BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[jimtherev]

We have heard repeatedly that UNITE represents a number of staff groups in BA. Have the members of these groups pressed their (staff reps / shop stewards / whatever their local names are) to put pressure on UNITE to stop the BASSA nonsense? Have the 'other groups' no power in the union?

[beaudale]

Of course we all aprreciate the value of CC on the aircraft, it is expected and mostly appreciated.

Having just flown home with Ryanair last night the contrast between quality and level of service is profound and clearly inferior in that airline relative to BA. Having said that the staff are friendly and willing if not mostly a little inexperienced and sometimes lacking in confidence. What is noticeable on this airline is how the extent of the crews duties seems to expand slightly each time I fy with them. Apart from having to clean the a/c on turnaround I now notice they have to get out of the a/c and marshall the passengers in and out of the bus/terminal in rain as well as shine. Presumably this reduces the handling charges slightly so is bottom line motivated. I wonder how much resistance was shown to O'Leary when this change was introduced. Oh and coming soon on Ryanair unlimited luggage allowance providing you can get it to the ramp where it will be put in the hold, no doubt the cc will be expected to get involved in that as well, no resistance expected.

I will be travelling longhaul with BA on the 21st and will be presenting my cc with a token of appreciation as indeed I did last time I flew during the strike. Incidentally looking at the schedule it seems to me that BA are maintaining a much fuller long haul schedule than last time. Both LHR DEL flights are running every day, this schedule is said to be conservative and will build through each strike period which does not bode well for the strikers at all.

My earlier comments whilst borne out of frustration do raise some vaild points, we all expect to see cc on the a/c because it is the established Norm. Progress however often means challenging the established Norms. Let us not forget that improvements in technology removed firstly the navigator then the flight engineer from civil airliners. At one time such an audacious move was considered reckless but now it is the Norm. Possibly we are only a couple of generations away from pilotless airliners but I suspect before that they will become cc'less very much along the Eurostar model. IA such as this can only accelerate that process.

[4t2b]

I've just seen an interview with the new Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond.

Apparently he's having a meeting with BA and UNITE "next week". :rolleyes:

The strike is due to start Tuesday for Gods sake. If I'd have been the new Transport Sec I'd have got them in today and not let them out again until either UNITE agree to stop their pointless destructive strike and start looking after ALL their members interests, but if they refuse, instruct WW to issue P45's to all those striking on the first and (if any) subsequent days of the strike. This insanity has got to be stopped once and for all.

NO NO NO !! The last thing this dispute needs is some political numpty interfering in something he doesn't understand. No matter how good his "briefing" is it cannot possibly cover all the twists and turns of this dispute.

Let BA and Unite slug it out for one last time and see who is still standing at the end.

It needs a definitive end, not a political fudge.

IMHO ;)

[Diplome]

I'm sure that BASSA is wishing for a more sympathetic ear than may be found with Mr. Hammond.

From the Telegraph:


Meanwhile the Philip Hammond, the new Transport Secretary, appealed to both sides to reach an agreement as he said he hoped to speak to the airline regarding the dispute. "The strike is extremely bad news for the economy, for passengers and potentially for the airline and people who work for it.
Mr Hammond, who has a number of BA staff among his constituents, expressed some sympathy for the difficulties they faced. "I do understand things can be difficult in a changing economy, but the reality is aviation is a global industry."


Recalling Mr. Cameron's quite pointed commentary regarding Unite's actions I don't believe we will be hearing of BA being berated by Secretary Hammond to give in to militant crew demands.

[oggers]

It needs a definitive end, not a political fudge.

I'm with you brother or sister. This boil needs lanced or it will fester on BA's slightly plump and shiny :mad:

[PAXboy]

Thread drift:
beaudaleAt one time such an audacious move was considered reckless but now it is the Norm. That doesn't mean the move was appreciated and welcomed by all. It does not mean anything other than saving money. I often read in these various forums that - many times, an extra pair of eyes, ears and hands would make a difference. More critically, Would have made a difference.

Back to CC thread.

[west lakes]

Seems to me that if Unite carry on down this road that the new government might start introducing legislation to restrict employees in "essential" industries in taking industrial action.

[beaudale]

Back to CC thread.


Sorry thought this was a Pax thread, did I miss something?

A lot has also been said on here about the need to respect all groups and this thread has been moderated accordingly. In this vein I would like to point out that the thread running else where with a theme about "Stupid SLF" is somewhat offensive to the Pax group who do after all pay everyone's salaries.

[Snas]

Seems to me that if Unite carry on down this road that the new government might start introducing legislation to restrict employees in "essential" industries in taking industrial action.

I certainly hope not, I don’t consider CC any more essential than a thousand other occupations that I could think of. Such legislation would just be a ban on IA full stop.

I dislike the often used phrase “key worker” which applies to the surgeon but not the cleaner that cleans his work place, applies to the police officer but not the person that services his radio, etc. Business is links, break any one at any height in the food-chain and it all stops or is damaged.


Yes aviation is important, but so are trains, boats, busses and shoes…! No special treatment deserved in my view.

[Diplome]

beaudale:

It is a forum specifically catering to the passengers however Cabin Crew, Flight Crew, etc., are able to post and most SLF here appreciate hearing from them.

[Diplome]

Courtesy of ian100 at FlyerTalk a message from BALPA.

A reasoned response to BASSA's rhetoric.


Pilots in British Airways have warned that 'the unprecedented strikes announced by BA cabin crew for May and June will seriously threaten BA's ability to maintain the job security and terms and conditions of employees in all parts of the company.'

And the pilots' union BALPA (British Airline Pilots' Association) has written to new Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond and new Business Secretary Vince Cable asking them to intervene.

Said Jim McAuslan, BALPA General Secretary: 'The last three days have changed the face of British politics with erstwhile political opponents coming together for the common good. We call on Government to use that political momentum to help solve what are tired 1970s style industrial relations.

'Without some of that Cameron/Clegg magic this dispute will put the future of a great airline at risk and disrupt the lives of thousands of British families.

'Ministers could get Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh together this weekend and get this strike suspended whilst a solution is hammered out. BALPA stands ready to offer any help it can - we only need to be asked.'

Jim McAuslan has sent Philip Hammond and Vince Cable a statement from BA's pilot representatives who sit on the BALPA Company Council in the airline.

The statement reads:

'BALPA's British Airways Company Council is gravely concerned about the consequences of BASSA's decision to announce a damaging series of four five-day strikes commencing Tuesday 18th May 2010.

'BA faces circumstances that pose a very serious threat to its future - the economic downturn associated with the credit crunch, sustained high fuel prices, an increase in competition in key markets, and volcanic ash causing airspace closures, to name but a few.

'BA pilots and other staff groups, that include members of Unite, have made significant concessions to help BA through such difficulties and it is for all groups within BA to deliver the contribution required in the Company Business Plan.

'Recent industrial action by cabin crew has further damaged BA's finances and the unprecedented strikes just announced for May and June will seriously threaten BA's ability to maintain the job security and terms and conditions of employees in all parts of the Company, including cabin crew.

'The action also undermines the interests of all employees who are members of BA's final salary pension schemes, both of which are in deficit, and reaching a critical point in their triennial valuations.

'The BA Company Council, therefore, urges BASSA and BA to immediately enter meaningful negotiations to resolve their remaining differences and commence the process of rebuilding industrial relations upon which the Company's and employees' future prosperity are dependent.

'BALPA has written to the Secretary of State and the Business Secretary requesting they assist the parties in the conduct of fresh talks so as to avoid further damage to the UK economy and the reputation of BA.

'BALPA remains ready to participate in such talks should it be called upon to do so.'

[beamender99]

NO NO NO !! The last thing this dispute needs is some political numpty interfering in something he doesn't understand. No matter how good his "briefing" is it cannot possibly cover all the twists and turns of this dispute.I suspect he is fairly well up to speed as his constituency is within the sounds of LHR ( Runnymede and Weybridge)

[Ancient Observer]

What utter tripe and rubbish from Balpa.
They have had many months to engage the TUC on this dispute, and have deliberately chosen not to. Why not?
Why seek to engage the government when balpa are too afraid to engage the TUC??

Going back to the bassa "logic" and thinking - they've been right for 30 years, so their thinking is perfectly sensible - continue to act as they are and either BA will give in, - they have for the last 30 years, or, in a couple of years time WW will move on and all the old bad ways will be back.

BA need to change many more managers before they will have changed the culture.

Can you imagine Tesco/Dulux/B & Q asking for the TUs permission to help customers?

Completely daft - but the managers are still doing it.

[Diplome]

Ancient Observer:

You have stated your opinion regarding managers at BA repeatedly and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you at this point.

However a corporate culture is not changed in one day.

What BA is engaged in at the moment is a step in the proper direction.

I also do not find it reasonable to assume that BA is undertaking this battle with the idea that after two years it all reverts back to the way it was. This is not a battle that Mr. Walsh is undertaking in a vacuum. He appears to have the full backing of his Board. They are obviously looking for a result that does effect change.

[Ancient Observer]

Yup, I know it's boring to read the same thing again, but I was responding to the various posts that implied that bassa had no logic.

I disagree.

They are being completely logical.................it's worked for 30 years, and what worked in the past often works in the future.................

[Summer breeze]

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

I have had enough, 6 legs impossibly disrupted over the last three months.

Latest was due to fly to DUS next Wednesday and it is cancelled, so is my meeting, so is my deal.

Those CC who support the strike action are dragging the rest of us down with you. I could bang on about erosion of my current T&C's but it has been highlighted already.

[pwalhx]

Would you not agree then that logic dictates that plainly it isn't working this time and won't work, as is patently obviously to most sensible people.

Therefore sensible people would sit back and say this isn't working. It is time to move on to something that will work before we are out of a job along with a lot of innocent people directly affected by our actions but beyond their personal control.

[Summer breeze]

pwalhx

Are you referring to my comments?

If so which fence are you perched on?

[Diplome]

Would you not agree then that logic dictates that plainly it isn't working this time and won't work, as is patently obviously to most sensible people.

Therefore sensible people would sit back and say this isn't working. It is time to move on to something that will work before we are out of a job along with a lot of innocent people directly affected by our actions but beyond their personal control.


pwalhx:

I believe what Ancient Observer is referring to, and he/she may and will correct me if I'm wrong, is that BASSA is operating thus because it has always worked. Unfortunately one of the results of the years of letting BASSA run wild is that they have not felt it is necessary or even fruitful to develop a more effective way of communicating.

The messages from their leadership give proof to the traits that are valued in the organization.

To use a rather crude analogy. You have had a dog for several years. During all that time it has piddled on your floor. It piddles every time something bothers it...Room too cold, piddle. Change its food, piddle. But every time the Dog piddles you GIVE IT A TREAT!! The Dog is now 12 and you have decided that you are tired of a damp stinky floor. Does the Dog understand? No, it only knows how to piddle for its treat so it keeps piddling thinking there's a treat in it somewhere...hasn't there always been one?

Well, BASSA is the Dog and BA has decided it needs to be housebroken.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Jimtherev,
Agree entirely. I have proposed that ALL BA Unite members withhold their subs while the union support the BASSA strike action.
You may have seen copies of the letter that went out to Unite members attempting to justify the strike and my guess is they have already lost large numbers and they are getting worried, The only thing they understand is loss of power and income.
By resigning you demonstrate your support for the company and hit them where it hurts.

[Diplome]

gr8tballsofire:

Are you referring to the letter that was sent during the first strike when they were discussing the levy for funds?

If not is it possible for you to provide a link to the letter you reference?

Thank you.

[jetset lady]

And back to court we go...


Our lawyers wrote to Unite yesterday evening to highlight potential flaws in the ballot process that led to seven days of strikes in March and the 20 days of strike action planned from next week.

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires unions to send everyone eligible to vote details of the exact breakdown of the ballot result. This point of law was clarified in April following Network Rail’s successful application for an injunction to stop a strike by the RMT.

We do not believe Unite properly complied with this requirement. We wrote to the General Secretaries of the union yesterday asking them to explain to us how they discharged this obligation and, based on Unite’s replies, we believe that they failed to comply with the legal requirement.

On this basis we have applied to the High Court for an injunction to stop the 20 days of strikes planned from Tuesday.

[MPN11]

Another part of the same message from "The Other Thread"


If the union has failed to comply, all the strike action that resulted from that ballot would be unlawful and their members would only have limited protection while taking part in strike action. The union would also be liable to BA for some of the financial losses that we have suffered as a result of the strikes.

All previous emphasis not copied ... draw your own conclusions. Anyone who doubted that WW had thought all this through, including the various paths that the dispute could take, really should sit up and take notice.

