the union when it has been proven at least twice that they lied to their members.

Gg

I'm trying to learn from Henkybaby, but I'm a novice....

[romans44]

Topbunks, the points were covered in the thread which is now closed. To save you having to go through over 300 pages I will go over your points again.
However I don't want anybody telling me that I sound like a broken record. .:)
I am off to have dinner now but rest assure I will give you an answer to all your points later this evening.

[finncapt]

I'll ruin my reputation and probably get banned, but what the hell it will give something else to talk about.

Which speech are BASSA going to use next?

My money is on Churchill's "we'll fight them in the trenches".

[Andy_S]

I am going to try and explain this but do not quote on this. I believe that we as CC cost about 540 milions pounds per year. Pilots cost about 440 milions per year. Now, there are about 14000 of CC and about 3000 pilots. You do the math and tell me who cost the most.

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Of course pilots cost a lot more, per individual, than CC, but there are very good reasons for this. You can't draw comparisons between the salaries of the two groups. You need to look at the market rate - BA pilots are benchmarked against this and paid a modest premium, but CC cost way, way over the odds. It may seem harsh, but you are the low hanging fruit.

[finncapt]

Andy S

That remark ain't going to solve this dispute.

I was pointy end but that is totally uncalled for.

[DP.]

On the point Romans44 makes of WW leading by example, is it now three years in a row he's turned down his bonus (that he has been entitled to)?

[MrBunker]

DP,

Not quite - I believe a bit of BA media spin came into play there. I seem to recall that WW didn't qualify for his bonus on at least one of those years but it was deemed too difficult to correct the press release which suggested he'd turned it down.

MrB

PS Can we talk about the subject, not pick people up on their spelling/grammar etc? Romans44 has made it clear English is not their first language and I'm willing to bet that his/her English is a damned sight better than any attempt I could make to converse in their native tongue.

[DP.]

DP,

Not quite - I believe a bit of BA media spin came into play there. I seem to recall that WW didn't qualify for his bonus on at least one of those years but it was deemed to difficult to correct the press release which suggested he'd turned it down.

Ah yes, I believe you are correct! I think it was last year he failed to qualify. I believe he was entitled to one this year, despite the company making a loss, but turned it down. I seem to recall reading he also forewent his salary one month this year?

[MrBunker]

DP,

That's pretty much as I recall it also.

[romans44]

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Of course pilots cost a lot more, per individual, than CC, but there are very good reasons for this. You can't draw comparisons between the salaries of the two groups. You need to look at the market rate - BA pilots are benchmarked against this and paid a modest premium, but CC cost way, way over the odds. It may seem harsh, but you are the low hanging fruit.
Andy S,
don't change subject,
I am not arguing pilots wages, I have no problems with people earning what they deserve. I don't even have a problem with the large wages and bonuses our top men/women get. If they deserve it, good on them.
We are talking about asking people to make changes to save the airline money.
I find it totally unfair asking one group to make more sacrifices, when our operation (compared for example to that of the pilots)costs relatively less than others.
I don't mind being the low hanging fruit but that does not give anybody the right to walk all over me.
We fought long and hard to have what we have it is only natural that we fight to protect it.

[romans44]

On the point Romans44 makes of WW leading by example, is it now three years in a row he's turned down his bonus (that he has been entitled to)?

DP, I can't comment on this as I don't know the facts.
What I do know is that the large bonus Mr WW turned down after T5 opened, it wasn't turned down out kindness towards the airline.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Please forgive me, folks, I'm just one of those paying pax in J-Class as a private citizen.

So here's the scenario in Feb 2010. We are no longer confident that BA will actually fly - regardless of the quality of cabin service. What are we, the people who shovel money at BA for the 'pleasure' of flying with you likely to do?

Amidst all the arguments about BASSA and WW and agreements and LGW v. LHR - we, the paying pax don't actually care a lot. What we hope for is a reliable airline that provides a decent service in return for the several £k we [the poor punters] pay for the ticket[s]. And at the moment, there seem to be little prospect of BA providing either.

Where does YOUR future lie? Honestly, folks, WE are going to look elsewhere. And, frankly, your disputes [whether right or wrong or stupid or justified] are simply going to result in nnn,nnn pax flying with ABBA. I believe the phrase is "smell the coffee" - I'd try smelling an empty cabin, or the queue at the benefits office.

It's Grown-Up time.

[harry the cod]

romans44

It's that very last sentence of yours that has me wanting to shout out loud......

' wake up and smell the bloody coffee!'

Having sat on the sidelines reading the numerous angles on this debacle, I feel it time to enter the fray.

Firstly, I believe UNITE to be an utter disgrace. Any Union that tries to impose strike action over the major holiday period of the year is nothing short of a disgrace. Not only did Derek Simpson state that it was 'probably over the top' but many BA cabin crew, if they are honest, were shocked at the timing and the length of the proposed action. Nice of your union to give you the full picture wasn't it? Designed to pile huge pressure on management of the airline, the only real losers would have been the hundreds of thousands of stranded customers. In view of the current climate, that may have been the catalyst in bringing down the Company. To state that it was pure bad luck that a strike was scheduled for the most inconvenient time of the year is a downright lie. And the courts have proved they are cheats.

The main arguments behind this strike action for the union members is a pay freeze and the reduction of one crew member on long haul flights. This is clearly not a safety issue. It's an issue that means crew are going to have to work harder. Well guys, suck it up and get on with it. You are already the best paid in the UK so little sympathy there. As for work, you want to see the service offered by the ME carriers. What BA offer is pitiful in comparison and, like it or not, that is what you're up against. Yes, It may mean a little less time in those bunks that you covet so much but that's life nowdays in this tough world..

Just remember, no employee is indespensable and BA is particularly vulnerable right now. Losing over 1 million a day and another estimated 300 million had the 12 day strike gone ahead. That could have caused irreparable damage to the airline and anyone who cannot see that is either blind or has the ego of a large union head!

So, if you want to go ahead and fight for your precious pay and working conditions, please be my guest. Let the 92% of union members make a point of principle of voting against the airline. Then, put your feet up, pour yourself a cuppa ( you'll be good at that bit!) and watch as your Company sinks into history. Life will go on after the few weeks of headline news and people will fly with other airlines, as they are starting to do already. BA will vanish along with the likes of Sabena, Swissair, Pan Am, TWA and many others I could mention. Then see how your new unemployment pay compares with a back to back payment or a Narita meal allowance. With the current 3.7 billion deficit in the BA pension fund, you may also find yourselves stacking 'chicken or beef ' in the local tesco to fund your retirement.

Be very, very careful what you wish for. Or vote for!

Harry

[Nutjob]

Romans44

I find it totally unfair asking one group to make more sacrifices, when our operation (compared for example to that of the pilots)costs relatively less than others.

Eh? Our operation costs more overall. Total IFCE costs are more than Flight Ops from the figures you posted.

Pilots get paid more than CC due to a different skillset and responsibility level.

Wiilie costs less than all the pilots together. Willie costs more than any individual pilot.

So what??????????????

The argument is obsolete. Market forces dictate the going rate for job "X".

1. Willie seems to be paid relatively LITTLE for a FTSE100 Chief Exec

2. BA pilots seem to get a MARKET-LEADING rate (just, when you consider the extra hours they work compared to Virgin pilots)

3. BA CC "on average" (important, 'cos we're not ALL on old contracts) get paid far MORE than the market-rate.

Finally, the savings we were asked for were probably higher than some groups because of point 3 above and the fact that "we" (and especially our old-contract brethren) haven't taken too many of those little steps towards cost-cutting over the past decade. Hence we were asked for a LOT now. There are good reasons for all these things and I'm afraid your argument versus other staff groups doesn't hold water.

For example, if aircraft become so automated and reliable in 5 years time that the market-rate for pilots is halved, then would you really wish to take a 50% pay-cut because you "want what the pilots got"?

It's school-yard stuff and I'm afraid it shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works and what "fair" is.

[christmaslights]

just joined this forum.

I have a question for Romans44. I have not read all the old posts but it appears to me that there's quite a lot of different information going around: some crew say that they only voted yes because they though it was going to be a 2-3 days strike, but in this forum I read that BASSA advised the crew that it was not going to be a short strike- so who is telling the truth? On comments from papers (such as the Guardian) crew members have been disputing the average salary quoted by the papers saying that it was too high and that most of them received a much smaller salary as most of the trips are paid much less than Japan... however crew I spoke to said they refused the average salary option (that would ensure it didn't matter what trips they are sent to) as they would be loosing money... it is all not making any sense!

Also Romans you quoted the pay cut that BASSA offered few times but you never comment on the fact that it was only a temporary measure. The crew are not the only ones been asked to make sacrifices.

I have not read anywhere that the reduction in crew numbers were happening in conjunction with crew taking VR and going part time. Crew always point out how good BA is with their PR but nobody has told the story the way it is isn'it?

BA is not only made of CC, but it appears that nobody else is worth anything or nobody else deserves a job.

[MrBernoulli]

Which brings us back to the side of a circle that was passed a long time back on these threads - the pilots have negotiated steadily over the last several years, losing a little here, a little there, whereas BASSA hasn't entertained the idea - at all. Had the pilots not followed this path they would certainly be on more money than they are now (and in the same sort of poo as the cabin crew, too!). The cabin crew haven't had their medicine for a long time, so the 'hit', to get them nearer their market worth, is going to be a bigger loss of 'cash'.

The pilots are professionally licensed to an international standard, which costs the individuals money to attain, and the company has to pay more (but still very much market rate) for those qualified pilots. The cabin crew do not require any previous experience, take comparatively little time to train, but have had a wage/allowances historically well beyond that of comparative airlines. Cabin crew have had a very good ride for a very long time - it is now payback time!

[romans44]

Be very, very careful what you wish for. Or vote for!



harry I don't respond well to threats
by the way I don't drink coffee....

[henkybaby]

Greetings from the First Restaurant at T3.

Glad to see that at least some things in life are consistent. :ok:

Just been on a flight from AMS to LHR. Lots of delays and problems and I must say the crew (cabin and flight) handled it perfectly. Kudos to them. I talked to some advocates of BASSA (hey, we were stuck on the tarmac at LHR for 2 hours!) and they are not evil people. They were nice, friendly, courteous and professional.

What I found less professional was that 2 paying pax were downgraded to make room for (wait for it) repositioning crew. When I spoke to the CSD about it he told me that was because they had been working 16 hours and were tired. I replied how he knew that the pax who were downgraded did not have an equally tiring day. That was when he short circuited... :)

What I liked was how great the pilots and the crew seem to get along on board this flight. Not only the working crew but also the one taking up the entire J section (yes, I do think that is Wrong). I can only imagine most FD and CC do get along.

What I also understand is that being CC is much harder work than we sometimes give them credit for.

What I find disconcerting is that even I am looking at the crew differently. They were great and all, but I could not help but overhearing (well, I actually eves dropped) them discussing how now they would not be home for x-mass like planned...

It is a rough spot we're in....

[Runway vacated]

romans44

I don't respond well to threats

Erm, nor do the rest of the airline when OUR futures are being held hostage to preserve the well feathered existence of our most intransigent workforce.

But, rather more importantly, nor does WW. Your "reps" (though I would quibble about who they actually represent) should have done a bit of research before threatening THIS particular CEO.:ok:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

It's interesting that nobody on this Thread cares to reply to a paying pax.

I'll just pi66 off then.

And THAT is typical BA long-haul. :ugh:

[henkybaby]

It's interesting that nobody on this Thread cares to reply to a paying pax.

Can't say I agree. I am SLF too and everyone here has replied to greater and lesser extend, depending on whether or not the question made them digress from the crusade they were on.

After 3 wine the problems seem to all go away, mind you. ;)

[Runway vacated]

2 Tone, you are not being ignored. The lack of response indicates that pretty much everyone AGREES with your view. As someone who relies on YOUR custom to pay my bills, and has been unemployed, AND has worked for other airlines (something most of our cc have conspicuously NOT done) I agree that the macro-economic view is pretty grim. Against this backdrop, quibbles over one less crew member on an already overstaffed aircraft seem pretty inconsequential.