That paragraph implies, at least to me, that the "P-45 Printer" has names and staff numbers primed for output. BA has proved it can operate [in a slightly limited way] without 3-4k strikers. It can operate in a similar way without 3-4k unemployed ex-BA CC, while it recruits and trains replacements, and slowly restores full service across the airline.

If i were a BA striker, I would be VERY afraid. But then I wouldn't probably read PPRuNe, or other websites, or any communications from BA management.

[PAXboy]

beaudaleSorry thought this was a Pax thread, did I miss something?
A lot has also been said on here about the need to respect all groups and this thread has been moderated accordingly. In this vein I would like to point out that the thread running else where with a theme about "Stupid SLF" is somewhat offensive to the Pax group who do after all pay everyone's salaries.This is a pax forum on which we are allowed by our host to discuss items of mutual interest. It has been stated before that we are not at liberty to slag off airline staff en masse. Making reference to no CC on aircraft has not been well received before. On this site, the owner and moderators are very keen to keep each thread to a single topic. The more so, given the powerful nature of this thread.

If you want to discuss the likelihood of one member of CC per a/c then it would be best to start a new thread on that topic. On other occaisions I have seen thread discussion commercial flights without flight crew, so your thread would be a natural companion discussion to that.

As to the term 'SLF', that is dealt with in our forum FAQ which I'm sure you have read. http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/405020-how-do-we-feel-about-term-slf.html

[LD12986]

This obviously begs the question why the company has only decided to do this until now.

Seems more of a tactical maneouvre to put the wind up Unite rather than avoid a strike, like at Christmas where the company was nowhere near as prepared and there was the emotive aspect of the timing of the strike.

[MPN11]

@ LD12986 ... I doubt very much that WW/BA are doing tactical responses. Having read into this dispute closely, and daily, for the last 6 months or more I would surmise that there is a well-developed set of options [all carefully staffed and checked for legality] that resembles the wiring loom of a 747. There is no way that WW is playing this off the cuff.

@ PAXboy ... a very fair call. I have learned, at my cost, that we all dribble here under the Site rules - and breach them at our peril.


So - an exciting week ahead, eh?
Wheeeee - I'm flying BA on Tue/Wed.
I wonder what will happen while I'm out of touch?
After daily doses of updates, actually being there, as opposed to reading about it, is going to be quite strange. I'm looking forward to the experience.

[Pohutu]

BA have clearly been planning their actions carefully throughout this dispute, but I don't think this latest move to apply for an injunction will have been part of their long-term game plan. The clue is in JetSetLady's post -

This point of law was clarified in April following Network Rail’s successful application for an injunction to stop a strike by the RMT.


So it looks like this has only become an option from early April.

For me, though, the interesting thing is what happens after 12 June, whether or not the strikes take place. As I understand it, any industrial action taken after that date is not protected. Lots of people seem to think that at that point, BA will be able to 'lance the boil' by dismissing the strikers. But I don't think they can, unless further industrial action is taken after that date.

So where does that leave things? BA has already 'imposed' its preferred solution. No further industrial action can be taken without risk of dismissal. So does the status quo simply remain, since BA will have achieved their original aim?

[candoo]

70 odd pages in and it is not a hamster wheel?

There are two sides, each has their own opinion and equally valid as far as the poster's intention.

The outcome - well one would hope that common sense prevails.

[manintheback]

The legal action is a simple tactic to delay industrial action beyond the 12 week point at which legal dismissal of those involved is allowed with no come back.

[LD12986]

The legal action is a simple tactic to delay industrial action beyond the 12 week point at which legal dismissal of those involved is allowed with no come back.


Though that would require BA to lose the injunction.

If Unite have any sense they will call off next week's industrial action pending the result of the injunction. They are exposed already and I doubt they'd want to bet the farm on being on the hook for more damages.

If BA gets an injunction, Unite will conduct a fresh ballot then this farce will carry on for another few months.

If BA does not get an injunction then, as you say, the clock starts ticking towards the 12 week deadline.

Whatever the motives behind this, I doubt (as the BASSA acolytes would like to think) it is because BA is panicking.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Diplome
Sorry about the delay. I saw copy of recent letter on another forum. I'll try and track back to find it and publish here. It may not be tonight though..I'm off to bed!!

[wet vee two]

They, Unite, should not back down period. And lets get over the future security of the company fallacy that management resort to in order to push their useless rationale across.''If you don't back down we are facing bankruptcy'' the cheapest moral suasion for such laureates of management.
What they mean is back down so we can continue drinking our fine tea in waterwold and help us pay off our personal exesses that we accumulated when the going was good.
This is simply a battle where the feudalists are trying to deduct from the working class in order to afford their champagne lifestyle.And in the process they are calling the union communists.
This is a battle for transfer of wealth.

Can I ask, If management are so worried about the future of the company why is it then that they will not be part of it in the future but will have moved on somewhere else delivering the same destructive rhetoric of people's livelyhoods?

BA used to be a renowned product because of its staff and the way they delivered their customer service. They did that because, they were rewarded for their services. And thats what attracted the yields.
The crew felt that they belonged to and subsequently devoted their lives to their job and have treated it like their own home and that attitude permeated in the way they delivered their customer service.BA used to be an inspiration for both staff and passengers.
Neo-style mangers treat their job as a hotel room instead.Thats the difference.
Neo-style managers in their pursuit of greed reckon that employing staff on peanuts will yield the same customer service and deliver the same historical profits for less. What UTTER RUBBISH.

Why is it then that Virgin always post if any, such low profits? Must be the Superlative service and not absent minded, flint faced 18 year olds promoting two finger rhetoric.

Its not the crew's fault that the pension pot is empty, its pernicious management.

The path of austerity should commence at the top and not start and end at the bottom.

The Pilots should not be such rabid supporters of management's fallacy because they will be next in the firing line and Cameron and mates should be the last place to be eulogising, as he, Cameron has proven his dexterity by asking the ferals help him extend his ego!

Tell me then, why is it that we now live in a society that has no job security, people have no aspirations, the customer service is non existent no matter where you go and yet we pride ourselves on the fact that we(the western world) have specialists everywhere for everything?

[pj67coll]

They, Unite, should not back down period

I sincerely hope you are right and they keep this up so that hopefully Walsh can fire the whole stinking bunch and get some people in there who are happy to have a job.

- Peter.

[wet vee two]

I sincerely hope you are right and they keep this up so that hopefully Walsh can fire the whole stinking bunch and get some people in there who are happy to have a job.

- Peter.

Send some mexicans over then to help them out.

[slf22]

The Pilots should not be such rabid supporters of management's fallacy because they will be next in the firing line and Cameron and mates should be the last place to be eulogising, as he, Cameron has proven his dexterity by asking the ferals help him extend his ego!

Pilots have already been in the firing line. BA started to negotiate with the various groups over 16 months ago. The Pilots chose to negotiate. They chose to look at the books. I believe they took a paycut. The Cabin Crew union was too busy fighting within itself to bother to negotiate properly with management. Or look at the books. As someone said they did what they always do - say NO until management goes away. Well this time management hasn't gone away. WW is a very different character to all the rest/

[Winch-control]

BA used to be a renowned product because of its staff and the way they delivered their customer service

Speaks for itself...

Why is it then that Virgin always post if any, such low profits?

Ah not losses then...

Tell me then, why is it that we now live in a society that has no job security, people have no aspirations, the customer service is non existent no matter where you go and yet we pride ourselves on the fact that we(the western world) have specialists everywhere for everything?

I think in simple employment terms it is called market value. if you have a government that allows unrestricted migration, then for menial jobs there is a huge area/population to employ from.

[Ten West]

Send some mexicans over then to help them out.

No need squire. There are plenty of good and dedicated crew members out there who would jump at the chance to fill the shoes of the lazy, grasping and massively overpaid LHR strikers.

These people need to be weeded out so that BA can become great once again. There are lots of decent hardworking crew members at BA who must be sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as the "Wake me up over Windsor" crowd.

Tell you what, if your T's and C's are that bad and your working life is so hard, why not just leave? After all, other airlines must be falling over themselves to employ people of your calibre? I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all in attracting a salary equal to or superior to your current one, will you?

It's all gone quiet over there... ;)

[pwalhx]

Summer Breeze is was not referring to you.

I also was patently not sitting on the fence rather referring to Ancient Observers post.

My post being because BASSA have always got away with it in the past they think they will again, patently they aren't so they need to revise their policy.

[wet vee two]

Sorry to step on your management rhetoric Ten west. There is the channel tunnel of course.

Winch- what an incomprehensible and impotent retort.

Laureates or friends of the quantitative easing solution, as when there ain't no assets left, printing a fallacy(legacy) is the only option left.

As an outsider, I perhaps can highlight the failure of the neo-liberal regime!
Just like Sir Fred from RBS, but he's happy on £700k a year from his incompetence never mind his staff who are left with the .............!

[gr8tballsoffire]

Diplome
Here is the link....http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/20100512145940215.pdf
Clearly they are trying to justify themselves to the rest of the BA (non CC) community.
They have a responsibility for ALL their members, something which seems to have been missed somewhere!!!

[Der absolute Hammer]

Bassa delenda est!

[Diplome]

Thank you gr8tballsoffire:

I will have a look.

[Winch-control]

Apologies I was slow on the Troll uptake (wet vee too).:ugh:

[Diplome]

Well, that was interesting.

These words:


"...However, the overriding factor in rejection was the vindictive approach taken by the Company in disciplining, and in some cases dismissing employees for various misdemeanors attributed to the dispute. In addition to this, the Company's unwillingness to take a "step back" by reinstating the travel concessions for Unite members who participated in the previous industrial action only serves to demonstrate the uncompromising attitude it has adopted since the outset of negotiations..." (emphasis added)


Words that may come back to bite them.

[Ten West]

In addition to this, the Company's unwillingness to take a "step back" by reinstating the travel concessions for Unite members who participated in the previous industrial action only serves to demonstrate the uncompromising attitude it has adopted since the outset of negotiations..." That would be to "take a step back" from what strikers were told - repeatedly and in no uncertain terms - would happen in the event that they persisted in their attempt to destroy BA for their own personal political ends, yes?

I for one (speaking as Pax and booker of tickets for others) am jolly glad that Mr Walsh has adopted an "Uncompromising attitude". I only hope he has the balls to see it through to its much-needed conclusion and that he doesn't back down.

It'd be great to see BA as a carrier to be proud of once again. :ok:

[Ancient Observer]

Like wet vee 2, I wish to support the working classes!!!

I wish to support the Unemployed working classes of West London/West of London, - and any other geographical folk who are willing to get on their bikes to find work.

We'd be very happy to promise to live within 90 minutes bike ride of LHR.

Being unemployed is not much fun. I have lots of experience of it.

Like many others, once the Henley/Wimbledon(sickies)/Bassa brigade have left BA, and/or been fired, the unemployed workers will gleefully apply for the BA CC jobs, and , I can assure you, will be perfectly happy to take the new Fleet terms.

There are more unemployed working class folk within a 90 minute bike ride of LHR than there are workers in BA CC. Thus, any of the Socialist stuff should support them.

[Der absolute Hammer]

If Walsh succeeds I should think and hope that there is a peerage in it for him for services to aviation.

[PAXboy]

Is wet vee two a troll? Possibly but a couple of the points are germane. The following will be boring/ridiculous and many other things to many readers.

BA used to be a renowned product because of its staff and the way they delivered their customer service. They did that because, they were rewarded for their services. And thats what attracted the yields.Not that alone. The governments of the world had set up a duopoly on all routes. When they privatised them, it was a long time for the duopolies to be removed. In the second half of the 20th century, a British person faced with flying on BOAC/BEA/British/British Airways/BA or PanAm/Air France/Lufthansa/etc would 99% [guess] choose their own countries carrier. In the reverse direction, the US/Fr/De resident did the same. That's what you did.
This is the 21st century and ALL of that - and more - has gone.

The crew felt that they belonged to and subsequently devoted their lives to their job and have treated it like their own home and that attitude permeated in the way they delivered their customer service.BA used to be an inspiration for both staff and passengers.Indeed, as it was for 99% [guess] of the companies in the UK and Western Europe. My generation (baby boomer) grew up to think that you could have a career that lasted and, if you chose to stay with one company and they wanted you, then you could stay with them for life.
This is the 21st century and ALL of that - and more - has gone.

Neo-style mangers treat their job as a hotel room instead.Thats the difference.
Neo-style managers in their pursuit of greed reckon that employing staff on peanuts will yield the same customer service and deliver the same historical profits for less. What UTTER RUBBISH.You are correct!