And FWIW, after this debacle, I feel that, should BA go under then all BA cc have rendered themselves pretty much unemployable in the airline industry. Anywhere in the world the minute the recruiter gets to "BA" on the cv, it goes into the bin! Harsh, but that's the way the world is.

[DavvaP]

I've read these forums for a while now, and never posted, but I thought I'd start now ;-)

I'm only SLF, so take my opinion for what its worth - approximately 2 flights a year - probably short haul.

For the forseeable future, I've got to say that with the mess that's happened, I think the only way I'd ever fly BA is if a negotiated settlement between the unions and BA is reached, and part of that settlement is that the workers relinquish their right to strike. I only get to fly for holidays (and they're rare at the moment too!) - so whilst I empathise with everyone trying to maintain their jobs etc, I'm just not going to take any chances.

I have only good things to say about my past experiences with BA, from all aspects, so I hope I can once again give them my hard earned money.

- Davva.

[pvmw]

harry I don't respond well to threats
by the way I don't drink coffee....
Do you really think that, as a passenger, I care what your response is??

Its not a threat, its a statement of fact. You can respond how you like. I can go to another airline. Your arrogance is astonishing, you are the one who will be serving burgers if your airline goes tits-up - and if you continue to behave like a spoiled child that is EXACTLY what will happen.

Will I give a damn? What do you think?

[harry the cod]

' by the way I don't drink coffee....'

Oh, the irony of it! :D

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks - I appreciate being acknowledged. ;)

I'll try and post more meaningful inputs tomorrow.

In the meantime, I do hope CC are really reading and understanding what's being said here, and in other forums. You are going to be unemployed - period - because the paying customers are heading to a different check-in desk. Once I've used my BA Miles, I've gone.

[romans44]

Hi Topbunk,
here I go and please accept my apologies for any spelling mistakes. I have tried to get the spell check work on this forum but I can't get it going.
I also want to apologies to those people that have heard this before but I am repeating myself on request of Topbunk.

First of all, I'd like to say that if I was on 64.000 pounds a month salary, I would be very happy not to be paid for one month and never see the money again.
Sadly I am on 12.000 pounds basic salary per year and I couldn't possibly afford to do that.

You are displaying all the traditional BASSA denial symptoms - blame everyone but themselves by trying to distract attention from the basic facts.

I am not blaming anyone else for the mistakes we have made. I am the first one to say that BASSA made some serious mistakes.

1. BASSA knowingly and in full possession of all the relevant necessary data, conducted an illegal ballot, despite being warned on several occasions,and then Bugsy worsened the situation by actively encouraging VR staff to vote

In my opinion, at no point BASSA knowingly lead us into an illegal ballot. To believe that would only be foolish.
I believe that mistakes were made but were not intentional.
I hope we have learnt a lesson from that , however the truth remains that we balloted on something totally legal.

Any judge would likely have made the same pronouncement on the case - maybe her pension fund invests in BA shares, should that preclude her for sitting on the case?

That is your assumption but the truth is you don't know that.

3. Unite apparently tried to council BASSA against the disproportionate action

Yes, apparently.

4. BASSA repeatedly refused to negotiate, refused to sit in the same room as their new best buddies from CC89, refused to sign a NDA to view the company books, refused to listen to presentations from BA


Totaly untrue. BASSA has always been open to negotiation, what they have repeatedly refused, was being bullied.
Yes, Bassa walked out on CC89 but only because on e of their reps turned nasty against one of the BASSA reps.
All the BASSA reps had to take ' In Touch' classes. They walked out of the slide show because it was just that. A glorified in touch class.

5. BASSA held a meeting at Sandown which they orchestrated to get a vote of 'no negotiation' through by whipping up everyone present into a frenzy

Again untrue, at no point BASSA orchestrated a no negotiation vote. I was there, were you?
Bassa asked its members if We, the members, wanted negotiations to go on if the imposition was to go ahead. We, the members, democratically, voted no.

6. BASSA never consulted the membership at any stage and have repeatedly bullied and harrassed those who question anything


As a BASSA member I never felt out of the loop or not consulted.
I have several times challeged BASSA and never felt bullied or harrased. I am sorry you have and I hope you have taken actions.


The faults for where BASSA fing themselves lies clearly and irrefutedly an only one door, that of Bugsy Malone and her inner council.

I can't comment on Mrs Malone. I can tell you however that knowing her ,she does not sound like the terrible person the media and some people here make her sound to be.
She has made a mistake but a no point ,I believe,she did it intentionally.


Is negotiation to be welcomed as a next step - very much so. To get there will require recognition by both sides that firstly there are issues that require addressing and that the way forward must be free of the threat of industrial action. Are both sides big enough to move this forward? That is the million dollar question. Let's hope that egos can be reined in during the season of goodwill.


Totally I agree with you on this point


Personally I think the egos within BASSA will have to dragged kicking and screaming to the table by Unite, and it is for Unite to make the first move.

Totally disagree on this point . Only one party here has so far refused to negotiate, in my opinion it is not BASSA.

[Weather Map]

I would like to know why the BASSA reps are not being sacked for bringing the company into disrepute.

[Weather Map]

Romans 44. I notice you are claiming that BASSA will not be bullied.Double standards I would say BASSA are bullies and as I have said before they have bullied crew in past who have spoken out against them.Ever heard of the BASSA Six .

[romans44]

Greetings from the First Restaurant at T3.
Glad to see that at least some things in life are consistent. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Just been on a flight from AMS to LHR. Lots of delays and problems and I must say the crew (cabin and flight) handled it perfectly. Kudos to them. I talked to some advocates of BASSA (hey, we were stuck on the tarmac at LHR for 2 hours!) and they are not evil people. They were nice, friendly, courteous and professional.
What I found less professional was that 2 paying pax were downgraded to make room for (wait for it) repositioning crew. When I spoke to the CSD about it he told me that was because they had been working 16 hours and were tired. I replied how he knew that the pax who were downgraded did not have an equally tiring day. That was when he short circuited... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
What I liked was how great the pilots and the crew seem to get along on board this flight. Not only the working crew but also the one taking up the entire J section (yes, I do think that is Wrong). I can only imagine most FD and CC do get along.
What I also understand is that being CC is much harder work than we sometimes give them credit for.
What I find disconcerting is that even I am looking at the crew differently. They were great and all, but I could not help but overhearing (well, I actually eves dropped) them discussing how now they would not be home for x-mass like planned...
It is a rough spot we're in

Hi Henkbaby,
I on behalf of those CC I'd like to apologies. I hope you would agree with me that the view of a few do not represent the view of the many.
We are a group of professional people and I think your comments prove just that.
:)

[christmaslights]

[I]She has made a mistake but a no point ,I believe,she did it intentionally

Funny how some people make mistakes they benefit from...

and it is funny how any mistake a manager makes is looked at like it was done in purpose but anybody else is an angel???:hmm:

Did BASSA get to see the company books or not? Romans44 how comes you don't seem to address the relevant points?

[romans44]

Hi Nutjob

Eh? Our operation costs more overall. Total IFCE costs are more than Flight Ops from the figures you posted.

there are 13000 CC and less than 3000 pilots, it doesn't take much to see that in comparison IFCE costs are less than Flight ops.

Pilots get paid more than CC due to a different skillset and responsibility level.
Totally agree with this, I never once said pilots should be paid less.


The argument is obsolete. Market forces dictate the going rate for job "X".

Why compare us with the likes of Easyjet or Virgin and not with the likes of Iberia, Lufthansa, AirFrance?


2. BA pilots seem to get a MARKET-LEADING rate (just, when you consider the extra hours they work compared to Virgin pilots)

3. BA CC "on average" (important, 'cos we're not ALL on old contracts) get paid far MORE than the market-rate.

Why is it that , when it comes to pilot, things 'Seem to be' but when it comes to CC things are certain?
For your information my basic pay is just over 12.000. I believe Easyjet basic is higher.
You are comparing old contracts with easyjet.

Finally, the savings we were asked for were probably higher than some groups because of point 3 above and the fact that "we" (and especially our old-contract brethren) haven't taken too many of those little steps towards cost-cutting over the past decade. Hence we were asked for a LOT now. There are good reasons for all these things and I'm afraid your argument versus other staff groups doesn't hold water.


Totally respect your opinion, hope you respect mine.

[deeceethree]

romans44,

You start with:
I am not blaming anyone else for the mistakes we have made. I am the first one to say that BASSA made some serious mistakes..... but then go on, in a fairly lengthy post, to deny any of BASSA's errors. It is a major contradiction, is it not? So, what "serious mistakes" did BASSA make?
In my opinion, at no point BASSA knowingly lead us into an illegal ballot.So despite all the multiple pre-ballot warnings, both verbal and written, BASSA and Unite unknowingly decided on an illegal ballot? If you truly do hold that opinion you truly are in major denial .....

[LD12986]

BA238 (BOS-LHR) has been diverted to GLA and is going nowhere with some pax put on to domestics to LHR.

Is this because of the weather at LHR or CC working practices?

[deeceethree]

Depends if it was late getting in to/leaving BOS (US east coast has had ****e weather too) and how long it might have had to wait GLA before a likely slot into LHR. Maybe the crew did run out of hours to complete the trip?

If I were a betting man ....... :}

(Looks like a 744 out of JFK ended up in DUB too ...... )

[binsleepen]

In response to Henkybaby, as a shareholder and as a pilot who would like to one day work for BA, and therefore would like to see it thrive and expand I find it absolutely gobsmacking that paying Pax are downgraded to make way for crew. For the love of god what planet are some people living on in these difficult times. If I was one of those pax I would be apoplectic. Does the captain not have the final say in these situations? I mean a flight from Ams-Lhr is only 45 mins sitting in economy is not that much of a hardship surely? I hope this event has been brought to the attention of management.

Romans you said earlier today that you would rather have a pay cut than a reduction in T & Cs. If 13000 cc were to give a pay cut that would produce the 140 million pounds saving that BA are looking for it would require a cut of 140,000,000/13000 = 10769 pounds per crew. Pretty unacceptable I think you will agree. Even if you met half way between BAs 140m and UNITEs offer of 57 M, say 100 M, it would still require a cut of 7692 pounds per crew. Therefore some sort of productivity gains must be offered. These must be permanent. When and if the good times return you will be free to ask for some of that money for union members. If it is not offered you will be free to ballot for IA for a greater pay rise at that time.

As Henkybaby and GG have said we (or rather BA and the cc) need to look forward rather than back. As I see it there are three outcomes:

1. BA management capitulate, reinstate the lost positions by hiring new crew on present T & Cs and promptly go bust. Everyone loses.

2. BASSA are beaten but only after more threats of strikes and actual strikes. Bookings plunge, routes dropped, forced job losses, BA shadow of former self. Everyone loses

3. Negotiation takes place. Please let this be the option. It will require BASSA to accept the position we are now in as Management will never recruit more CC on present T & Cs to replace the VRs. However the main concern seems to be new fleet. If suitable productivity gains could be offered I'm sure NF could be negotiated away so future recruitment to replace retirements and for any expansion would be on present T & Cs.

What sort of productivity gains could be achieved?

I have flown long haul as a pilot many times. BA fly to PHX dep at 1500 and arr at 1840 then returning, dep at 2105 arr at 1350. If this was done with only 1 night stop you would still be at the hotel by 2000L ish (time for a few beers and a meal at the Outback or P F Changs) and bed. You could have a decent lie in and still hit the Malls before leaving the hotel at 1830-1900. It would still be the best part of 23 hours off and you would get extra time at home with the family. Yes you lose allowances but BA save money on these and HOTAC costs. This is just an example.

On short haul I find it amazing that a crew (both FD and CC) do not stay together for the day. You fly your 2, 3 or 4 sectors and finish at base or stay overnight at destination for another day together the next day. This must be more efficient than the present set up?

As far as allowances go you are so lucky. In the last few years the government have gone from a system where you were given a set amount of cash $60-70 for a night in the US and you could spend it how you want. Many spent it on food and phone calls as it was meant to be but many ate pot noodles and bought mountain bikes and Ipods. It has changed now to a system where you get the same amount but you must provide receipts for any amount over $5. It must all be spent on food or drink (but only 1 alcoholic drink!). If you dont provide receipts for the amount given the difference comes out of your pay. This is tax payers money so with MPs expenses etc things change. Your allowances come from your customers fares.

Only my thoughts

Regards

[ottergirl]

When will BASSA realize the "basic salary" argument doesn't cut any ice when everyone in the aviation industry, and now the media and even the public, knows there's a big difference between basic salary and actual gross earnings because of all the extras built into the BA CC payment package.


Until you fall over and break a leg that is! Then its 12K and like it! Similarly, if BA choose not to work you and leave you at home 'available' then its back to basic. On Annual Leave, basic again. Standby but not used, you guessed it! The point is, the 12K is the only part you can rely on. Mortgage companies will look at the rest of your payslip but will rarely lend on anywhere near your take home pay because they know it can't be relied on.

Incidentally, meal allowances are designed to let you eat down-route; granted it would be a greedy soul who managed to eat all of it but if you're stuck in Scandinavia in the winter, room service is a pretty appealing option so you need to budget for food. Other companies do this on expenses claims but airlines allocate a set amount. The rest is overtime, paid when we work more than a 10 hour day and other odds and sods depending on fleet. Sadly and contrary to popular myth, we are really not talking about a massive amount.

[ottergirl]

Thinking about your last post made me think about how both sides could get what they want without losing face (for lets be honest here, thats what's needed).

How about this? The crew levels stay as they are for a working trial (6 months) with appropriate feedback from both crew and customers to ascertain if there are any routes which need the numbers tweaking. Mostly the trials will succeed, because if LGW already work that crew ratio, then why wouldn't they? If there are any real problems on routes peculiar to LHR then BA will need to look closely at the crewing levels or service offered. That way the Union could say that the imposition is lifted and BA get the number of crew on a flight they want.

Anyone any thoughts on whether that could work?

For Weather map - that depends on whether people handling skills count? As it is about 50% of our new crew are educated to degree level or have medical or language skills so bring more onboard than just coffee pot wielding skills. And now BA even give them an NVQ in Customer Service!:)

[binsleepen]

Ottergirl, I believe you are long haul what are your views on:

I have flown long haul as a pilot many times. BA fly to PHX dep at 1500 and arr at 1840 then returning, dep at 2105 arr at 1350. If this was done with only 1 night stop you would still be at the hotel by 2000L ish (time for a few beers and a meal at the Outback or P F Changs) and bed. You could have a decent lie in and still hit the Malls before leaving the hotel at 1830-1900. It would still be the best part of 23 hours off and you would get extra time at home with the family. Yes you lose allowances but BA save money on these and HOTAC costs. This is just an example.

Regards

[Hot Wings]

Ottergirl,
I think that you are in denial about how much some of your old contract WW colleagues can earn. I remember one purser netting £3,800 one month!

It's time that junior crew pushed for a redistribution of wealth and a fair bidding system - but the BASSA fat cats wouldn't want that would they? Of course they will argue that more experience deserves more pay but I don't see too many people at Tescos on £50k after 30 years and look at their job - long, unsociable hours, rude and violent customers, fires, medical emergencies, etc...

Merry Christmas to you all!

[ottergirl]

Sorry but I am shorthaul through and through and its been many years since I set foot outside Europe. The only time I've been to PHX was on holiday with a fractious baby so I wouldn't like to say how I'd feel if I'd worked there. When Romans44 or Hiflyer come back on, you can ask them.

Hotwings - thats a scary Tesco you hang out in! Where is it so i give it a miss? I am not in denial about how much WW crew earn but I am realistic to know that I wouldn't want to do their job for even more. The years I did affected my life so badly that I know when I am well off. Truth be told, I am not sure I'd relish managing the WW crew either! Those were long nights slogging back from the West Coast.
If you compare our rank structure with John Lewis then certainly on Eurofleet, there isn't such a huge discrepancy. To be managing a staff of 15, you'd have to be a Department head and after 20+ years service they'd be earning about the same as me (and without having to do 0500 reports). I know I am an old contract CSD but on Eurofleet, that don't amount to much!

[romans44]

Until you fall over and break a leg that is! Then its 12K and like it! Similarly, if BA choose not to work you and leave you at home 'available' then its back to basic. On Annual Leave, basic again. Standby but not used, you guessed it! The point is, the 12K is the only part you can rely on. Mortgage companies will look at the rest of your payslip but will rarely lend on anywhere near your take home pay because they know it can't be relied on.

Thanks ottergirl,
nice to see that someone has the facts and not simply rely on what they read on papers.
I believe it was the Daily Mail who reported the grand meal allowances we get on a Narita trip, which by the way I have only flown once since I have been LH, and that is almost 2 years.
Funny how they left out the 80 pounds we get for a 3 day Delhi trip, or the 70 pounds I will get for my east coast stop over tomorrow...Weather permitted, of course or even the 8 pounds you SH people get for an afternoon trip. Funny thing the Dail Mail.
Goodnight everybody, keep the conversation going..
Back in a few days...:)

[HiFlyer14]

The one thing that we ALL have in common on this thread is that we are interested, concerned and indeed passionate about saving BA. If we really do want to save BA, we must draw a line under what's gone on and move forward.
____________________________________________________________ ___ = Line drawn

I fully agree with what Midman said on the first page - the administration and the operation need sorting out. And the administration of the operation definitely needs sorting out.

I also fully agree with Interpreter and the phrase - LET THEM TALK. I try and do that at every opportunity. It isn't always easy because you get the bog standard answers: Price Fixing fines, T5, Openskies etc. It's all managements' fault. You do have to be quite patient and grit your teeth through it all, but I have found that by asking what they hope to achieve etc, they eventually come up with their own observation and say "actually I have lost faith in the Union". It's a basic coaching principle - let them come up with the answer by asking questions.

And of course Henkybaby is right - we need a solution. We can regurgitate about the injunction, legal terminology etc. but it is actually irrelevant now. Another ballot is somewhat pointless and will only serve to distance the public even more (if that's possible) - by the time it is run the court case will be due, and that will be the deciding factor.

So, to move this on, the cabin crew community is now divided into three groups:

A. Those who voted No and resigned from the Union (Welcome to our latest member - GODD!)
B. Those who voted Yes and were horrified (yes horrified at the 12 days of Xmas) and have now LOST FAITH IN THE UNION.
c. The hard core lost cause.

It is difficult to gauge what the percentages of the groups is.

Group C is the cancer - (I make no apologies Lurker - it is a word in the dictionary defined as "something evil or destructive that is hard to contain or eradicate") that will need drastic action.

B. are slowly coming round

A. of course are perfect :)

The important group are B - as they are not sure what to do now. They need converting into A's - we need to get to work if we want to save this company.

When A group has achieved it's 1000th member, :ok: then we can start our new council, and put Midman's suggestion into practice of being more hands on and involved in day to day operations, without comprising the customers or the business.

We need to work hard and get there quick before this Union causes us to self-destruct.

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

[Weather Map]

Romans 44 . Get a job as a BASSA rep and you'll get NRT all the time .They don't do DEL.

[Glamgirl]

And we're back to money again....:hmm:

Ottergirl, I'd like to ask you your opinion on getting an hourly pay instead of your current type of allowances. I'm not talking numbers here, it's a hypothetical question. Also, I'd like to ask how you (or anyone else on EF) feels about fixed links. Not necessarily a fixed link between every flight at base, but shorter turn-arounds than currently.

I'd also like for someone from WWLHR to let me know how they feel about hourly pay. For WWLHR it would mean they could get a bidding system, trip pay varies due to length, and possibly sickness would reduce on current "low pay" trips? The system may end up being more fair.

I'd like to re-iterate that I'm not talking numbers at this point, I'm just trying to find out how you would feel about it. I'll be thankful for any answers.

Having read a lot in the last few months, it seems to me that most crew are happy to give up their telephone allowance. Is this true? Is this something you could live without?

I'm just trying to come up with ideas here, where it's more productivity than financial impact. I know for sure that personally, I can't afford a pay cut. As long as the interest rate stay more or less where it is, I can afford a pay freeze. I don't want sympathy, I'm not pulling on the violin strings, I'm just saying it like it is.

More ideas most welcome.

Gg


PS. WeatherMap, with all due respect, can we please behave like adults? I don't agree with everyone here, but we've got to move forward. Thanks.

[AtlasDrawer]

Hello Glamgirl I am on EF and as far I can gauge:

Most crew would be happy to do fixed links and to be honest I was surprised this was not mooted as a cost saving idea.

I would agree with an hourly rate as the more you work, the more you get paid. And thats why I am kind of against the monthly travel payment as I feel that people who were just doing the early morning domestic there and back would potentially get the same of us who do the 2 day six sector trips etc. If something could be worked out to counteract that I am all ears!

Let me know if you think of anything else

AD

[Runway vacated]

I'd also like for someone from WWLHR to let me know how they feel about hourly pay. For WWLHR it would mean they could get a bidding system, trip pay varies due to length, and possibly sickness would reduce on current "low pay" trips? The system may end up being more fair.


it seems to me that most crew are happy to give up their telephone allowance. Is this true? Is this something you could live without?

Gg, it's great that you are asking these questions, and I am sure the basis of a NEGOTIATED agreement would included many of the elements that you identify, but the train left the station several months ago. Negotiation was not successful, and as far as I know, BASSA never bothered asking it's members any of those questions.

The only way this is going to be resolved WITHOUT a major amount of blood on the carpet is for a little humble pie to be eaten. BASSA need to accept the new status quo, and begin a meaningful dialogue about shaping the future careers of cc in BA.

BA need to address the fears of cc about job security (though in the current climate that will be difficult) and try and put the past behaviour of BASSA to one side.

Needless to say this is all IMHO and hasn't a chance of happening.

Time to buy a carpet cleaner.......

[Glamgirl]

AtlasDrawer,

Thank you for your thoughts. Very interesting, and shines a light in the right direction.

Runway Vacated,

I understand what you're saying, but I'm just trying to move things forward here. We've discussed (and can discuss continuously) until we're blue in the face about who did what and why and where. I haven't forgotten, and I don't expect anyone else to have forgotten either.

I've just reached a stage now where I think there's no point in blaming each other (we've done that in the last 4 threads on this topic). We urgently need to move forward. That's why I'm holding a little survey. Surely that can't be a bad thing?

Gg

(See, Henkybaby, I was listening to you...)

[Nutjob]

Romans44

I'm afraid I need to post my missive again. Have to say though, you're doing yourself few favours by simply picking on slight wording issues in my post. I'll try clarify for you so you can focus on the real point I'm making.

Romans44

Quote:
I find it totally unfair asking one group to make more sacrifices, when our operation (compared for example to that of the pilots)costs relatively less than others.


Eh? Our operation costs more overall. Total IFCE costs are more than Flight Ops from the figures you posted.

To which you replied...

there are 13000 CC and less than 3000 pilots, it doesn't take much to see that in comparison IFCE costs are less than Flight ops.

I also said...

Pilots get paid more than CC due to a different skillset and responsibility level.

To which you replied....


Totally agree with this, I never once said pilots should be paid less.


So what does your first quote mean? You accept that the skillsets are different, never said that pilots and Cabin Crew (and Engineers and Chief Execs?) should all be paid the same, yet, although our IFCE budget is in larger than that of flight Ops "in total", you claim that it is "in comparison" larger in Flight Ops. Yes, pilots get more than CC (you accept), yes pilots are permitted to be remunerated differently to CC (you accept) and also Willie gets more than any pilot and hence (your words and flawed argument) "in comparison", Chief Exec budget is greater than Flight Ops.

Once again, I say that argument is flawed. you accept the differences we've mentioned then immediately bemoan them. :ugh:


Market forces dictate the going rate for job "X".

to which you replied....

Why compare us with the likes of Easyjet or Virgin and not with the likes of Iberia, Lufthansa, AirFrance?