Its not the crew's fault that the pension pot is empty, its pernicious management.You are correct!
But the mgmt is all that there is. The Board have chosen this route and CC can like it or leave. If the Board decide to sell the company you can like it or leave. The greatest majority of companies work this way - and that includes other airlines!

Tell me then, why is it that we now live in a society that has no job security, people have no aspirations, the customer service is non existent no matter where you go and yet we pride ourselves on the fact that we(the western world) have specialists everywhere for everything?Because the UK is at the end of a very long good run (depending on how you calculate the start of the British Empire, it could be 400+ years) but now it is all over. We have overpaid ourselves, consider ourselves to be the best and all the other things. But we no longer are. Many countries in Western Europe have done the same and are also on their downward turn. Hello Middle East and China.

It really is that simple. It's called End of Empire and that's why the UK is in trouble. We got to the top of the pile and now it has to be downhill. The next 200 years are going to be uncomfortable. I was born at the end of the good time and am seeing the turn of the tide and so I, too, know how bitter it is. But the forces at work are global and human. Far, far greater than any individual Board or CEO. This is what human beings do. Read your history.

Keep your health and help those of your family and close friends to do the same.

[just an observer]

Its not the crew's fault that the pension pot is empty, its pernicious management.

Not entirely true, re management, if at all. The pension contribution rate was set before the change to dividend tax repayment (Gordon Brown's 'raid' ), before the current financial crisis, and before we all started living longer. True, if BA had not had a pension holiday for APS - which is a 'mere' £1 bn in deficit, that fund would probably would not be in deficit, but BA has always paid the due amount into NAPS, which has by far the larger deficit.

More to the point, to get out of the pension hole, BA needs to continue to exist, so that payments at an increased rate (hopefully to be agreed soon) can be made so that expected pensions get paid to current staff.

[Winch-control]

Hmm here we go again...

Britain’s busiest airports – including Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted – could be affected because of ash blown towards Europe by prevailing winds from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278647/UKs-major-airports-close-today-wind-blows-ash-south-Iceland-volcano.html#ixzz0o4ItDUHi (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278647/UKs-major-airports-close-today-wind-blows-ash-south-Iceland-volcano.html#ixzz0o4ItDUHi)


Maybe this will be BASSA's saving grace in the short term? Although it will only prolong the agony of the many BA CC that wish to see an end to this 'dispute'.

[Diplome]

Courtesy of TopBunk on CC thread the latest Unite missive:



Thinking of Working?

The emperor's new clothes...please read on.

Forget the media hype and the BA news hysteria.

British Airways is not going out of business and is not going to be
destroyed by you taking part in lawful industrial action - but your union
will be if you don't.

The only person increasingly likely to damage British Airways is Mr. Walsh
and he is doing a pretty good job of that all by himself.

What CEO in their right mind would drag their own company through a month
of bad publicity just to prove a point? Trouble is nobody will tell him;
anybody that dared to air an alternative view has been silenced, or has
simply moved on.

If you choose to go to work over this next dispute, then you too are
playing along with the "I am backing BA, flag waving crowd" - sadly this
is an empty chant, invented by cynical managers who have worked for this
company for a couple of years, yet this "sound bite" is also being
unquestioningly and naively swallowed by people who have worked for BA for
decades who really should know better. Their loyalty should be to the
airline that they remember, not to the one being rebuilt in Mr. Walsh's
image. For when it's their turn to be sacrificed for greater profit, make
no mistake, they will be, pilots included.

We are all British Airways, not just those who work in Waterside; what
gave them the right to hijack our airline's good name for their own ends?

If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's
over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never
achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got
tough.

We all have to decide what we want; we are grateful for everybody that
believes they are standing up for their union, though we greatly
appreciate that, we want you to know that this is really all about
standing up for YOU.

At the end of the day, it's your job, your life, your career and your
bills that have to be paid. British Airways no longer wants you to have
your flying agreements, they have told you that; that's why they have
already introduced new contracts and soon, a new fleet.

What stops them from putting you on new fleet, declaring you surplus,
ending any part of any agreement they choose? Not a lot to be honest.

90 days notice, that's about it.

Only a few hurdles are still in their way - cabin crews' belief in their
own rights and a strong union to fight for them.

If you chose - and it will be your choice - to break the strike and go to
work, you have effectively and actively chosen to serve notice on both of
these, in that one gesture.

The strike is over imposition. Why? To send a clear message to British
Airways that you value your agreements and are willing to fight to protect
them; this resolve is what will protect you in an uncertain future. If
you're not bothered, then let's stop fooling ourselves, it's over.

Unite has compromised so much to try and get a deal and thus avoid you
having to go on strike, as we know this can be a daunting prospect, but
let's be brutally honest, this has been to the point of being seen as
almost desperate and at times almost embarrassing how conciliatory we were
all prepared to be. While Mr. Walsh has persistently rejected every
compromise, remained openly provocative and deliberately confrontational.

If you are not concerned by all of this, fair enough. Go to work and be
counted by Willy Walsh every single day, on every single news channel
around the world, as a number, a statistic he can use to show how much
cabin crew "support him" and his actions.

It's a blunt message but a true one; there are no hiding places left for
any of us, no fence to sit on - you're either with Mr. Walsh and Mr.
Francis and ALL that they stand for, or your colleagues that are standing
up for what's right. There is no middle ground left anymore.

No second chance, right or wrong, this is a moment in your personal
history.

It's up to you; by all means go to work, but in doing so you are making a
bed for us all to lie in, that is why we are appealing and pleading to
every single person, no matter what decision you made over the previous
strike, to now support yourselves before its too late.

We are sorry if this message sounds a little harsh or even negative, but
what needs to be said needs to be said, before it's too late. If it is
over and your union is destroyed, then your job will change beyond
recognition in the years to come. We do not want there to be any doubt
that we tried to warn you.

Tuesday 18th May - See you there or not, It's up to you...

If you have already decided to break the strike, there are no hard
feelings you are still fellow crew, we would only ask you to consider
printing this out, putting it away in a draw. In few years from now, you
may across it and reflect what might have been.

"If we fight for our rights and our dignity, we cannot promise you that we
will win but if we don't, then we have already lost them."

[MPN11]

Thanks for cross-posting that.

The last faint cries of a discredited Union and its failed strike? Couple that with Woodley's comments about the strike now essentially being about ST restoration and disciplinaries, and I would have thought that any IA next week could prove to be extremely unwise.

Anyway, the ash has grabbed the headlines and the strikers' moment of self-sacrifice. Picketing a non-operating airport will just add more foolishness to the farce.

[Diplome]

MPN11:

Ian100 had just put it up over at FlyerTalk also.

I find this message interesting in the extreme. Its content challenges the truth of all previous messages Unite/BASSA had been giving to its members and the press regarding the results of the previous strikes.

This is not the message of a Union ready to lead its members on to victory. This is a plea for "No mas".

Sadly, there is no acknowledgement that it was the leaders of BASSA/Unite that brought this situation to this sad state of affairs.

[Diplome]

Those Cabin Crew members looking for a Government save may find Transport Secretary Philip Hammond's comments in today's Times a bit concerning:


Either you work together with the employer to work on in a viable business, or you do what the London dockers did in the 1960s and refuse to countenance any change,” he said.
“How many London dockers are there now?”


Unite has admitted that they have an agreement on the financial portion of the deal. Will militant cabin crew impale themselves over Mr. Holley's cause?

..and speaking of Mr. Holley, he provides the following appalling quote to the Times which reveals just how far BASSA will try to go to damage their workers employer:


Duncan Holley, branch secretary of Bassa — the section of Unite that represents the cabin crew members — yesterday threatened new tactics because the strikes meant that staff were losing wages.
“Our members are not well paid and are not the sort of people who are able to sustain a year out, so we might have to alter our tactics to begin a guerrilla campaign against British Airways,” said Holley.
“There are a lot of options open — calling then cancelling strikes, short strikes, announcing long strikes to hinder bookings.”

[LD12986]

More material for the lawyers!

[PAXboy]

The BASSA letter is interesting reading. Just in case there are any CC here, if not, I shall be brief:

British Airways is not going out of business and is not going to be destroyed by you taking part in lawful industrial action - but your union will be if you don't.
Correct - not by lawful IA alone. But with global consolidation; European recession and financial crisis not seen in 60 years and a volcano never seen in the history of commercial airlines - then your airline is in the dwang (as we say in South Africa).

What CEO in their right mind would drag their own company through a month of bad publicity just to prove a point?
One hired by the Board of the company to do exactly that.

Their loyalty should be to the airline that they remember, not to the one being rebuilt in Mr. Walsh's image.
Which airline are BASSA remembering? (Post war only)

BOAC commercial
BOAC + BEA merged
British Airways nationalised
British (branded)
British Airways de-nationalised
BA plc
They are all different airlines and were there for those specific times in the company's history. No one would say that they were all unilaterally good for service and reliability. The airline now in place and continuing is the one for now and, rather crucially, it is the only BA airline available. The good news is that you already have a job in it. The bad news is that the world is in financial turmoil.

We all have to decide what we want; we are grateful for everybody that believes they are standing up for their union ...
Ahhh, it's no longer standing up for the airline is it? I thought that this strike was about making sure that BA knew who cared about them and that the CC wanted to make sure that BA continued as a great airline with great service? Did I miss something?

What stops them from putting you on new fleet, declaring you surplus, ending any part of any agreement they choose? Not a lot to be honest.
90 days notice, that's about it.
Correct - just like in every other job I have every worked in. The greatest number of people have only got their statutory period of notice, typically 30 days (from either side). Some have 90 days but redundancy is just that and can happen at any time.

The only thing worse than 90 days redundancy notice and full payment of the legal obligations of so-much-£ per-year of service, is the company going bankrupt and everyone losing job AND with no payout. That happens every week in the UK. Just because you are the biggest airline in the UK does not mean it will not happen.

[MPN11]

@ PAXboy ... nicely annotated!

The only 'flaw' is that your comments reflect reality, something sadly lacking from the dishonest and deceitful BASSA communications over the past few months.

I hope that tomorrow in the Court will add the ashes of BASSA's pathetic activities to the ash clouds drifting over the UK.

[LD12986]

Interesting theory on the CC thread. Is Woodley deliberately trying to undermine BASSA?


Abbey Quote:
Is Tony Woodley actually trying to undermine the BASSA case? Does he fear that BA actually has a very good case for the court hearing tomorrow, which could seriously end up damaging UNITE's bank-balance?

I think you may well be right. Bear in mind also that he has already said that if there is volcanic ash affecting the UK, he will seriously consider cancelling the first of the 5 day strikes.

Ok, so he says this is in deference to the travelling public [excuse me while I choke on a grape:rolleyes:].

In reality it is because:

he wants to buy time to see the outcome of the court case so as to limit Unites liabilities, which could financially ruin Unite
he wants to minimise Unites costs as they pay out £30 per day to strikers
he sees that BASSA are totally beaten
he wants to disassociate himself and Unite from BASSA
he knows that only BASSA can call off the dispute
he knows by giving BA additional evidence that it is not about 'imposition', he can help protect Unites money for deserving (rather than undeserving) causes
he knows that BASSA are totally out of his control.As an aside, where has Len McClunky been for the last month or so? Is he in a Bangkok sex-club or is he in Cuba with Castro or has he been sent to Coventry?

[Diplome]

One of those posts on the main CC thread that make you wonder why they are not being challenged and why are these individuals not seeing what the big picture actually is.:

Posted by Abbey Road:

gr8tballsoffire, I'm still not convinced. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

If many/most aircraft are not flying, cabin crew are not required to turn up for work. Consequently, BA don't know who would have been striking, and so has to continue paying them. Surely?


As I understand BA's empowerment under present terms all they have to do, given the changeable nature of the flight impact of the ash fallout, is to require scheduled crews to report for service, not knowing whether its going to be a "go" or not, and that will give you a rough idea of your striking or non-striking individuals.

Criminey people, this is not rocket science and the militant cabin crew won't find an easy "out" because of a happenstance disruption.

You will be either "In" or "Out", whether you fly or not.

[Diplome]

baggersup:

Unfortunately at this point in time it seems that BASSA and the militant cabin crew can only further damage themselves.

While Ottergirl speaks of appeasement on the BA CC thread I believe she and others should pause and consider exactly what damage is being done to ALL BA Cabin Crew by the actions and words of this minority.

Do these individuals realize what a disturbing message is being received by the general public when the phrase "guerilla tactics" is used and endorsed by this group?

We are speaking of an AIRLINE for heaven's sake.

To be perfectly blunt, as a passenger I would feel much safer knowing that I was flying without a single striking Cabin Crew member on board. They have gone too far.