Virgin ARE a good comparison. As a group we are paid more. See above for when YOU used the GROUP argument and then switch to the INDIVIDUAL argument below.

1. Willie IS to be paid relatively LITTLE for a FTSE100 Chief Exec

2. BA pilots DO get a UK MARKET-LEADING rate (just, when you consider the extra hours they work compared to Virgin pilots)

3. BA CC "on average" (important, 'cos we're not ALL on old contracts) get paid far MORE than the market-rate.

to which you replied

Why is it that , when it comes to pilot, things 'Seem to be' but when it comes to CC things are certain?
For your information my basic pay is just over 12.000. I believe Easyjet basic is higher.
You are comparing old contracts with easyjet.

So I have clarified for you above in bold.

Finally, the savings we were asked for were probably higher than some groups because of point 3 above and the fact that "we" (and especially our old-contract brethren) haven't taken too many of those little steps towards cost-cutting over the past decade. Hence we were asked for a LOT now. There are good reasons for all these things and I'm afraid your argument versus other staff groups doesn't hold water.

For example, if aircraft become so automated and reliable in 5 years time that the market-rate for pilots is halved, then would you really wish to take a 50% pay-cut because you "want what the pilots got"?

It's school-yard stuff and I'm afraid it shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works and what "fair" is.


I've also highlighted above the main points in the bit you failed to respond to. These detail exactly why we were asked for more than some other departments. You simply cannot start the "clean slate for everyone, lets all make the same savings" argument again and again. Engineers saved less than pilots, CC are being asked to save more than pilots. MARKET FORCES. CAA stats show us ON AVERAGE well above the market rate. YOU might not be getting that much, I might not be getting that much but ON AVERAGE we are.

The "in comparison" argument (I say again) is obsolete and doesn't hold water - unless you really do want to take a pay cut if/when the pilots/Chief Exec/Engineers/groundstaff do. Are we really all to be making the same savings all the time? Tell me you don't really believe that? If you don't, then "comparison" with other departments has been laid to rest.

Please try and respond to the basic argument this time instead of picking up on wording errors and avoiding the crux of the problem with your stance.

[Desertia]

Romans,

Desertia, I won't be dragged into a mathematical debate....

I merely presented some simple statistics to show that if Walsh gave up his salary it would have little effect on BA's losses. These are simply numbers. What is there to debate?

Besides which, didn't he work for nothing earlier this year? In which case he has already taken a pay cut.

What has he asked you to sacrifice exactly?

Added: He worked for nothing in July. That means he took an 8.3% cut in salary this year. As you say, every little helps.

[wiggy]

it would just mean that suddenly TLV and BOS become the best trips and SIN/SYD the least popular.


....but that certainly didn't happen when the pilots moved to a allowances system based on time away from base, but then again most pilots have some degree of legitimate control over their monthly roster.

[pvmw]

What I fnd completely astonishing from A Lurker, Ottergirl, Romans44 etc, is the way they completely ignore all posts from their customers - who are making it very plain that they are walking away from the company AND WON'T BE COMING BACK.

Without your customers you can bleat on about terms and conditions all you like. BA isn't a charity. Without your customers you will have no job. The damage YOU and your Union are doing to BA is getting close to terminal. Lemmings rushing over cliffs is a good analogy.

As was said earlier WAKE UP AND DRINK THE COFFEE. Snide remarks about threats and not drinking coffee are pointless and demonstrate the paucity of your argument. When BA goes down the pan YOU, yes YOU, WILL be unemployed - and unemployable. What company with any modicum of common sense will employ an ex-BA CC?? The first indication of "BA" on the CV, and it will go straight in the bin.

I feel very sorry for the intelligent and sensible among you such as Tiramisu, for they will be tarred with the same brush. For you, I have no sympathy at all. Enjoy the dole, you are likely to be on it a long time (and it is a lot less than £12k pa., and has no added benefits).

[Dawdler]

There has been much comment on this forum about BASSA's use of an image simulating the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. Those who think it an appropriate image to use can see the real story of the battle at Iwo Jima on Yesterday TV (in the UK) on Christmas Eve at 7.00am - set the recorder.

Edited to say there is a fuller account on the Military History Channel on Christmas day.

[HiFlyer14]

As a cabin crew member who voted No and has now resigned from the Union, I would firstly like to thank TrueBlue, TwoToneBlue, PMVW, Henky, Fincastle, Desertia (particularly the threadworm humour) and all the other SLF that take the time to post on here and put their point of view.

We are now trying to find solutions rather than just hash over the same problems, ;), and I think the customers should be a part in finding that solution as, after all, they know best. So to that end I have a question for you our (much needed) customers.

What would it take to reassure you that customer service is our priority and what could we the cabin crew do to demonstrate that and make sure that you travel on BA in the future?

Also any advice that you have from the outside world of overpowering this enormous out-of-control monster that is BASSA would be much appreciated.

I would also like to assure you that the attitude of Romans, FlyingChicken, Fume, Lurker, etc is NOT representative of the attitude of cabin crew generally and many of us are truly concerned about the current appalling situation and the damage it has done and would genuinely like to be given the opportunity to show you some of the best customer service in the world.

I am a BA cabin crew member and the above represents my own view and not that of BA.

[cessnapete]

I realise this is only one example of cc pay. Yesterday I was visiting a friend,
his wife is a Purser at Lhr on Longhaul 777/747. She is on 50% roster. She retreived her payslips for the last 12 months. We totalled her pay and allowances, approx £24000. If she changed to full time her pay therefore around £48000 pa.
The £50000+ often quoted for a WW CSD seems quite reasonable.
By the way she voted no.

[Golden Ticket]

Mmm. I work at LGW as CM and I working more than 50% and I'm about £2,000 behind your purser friend. I don't begrudge people getting paid and if you've got terms and conditions which are good then fine. It does illustrate why things are having to change though.

[binsleepen]

Late yesterday I posted the following but got little reply due to time of night.

In response to Henkybaby, as a shareholder and as a pilot who would like to one day work for BA, and therefore would like to see it thrive and expand I find it absolutely gobsmacking that paying Pax are downgraded to make way for crew. For the love of god what planet are some people living on in these difficult times. If I was one of those pax I would be apoplectic. Does the captain not have the final say in these situations? I mean a flight from Ams-Lhr is only 45 mins sitting in economy is not that much of a hardship surely? I hope this event has been brought to the attention of management

Is this really how it works?

In response to HiFlyer who wrote

What would it take to reassure you that customer service is our priority and what could we the cabin crew do to demonstrate that and make sure that you travel on BA in the future?

I suggest that prioritising pax over crew would be a start.

On long haul many crew have stressed the need for 2 nights rest. I wrote as an example:

BA fly to PHX dep at 1500 and arr at 1840 then returning, dep at 2105 arr at 1350. If this was done with only 1 night stop you would still be at the hotel by 2000L ish (time for a few beers and a meal at the Outback or P F Changs) and bed. You could have a decent lie in and still hit the Malls before leaving the hotel at 1830-1900. It would still be the best part of 23 hours off and you would get extra time at home with the family. Yes you lose allowances but BA save money on these and HOTAC costs.

Would this be so terrible. My wife is an intensive care nurse and does both day or night shifts of 12 hours back to back. She gets home after the first shift at 8.00 and leaves for the next shift at 5.30, only 9 1/2 hours between shifts. She has the lives of 24 week premature babies in her hands and after 17 years experience earns about half a ww pursers salery. She loves her job and would not want to do yours but are 2 nights off really reasonable in the present economic times?

regards

[wanttojoinin]

I'm just glad to read the the Tax man is looking at these allowances.

Meals fair enough exempt, but extra allowances for long trips is just another word for overtime surely. Any other job working extra hours = tax paid. So not only is the pay ridiculous, they are not even paying tax on a huge chunk of it.

[Desertia]

HiFlyer,

To be honest, I can't see anything that CC could do to entice me back to BA. If BA offered a J class ticket for an economy price as an incentive, I might be tempted to try them out again for a recce, but otherwise I am perfectly happy with my carrier(s) of choice.

I suspect, when people fly EK, EY ETH, QR, GF or TG for the first time, especially in the front cabins, you might struggle to get them back as well. (I can't speak for Singapore or Malaysian Airlines, but I only ever hear good things about them). Oman Air are expanding in Long Haul, so I might be trying them in the near future as well.

I also hear BA's Frequent Flyer scheme is considered quite crap compared to others.

Cheers,
D

[Andy_S]

Also any advice that you have from the outside world of overpowering this enormous out-of-control monster that is BASSA would be much appreciated.

I don't know how the procedure works, but you could try calling a vote of no confidence in the current leadership. That would of course expose you to the wrath of the BASSA hotheads, but maybe, just maybe in a few months time enough of the wider membership may be sufficiently disillusioned with the self destructive behaviour of BASSA and concerned about their own futures that they may be receptive to change.

I suspect, though, that BASSA are a lost cause and that the only way to deal with them is to bypass them and form a new union. One which takes a modern view of industrial relations and which - while not being a pushover - recognises that the interests of it's members coincides significantly with the interests of the company. One which doesn't define itself by perpetual confrontation with the company that pays its members salaries. One which understands which battles are worth fighting. It won't be easy, but I've got a feeling that if someone could get it up and running then it would gather momentum.

Best of luck anyhow.

[pvmw]

What would it take to reassure you that customer service is our priority and what could we the cabin crew do to demonstrate that and make sure that you travel on BA in the future?.

Incredibly difficult. What the customer needs more than anything is reliability. Safety is a given, and quality of service matters – but my company wants to be 100% sure that if I am due somewhere I am going to get there when expected.

Also any advice that you have from the outside world of overpowering this enormous out-of-control monster that is BASSA would be much appreciated.

The solution? Personally, I think it has to be the complete removal of BASSA from the equation and its replacement by a union with the real interests of its members and the future of the company at heart. BASSA have demonstrated that they are never going to act reasonably. While they exist the threat of further strikes will always hang over BA and discourage customers from using the company.

I think BA needs to bite the bullet, confront them head on and use every means at their disposal to destroy them completely. If that results in a strike, then so be it. The company will suffer in the short term – but if the outcome is that customers can see that in future the company is in control of its own destiny they may return. It will take time, once confidence is lost it is very hard to regain. – but it will never be regained while the current situation exists.

[Desertia]

There are certain parallels here to the 1980's NUM unrest and the formation of the breakaway UDM.

The UDM ultimately helped to break the NUM, but ultimately could not save the coal industry.

I wonder when Malone will start quoting that other legendary Dave Spart-alike:

"We face not an employer but a government aided and abetted by the judiciary, the police and you people in the media"....

You see, this retarded union finger pointing has been going on since time immemorial.

[malcolmf]

In the last BASSA election only about 1800 bothered to vote, until the rank and file membership get engaged there won't be any change. I can only assume that they were happy with the existing Reps. I was talking to a purser in CAI last year and he was moaning about going to IAD 5 times in the last two months. I said why don't you stand for election on a reform package.........
Would CC accept an overall pay bill reduction of say 2.6% in exchange for an hourly rate system and all box payments amalgamated into salary?
This is the current FC system and results in much more even distribution month on month.
I believe BA tried to get this a couple of years ago, but they were too greedy and wanted a reduction in the pay bill and BASSA said no.
SH productivity needs to be improved, do you really enjoy sitting around at the CRC all day rather than wandering around Rome for the afternoon?

[wiggy]

Quote :"I find it absolutely gobsmacking that paying Pax are downgraded to make way for crew. For the love of god what planet are some people living on in these difficult times. If I was one of those pax I would be apoplectic. Does the captain not have the final say in these situations"

No, he/she does not. The seating entitlement for positioning crew is locked down by Industrial Agreements, and should not be altered by management on the day. To be fair, a similar agreement exists for pilots...

[pvmw]

Quote :"I find it absolutely gobsmacking that paying Pax are downgraded to make way for crew. For the love of god what planet are some people living on in these difficult times. If I was one of those pax I would be apoplectic. Does the captain not have the final say in these situations"

No, he does not. The seating entitlement for positioning crew is locked down by Industrial Agreements, and should not be altered by management on the day. To be fair, a similar agreement exists for pilots...