[MPN11]

It appears I shall now be flying into LGW tomorrow, so no worries there: the usual good and efficient crew.

I wonder who will be crewing the LHR-IAD on Wednesday? Non-strikers, of course, but how many of those will be unhappy BASSA supporters? Any VCC, I wonder? As Diplome noted, there are many factors involved in the potentially volatile Crew mix, and that will not enhance safety or the customer experience.

Nothing head from the Court yet ... an "interesting" day ahead! :)

[Mariner9]

Interesting comment from Tony Woodley in The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7732046/Last-ditch-talks-aim-to-avert-first-British-Airways-strike.html):

The leader of the cabin crew accused the airline of being ''vindictive'' as he claimed the cost-cutting row which sparked strikes had now been settled.

Tony Woodley, joint leader of Unite, said an agreement had been reached in principle on a deal which would resolve the original dispute over pay, jobs and working practices, including staffing levels on flights. The dispute was being prolonged because BA was refusing to fully restore travel concessions to staff who went on strike in March, and over the suspension and sacking of over 50 cabin crew, said Mr Woodley.

So the strike is now solely about restoring ST and cancelling disciplinaries. I wonder if CC have been informed of this?

[PaddyMiguel]

So the strike is now solely about restoring ST and cancelling disciplinaries. I wonder if CC have been informed of this?

They will if they read The Indie online:

Mr Walsh said he did not expect progress to made during talks between the two sides later today at the conciliation service Acas.


Mr Walsh said there was "absolutely no way" he would intervene in disciplinary cases which the union said were now holding up the prospect of a deal.

"British Airways has very clear policies on dealing with bullying, harassment and intimidation. Any respectable trade union would expect me to deal with that in a fair and proper way."

[Diplome]

Interesting quotes Paddy.

BA seems quite clear today in its highlighting of the difference between Unite and the "dysfunctional" BASSA.

From Sky News:


Mr Walsh suggested that Unite would be willing to accept the offer, the branch of the union that represents the cabin crew, BASSA, was taking a hardline approach.
He said: "...while Tony Woodley, general secretary of Unite, is stating publicly that we have "agreement in principle" on all the important elements of the deal, BASSA continues to rubbish the offer we have made."


BA does not seem to be giving messages that indicate that they are wishing to placate the militant BASSA adherents.

[PaddyMiguel]

Interesting quotes Paddy.

BA does not seem to be giving messages that indicate that they are wishing to placate the militant BASSA adherents.

And there's the rub, Diplome. According to a post (#2788) on the 'other' forum there are some 5750 crew supporting BASSA. A few are diehard militants who have posted here that they would rather see BA go down than lose their T&Cs. The remainder, IMHO, prefer to trust BASSA rather than their employer and are going with the flow.

That situation indicates serious management problems for BA once this IA is all over. How to win back that trust? How was it lost in the first place? Those 5000+ crew aren't all dinosaurs, surely? So what makes a perfectly decent people-person, who no doubt whooped with joy on receiving their acceptance letter from BA, turn into one of the jeering, chanting mob seen on those videos?

We've read dozens of posts claiming BA management are liars, bullies and untrustworthy but not one shred of evidence to back up those accusations.

This tough management style may be foreign to those who were used to the 'softly, softly' approach of Mike Street and Joy Hordern but it ain't going away.

The only thing for it is to get rid of the people who don't want to work for their current employer.

[MPN11]

That sums up their logic processes ... A few are diehard militants who have posted here that they would rather see BA go down than lose their T&Cs.
What T&Cs do they have when the company goes down? A nice shiny P45 [ignored, because it was issued by BA]?

[fincastle84]

Sky is reporting that the result will be announced at 1700 BST.

[Airclues]

Injunction granted to BA. Unite to appeal.

[MPN11]

Oh dear, how sad :}:}:}:}

[Snas]

That may well bugger a few striking commuters who had an early report tomorow..?
Dont spose they are in the UK are they.

[Airclues]

As the ballot has been ruled unlawful the strikes were therefore illegal and so BA will have a claim against Unite for the costs of the strikes.

Does anyone know how much Unite have in the bank?

[Mariner9]

Its a real imposition that BASSA have to obey the law of the land in their attempts to wreck BA :ok:

[MPN11]

@ Airclues ... not enough!! :cool:

The process would make a few lawyers VERY rich, though! ;)

[west lakes]

Or does it now put WW in the position of saying to Unite, "sort your branches (BASSA & CC89) out or we'll cripple you financially"?

[Airclues]

The process would make a few lawyers VERY rich, though!

But doesn't the loser pay the costs? From past history it would seem that the BA lawyers are rather more switched on than those of Unite.

Or does it now put WW in the position of saying to Unite, "sort your branches (BASSA & CC89) out or we'll cripple you financially"?

I believe that WW used this tactic on BALPA after the Open Skies case. BALPA had to agree to be nice, in exchange for WW calling off the lawyers.

[west lakes]

I've copied this from the CC thread before it disappears

I don't have any vested interest in this particular dispute but the courts are starting to set a very anti-union precedent. At the end of the day, these workers voted to strike (rightly or wrongly) and the court has told them that they cannot because of a highly technical and completely irrelevant detail that is so obscure none of us know precisely what it is.

If we want to create a situation where workers in any industry just walk out unplanned and with no notice then this is how to get it.

I don't work for BA - I don't work within the airline industry - I could not care less about this particular dispute. But I do believe that the right to strike action is an important democratic right that we all should have. It would appear that the courts have begun to erode this right and that is not a good step.Interestingly the union I am a member of has recognised the implications and is making sure that all the "ts" are crossed and all the "is" dotted.

[MPN11]

West Lakes ... just read that myself.

I have no problem with "the democratic rights of the workers".

I do have a problem when "the democratic rights of the Public to be protected from incompetent and questionable Industrial Action" are ignored.

[Mariner9]

Quite frankly, any Union, particularly one as large and powerful as Unite, should make every effort to ensure that they fully comply with the law in all respects when considering industrial action. If they don't they are not properly protecting their members who they lead into such action. Unite have been shown to have been very lax in this regard. No doubt they will once again seek to blame BA &/or the Judiciary for their failings :ugh:

[pj67coll]

Does this mean we will be stuck with the strikers on flights over this period? Or will these idiots still strike anyway? I think I'd prefer them to do so leaving their places to be filled by non-strikers and volunteers.

[PaddyMiguel]

You can bet your bottom dollar that WW et al have known since March that the ballot (and thus the strike) was illegal due to Unite's failure to correctly notify members of the outcome. Holding off an injunction until the day before yet another stoppage is part of a carefully thought out plan (ie not similar in any way to BASSA's knee jerk guerilla warfare)

The judge has refused permission to appeal.

UNITE/BASSA your call....................

[MPN11]

pj67coll ... an interesting point. I'm flying to the Old Colony on Wednesday, and was hoping to greet all the CC with a cheerful "thank you for being here". Now I'll have to say it anyway, but some of them may think it's sarcastic!

Oh ... nice one, Judge! Thanks, Your Honour. :ok:

[Der absolute Hammer]

A spiritedly sarcastic whistling of the Marines' marching song,

'From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli'

Should remind any and all who have an education as to the unsuitability of their union logo.

[Airclues]

The relevant sections from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 have been quoted on this, and the other thread many times. It is not rocket science, and most of us are able to understand the rules in a few minutes. However, a major union, such as Unite, with all of their legal advice, is unable to follow the basic law.

Holding off an injunction until the day before yet another stoppage is part of a carefully thought out plan

Post #168 (page 9)

[Tin67]

BA win the injunction and the strikes are off. Now what?

Given the mentality of Unite and more so BASSA, this is far from over. I wait in anticipation at the next moves from either side and I guess a lot rides on the court of appeal tomorrow.

If no appeal is granted, will BASSA lead it's members to IA without the protection or will another ballot quickly follow?

If a new ballot is the call, how soon could IA take place?

[MPN11]

A new ballot on what? A different cause?

ST - already thrown out by the Court as a non-contractual perk.
Disciplinary actions - hahahahaha. hahahaha. :}

I have no doubt that in some little suburban sitting room someone is trying to create justification for IA, but it isn't going to be on any of the topics we have been reading for bloody months. There are no grounds for IA ... simples.

[Mariner9]

We're still of course waiting for Unite's promised appeal over "contractual" crewing levels so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to appeal this one.

Is there any reason why Unite can't simply re-ballot though? As a further thought, if the last strike was illegal, would it "count" as the starting point for the 12 week clock, or would a new ballot re-start the clock I wonder?

Sadly, given the the intransigence of BASSA, this is far from over in my view.

[wascrew]

Of course there will be new ballot!

This whole thing is about BASSA and their leadership and followers versus `Wicked Willie`!!

How can WW be seen to win in their eyes?

I do believe this is not all over and several things will happen soon

Firstly the strikers will be sacked for taking part in an illegal strike.
Why should WW and the board let them get away with the disruption and cost they caused? We all know there are plenty waiting in the wings to take the positions of the sacked workers on `new fleet` terms and conditions.
Do the strikers deserve this?
IMHO yes!! Because they have blindly followed the BASSA line without considering the companys` financial position,any of the companys` offers and acted childishly and irresponsibly.Oh yes and believed every BASSA missive.
I am at a loss to understand for example what a 40 year old CSD (one of whom i recognised at Bedfont FC,) who has used all previous promotion opportunity to their advantage, has lose from BA`s proposals apart from gradual loss of routes over the years. What they may now lose is their career pension having already lost staff travel. Sad to see!
Will they be able to sue UNITE for the loss of their job?
New fleet will arrive a lot sooner than originally proposed.
Some protection must be given to those who supported the company and I suggest the best BA offer will remain on the table for them.

Why should WW lose/miss out on the opportunity to smash BASSA and remove a lot of deadwood from the company.?
Invest in the people who support BA an not just employees but the loyal customers.


Time to return BA to being the `Worlds` Favourite` and `Putting People First`

[interpreter]

I understand all the frustration of the Unions and BA but exactly what are the "awful" terms being offered to Heathrow CC compared to those at GatwicK? Why should the older staff have any objection to new CC coming into the company on the same terms as Gatwick staff ?( the situation as I understand it)

Just seems to me as a passenger and former flight deck with another airline that somebody is deliberately stirring up trouble. Or is that too simplistic?

Furthermore, is a company not entitled to withdraw special privileges to staff who act against the company's interests? Simplistic again?

[wascrew]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 129146.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7129146.ece)

[ChicoG]

If a cabin crew member is dismissed from BA, and BASSA is only for BA cabin crew, can they still belong to BASSA when they no longer work for BA?

If they aren't BA employees then they can't vote on, or participate in IA, period.

[ChicoG]

From Walsh:

The Bassa reactionaries do not care about our customers, colleagues in other departments or even their own members. What they care about is preserving the appearance of their own importance.

[Nail] <- Hit squarely on head.

[ExecClubPax]

Tony Woodley and his Unite Brothers are bemoaning the impact on democracy arising from the latest injunction which, in effect removes protection from those BA cabin crew taking strike action in March. I think the Union bosses will be waking up to the fact that UK law is a two edged sword. They are quite content to invoke obscure parts of employment law in order to expose any procedural error in cases of improper dismissal. Now, they must face up to the fact that they too are equally bound by the same laws to conduct strike ballots etc properly. Consequently, from this stand point, I have no difficulty in the learned Judge's decision yesterday afternoon. Indeed, it's a case of those who live by the (legal) sword dying by the (legal) sword.

So where does this leave all those BA cabin crew who chose to strike and who are now potentially stripped of their protection? Well, at first glance, it seems they are in jeopardy of being dismissed on the grounds they broke their employment contract by failing to report for work when required. The question arises will Mr Walsh press this point? If he does, then would dismissed cabin crew have a case against BASSA/Unite for failure to provide a "duty of care" when running the strike ballot and encouraging them to take industrial action? If this is so, can we see some enterprising law firm taking on a "pro bono" class action on before of sacked crew against the Union that has, it would seem, let them down so grievously? In this case, BA could be spared the trouble of pursuing BASSA/Unite for damages as the company might consider, in the long run, the removal of the cancer worth the loss of revenue. This would also leave its hands clean because one should never forget that many other groups of BA workers are also members of Unite.

[binsleepen]

Good discussion on 5 live re strike.

Well done Maxine, a CC who didn't strike and put a very clear case against the union. She happily said that if BA were to reduce here wages she would be at the front of the strike queue but until they do, you can't strike over what may happen.

Regards

[etrang]

A new ballot on what? A different cause?


As long as they follow legal proceedures a union can call a strike over whaterver they like. They could strike for a pay RISE. That has historically been a very popular reason for striking.

[spock33]

"The Bassa tail is wagging the Unite dog. I urge Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson to assert their authority and address this situation. The vast bulk of their 20,000 members at BA urgently want them to do so. These include the thousands of regular cabin crew who ignored the strike calls in March and, if necessary, will do so again to help us to keep the airline flying.

"During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not. Unite’s leaders must act." (My underlining)

I have to disagree with Baggersup. I think that Mr Walsh has made it very plain that if necessary he will remove the militants, by redundancy if necessary, much to everyone's relief I'm sure.

[Winch-control]

I have to disagree with Baggersup. I think that Mr Walsh has made it very plain that if necessary he will remove the militants, by redundancy if necessary, much to everyone's relief I'm sure.]

Yep 4 to 6 weeks left I reckon..then in at the Market rate (plus 10% maybe) Problem solved.

Nice that Bassa orchestrated it too.

Now there is lessons to be learnt by the university profs etc! Nicely done Sir.

[Snas]

If they don't have an outside organization constantly stirring the pot with negativity and militancy, it might calm down after awhile.

Indeed, and union representatives who actually go to work for BA now and again perhaps won’t have so much time on their hands to think up such silly mischief as insulting mails to BALPA, porno web sites etc.

It seems that every time a union rep is looked at to any degree he/she is discovered to have not worked in months!

[oldflyboy]

Radio 2's Jeremy Vine had Bob Crowe from the RMT union on to discuss the recent High Court ruling against Unison, and he made a very interesting statement to the fact that ALL strikes are in fact illegal and a breach of contract in the UK, all a ballot does is to protect workers for a 12 week period from dismissal, and the union concerned from financial punishment from the employer. My question is, was he correct, are there any Employment Lawyers out there in PPruneland who can clarify this?

As ex BA crew with lots of friends on both sides of this dispute, I don't think any of the strikers feel that their jobs are on the line because of their actions in withdrawing their labour, as its "legal to strike". There has been lots of speculation on here and the BA v BASSA thread about this, what is fact please?

Oldflyboy

PS: Very pro BA, anti BASSA but pro all the great crew who want to make the company a great place to work again.

[Mariner9]

I see that Unite are having a hearing at 14:00 to seek leave to appeal.

I wonder if his/her Lordships will agree that Unite are free to ignore employment law that Unite apparently consider to be a trivial technicality

Much the same really as Unite's demand to treat the BA disciplinary code as a trivial technicality.

[Snas]

Chap, the simple, hard and rather unfair reality is that any employer can sack any employee at anytime for anything – the employer may have to justify their actions and they may indeed be called to provide compensation (far from substantial however) if found to be in the wrong. This doesn’t alter the fact that the employee is sacked and remains so.

It is a requirement of UK law that these words have to be present on the ballot paper: - "If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment."

The law was later amended to add the following also: - “However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than twelve weeks after you started taking part in the action, and depending on the circumstances may be unfair if it takes place later."

The important bit to note here is “….is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair….” Unfair note, not illegal or reversed or wont happen.

There is a risk to your employment when you go on strike, to strike in absence of this knowledge is unfortunate, and alas irrelevant.

At one of the classic BASSA Sandown meetings one member from the floor asked the question “Can you be sacked whilst on strike?” The answer he received was not YES or NO but rather the section above that you would see on the ballot. The only truthful answer to that question should have been yes.

By all means add all the rest of the legal stuff, but the “YES you can be sacked” should have been in there somewhere.

You may as well ask “Can I be burgled?”
“NO, it’s illegal”
“OK good, I’ll leave the home door unlocked then if that’s the case”

Whilst I don’t support this IA I do very much support unions and their existence, I do wish this one was a lot better though.

Edit - Oldflyboy - if you have friends stuck in this mess you may want to suggest to them they get themselves informed as their Union clearly isnt. They can start here: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179203 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179203)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_10031235 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_10031235)

…or for the real masochists amongst us, the act itself..!
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1)

[TruBlu123]

Louisi Minchen has just interviewed a professor in industrial relations at Wolverhampton University. Wow, this was fireworks. He is laying the blame fairly and squarely at BA's door. I was beside myself listening to this "leftie" spout his stuff. If that is the calibre of erudition at our seats of higher learning maybe some of the expected cuts in government spending could start there. The gentlemen was talking absolute tosh. At one point he was asked did he represent the union, he denied this :ugh::ugh::ugh: of course.

[PilotsPal]

I was very surprised indeed to see that both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls are sitting on the panel hearing this application. That both of them should have been available at such short notice to hear this application seems most unlikely - I suspect that very great importance has been placed on this matter.

No doubt if UNITE lose their application for leave to appeal, the usual derogatory remarks will follow concerning the impartiality of the two most senior judges in the country.

[Dairyground]

On the basis of a complete lack of legal training, my understanding is that a strike is generally illegal only in the sense that it is a breach of contract and contrary to civil law. Except in very special cases, such as in the Police, striking is not a criminal offence.

The portions of the relevant laws that have been quoted on this and the Airline Employeed Only thread mention only protection against unlawful dismissal for taking part in a lawfully constituted strike. I have seen no mention of protection from any other sanctions that an employer may take against strikers.

I suspect that even though the first two strikes were not properly called, and so strikers continued employment was formally not protected, any one dismissed because they struck would have a reasonable chance at a tribunal to claim that they acted in good faith, based on information they were entitled to believe that the strike was properly established. They could well have a case against BASSA for recovery of any costs they incurred through striking. Perhaps they could force BASSA to pay the difference between ST fares and public fares for any flights they, and their families and friends, take on BA - forever!

[rowan11]

As an ex-Court Listing Officer, it is 'highly likely' that HCJ's and above are 'available after lunch'. It could well be that the cases/actions listed for one or all of them today, may well have settled, been withdrawn etc. One of them would possibly have been on duty for an emergency matter. So it is feasable that their Lordships were available, and not hand-picked.

Often my experience in my past life.

Regards

[BetterByBoat]

I suspect that even though the first two strikes were not properly called, and so strikers continued employment was formally not protected, any one dismissed because they struck would have a reasonable chance at a tribunal to claim that they acted in good faith, based on information they were entitled to believe that the strike was properly established.Sadly, ignorance or good faith don't have much weight in a court of law. If the March strike is deemed illegal (and that is still a big IF) then the employees who went on strike are out on a very precarious limb.

[PaddyMiguel]

I was very surprised indeed to see that both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls are sitting on the panel hearing this application. That both of them should have been available at such short notice to hear this application seems most unlikely - I suspect that very great importance has been placed on this matter.

No doubt if UNITE lose their application for leave to appeal, the usual derogatory remarks will follow concerning the impartiality of the two most senior judges in the country.

Don't forget, we have a new government that is about to bring in huge cuts to public service employees' wages. A shot across the bows of one of the biggest unions in the country would not go amiss (well, it wouldn't miss, would it, as it was across the bows?) this early in the campaign.



PS How come YOU are Pprune Playmate of the month?????

[al446]

we have a new government that is about to bring in huge cuts to public service employees' wages

BA or Unite = public service?:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

And what's with this we? Location: The Basque Country

[harrypic]

Seems Unites £700k fighting fund will be used up on legal fees...after the lawyers take their fees there wont be many £30/day's left....

[Jipperty]

In some ways a great shame as was looking forward to flying with VCC this Friday but now will potentially have contact with the BASSA dinosoaurs who think the world still owes them a living.

WW comments about moving to 100% contingency planning should be carefully noted.

[bubblesuk]

On the basis of a complete lack of legal training, my understanding is that a strike is generally illegal only in the sense that it is a breach of contract and contrary to civil law. Except in very special cases, such as in the Police, striking is not a criminal offence.

It is ilegal in the sense that the Ballot was carried out contary to the requiremnets of the law.

[Airclues]

"Illegal" is probably the wrong word to use. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 uses the terms "Protected" and "Unprotected" Industrial Action. A breach of this act could render the strike "unprotected", but not "illegal".

Dave

[bubblesuk]

It's the word the judge used so i guess it's ok:ok::}

[RetiredBA/BY]

I rarely post on Prune but this time I am going to speak up.
None of your business I hear some say but it IS my business:
a. My son-in -law, daughter and new grandson depend on BA for their living and the stupidity of this industrial action IS threatening their security when BA is struggling with economic recession not to mention ash clouds and very high fuel prices to name three. What was their loss this last financial year ?
b. I am a customer, my wife and I fly SYD-LHR in Club twice a year and we DO pay our own fare.
c. I am a shareholder.

As I see it, Walsh is addressing the urgent need to improve productivity of BA in times of ruthless competition in the airline industry. Many key employment groups in BA, including pilots, have recognized the need and come to agreements to achieve that efficiency. I understand Walsh has said that CC will NOT lose any pay but DO have to become more productive, hence the reduction in crew numbers. If the rest of BA have made concessions what is so special about cabin crew ?? Beats me.
For those CC who have not yet recognized the reality of the commercial world we live in , let me tell them they ARE seriously threatening the very existence of BA and if you think it is bullet proof remember Swissair, Sabena, Pan Am, Eastern and Ansett, not to mention Laker, Court Line, and Air Europe !
This absurd and unrealistic strike action threatens the very existence of your company and if you really would like to know what it is like to be out of a job, talk to my ex Ansett friend who went from flying a 767, a job he loved, to mowing lawns to make ends (just) meet. He will tell you the reality of it all and its not nice, not nice at all.

And another example, long after I left BA I was a Captain with Britannia. The new incoming CEO, Burnell, made it quite clear we had to improve our efficiency or go out of business. We had an option, work harder with a fleet of brand new 757s or Thomson Corp would shut us down, strike action was pointless, it would merely hasten our demise. We went with Burnell, changed our working practices and the company prospered, no one was made redundant and no one lost commands, in fact some pilots did quite well out of it with the company paying for base moves and in the event we didn't work THAT much harder, but we WERE reaslistic. I believe TUI UK is now worth more than BA on the LSE.

So for God's sake lets hope this High Court ruling once and for all puts an end to this truly absurd industrial action and those CC who supported the strike at last begin to recognize commercial reality and the fact that BASSA has tried to lead you on a path to destruction.

Finally I would say that if these strikers are too callous, selfish, cynical or just plain stupid to see the huge damage they are doing to their employer and just how much risk they are taking with so many other people's jobs and livelihoods, I certainly hope that each and every striker is "replaced" with more astute, realistic, enthusiastic and equally competent people, the smaller British airlines and overseas companies employing expats such as Emirates and Etihad, with less generous conditions than BA are full of such people.
\
Its not too late but the abyss is approaching.

[TRX75]

I post for fellow PPRuners information the text of the full page advert placed by Unite in Tuesday's hard-copy Daily Mirror.

BA's bullies are
keeping me grounded

I would rather be doing the job I love, looking after the passengers who keep British Airways in business. Instead, I am fighting for my future. I want to tell you why.

I know airlines are in difficulties. That is why my union, Unite, has agreed to tens of millions of pounds worth of savings to help our company through hard times.

But having got all the cuts and changes required, British Airways is victimising and persecuting loyal and long-serving cabin crew for taking lawful strike action. More than 50 of my colleagues have been suspended or sacked, some with over 30 years of loyal service. Thousands of cabin crew and their families have had long-established travel arrangements scrapped for the rest of their working lives. And we are not allowed to speak to you about any of this on pain of dismissal.

British Airways represents a great British tradition. But there is another great British tradition which the company doesn't get - standing up to bullies. We have voted three times by overwhelming majorities to tell the bully to back off.

Treating cabin crew decently wouldn't cost the company an extra penny. Instead, it is blowing millions on trying to crush and humiliate me, when it has the savings it needs. Passengers, shareholders and the BA board need to be asking Willie Walsh WHY?

Please give us your support and get BA airborne again. Visit
Brutish Airways ? Support the BA Cabin Crew ? There is a better way (http://www.brutish-airways.com)
to find out the truth about this disputeThe advert includes a picture of a member of BA cabin crew with the byline 'posed by model to avoid bullying'
It seems from the model's expression that she's had dealings with one of BA's finest in the recent past. She's wearing that 'how dare you awful people disrupt my little jolly by requiring me to do my job' look. She has the look off to a tee - and very frightening it is too :eek:
I'm not going to comment - other than to say that it's an indication of the union's total lack of any appreciation of reality that they seek to undo all the damage they have caused with this load of b:mad:t.

[ChicoG]

There is a full page advert in the international Times yesterday, labelled "BA's Bullies are keeping me grounded". As if that wasn't rich enough, they have a link to a website:

Brutish Airways ? Support the BA Cabin Crew ? There is a better way (http://brutish-airways.com)

There you can watch an actress doing her best to come out with the usual bullls*t BASSA lines and some actor playing the "evil management henchman".