Do you think that those passengers will ever fly BA again?? A classic example of how not to treat your customers.

[Papillon]

I also hear BA's Frequent Flyer scheme is considered quite crap compared to others.

Yep. It's extremely restrictive and pretty pointless unless you're a constant flyer because you never have a prayer of getting enough points to take you over the next level. I can go to Australia on Emirates and that more or less does the trick. On BA there are so many restrictions it's that much harder. Changing the threshholds might be a good way of encouraging people to use them in the coming months.

[TorC]

The seating entitlement for positioning crew is locked down by Industrial Agreements, and should not be altered by management on the day. To be fair, a similar agreement exists for pilots...

Even so, if I, as the positioning crew-member became aware that customers were being downgraded, I'd offer to go sit in Eurotraveller. I'd like to think my colleagues would as well.

Not to excuse the situation, but Downgrade Compensation will (I hope) have been paid to the affected customers.

[binsleepen]

Wiggy, Thanks for the reply.

The obvious answer is that maybe the captain should have that power, or the CSD, someone who has the common sense to put the needs of the customer before the employee. Can you imagine that Gulf Air, Emirates et al would put repositioning crew ahead of the wage paying customers. These type of agreements are as bad as any 1970s agreements with the NUM or RMT. Its commercial suicide.

regards

[wiggy]

Not disagreeing with you but the trouble is every instance of positioning is an individual case.

I must admit that if I was positioning home on a short haul flight prior to going home I'd side with the passenger viewpoint...you do indeed pay our wages, etc....

On the other hand if I'm postioning out of London on a Long Haul flight and turnround at the far end is going to be the legal minimum, prior to operating a Long Haul Flight back to London - ( "rescue mission" if you like, quite often happens if a crewmember goes sick down route ) then I'd argue that safety comes into play and that a comfortable seat should be provided where you can get some rest en-route.

(edited add, guys we crossed: I've voluntarily positioned on a jumpseat once to help avoid offloading commercial pax .... It really would have been nice to get a 'thanks' off someone in the office but hey, ho.....and yes, I'd do it again if it was a short hop)

[MrBernoulli]

binsleepin,

You could pretty much guarantee a sensible answer from the Captain on that, but not from a CSD. Nice enough people a lot of them, but they would defer to the union on that, definitely.

[hunterboy]

As far as I know, the CC agreement for positioning is only Economy with Club if it is available.
Were these downgraded pax "full fare " Club pax or upgrades that were then downgraded?
The only "crew" guaranteed a Club seat for positioning are the pilots I believe.
The last few trips that I have done since the court case, the CC have been a pleasure to work with. I get the impression that many of them are very relieved not to have gone on strike or cross a picket line.

[cessnapete]

6 full fare pax on Longhaul BA flight this week downgraded from Business to WT. The Business seats given to the operating c/crew as rest seats. The explanation given to pax,"crew rest area air con was malfunctioning"!

[Take Three]

"Glam Girl we have to move forward"

I would agree with that however i'm sure we don't want to go from one mess to another.Firstly glossing over things such as blame IS the problem in BA and has been for the last twenty five years that i have worked for the company.

In order for us to "move forward" BASSA has to start taking accountablity for the latest mess they have created.BASSA have ruled their community by fear for years, sadly they have got away with it .However things have reached a critical stage now and this childish behaviour can't be allowed to continue .BASSA don't behave like adults there lies the problem.

Also for most of us who have been around and had to listen and try and work alongside all of this nonsense for much more years than you, well we are sick of it .BASSA IS out of control perhaps if you worked at LHR you would understand a bit more.I think you do mean well but i feel that your angle about "moving forward" is more about your ambition to start up another union.We have had that with CC 89 has it worked? .CC89 never had a big membership within the BA cabin crew community.

The solution is a professional organisation like BALPA for cabin crew only. More cabin crew just starting up another union is simply NOT the answer.

As for telling Weather Map to behave like and adult i suggest you start with BASSA.With all due respect of course.

[Desertia]

6 full fare pax on Longhaul BA flight this week downgraded from Business to WT. The Business seats given to the operating c/crew as rest seats. The explanation given to pax,"crew rest area air con was malfunctioning"!

I would like to know if this story can be verified, and if there are details as to who made the decision and when.

It sounds too ridiculous to be true. :}

[TopBunk]

At a very superficial level, judging by the distinctive punctuation style, I would hazard a guess that Take Three and Weather Map are one and the same person.

I'm sure that the mods could confirm that, if required, from the ISP address logs:(

[Ancient Observer]

Hiflyer, and others who would like a solution.

Some posts ago, Henky came up with "Getting to Yes", a book from the Harvard Negotiating Project, which shows folk how to negotiate. It is very good, with some great tips.

However, to "negotiate" requires two groups who want to reach a solution.

As their own behaviour shows that Bassa do not want a solution, the "getting to yes" technique does not work. That's when you need to get out the original works by Karrass. (Google his org). All of us with 30+ years of negotiating experience have our copy of the "Karrass tapes" hidden away somewhere.

Karras and others do actually understand what Power is. If your opponent does not want to negotiate to reach a solution, I'm afraid that you have to set out to destroy them. The early Karrass courses taught this. Other negotiators with experience of cold war Russia/USA negotiations also understood this.

You should expect BA to give Bassa perhaps one more chance of a negotiated settlement. Failing that, it will have to be a fight to the end, by all available means. Either BA will win by destroying Bassa, or Bassa will "win" by destroyng BA..............and thus making themselves unemployable.

No other solution is possible.

Unfortunately, Unite, which knows all this stuff, does not seem to have the power over Bassa to make them understand. Plus, Unite's own internal politics make being "strict" with Bassa just about impossible. (Years ago, Jack Jones of the T & G gave too much power to local units compared to the centre).

Only the lawyers will get rich!

[wanttojoinin]

My CC friend was on a BA flight last week, 53 passengers were staff alone with family, I bet there was a real scrabble for the best seats.

I don't know any crew that travel anything below Club personally, most travel 1st when the children are not with them but when they hit the age of 12 the whole family gets to go 1st.

This should be classed as a benefit in kind and taxed, just like any other employee receiving a perk! This virtually free travel to me is a huge perk.

[Jarvy]

As SLF I have been loyal to BA and remain so. The reasons are that the current timetable from Boston is beter than Virgin, the planes and crew are beter than AA (no seat back screens on AA) and that my wife is currently a Gold Executive Club member. Also we want to fly direct to LHR (lots of other options if we don't mind changing planes).
Down sides at the moment are it takes a lot of flights to remain gold and its hard to use the air miles at a time we want. They are small points really but the big one at the moment is still the threat of IA. Mrs J is flying back to the UK in January for work so that should be OK but we are flying back for a holiday in March so will that be ok??
In the last few years the majority of CC have been excellent, a few have only average but at no time have any been rude.
If BA don't survive then it will be a sad day for aviation but life will go on and we will have to fly with AA or Virgin.

[MrBernoulli]

Mrs J is flying back to the UK in January for work so that should be OK but we are flying back for a holiday in March so will that be ok??This isn't first query like this in the last couple of weeks, but I'm sorry to say that there is no way anyone can possibly answer that with any certainty, particularly here. It isn't a passenger query facility, but you are welcome to join in 'discussions'.

BA would, of course, like to have your flight as scheduled but the intransigence of BASSA and Unite is just not going to allow an answer to that. Sorry. Expect more shenanigans from the unions, would be my best bet.

[Tonka Toy]

Little round of applause for Ottergirl, somebody normal, with knowledge and understanding! Just as a thoughtI return from work via BUD on the 2nd -PM, - having promised never again. It will be interesting to see having had a less than savoury trip out, what the trip back will be like! Should I comment later? :E

[Jarvy]

I wasn't asking a real question. I have been following this for a while now and have commented before. I asked as this this the biggest thing putting off people booking with BA ,why should I book if Bassa still want to strike.
Mrs J is in HR and has been involved in large scale redundancies in the UK, Germany and the US over the last 10 years so has a very good understanding of employment law and unions. Her opinion on this is that for BA to survive cuts and reductions must be made to compete in todays world. Not yesterdays worlds or LALA land but the real world we live in today!!!!

[Jaffy]

Having read over three hundred posts some of which have appalled me, some given me hope, and some a wry smile, I feel it may not be a total waste of time to add my thoughts in what is my first and probably last post, as I have no intention of joining a shouting match.

First my background. I joined BOAC as a pilot in the late sixties, and worked for over thirty years until compulsory retirement at the age of fifty five. I was not ready to stop flying at that time, and was able to extend my career for a few years with a far eastern airline.

I therefore have seen quite a bit of BA’s operation, and also a little of what goes on elsewhere.

It seems to me that there is one main problem, and one running sore that cannot but be detrimental to the crew’s performance, and consequent quality of service they provide. First, and most importantly, the obvious antipathy shown by the cabin crew towards their employer, and secondly the surly, sometimes venomous attitude shown by a number of cabin crew towards the flight crew.

Not long before I joined, Captains stayed in separate hotels to the rest of the flight crew. Ridiculous you may say, and probably so, but it was undeniably a time when the commander was respected by one and all.

On my early trips a few years later, the Capt was still that slightly remote figure. I think it must have been at least ten years before I felt I could address him by his first name, and only then when off the aircraft! During those years, I honestly don’t remember any festering undercurrents between the crew. We all worked hard, and enjoyed our time off down route. Apart from a minor punch up in the Dickens Bar between a rather inebriated flight engineer and a steward, I don’t recall any serious confrontations!

But since that time, there has been a steady erosion of the Captain’s position in particular, but also of the flight crew in general. This has been partly due to changes in society, but also to deliberate actions by the employer to level the playing field. Now the Capt is merely the one at the top of the list, and the second on the list may as well be at the bottom. As for respect, I’m sure most will say that the Captain has to earn it, and I agree, but he should not have to start from a position where he is regarded as a “smug b-----d” (if one believes these posts) even before he has met the crew.

I have tried to find a rationale for this awful breakdown between the flight crew and cabin crew, and wonder if trying to be too matey with everyone doesn’t backfire in the long run. Certainly, in my more recent company, the flight crew and cabin crew were more at arms length. Interaction was correct, polite, friendly, and business like, and the operation was first class. After my time with BA, I missed the extra informality, and once or twice regretted the “arms length” thing! But it worked.

In my time in BA, especially on the 747, the operation was sometimes terrific. Usually thanks to a great CSD (of which there are many, and from reading his posts I’m certain I can include Tiramisu) being able to motivate his team by his/her example, his enthusiasm, and his general demeanour. Great fun. But sometimes it was pretty awful. Cabin crew simply going through the motions before the next slip. Sometimes the CSD would not even appear on the flight deck. Sure, we had some obstinate, rude individuals on the flight deck, they probably still exist, but let’s be realistic, they are few and far between. So why the frequent hostility?

I’m certain that the fresh faced stewards and stewardesses coming out of Cranebank hold no particular animosity towards the pilots, but once they start flying it seems as though a number become brainwashed into regarding them as the enemy. Having said that, perhaps it does start at Cranebank, by the occasional remark from an embittered trainer. I don’t know. But I do know that I sometimes used to think why me, what have I done!

If I may say so, cabin crew are also imbued, whether deliberately in the training school, or gradually over time, with a misguided sense of their importance. This sounds harsh I know, and I find myself hesitating to put it on paper. Frankly it sounds rather rude. It’s really not meant to be. I think it may have started with Kegworth and the realisation that cabin crew can sometimes have a huge impact on a successful outcome. Of course they can, no question. But now they sometimes think they can interfere in the decision making.

I will give just one example. Many years ago I had a flight out of LHR. During the pre-boarding checks, a stewardess discovered a note scrawled on a toilet mirror saying “you’re all going to die” Security was called, we trooped off, and the flight was delayed whilst a security team did a long and thorough search. Eventually when they announced the all clear, I expected a departure within the hour, and instructed the redcap accordingly. I had reckoned without the cabin crew. They were not happy. Despite my explanations that the search had been more than adequate and that I was completely satisfied, they wanted a change of aircraft. I think we’ve all seen when crew get into small groups and work themselves into a state of anxiety. Well it was like that. It was only the threat of disciplinary action if they refused to operate that got us away after a further lengthy delay, and you can imagine the atmosphere. The smug b-----d’s got his way again?