It makes you want to stick two fingers down your throat.

They do, however, provide a link to the company secretary's email, so I urge all like-minded SLF to do as I did, and email them with words of support and encouragement, urging them to rid the airline of this cancer of dour, miserable and unwelcoming old militants.

Regards,
Chico

[PaddyMiguel]

For those who need a little light relief whilst the Court of Appeal deliberates, try Mark Steel in The Indie

Mark Steel: BA strike - a complete load of ballots - Mark Steel, Commentators - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-ba-strike--a-complete-load-of-ballots-1976257.html)

[PaddyMiguel]

And this article, also in The Indie today, has some very interesting quotes lifted (how?) from the BASSA forum

Andy McSmith: A union in name only: why ballot blunders threaten Unite's resolve - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andy-mcsmith-a-union-in-name-only-why-ballot-blunders-threaten-unites-resolve-1976452.html)

[oldflyboy]

I have just watched this heartrending video, ~(SOB SOB), and it really makes me wonder about the calibre of whomsoever set this rubbish up for Unite! Still I expect the actors had a laugh, I hope they got more than the standard daily rate for their work.


On a further note I used the address in the 'send a comment to the chairman' box, changing the standard UNISON message, to send a very supportive email to Mr Walsh asking him to keep going against BASSA. Thank you Unison.

Oldflboy

[Snas]

As a video it is full of emoution but light on substance.

A written transcript, minus the near tears etc, would be an odd read indeed and would impart close to no information about the situation, not a clue as to what it is about, although I'm far from certain what the dispute is about myself now anyway!

[PaddyMiguel]

Snas, Snas, Snas! Hard-working, sensitive mum versus brutish, uncaring manager, geddit??

[Final 3 Greens]

Just watched the video - what a heap of crap.

Also sent in message, suggesting they pull their finger out and start firing the militants.

[pvmw]

On a further note I used the address in the 'send a comment to the chairman' box, changing the standard UNISON message, to send a very supportive email to Mr Walsh asking him to keep going against BASSA. Thank you Unison.

I also have sent a message of support to BA, using the conveniently provided link.

I also wished to copy my e-mail to Unite but, strangely enough (or not) they do not actually publish on their web site an e-mail address.

[RTR]

The newspapers are really ALL against the unions today. Some very good arguments and answers therein.

I believe the end of this dispute is close now. The signs are all there. Unite using words like "its a disgrace" when they cannot think of anything else to say. And with Unite having some infighting going on in regard to the coming elections for Gen Sec when Woodley and Simpson go, they are desperate to avoid collateral damage within. McCluskey has his head below the parapet because he dare not get involved now - its far too critical for him.

Then there is BASSA up its nasty, devious and oft times petty and pathetic tricks demonstrating all that is wrong with unions when they cannot offer a coherent reason for their actions but instead make silly little films and statements that beaten people always make, and everyone now sees through. And when did the dispute become IA against the withdrawal of perks like ST and re-reinstatement of the rogues who tried to take advantage of their positions to denigrate BA to their own ends.

This is a time for the CC to end this farce that BASSA started. Started in an attempt to break BA by any means including alienating its passengers. A VERY bad and stupid thing to do.

There are clearly now more cabin crew against any IA than there are for it and its time not to just shout at BASSA but to resign NOW, this minute, in the next hour. If you don't they will try to lead you to destruction. However, from the tone of some of their current thinking and actions they already know that the game is over and that they having nothing left. If the appeal goes against them tomorrow that IS the end and Unite will have to tell them they cannot any longer count on their support.

Willie Walsh will NOT give in and he WILL do whatever it takes to make BA great again. I suspect he will also forgive some of the staff - not all - because the trouble makers should go and he should first sever the link between LHR and LAX so that the so called Chairman of BASSA must pay her own air fare. Then issue warnings to the Mr Stott and other militants that their days are numbered over their vicious actions against the company.

I really do hope that the appeal judges will hold the injunction.

[Snas]

I believe the end of this dispute is close now. The signs are all there. Unite using words like "its a disgrace" when they cannot think of anything else to say. And with Unite having some infighting going on in regard to the coming elections for Gen Sec when Woodley and Simpson go, they are desperate to avoid collateral damage within.


Lets not forget that Simpson has already made his view clear when calling some BASSA reps "clowns" and cabin drew thinking they were going to win this "deluded".

[Mariner9]

An amusing contribution from an (alleged) CC member on the Sky news website:

I have been a BA cabin crew member for 3 years now and a proud member of Unite for just as long. BA customers are some of the most ill mannered complaining lot i have ever dealt with in my life. Big deal if you flight to wherever is cancelled!!! At the end of the day we, The cabin crew, deserve a heck of alot better treatment and conditions than what we currently get!

Sack Willie walsh, Increase the cabin crew wage, Reinstate my sacked colleagues immediatly along with our travel perks and lets get this strike over and done with!

ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE WEASEL WILLIE!!!

[Winch-control]

Sack Willie walsh, Increase the cabin crew wage, Reinstate my sacked colleagues immediatly along with our travel perks and lets get this strike over and done with!

ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE WEASEL WILLIE!!!

Yep and what is the other brain cell doing? Springs to mind......

[oggers]

Then there is BASSA up its nasty, devious and oft times petty and pathetic tricks demonstrating all that is wrong with unions when they cannot offer a coherent reason for their actions but instead make silly little films and statements that beaten people always make, and everyone now sees through. And when did the dispute become IA against the withdrawal of perks like ST and re-reinstatement of the rogues who tried to take advantage of their positions to denigrate BA to their own ends.

Yep, that's a fair characterisation of the BASSA approach.

6 months since the union's '12 days of christmas' farce, instead of coherent and substantial reasons that would justify a strike all we have heard from the pro-strikers are a series of inconsistent and wholly unconvincing grievances that add up to a load of waffle. :*

[oggers]

Helen Pidd of the Guardian reports that "81% of BA staff voted for the industrial action". But as a mere 70% of the union voted, and many cc are no longer BASSA members, that 81% is almost certainly less than 50% of cabin crew. But she probably knows that really.

[Snas]

Oggers:
But she probably knows that really.

Not necessarily, why not write to her and advise her of the facts of the matter. She may have just cut and pasted something from some release somewhere, which is what seems to happen most of the time these days..!

I seethe and the constant reference to “50 staff suspended for striking” despite the fact that 20 are already back at work and none were suspended “for striking”.

It’s best to avoid the papers these days really, all too easy to get angry I find… TV aint much better either for that matter.

[ChicoG]

Unite using words like "its a disgrace" when they cannot think of anything else to say.

... and "macho"....

:}

[Ten West]

On a further note I used the address in the 'send a comment to the chairman' box, changing the standard UNISON message, to send a very supportive email to Mr Walsh asking him to keep going against BASSA. Thank you Unison.


That's one from me too. Asking that he deals with them by way of a P45 before they screw up yet more people's travel plans.
Isn't it kind of the union to provide us a pre-prepared email that we can simply edit? Much easier to express our opinions to Mr Walsh this way. See? They are good for something after all.

:ok:

[footster]

I find it a little bit hard to understand maybe I am being thick but BA are losing millions and eventually it will have to come to a stop then where will the employees be then. And going on strike is only adding to the losses whilst at the sametime I can understand their frustrations but surely there needs tobe a compromise because after all BA use far more cabin crew per flight and they are paid more than most other airlines. With the economic situation at the moment most may not have a job to go back to.

[Final 3 Greens]

I find it a little bit hard to understand maybe I am being thick but

Have you considered that it may not be you who is thick? :}

[rossbox]

As a employee at Manchester airport I have seen what companys will do to lower there costs and I support the crews they have a right to protect there conditions etc.

[Ten West]

Have a read through all the previous posts on the subject then see if you feel the same way. :hmm:

[Hand Solo]

An illuminating comment from a BASSA member:

My partner is with VS and someone on the forum asked if VS was busy, my partner operated the HKG this week, absolutely chocker and my Mum is a business travel agent and she said most VS flights are sold out. That says it all. I think one person is doing a good job of driving our revenue else where?

My bold. They really do believe they bear no responsibility for their actions.

[ChicoG]

Unite members will travel in an open top double decker bus through the City of London shortly before the court decision is announced, and the union said it wanted to warn the airline's top investors that BA chief executive Willie Walsh was playing "fast and loose" with their money.

Someone needs to remind these idiots that Walsh has the full backing of the board and the city in excising the BASSA tumour.

"Malevolent Union" ring any bells?

[ChicoG]

You're right. They believe for example that their union offered cuts worth 140 million. They have not been told that these were proven false.

They believe they have always been "available for negotiation".

You have to be pretty dumb to swallow all this horse sh*t.

[oggers]

I think the decision will most likely go the union's way but that isn't such a bad thing. WW will just go ahead break the strike.

[PPRuNe Pop]

The appeal court has voted in favour of Unite.

[ChicoG]

They've won the right to lose staff travel again.

Whoop de doo.

Brings the end game ever nearer.

[Mariner9]

Fair enough, clearly a close decision but Unite won on this occasion :D

No lets see how they do in the strike. I wonder if more CC members than last time will be willing to risk losing ST in a magnanimous attempt to get it reinstated for those who lost it last time?

[ChicoG]

No Mariner, they are only allowed to strike over the reason in the initial ballot.

If there's any of them left come June, they can ballot for a strike over ST or disciplinaries.

:zzz:

[slf22]

Is there a nuclear option? Is it now time to press that button? Will there be a BA left come July?

[Mariner9]

Nope, they voted to strike over imposition, but an individual's reasons to strike having held a lawful (it finally seems) ballot are entirely up to them.

Unite say the BA offer is acceptable if ST is replaced and disciplinaries dropped. Ergo the strike is now solely about these two issues - the original reason for the ballot is irrelevant.

[ChicoG]

Mariner,

Protection against the strike for the initial ballot ends on June 12th.

It doesn't matter why they think they're striking, they need another ballot to strike past then and enjoy some measure of legal protection.

Added: They'd already stated that they were going to do another ballot.

But there seems to be some confusion over they've won an appeal or they've won the right to appeal.

[Mariner9]

Agreed Chico. I also agree (to an extent) with Baggers.

Personally, I can't see BA handing out P45's to the strikers come June. Despite what BASSA say, I consider that WW would still prefer a negotiated agreement even if it does leave the rabid BA haters in place (why the heck don't they leave if its so bad!)

Difficult negotiating with someone who only says no but that's what WW gets paid for.

[ChicoG]

Difficult negotiating with someone who only says no but that's what WW gets paid for.

No he doesn't. He gets paid to run the airline for the benefit of the board and shareholders.

Juggling HR is only part of his job.

If he can find a way of cutting costs and bringing the airline back to profitability, neither of those parties are going to care too much about the fate of a bunch of overpaid, underworked, troublemaking BASSA CSDs and pursers.

[419]

Apologies if this has been asked and answered elsewhere on this thread (I've done a bit of speedreading but may have missed it).

As it is the union that has organised the strike, why is it that only some airports are affected?
When the strike was due to start on the 18th, BA was saying that flight from LGW would be unaffected, and that most of the stoppages would be at LHR.

(and a big :ok: for the crew that will still be working throughout the strike period)

[Snas]

Big question 419, with a big answer and lots of history involved.

The small answer version is that the CC at Gatwick although able to strike are choosing (for the greater part) not to.

----

On another note, I'm pleased with todays ruling, for two reasons.

Firstly it was not a just ruling to grant the injunction in the first place, not really. And were I involved in IA that I supported I would not want these sort of hunt for the tiny error rulings to become the norm.

Secondly, if the CC want to walk towards the cliff, let em. Take the pain and the bad PR now I say for the benefit of the future welbeing of the company, it's staff and pax and deal with the trouble makers now. I dont want them looking after me when flying with BA and my partner is certainly sick of working with them on board.

[Snas]

Baggersup, the usual group of Unite members joined by some Right to Work (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=21280) supporters were protesting outside the court today, whilst I have not seen the report you mention I would suggest it's them making the number up. Oh, and press of course.

[The SSK]

419: an oversimplified answer is that the Gatwick staff accepted changes to their T&Cs a couple of years ago – the alternative was the closure of the BA base there. BASSA did not fight very hard on their behalf.

The imposition of changes that the strike is supposed to be about broadly brings manning levels at LHR down to where they already are at Gatwick.

Despite being the ‘poor relation’, the LGW people do seem to be considerably more well-adjusted than their LHR brethren (and their customers seem to appreciate it too).

[ChicoG]

Difficult negotiating with someone who only says no but that's what WW gets paid for.