And why the hostility towards BA? They are the employers who decide how they want to run things, and we the people who carry it out for a fair remuneration. Of course, there must be protection from exploitation, unfair treatment etc, and this is why we have unions. But should unions be able to manipulate their members to the extent that they issue the most ludicrously disproportionate instruction to strike for twelve days over Christmas. Particularly at a time when BA is in a parlous financial situation. This is more than giving the employer a bloody nose. It’s pushing him towards liquidation. How would that benefit their members? I don’t pretend to understand the machinations of left wing activists, but surely even they wouldn’t want that. Or would they? Perhaps a strike or a failed company is like a campaign medal to them.

And over what? Basically minor changes involving some extra work. Maybe these changes will work, and maybe not, but it’s not up to the employee to decide. That’s management’s job. Maybe, faced with compulsory redundancies, pay cuts etc, a strike vote could be justified. But of course, this is not the case. It’s simply an imposition to work a bit harder, with no reduction in salary for current crew. To be honest in the current situation, I’m surprised BA are not looking for more. Perhaps that’s what people are afraid of, but it makes no sense to vote for a strike now, just in case they decide to introduce some unknown conditions in the future.

And are BA really such bad employers? I don’t believe they are. Of course we had spats from time to time, but in my thirty three odd years I found them to be an extremely caring and by and large, fair employer. There were countless occasions when I saw them pull out all the stops in times of personal difficulty, and I was indeed proud and thankful that this was the way they behaved. Not all airlines are like this I assure you.

So in this second ballot, would it be too much to hope that the militants who seem to have their own spiteful agenda, could be outvoted by those who vote for what they themselves want, despite the propaganda emanating from their union.

For the sake of British Airways, for all staff, both in this country and overseas, and for the travelling public, I really hope so.

As others have said, British Airways flights can be the best in the business. The crews are often fabulous, and their pride in doing a first class job for their customers is evident. Passengers get off with a feeling of wellbeing. Everyone’s happy. Then they take the return flight and it’s like they were on a different airline. Why not have anonymous standards inspectors travelling in the cabin to try to improve consistency. I’ll volunteer!

Happy Christmas.

Jaffy.

[MissM]

Isn't it fascinating that most of the comments on here are from either pilots, cabin crew down at LGW (with a few exceptions obviously), CrewForum spies or those who really don't know anything about IFCE and our agreements?

To you pilots; how would you feel if BA put forward a proposal which said that they will introduce an equivalent fleet to NewFleet with less basic salary plus a few pounds over market average which would you sooner or later have to transfer to or resign? Because that's exactly what will happen to us! It's sad if you can't or won't realize that obvious facts. Eventually there won't be any flights left for those of us on "mainline" and we'd be put on endless sby blocks. Yes, we might have this wonderful "fixed monthly travel payment" to rely on but for how long?

They have made it clear they don't want this job to be a career. They just want people to do this for a few years and then move on to something else. How do you think it feels for those of us who have been with the company for a long time and done our very best to them? I started flying right after school and have been here for almost 15 years and will do everything I can to hold on to what I have. I'm sure that's what most people want and I can't see anything wrong with that. It's not about being greedy, cheap or unwilling to negotiate. Because once it's gone it will never come back. Like, the 16th crew member which we lost a few years ago. It was a temporary measurement. Where is it? Gone! Do you think we'll get the purser on upper deck back? No! Do you think we'll get the purser on main deck in Club World back? No!

Don't start going on about LGW and how well it works down there. They AGREED to it. Nobody forced them to it as the case here at LHR. Maybe BA threathened to close the base but the vast majority of the crew have been recruited since SingleFleet was introduced. If it had been closed they probably would have been at LHR. I'm sure you do a very good job down there and you should pat yourself on your back for that.
gl

[Skipness One Echo]

Regarding staff travel, how often are staff upgraded to Club or even First?
I assume they enjoy the full service that the rest of us have to pay a four figure sum to enjoy?

Is this behaviour properlay audited and tracked within BA on a commercial basis?

I just thought of this when I read again that "I only get 12K basic a year." from someone.

[Dairyground]

Several posters have said that they voted "NO" in the BASSA ballot and either have resigned, or are about to resign from the union. Perhaps it might be worthwhile for those still in membership to hang on and vote in the new ballot. Given the reported wavering among some "YES" voters, a few more "NO" votes next time might just make a difference.

One of the few plausible rationales for the BASSA leadership encouragement to VR people to vote last time was a fear that without them the result might have been too close for their comfort. Will they be more worried this time?

Some of the ideas for compromise and advance that have surfaced here in the last couple of days seem well worth exploring further. Is there anyone out there willing to put their head above the parapet and float them on the BASSA or CrewForum sites? They might just be enough to get discussion going, or if not, get a few more people thinking about the real world.

The effect of any change in any environment should always be evaluated. What appears to be a good idea from one perspective is likely to have disadvantages, perhaps minor, perhaps major, from others.

Reducing CC numbers has an imediate and visible positive impact on costs. It may also have a less easily quantifiable impact on service levels. That should be reviewed, and I would not be surprised to find that the results depend on the route. Perhaps the reduced numbers can work well on long sectors with plenty of time, such as LHR-SIN or LHR NRT, but it is more difficult to provide adequate levels of service on shorter sectors, such as LHR-BOS or LHR-TLV. Or it might be the other way round. Bring on the mystery shopper!

My interest is as fairly frequent SLF (just into EC Silver) and a small-scale shareholder (not many more than needed to get the shareholder discount).

[Human Factor]

To you pilots; how would you feel if BA put forward a proposal which said that they will introduce an equivalent fleet to NewFleet with less basic salary plus a few pounds over market average which would you sooner or later have to transfer to or resign? Because that's exactly what will happen to us! It's sad if you can't or won't realize that obvious facts. Eventually there won't be any flights left for those of us on "mainline" and we'd be put on endless sby blocks. Yes, we might have this wonderful "fixed monthly travel payment" to rely on but for how long?

New Fleet was off the table at one stage. It's only the fact that BASSA threw their toys out of the cot and refused to negotiate that it's back on. You (BASSA) had plenty of opportunity to prevent New Fleet but for reasons best known to yourselves, you chose not to, so don't come crying to the rest of us now that it's going ahead.

[anotherthing]

Posted by stoic on the previous thread:


May I suggest you read: United Left: Len McCluskey is United Left candidate for General Secretary (http://www.unitedleft.org/2009/09/len-mccluskey-is-united-left-candidate.html)

Then watch segment 1:15 to 1:25 of this YouTube - SANDOWN PARK 14.12.09 14.00.mpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v5zQ3PpjgM)

Listen to the words in the segment 1:15 to 1:25. McCluskey is not a negotiator - he is a militant, left wing activist who takes pride in striking. Do you honestly think BASSA will enter any form of meaningful negotiation?

Being part of a union can be very helpful, but unions are there to help negotiate on behalf of the membership. Striking should be the last resort.

BASSA are conning its members - as CC you deserve better leadership in your union. There is nothing wrong with a strike, but things have to be extremely serious to go that far. In the present climate, you have to be even more careful.

It seems to me from the outside looking in, that there is a huge amount of denial and unwillingness to accept facts by BASSA members.

Until your union - yes it is your union, they work for you not the other way round, start playing ball and behaving sensibly, you as staff are going to suffer, rightly or wrongly, the wrath of your customers - the people who pay your wages and maintain your livelihood.

Whether you drink it or not you need to wake up and smell the coffee, because your union are doing you a dis-service - more-so than WW

[Golden Ticket]

Quote from MissM

Don't start going on about LGW and how well it works down there. They AGREED to it. Nobody forced them to it as the case here at LHR. Maybe BA threathened to close the base but the vast majority of the crew have been recruited since NewFleet was introduced. If it had been closed they probably would have been at LHR. I'm sure you do a very good job down there and you should pat yourself on your back for that.


MissM, New Fleet doesn't exist. Yet. A lot of crew are still at LGW from the DanAir days. If somebody told you your base would close if you didn't accept what was coming then you would probably accept it too. Not forced but it was Hobson's Choice. The problem now is that as it is working at LGW it's difficult to claim it wouldn't work elsewhere.

[Andy_S]

I started flying right after school and have been here for almost 15 years and will do everything I can to hold on to what I have. I'm sure that's what most people want and I can't see anything wrong with that.

I think it's self evident that everyone wants to hold onto what they've got in the way of salaries and T & C's. But how much trouble does your employer have to be in before you're willing to make some sacrifices? You say you'll do "everything I can to hold on to what I have". Does that include helping to drive BA out of business? Wouldn't you agree that that's irrational? Because if that happens then you won't hold onto a thing - you'll lose everything.

Because once it's gone it will never come back. Like, the 16th crew member which we lost a few years ago. It was a temporary measurement. Where is it? Gone! Do you think we'll get the purser on upper deck back? No! Do you think we'll get the purser on main deck in Club World back? No!

With respect, that's not your call to make. You may not be happy about it, but it's a management decision. They decide on crewing levels, not you.

[Jean-Lill]

Miss M

I have read your interesting post that makes me think what is really causing all this unrest is New Fleet and nothing at all to do with working with less crew or even an imposition.

I was a LHR CSD for many years and a bassa member at one time so know a thing or two about how cabin crew work on both WW and EF having worked on both fleets.

You are correct to fear New Fleet but it could have been avoided if your union had played ball with your employer a few months back and reached an agreement instead of thinking everything would go away if they dragged it out long enough. No use blaming anyone else now.

BA tried it with Mid Fleet in the 1990's in an attempt to get away from the then ancient BOAC and BEA working practices but for some reason abandoned the fleet.

That situation is still here. BA must be the only airline in the world that operates extensive short haul and long haul services with the cabin crew operating only one or the other but not both apart from at LGW.

New Fleet would be very economical for BA so I cannot see it going away.

[anotherthing]

BA CC get good allowances - something not disputed here...

Re £12k basic:

Ottergirl:
Until you fall over and break a leg that is! Then its 12K and like it! Similarly, if BA choose not to work you and leave you at home 'available' then its back to basic. On Annual Leave, basic again. Standby but not used, you guessed it! The point is, the 12K is the only part you can rely on
So, as a pax, from the outside looking in you are saying that if you do not do any flights you get paid £12k. So, do no work = £12k, the top up to your pay depends on the work you do... where do I sign up - I'm free to do nothing on my days off?!!

A slightly simplistic musing I agree, but one that kind of screams out at you and it isn't really a great defence when you use it to counter people who state BA CC are on average much better paid than other CC...

[MissM]

MissM, New Fleet doesn't exist. Yet. A lot of crew are still at LGW from the DanAir days. If somebody told you your base would close if you didn't accept what was coming then you would probably accept it too. Not forced but it was Hobson's Choice. The problem now is that as it is working at LGW it's difficult to claim it wouldn't work elsewhere.

Sorry, I meant SingleFleet at LGW.

It might work but it was agreed and the members were consulted. That's the difference. I don't know how many crew down there are from DanAir but I have been under the impression that they are very few. Most of the existing crew, especially on LGW WW, went to LHR when SingleFleet was introduced.

[MrBernoulli]

MissM,
Isn't it fascinating that most of the comments on here are from either pilots, cabin crew down at LGW (with a few exceptions obviously), CrewForum spies or those who really don't know anything about IFCE and our agreements? I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but had you considered that a dearth of pro-BASSA posters here might just be because they cannot sustain the discussion? There are more than enough here that know plenty "about IFCE and our agreements".