No he doesn't. He gets paid to run the airline for the benefit of the board and shareholders.

Juggling HR is only part of his job.

If he can find a way of cutting costs and bringing the airline back to profitability, neither of those parties are going to care too much about the fate of a bunch of overpaid, underworked, troublemaking BASSA CSDs and pursers.

[R Knee]

I'm confused. I've just seen a picture of the opentop bus with placards

- Bullying is BAd for business -

Why then are they wanting their bullies re-instated?


Incidentally if they are wearing their BA Tabards is this a breach of the rules?

[Snas]

Latest from BASSA: -

Staff Travel
Unite's lawyers have written to BA on behalf of all individual members of cabin crew who currently have, or who at some future date, may have their travel concession withdrawn as a result of taking part in lawful industrial action.

The union's letter states that this disciplinary sanction was imposed in flagrant disregard for the company's own internal disciplinary procedure EG901. Furthermore, we are exploring the potential contractual nature of staff travel.

The union goes on to argue that by ignoring the procedure staff were denied the opportunity to establish the facts, to state their case and challenge BA's action. Furthermore withdrawing staff travel concessions as a sanction against exercising a right to strike is potentially a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The union is demanding an immediate response from BA on these issues.

My Bold - they should tread careful here, tax liability could be the result of this one, and that would hurt, lots.

Source: - http://uniteba.com/ (http://uniteba.com/)

[bubblesuk]

Honestly you couldn't make this strike saga up could you? if a screen writer came up with this as a story line it would be rejected as to far fetched. I personally see this appeal as a good thing for BA.

[Diplome]

Snas:

I agree. If Unite is foolish enough to argue that staff travel is contractual, and heaven help them if they do win in court, the tax man cometh.

Do the BASSA membership EVER stop and say "Wait, this may not be a good thing?".

[Skylion]

As has been mentioned elsewhere one big problem that the strikers and militants are building up for themselves is their plumeting image. They are coming across as self obsessed, pathalogically hostile to the company they work for and totally uninterested in their customers.The latter will ask themselves; "Are these my kind of people? Do I really want to fly with them- or risk flying with them?". The simple answer is "No".The rational choice of how to travel/not to travel is then obvious.
It appears that despite all the efforts of many who want to make a success of it, do a good job and enjoy it, BA may, because of the vicious antipathy of a minority of staff be incapable of reinventing itself. That being so it may be at the end of its life cycle and the shareholders best served by the winding up of the company, sale of assets and the return of any residual profits to them. Game over.

[Tin67]

I don't think CC need to strike next week, the damage to BA is already done as customers will be deserting the airline for more reliable airlines.

My company is clamping down on travel, but even so, where necessary BA are definitely off the list. It seems the Star Alliance airlines are the preference now for all trips. As a large US corporate that spends $millions each year on flights, others like us taking their "business" travel elsewhere is going to hurt BA, especially on the US routes.

I have one personal route left to fly with BA in June and I am hoping that additional IA dates are not brought in to ruin this special trip. I was booked to go out next week originally, but with that flight now cancelled I had no option but to change. Thankfully for me, I am not reliant on being away over the school holidays like thousands of other families are. I hope they all get away.

As for the summer, it was a case of ABBA and I'm booked elsewhere as I cannot afford for my family holiday to be ruined by a rediculous strike.

BA - Unite, sort it out one way or another before it's too late.

[BetterByBoat]

Interesting a few posts back about the potential PR disaster ... not sure I agree. I think that people have very short memories and my experience so far is that passengers want BA to continue flying with CC who are committed to the airline and the passengers and not to be held to ransom by some dinasour union.

The more of this that goes to the courts, especially the European courts, the more it becomes a long playing lottery. And the less BA can shape events. From what I have seen so far WW has said what he will do and then done it. Interesting in the Times that he said "During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not." .... I think it is clear that come the end of the 12 week protection that something will happen. Compulsory redundancies? New contracts (sign or leave) ? Who knows. But ironically for BASSA, I think we'll find that come mid-June football rather than unions will be the main news .... convenient timing for WW to do what he needs to do with the press far more interested in Englands route to world cup glory .......

[Snas]

Snas:
I agree. If Unite is foolish enough to argue that staff travel is contractual, and heaven help them if they do win in court, the tax man cometh.


…and to take this train of thought a bit further, were ST to become a taxable benefit in kind, then any undeclared post boarding upgrade from WT to Club for example could be tax evasion? – oh what a can of worms, potentially, and what a horrible legacy left for CC to not enjoy for years after should it come to pass.

[jetset lady]

what a horrible legacy left for CC to not enjoy for years after should it come to pass.

And to go even further still, will it be just the cabin crew that are affected? If staff travel is declared as contractual, then will that not cover anyone, in any UK airline, that benefits from it?

[Tin67]

I agree. If Unite is foolish enough to argue that staff travel is contractual, and heaven help them if they do win in court, the tax man cometh

Wouldn't that be ironic? A Labour backing union handed a healthy taxation option to the new coalition government.

If staff travel is declared as contractual, then will that not cover anyone, in any UK airline, that benefits from it?

That would be far reaching and can you even begin to imagine the reaction from all airline staff if that were to happen? :mad:

[pj67coll]

Obviously I made a mistake when I booked with BA. Unfortunately I had not discovered this forum when I did so. Now I'm stuck with them for our flights on June 18th and July 04th. At this stage the only thing I hope is that there will actually be flights on those days and that, ideally there won't be any of these morons on the aircraft. I'd prefer to have a crew comprised entirely of volunteers. For future flights wether or not I book BA will depend entirely on Walsh managing to break the union and dump the trash. Failure to do so will result in me using anyone but BA in the future.

[Diplome]

Tin67:

As Unite represents more than just the Cabin Crew at BA I imagine that there are a few other groups going "You're doing what!!!???!!

[Capot]

My company is clamping down on travel, but even so, where necessary BA are definitely off the list.

As with a large number of other companies, including mine; BA went off our list when we rebooked everything forward from last November due to the threat of strikes in December and beyond. We're not lareg buyers sompared to some. £50K spent to date on other airlines that would have been spent on BA is a fair estimate.

I'm very sorry for those in BA who want to make it great again, and who despise the strikers for the very real risk of putting BA out of business that they are creating for a stupid, ridiculous non-cause. But I'm not risking our business in a probably futile attempt to help BA by buying flights that may not happen.

Unite and BASSA have their own agenda, we all know that. But why these brain-dead morons allow themselves to be used as cannon-fodder is beyond me.

[R Knee]

Bringing this perk to the full public glare may inadvertently alert the Taxman to a potential source of income, whether or not Unite win the case. Maybe this is their scorched earth policy - bankrupt BA and spoil perks they're no longer entitled (no longer employed as CC).

The militants do seem to want to put off the passengers, don't they realise we pay their wages. Surely they understand that not all will return - scorched earth?

[just an observer]

The taxable value of a benefit, whether contractual or not, is not the market value of the benefit, but what it costs the employer to supply it. If it cost BA more to supply than the employee pays, there would be a taxable amount even if it were not contractual.

As staff travel is on an otherwise empty seat, and is profitable in respect of the 90% discount tickets, no tax would apply.

I think, but am not sure, that BA already makes a 'settlement' payment agreed with the Revenue in respect of the 100% discount tickets. As they are still technically otherwise empty seats, the only cost is the supply of food and drink. Staff are specifically barred from accepting the in flight goody bag, I'd guess this is make sure the revenue don't include the value of that in their settlement calculation.

So if Unite wins the case for staff travel being contractual, it may make no difference to it being tax free.

[Diplome]

just an observer:

Interesting post. My reading has told me that there is a very specific reason why the unions have always left staff travel as a "perk", and not an essential element of the employees' contracts.

Even the union has played tippy toe with this issue. I believe they see the danger of letting that dog off the leash.

[just an observer]

Diplome - see revenue website here

The benefits code: cash equivalent of benefits: in house benefits: marginal additional expense: Pepper v Hart (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM21110.htm)

[BA-BEANCOUNTER]

Just an Observer,

You are correct.
When I was at BA we has a PSA agreement to cover to cost of providing ID100's. That means that tax was paid by the employer not the employee. (I've been out of BA for 3 years so this may have changed)
ID 90's were judged to be non-taxable as the cost to the employer was covered.

Whether a benefit is contractual or not does not impact it's tax impact. The question is whether the benefit is remuneration for employement, e.g if my employer writes off a loan to me, full tax with have to be paid on it.


If this were not the case then many of us would receive substantial "non contractual" benefits, especially when faced with a 60% marginal tax rate.

For those of you with a masochistic tendency start here
Employment income: general: table of contents (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim00505.htm)

and look through the benefit in kind rules

[just an observer]

I can't find confirmation online but my memory is that BA actually paid part, a large part, of the teachers legal costs refered to in the test case Pepper v Hart above, as they could see if the case was lost, staff travel would be next.

[air pig]

Well it will soon goodbye BA, who would want to book with an airline and then be denied travel if others are flying to the same destination. BASSA have to remember that BA are not a monoply supplier of air travel unlike their unionised brothers in the state sector for example education and the National Health Service, competition is not big enough just yet in education.

WW brought all BA long haul into LHR & LGW, other airlines have moved into their place and remember fron the north or even the midlands it can be easier to go to AMS or CDG than either of the two London airports.

BA has no given right to exist, look at Sabena Swissair Pan Am TWA or Braniff in the past. A private airline to exist has to offer a service that passengers WANT as a first choice not a last when all other options are exhausted, what part of this do BASSA not appreciate.

If BA goes into liquidation what will BASSA members do then, want state aid to keep flying, not with this government in a million years or at least the next 5. People will look to others as a national flag carrier.

BASSA wake up your UB40 awaits soon, others will laugh at you as they take your market and if you are liquidated, just imagine if someone like Emirates or Qatar take you over, your feet will touch the ground on the way out of the door. Maybe that would be a good thing in the long run. I personallly would rather fly Emirates any day than BA.

[Snas]

Mr Walsh firmly placing BASSA in the frame.
The more the better in my view, BASSA are the issue here.

YouTube - British Airways: Willie Walsh on the Court of Appeal decision on the BA cabin crew strike 20 May (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUbgbMCgsoY)

[Justanotherpax]

Anyone else see the silly women stood behind Derek Simpson outside court today, laughing like drains, jumping up and down in glee at the result?

Bassa/Unite are just enjoying this a bit too much!!!

If there were any sympathy left from the public, the demeanour of these people on TV will ensure it's all gone.

[Aquatone1]

My wife and I were watching and thought the behaviour was poor. Indeed, we commented at the time that they would deter us from flying with BA!

My heart is with all the hard working people at BA, I hope you get the opportunity to show the world how good you can be. Best wishes for the future.

[RetiredBA/BY]

I have just seen these complete muppets with their open topped bus making absolute fools of themselves in London and, thanks to the BBC World service on the world media.

Who in god's name would want to be on an aircraft with people such as these in charge of their cabin safety and service. Can't they see, or don't they care, about the enormous damage they are doing to the reputation and image of BA as well as the financial damage when the company is already making huge losses.

The BBC reports that this strike will cost BA GBP 160m all down to the actions of 3,000 militants, thats over GBP 50,000 each, more than they are worth and vastly more than retraining a replacement, who could be hired at market rate producing an immediate saving, will cost.

This is now a battle, a war even, to save BA. Moderation in war is imbecility, so lets earnestly hope that WW sacks each and every one of the strikers and he and the rest of the dedicated staff at BA can get down to rebuilding the companies finances and reputation. If I were still flying I sure as hell wouldn't want any of these strikers in my crew after they have shown so little commitment to the company who have hitherto looked after and rewarded them so well.

Cant sack them ? Thats what the controllers in the USA thought back in the '80s. Reagan didn't see it that way, they went, he wasn't as PATCO thought, bluffing. ! It takes a LOT less time and money to train a steward or stewardess and there are lot of CC still working in BA who could well fill the senior positions and enjoy the benefits of promotion. So lets get on with it, NOW.

[Ten West]

I'm not booking any more BA flights for the foreseeable future. It's just too risky now.

I'm not even sure anymore that BA can be saved unless Mr Walsh sacks the lot of them and is seen by the public and the city to have finally, once and for all, removed the cancer that is BASSA from what was once a proud airline.

If he leaves it much longer it may well be too late. :uhoh:

[Winch-control]

The airline said it currently had £1.7bn in the bank.

BBC News - British Airways in record £531m loss (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10135112.stm)

"Returning the business to profitability requires permanent change across the company and it's disappointing that our cabin crew union fails to recognise that," Mr Walsh said.