Perhaps you are another, sent under orders from the pro-BASSA community, to start the entire wheel turning again with BASSA untruths, half-truths and similar nonsense? Since the beginning of this series of threads I have noticed a slow and very gradual turning of some opinions, plus noticeable, sudden injects from the BASSA non-believers ..... when they feel that there might not be enough BASSA-bollocks being spouted here. They arrive out of nowhere, against the grain of the thread, and are usually 'new posters', several of which are almost certainly past-posters who have been modded off the thread, lol! But the one constant is the BASSA script - it is so instantly recognisable, the same phrases trotted out in almost a rote-like way.

Are you one of these MIssM? Have you availed yourself of the hundreds of pages of argument already up on these forums? Or are we going to start the cycle all over again? :)

[TopBunk]

MissM saidLike, the 16th crew member which we lost a few years ago. It was a temporary measurement. Where is it?

MissM, back in 2001, when the 16th crew member was removed after 11th September, the B747-400 flew with up to 409 pax.

Since then we have had them reconfigured with lie-flat beds in Club, hi-Club configs on some aircraft and WTP cabins introduced. All of these changes have reduced the 409 pax to a max now of 351 pax, and sometimes as few as 291 pax.

Are you really suggesting that you still need 15 crew (let alone 16) on these flights, when the configurations have reduced by 50+ seats? Time to take a reality pill, methinks.

[MissM]

I think it's self evident that everyone wants to hold onto what they've got in the way of salaries and T & C's. But how much trouble does your employer have to be in before you're willing to make some sacrifices? You say you'll do "everything I can to hold on to what I have". Does that include helping to drive BA out of business? Wouldn't you agree that that's irrational? Because if that happens then you won't hold onto a thing - you'll lose everything.

Do you think UK's largest airline which holds some 40% of the slots at LHR would go out of business? Personally I don't think so and not many are, myself included, in the mood for WW and his fight over our T&C's which we have fought hard for. He won't be here for very much longer.

With respect, that's not your call to make. You may not be happy about it, but it's a management decision. They decide on crewing levels, not you.

We do have a responsibility for our passengers and one great concern is covering doors 5 on 747. We were taught in training and been more or less brainwashed not to leave those doors unmanned at any time. Now, all of the sudden it's all right to leave them once they have been armed as "passengers will remain seated and would have paid attention to the safety demo and know how to operate the door". It's rubbish!

[Jarvy]

Miss M, in a previous post you say that you voted for strike action as you believed BA would give in if threatend with a strike. Newsflash they can't and won't. As SLF with some brains it can be difficult to get a true picture of the facts as both sides have such different views but as someone who watched with horror as British Industry was destroyed in the 70's by left wing union activists you are not best served by the likes of Mr McClusky, who takes great pride in the number of strikes he has led.
So as people are not booking with BA as the threat of IA is still there then BA will lose more money and will require further cut backs leading to further union problems, and on and on and on untill it just goes!
This is from someone who likes BA and believes it can still be something to be proud of. If only........
Passengers can operate these doors,I do listen and can read surprise surprise.
I also said on an earlier post its not just about WW, if he does go (very doubtful) someone else will arrive with the same cost cutting ideas to push forward. Everyone has suffered in todays economy and no body likes it but this is 2009 so things must evolve or die.

[MissM]

BA tried it with Mid Fleet in the 1990's in an attempt to get away from the then ancient BOAC and BEA working practices but for some reason abandoned the fleet.

BA could not even make a third fleet at LHR work. What makes them think that they will able to do it this time? Because of more flexible scheduling agreements?

BA must be the only airline in the world that operates extensive short haul and long haul services with the cabin crew operating only one or the other but not both apart from at LGW.

I also think Air France does it and some of the US carriers too. Qantas and Air New Zealand also come to mind.

[bealine]

I just wish everyone would just agree:

The whole world of aviation - not just British Airways - has changed, thanks largely to the Low-Cost, Low-Regulated, non-IATA airlines, who only got where they did by dint of 09/11.

I think that some changes to the way everyone works and the contracts under which we work are inevitable. I believe everyone who works for British Airways in any capacity understands that much.

However, there is also no getting away from the fact that all of these problems stem from p155 poor Industrial Relations and both managers and TU reps who dig their heels in and say "No!" and won't talk any further. For ACAS to be unable to break any deadlock, there must be something wrong!

The art of negotiation is both sides walking away from talks thinking they have obtained the best deal available to them. Expecting managers to go back to Willie Walsh and face his wrath for letting the crew "get away with" xyz or to expect the TU Reps to go back to the membership to be accused of "giving it all away" is just plain wrong. Neither side appears to have had any bargaining tools at their disposal.

That, to put it simply, is what has gone wrong!

[DP.]

Do you think UK's largest airline which holds some 40% of the slots at LHR would go out of business?

It is entirely possible. On what basis do you think this couldn't happen?

He won't be here for very much longer.

Again, based on what? His job doesn't seem to be in too much danger from where i'm standing.

[MissM]

Absolutely right - no one is asking you to give up anything - unless you are a CSD in which case you are simply being asked to use your vast experience in a fully customer facing role - that is after all why you joined, no?

I really can't see what all the fuss is about other than two things:

1. BASSA CSDs feel demeaned by having to push a trolley once more.
2. BASSA didn't say yes to this suggestion.

Change has to happen - like it or not - so what do you propose?
You sound very passionate so you must have some ideas - let's hear them.

I'm not against changes as long as they happen through negotiations and not impositions. Maybe if we had been consulted about removing one to two crew members from our aircrafts there could have been some more willingness to work along with it. It's not about just removing one crew member. We have lost two crew members on some routes (which seems to have been failed to present in media).

The crewiong levels generally work well at LGW and as you say these along witht hoe other new ways of working saved the base from closure. Costs at LHR (like they were at LGW) are now usustainable and not market competitive so similar solutions are now being applied at LHR to get the company in shape to compete when the economy picks up. Your personal pocket will be unaffected so again I say, what is the problem?

Sooner or later there will be an impact on our personal pocket. When, and not if, NewFleet comes through they'll start moving our best paid routes and starve us to work. Then they'll give us the ultimatium either to transfer on a new contract or point us to the door. Simple as that. It will even happen with this monthly payment because it's probably a temporary solution to make us accept it.

[Andy_S]

Do you think UK's largest airline which holds some 40% of the slots at LHR would go out of business?

Actually, yes. Don't confuse assets with cash. BA are losing money hand over fist at the moment, and it's not sustainable. You can't pay suppliers in slots. When BA's cash drops below a certain level you are in REAL trouble.

We do have a responsibility for our passengers and one great concern is covering doors 5 on 747. We were taught in training and been more or less brainwashed not to leave those doors unmanned at any time. Now, all of the sudden it's all right to leave them once they have been armed as "passengers will remain seated and would have paid attention to the safety demo and know how to operate the door". It's rubbish!

Maybe so, but it's still a management decision. It may be the WRONG decision, but it's still their call not yours.

[Juan Tugoh]

Miss M,

you stated

Do you think UK's largest airline which holds some 40% of the slots at LHR would go out of business? Personally I don't think so and not many are, myself included, in the mood for WW and his fight over our T&C's which we have fought hard for. He won't be here for very much longer.


So that we may assess whether your opinion is worth listening to please post your credentials as an economist and your clear and precise reasons as to why BA will not go bust if we continue along this track.

Thank you

[MissM]

MissM, back in 2001, when the 16th crew member was removed after 11th September, the B747-400 flew with up to 409 pax.

Since then we have had them reconfigured with lie-flat beds in Club, hi-Club configs on some aircraft and WTP cabins introduced. All of these changes have reduced the 409 pax to a max now of 351 pax, and sometimes as few as 291 pax.

Are you really suggesting that you still need 15 crew (let alone 16) on these flights, when the configurations have reduced by 50+ seats? Time to take a reality pill, methinks.

It was a temporary measurement after 9/11 but has now turned out to be another lie from our so called management.

[pvmw]

Do you think UK's largest airline which holds some 40% of the slots at LHR would go out of business? Personally I don't think so.............

Oh dear,someone else with limited grasp of reality!!

All one can say in reply is British steel, British Leyland, British Shipbuilders, British Coal.....

I'm sure all the union sheep spouted the same nonsense at those companies as you do now. Where are they now???? Accept reality before its too late. BA is losing money hand over fist. Companies that lose money GO BUST. Having "British" in the name doesn't make you immune to reality. Efficient airlines will line up to have those slots, they are probably BAs biggest commercial asset.

I am just depressed at the naivety and stupidity of it. Why is reality so difficult for some people to grasp.


Ask all the ex-workers of the above companies how they are now. Also, see how many of the union fat-cats lost out. BASSA aren't in it to protect your job. They don't give a Monkey's whatsit for you. You are simply cannon fodder in the great struggle against Capitalism.

[MissM]

Time for work! I'll reply another time!

[TopBunk]

MissM

It may have been a temporary measure after 11th September - I wouldn't ague, but times have moved on.

Now how about answering the rest of my points?

No? Thought not:rolleyes:

[cloudn9ne]

MissM I agree that the threat of a new fleet would be seen as a threat by the pilots too but the difference is we will keep negotiating with managment on an adult level and keep compromising if we believe that is needed to survive. We have done and will keep doing so if needs must.

The reason the threat of New Fleet is here for you now is that BA has realised it cannot negotiate on a adult level with BASSA and the long term savings needed will never be agreed to. If current crew wont make permenant changes the only option for BA is a new fleet or it just wont be able to survive or compete with other airlines in the future. The airline industry has changed for the foreseable future especially as we will lose many customers due to the bad press and strike threat BASSA has created.

Only a BASSA believer could claim ''BA would never go bust''. What a ridiculous idea. If an airline is losing £1.5 million a day and something doesnt change then it will go out of business especially when the threat of strike hangs around and our customers go elsewhere!! who exactly do you think will save BA?

BASSA and its members dont know the reality of the financial threat to BA because at the beginning of the 'negotiations' many months ago they wouldnt agree to sign the non-dislosure agreement with BA and therefore never got to see the BA confidential financial info. From day one BASSA doesnt seem to have realised the gravity of the situation facing BA and one way or another we will all suffer as a consequence, customers, crew and BA.

When passengers go elsewhere they will probably never come back and without them the business will shrink, people will lose their jobs and T and Cs will be cut.

[Desertia]

I wonder if MissM and Fume Event (and....) are in some way related.

This is so not rocket surgery <heh>

[Two-Tone-Blue]

We are now trying to find solutions rather than just hash over the same problems, , and I think the customers should be a part in finding that solution as, after all, they know best. So to that end I have a question for you our (much needed) customers.

What would it take to reassure you that customer service is our priority and what could we the cabin crew do to demonstrate that and make sure that you travel on BA in the future?

Also any advice that you have from the outside world of overpowering this enormous out-of-control monster that is BASSA would be much appreciated.

Hello there, Duty Adult!! I'll try to offer some constructive comment, but inevitably [due to BA experiences] some will be a bit negative. I really don't give a damn about who's right or wrong, CC89 or New Fleet, LHR or LGW, BASSA or Unite. But ... when I pay £3k+ for flights, and anticipate another £3k of costs at the other end, I have some justification in expecting things to happen at a commensurate standard. ;)

So here's a private citizen, paying with his own money, with his J-class long-haul perspective [all my BA short-haul experiences have been VERY positive, BTW] ...

1. Industrial Relations. An airline that is riven with Industrial Disputes [either in the air or on the ground] is going to lose customers. Simples. As BA consolidates into T5, the opportunity for more disruption increases. A single-point failure thus presents itself - do i really wish to 'invest' through my air tickets in something that could go TU at any moment? Answer - stop pretending the 80's still exist. The only real advantage Unions have now is the ability to put their members out of work - the rest of society isn't going to play that game any more. Tip 1 = forget BASSA and Unions, they just cause grief.

2. On The Ground. LHR T5 is ... OK. I can't rate it any better than that. Yes, I checked in on-line, dropped the bags, and then queued for 30 minutes in "Fast Track" security. BA's or BAA's fault? I don't care - pax were losing their tempers over it, and that is NOT priority service. Club Lounges ... OK, but honestly underwhelmed by the food. Positive = someone at the gate intercepting non-Priority pax and sending them back to the beginning; thanks, that's part of what we pay for. Tip 2 = skip the advertising hype and deliver what's expected.

3. In The Air.

a. Get the airline to find somewhere else for YOUR kit instead of in OUR overheads ;) That one really pi55es me off - if you need space, don't use ours, because we're paying for it. Tip 3 = sort out on-board infrastructure.

b. On-board welcome - generally OK. No big issues, although when complimentary drinks are offered, they should be available AND cold where appropriate. Last outbound LHR-IAD i was offered a plastic cup of tepid water. What was the CSD/PSR thinking about? Or was this a case of "late to work 'cos I don't get paid for checking stuff"? Tip 4 = deliver agreed standards of service.

c. "... but Primarily for your Safety .." So when a J-class flat-bed isn't working, and won't go fully upright [it was bout 3 degrees off], don't get stroppy with my wife. It's BA's fault. And having relocated her to First for take-off [after a rush through PE in case there was a space] nobody bothered to check for the landing. CSD presumably exhausted by 8 hours of chatting? Tip 5 = we're paying you, and NEVER forget that.

d. Food and Drink.

I know a lot of your pax are business travellers, who want to sleep or work and don't care about the peripherals. However, some of us aren't. So I do actually expect the choice of food and wine to be as printed on the menu - especially the latter. It's intolerable that a menu choice should be unavailable in Club because we happen to be at the wrong end of the cabin.
Oh - CSDs, white wine is served chilled. If it isn't, it's bordering on undrinkable - something else to check, perhaps?
And don't make ME reach across the partition to take my tray - you had room to present it properly. BA Club Class is NOT MaccyD's.
The new Club seats and layout are a nightmare for you as well as us. You need to stick carefully to your serving regimes, otherwise things get missed out [like my wife's breakfast, after-dinner coffee - does she have some disease? And don't get stroppy when she points it out! We're nice friendly people, not some over-inflated ego CEOs.
Tip 6 = attention to detail.

e. En-Route.

Ahh, poor MaxJet. Do you know they had CC walking the aisle all the way to USA, with trays of water and juice, all the time? They used to stop for a chat [if that's not disturbing you] to ask if everything's OK. They treated you as a valued customer. Davida [the best CC i have ever met] gave us a hug after baggage reclaim at STN after our second trip - she cared about HER people and HER airline. Tip 7 = take REALLY good care of your pax, or they'll go elsewhere.
BA ... my impression over the year is that CC can't wait to get the meal service out of the way and then "sod the proles". I have lost count of the number of times either myself or my wife have been missed with some item during service ... and Gawd help you if you dare ask for what's been missed. Honestly, we feel like an inconvenience to BA long-haul CC. Tip 8 = you are paid to serve the customers. NEVER forget that.

f. Aircraft. They work [well done, Eng Div] but some are obviously getting a bit tired. The last time we managed to get top-side on a 747 to IAD is was FILTHY - spilt drink swilling round the handle of the side locker, sticky surfaces. Who declared the a/c fit for service? Does the CSD check [oh, sorry, too busy, not enough time]. Tip 9 = attention to detail, again.

4. After landing. Forget the Company-driven bullsh1t messages. They're like Tracy at MaccyD's saying "Have a Nice Day". Consider a slightly personal touch, like "I'm sorry your seat wasn't working" or "I'll double check the white wine next trip". Tip 10 = We are people.


Rant over, hope some of that helps. Whatever, I feel better for saying it :)

[edit = oooh, just got her BA Executive Club Statement while typing that! ;) ]

[Right Engine]

You can't use New Fleet as an excuse - BA offered BASSA a travel allowance to remove that threat to 'box payments' - They rejected it and thus admitted that allowances for World Wide crew exceed 20k per year.

:rolleyes:

[deeceethree]

Two-Tone-Blue,

Go get 'em fella! BA does have cabin crew who believe it is more important for them to be in a bunk/seat rather than to be looking after passengers. If they spent more of their off-time getting proper rest prior to flying, instead of shopping right up to pick-up from the hotel, they might cope better.

[Andy_S]

I'm not against changes as long as they happen through negotiations and not impositions.

Hang on. Just a few minutes ago you said:

I started flying right after school and have been here for almost 15 years and will do everything I can to hold on to what I have.

So which is it to be? I'm honestly not trying to catch you out, but I'm struggling to understand your position. Either you're willing to be flexible and agree changes to your working practices, or you're going to dig your heels in as a matter of principle and refuse to give anything away.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Two-Tone-Blue,
Go get 'em fella! BA does have cabin crew who believe it is more important for them to be in a bunk/seat rather than to be looking after passengers. If they spent more of their off-time getting proper rest prior to flying, instead of shopping right up to pick-up from the hotel, they might cope better.

I'm not honestly interested in a fight with anyone. I just simply state the facts as I've seen them. The details of what happens down route is their private life, and I shall not insult them by going there. What happens on the a/c is, however, what I pay for.

I've encountered some very good CC in my life; I just can't quite attach any of them to my BA long-haul experiences.
On the OTHER hand, I have been seriously impressed with the BA LGW-JER crews.

[Desertia]

Two-tone-blue thanks for the levity. I doubt it will sink in, but it brought a smile to my face :ok:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Two-tone-blue thanks for the levity. I doubt it will sink in, but it brought a smile to my face

I assume sarcasm? Please do elaborate.

[Glamgirl]

There are so many things to comment on..

Two-tone, I'm mortified reading your post about how you've been treated. I genuinely mean this: I'm sorry. I know I wasn't on your flight, but I still feel the need to apologise. These crew members shouldn't be in the job, as they clearly don't know how to provide customer service. If you do choose another flight with us, please do fill in a comments card. I know you shouldn't have to, but unfortunately it's necessary.

MissM, I have a funny feeling that regardless what we say to you, you will only believe what Bassa tell you. We have to accept that, I suppose. What you will have to accept, though, is that we're trying to come up with a solution. May I recommend that you read this thread and the previous thread (now locked) before any other comments (if you haven't already done so)?

I don't want to get into a personal discussion here, but if you've been flying for 15 years, I'm wondering what school you went to before you started? In those days, you had to be at least 21 yo, and nurse/nursing/hospitality/child care qualifications/ customer service experience to name a few as an example. Do you mean you started flying straight from a college or that you had experience from somewhere else? I'm not "attacking" you, just wondering.

In regards to the slots at LHR, we might be forced to sell some slots to raise money if we can't control costs. This will in turn reduce our flying capacity, less opportunity for revenue, and a slippery slope into oblivion. This rescession is very real, and we need to deal with it now, although preferably several months ago.

So, to try to bring us back on track for finding solutions:

We agree changes have to be made. We are trying to come up with ideas what kind of changes we can live with and how to implement them. I understand the threat of NewFleet, and that's why I'm trying this option. If we could only come up with enough savings that was acceptable to the cc community and management/board, then maybe, just maybe we could do something about NewFleet (it's a long shot, but worth having a go). And contrary to what some people may believe, I have no "new union" agenda here. I'm trying to save our company and jobs. Yes, I can hear you scream that I can't do it, but someone's got to try it, surely?

As I've said before, more ideas and solutions most welcome. Please keep it constructive and workable if you can.

Finally, I'd like to give you an alternative Christmas wish list:

Christmas gift suggestions:
To your enemy, forgiveness.
To an opponent, tolerance.
To a friend, your heart.
To a customer, service.
To all, charity.
To every child, a good example.
To yourself, respect.


Gg

[Two-Tone-Blue]

As others have said, British Airways flights can be the best in the business. The crews are often fabulous, and their pride in doing a first class job for their customers is evident. Passengers get off with a feeling of wellbeing. Everyone’s happy. Then they take the return flight and it’s like they were on a different airline. Why not have anonymous standards inspectors travelling in the cabin to try to improve consistency. I’ll volunteer!

Sorry, Captain, missed your earlier post.

After a lifetime in the military, you get used to "someone" being in overall command. Sadly, in the post 9/11 world, you and your kin are locked away on the flight deck. And perhaps the Unions won't let you interfere with non-driving issues? ;)

independent audits - OMG, Unite and BASSA would have the biggest hissy fit since Scargill. The thought that we, the paying customers, might possibly have a voice in what happens during our 7/8+ hours in the alloy tube? Wash your mouth out with soap, Skipper! :)

I cite my earlier remarks about MaxJet - a shame they expanded too fast [as the Captain commented to me at IAD on our last trip]. But at least they understood what 'customer service' was about - BIG TIME. Boarding at STN - "Whenever you're ready, we're boarding now but there's no need to rush."

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Two-tone, I'm mortified reading your post about how you've been treated. I genuinely mean this: I'm sorry. I know I wasn't on your flight, but I still feel the need to apologise. These crew members shouldn't be in the job, as they clearly don't know how to provide customer service. If you do choose another flight with us, please do fill in a comments card. I know you shouldn't have to, but unfortunately it's necessary.


Next [and probably last] time I will demand one from the CSD [if available]. I get the on-line comments email from BA, but it always refers to the last sector [LGW-JER]. I have never had the opportunity to state how utterly pi55ed off the OH and I are with the standard of service on LHR-IAD-LHR.

We used to use VS and then MaxJet - we eventually switched to BA for the convenience associated with booking through from JER. We've done BA J-class [I think] 3 times in the last couple of years on that route, and are [theoretically] doing it twice next year. Frankly we'll burn our BA Miles on the first one, and swap back to VS for the second. EVERY experience on LHR-IAd has been below what I expected.

Ladies and Gents, some of your colleagues are providing an UTTERLY sub-standard service.

[edit = thanks for letting a paying customer have a voice in here. I do so with some trepidation, because I know you have very strong views about Terms of Service and Unions. That's your debate, not mine. I just comment from the "User-Pays" corner :) ]

[New_Poster]

You quoted

In the last BASSA election only about 1800 bothered to vote, until the rank and file membership get engaged there won't be any change. I can only assume that they were happy with the existing Reps.

The truth is 3828 people voted - somewhat different to the figure that you quoted

[New_Poster]

You quoted

On longhaul it is WT+, with Club if there's room for main crew. For the CSD it's Club with NO entitlement to First.


In fact you are totally incorrect as the CSD has a First entitlement when positioning - commensurate with their management grade

[GearUp CheerUp]

The solution? Personally, I think it has to be the complete removal of BASSA from the equation and its replacement by a union with the real interests of its members and the future of the company at heart. BASSA have demonstrated that they are never going to act reasonably. While they exist the threat of further strikes will always hang over BA and discourage customers from using the company.

I think BA needs to bite the bullet, confront them head on and use every means at their disposal to destroy them completely. If that results in a strike, then so be it. The company will suffer in the short term – but if the outcome is that customers can see that in future the company is in control of its own destiny they may return. It will take time, once confidence is lost it is very hard to regain. – but it will never be regained while the current situation exists.

Nail - on - Head.

Its the only way - cut out the cancer and the patient might die after the surgery. Leave it and the patient will die for sure.

[New_Poster]

You quote

Go get 'em fella! BA does have cabin crew who believe it is more important for them to be in a bunk/seat rather than to be looking after passengers. If they spent more of their off-time getting proper rest prior to flying, instead of shopping right up to pick-up from the hotel, they might cope better.


If you are so concerned that your crew are not rested prior to flying with you consider a Chirp or a letter to your management

[New_Poster]

You quote

One of the reasons for Mid-Fleet's demise was that BASSA had control of which routes it operated. Even when it had the jumbo, the crews never saw anything further east than the gulf.

You are factually incorrect - Mid Fleet flew to India, Madras

[Jarvy]

WWW now claims that greater forces are on their side!! Its not just BA that suffer the weather and I'm sure alot of people trying to get away for Xmas will be most pleased with your last comment. Another own goal I think.

[Carnage Matey!]

I think it's rather good that it's foggy. Given that BASSA won't permit the disruption agreement to be used at the moment I predict lots of cheesed off crew stuck downroute after a diversion tomorrow morning enjoying their 2 local nights off. What's that you say? But that would leave them stuck somewhere until Xmas day with no means to get home? Oh dear!

Now, MAA on mid-fleet. Would that be a low allowance, unpopular, no box payment trip then?