[ExecClubPax]

I too saw yesterday's disgraceful antics of reputed BASSA/Unite supporters on the court steps and the open top bus. I am now uncertain as to whether my safety and welfare during a flight can be put into the hands of such people.

In my opinion, it's no longer safe flying with British Airways. Consequently, unless this cancer is removed immediately, I would support any move to petition the CAA to revoke BA's license to operate. This would inject some predictability into booking flights that actually depart and safeguard passengers from the brainless actions of BA's luddite cabin crew.

[oggers]

Simpson on radio 5 live now...

[Tin67]

£531M! And this doesn't even factor in the disruption from the volcano, let alone the strikes.

I want to send a message of encouragement to all the BA staff that are backing their company to keep it flying and turn it back into a profitable airline delivering world class services.

I also commend the CC that will turn out for work next week and the volunteers CC that support them in their endeavours to throw mud in the face of BASSA militants and all the sheep that follow them.

To the striking CC, step out of your own little world and see the bigger picture and damage you are doing. The impact of your actions clearly hits BA in the pocket, but also consider the damage you're doing to the rest of BA and youselves (not that I care with the latter).

You don't appear to see that, let alone the cost to customers and the knock on effect to suppliers and any business dependant on BA.

Now is not the time for this, you all have jobs and are not being asked for considerable changes, so wake up and smell the coffee you serve.

I am flying Club World in 3 weeks time and I want to be hosted by the CC that actually want to be there, not the wingers and likes of the individuals seen jumping around outside the court and on the open top bus yesterday. Oh dear :ugh:, I trust they are pleased with the TV appearances.

[oggers]

...Interesting that when Nicky Campbell mentioned travel perks, Derek Simpson claimed they weren't perks but 'travel arrangements' for a 'global workforce'.

How ironic that when Walsh first stated clearly that he would remove travel perks the strikers were falling over themselves to tell the world they weren't much good anyway. Now they are essential 'travel arrangements' for a 'global workforce' and the main stumbling block for a deal. A deal which, interestingly, is otherwise basically the same as that which the strikers found wholly unacceptable when they first went out.

In other words the strike was unnecessary, has failed to get the better deal the strikers wanted, and now they are just hoping to get away with their original (rather valuable) staff concessions still intact.

[ChicoG]

British Airways has reported its biggest annual loss due to lower passenger numbers, higher costs and the impact of strike action.

The flag carrier lost £531m ($766m) in the 12 months to March - BA's biggest loss since it was privatised in 1987.

And now.... the end is near....

Because who is going to give a toss when BA sack the strikers?

As the saying goes, if you want sympathy, it's between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary.

I for one will cheer and clap when these cancerous ne'er-do-wells are chucked out on their ears, and I doubt I'll be alone.

Come on Willie, finish the job off. You'll probably get a rousing cheer from the rest of BA as well.

[Mariner9]

I don't know why the media let Simpson and co have such an easy ride.

Clearly, if the differences between the sides are now deemed "trivial" by the Union, they are being just as obstinate as BA in prolonging this dispute, which unless ended in the next few days, could very result in the loss of jobs for ~20,000 Unite members.

Meanwhile, I watched WW get a grilling on breakfast time. In my view, he did not come across well. He should have absolutely rubbished the suggestion that ST was now the issue and made it clear that the suspensions were over serious allegations and reinstatement of these poisonous individuals would cause outrage amongst the majority of hard working staff at BA. The damage to the brand of all this adverse publicity is incalculable.

He really needs to get an urgent grip of the situation and announce immediately that in the light of on-going unsustainable losses, anyone striking on Monday will be made redundant. Even if these redundancies are subsequently deemed unfair and compensation has to be paid it would work out cheaper in the long run, and at least the more poisonous CC's would have been removed.

Get a grip Willie.

[Duffus]

I honestly think that the unions and the striking CC believe that no matter how bad the losses to London Airline (BA) are, the government will not allow it to fail. Therefore it does not matter to them how much their company loses, the tax payer will bail them out just like they did the banks.
Oh I do hope that does not happen.

[Sprogget]

You know the one difference between the unions & British Steel, British Leyland, the National Coal Board?

The unions are still here.

Wake up BA strikers, when you've killed the business, Derek Simpson, Tony Woodley & all the other barons will still be in their big fat jobs, with their big fat salaries, living in their big fat houses, with their big fat missuses & you'll be on the dole, scratching about for scraps.

If you don;t like your job, leave. If your boss is a prat, leave, walk away. Life's too short to get sold down the river on a hopeless cause.

[poppiholla]

in these tough economic times i can hardly believe the behaviour. All around people are losing jobs and having wages and terms and conditions cut back. Moreover BA is now in such a bad position posting such losses, soon the situation could become even worse. they need a paradigm shift in culture...

[PaddyMiguel]

This is how Simon Calder of The Indie neatly sums up the whole mess:


A squabble that has its roots in whether or not the senior cabin-crew member on British Airways long-haul flights should push a trolley has escalated to a national dispute over the future of industrial relations. The average passenger, though, long sidelined in this increasingly acrimonious tussle, merely wants to know if his or her flight is going to take off. However the dispute unfolds, the damage to British Airways – and by extension to its workforce – intensifies with each passing day of stalemate.



source http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-calder-airline-faces-the-music-as-abba-chorus-grows-1978884.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-calder-airline-faces-the-music-as-abba-chorus-grows-1978884.html)

[gazbert]

I'm one of the average passengers Mr Calder referred to. On the 27th I fly to Miami before heading onto Peru - I'm one of the lucky ones on that day since my flight IS going ahead however I still have no idea about my return flight on the 9th and I won't find out until the 31st... Four days after I've already been in Peru.
Potentially I'm going be trying to call BA customer service on my mobile across the Atlantic to rebook a later flight and then having to call into my office to tell them why I won't be back at work when I said I will.

These members of BASSA and Unite are literally screwing with my life and to see them taking delight in it on the news is difficult to take. The one overriding thought I have is "I'll never risk flying with BA again" and that's a sad state of affairs for all the BA staff who simply want to go to work.

[fincastle84]

SC's attitude is very interesting. Prior to the planned Christmas strike he was very sympathetic to the CC. That has changed dramatically as he has woken up to the fact that the miltants are either hell bent on getting their own selfish ways, or alternatively bringing BA to its' knees.

What I am totally unable to understand is what they gain by bringing on mass redundancy for all BA's employees. Having watched Mr Walsh's interview this morning, Bassa should be in no doubt that those employees who have been dismissed for bullying & intimidation will NOT be reinstated.

[OSAGYEFO2]

CC Shape up or ship out SIMPLES

[Diplome]

fincastle:

I did not see Mr. Walsh's appearance.

Can you expand a bit on your observation regarding his comments about the disciplinary procedures?

Thank you.

[fincastle84]

Prior to WW's appearance, Derek Simpson was interviewed. He came out with his usual cr*p about macho management yawn, yawn & insisted that as part of any agreement for an end to IA, ALL employees who had been dismissed for whatever reason MUST be reinstated.

The somewhat biased BBC interviewer put this point to WW, indicating that in his opinion that this would be but a small concession by BA. Mr Walsh left him in no doubt that any employee who had been dismissed for bullying or intimidation would NOT be reinstated. Therefore there appears to be a complete deadlock.

Hope that this helps. If not please PM me.

[Diplome]

fincastle:

That helped...and thank you.

Good to hear that as of this date BA is not allowing BASSA to abuse its disciplinary process.

[Pohutu]

Some posters on here have suggested that BA should simply sack the strikers and pay compensation for unfair dismissal. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the Employment Tribunal has the power to order reinstatement. If there had been an easy solution to this dispute, I think that it would have been found by now.

[reevery]

£1.7billion in the bank? That's peanuts if you're losing approx £500m a year and rising. That gives the company three years insurance, at most. As is the case in ANY business, if you spend your savings, and you aren't generating profit, you're history. Three years might seem like a long time, but what business writes a plan that has it being wound up in 36 months?

[Hotel Mode]

though, that the Employment Tribunal has the power to order reinstatement.

They do, but the company can ignore it on payment of a further fine.

Nothing in the regs about what T+Cs they have to be reinstated on either.

[Capot]

The sight of those people capering about outside the court yesterday "celebrating" their "victory" made me wonder, assuming that most were BA staff, why BA employs people with the IQ of a turnip.

(So who were the two lardbuckets who were so prominent in the group, looking uncomfortable?)

It beggars belief that anyone can be so happy about winning a case that allows them to do all possible to destroy their future.

The silly, credulous tart in a hi-viz vest with her face painted on who rushed about excitedly kissing the union dinosaurs embodied the stupidity of the whole bunch. As for the bus-ride through the city, it must have strengthened the support of everyone who saw it for BA to get rid of this toxic cancer once and for all.

[bandit2106]

These members of BASSA and Unite are literally screwing with my life and to see them taking delight in it on the news is difficult to take. The one overriding thought I have is "I'll never risk flying with BA again" and that's a sad state of affairs for all the BA staff who simply want to go to work.


I flew BA in December, they were having a strike, but a judge intervened and I got home. I flew BA in March (yes I'm a sucker), my outward flight got cancelled and it took me 1 hr 20 mins on the phone to rebook. Flights were operated efficiently by Jet2 and Air Finland. I was unsure how I would be getting back to the UK, but the return was confirmed a few days before my travel. Only a few stress filled days then.

Just like Gazza's experience, for this strike,I had a return flight booked, where only the outward leg was confirmed as running. I was not prepared to be stranded abroad if BA cannot make a decision about a flight I paid for months ago against a published timetable. So, I won't travel, and because BA would not move my flights to the dates I wanted /won't give me a refund, I will be walking away from BA permanently.

I have lost money on non refundable car parking, and the flights. There is also the emotional cost, which like thousands of other victims who have paid good money and received sod all cannot generally be priced up.

[Pohutu]

Hotel Mode

Yes, the company can refuse to comply with a reinstatement order, but there are two consequences. Firstly, an additional amount of compensation (not strictly a fine) can be awarded for the failure to reinstate. Secondly, the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal is lifted, so there is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.

[Neptunus Rex]

I think that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider all the BA staff on the open topped omnibus to be bringing the company into disrepute.
Grounds for dismissal? It would be a start.

[RTR]

When I was reading the main CC thread, with the exception of few with heads firming planted in 'sand.' (?). I felt so sorry for the girls and boys who desperately want this nonsense of a strike bought to end. It is clear they feel that BASSA and UNITE are intent in doing harm to BA. Something that is blatantly wrong and totally stupid. Yet Derek Simpson calls BASSA cabin staff "deluded clowns"

What are they striking for today?? "A shortfall of £60M" - "Pay terms and conditions" - "imposition" - "new Fleet" or the "return of ST and the reinstatement of those fired." Which one is it? It changes almost daily. Does anyone know in the union? Woodley looks in despair every time he appears on TV. WW is dumfounded and so is everyone else while we wait for June 12th - or before. WW will not allow more time or water under the bridge for much longer. He can't.

I know two girls who are so unsure where things are headed that they cry every day. This attitude by unions who live in the 70's is unforgivable. They don't think that, but the papers do and the overall staff of BA do. But do BASSA give a damn? No they do not. They will NOT win, though they think they will, the strikers will be bought to account, though they think they won't. But one thing is certain AND THIS SHOULD BE GOTTEN THROUGH THEIR THICK HEADS, WW will not give in. BASSA/UNITE have taken it too far. UNITE will rue the day they allowed themselves to get into bed with BASSA.

Those in BASSA who have resigned their membership can watch with interest how their colleagues who have not done so, are being led by the nose to the slaughter house. It will not be a pretty sight.

The wonderful girls of BA who have stuck by BA can feel proud that they took the right stance. The public will welcome you back. I truly believe that they will.

[dudleydick]

I have read (and heard on TV) that 10% of BA's regular fliers have changed allegiance permananetly to other airlines. Is there any substansive proof of this? Where does this figure come from? Thumb suck?

[Teessider53]

By reading this forum and talking to many people it is obvious that most sympathy lies with BA and not with the cabin crew who voted for industrial action. It seems that the majority are being led bad a hard line attitude of the unions that lie back in the 1970's.
It is not hard to see where this could end up - with BA going to the wall and them all being out of work.
I feel really sorry for the cc who just want to get on with their jobs and provide a good service to their passengers. The strikers do not give a toss to the misery and disruption that they are causing by their greed and/or stupidity denying many people what they have saved up all year for.
I come from the North East where many workers have felt real hardship ie CORUS and Garlands going to the wall - they dont get or never did any flight perks etc.
Must agree with posters who commented on that painted witch on court steps and on the omnibus - wouldn't like to have her as cc on my flight - though it would keep the kids quiet.
Seriously though ditch the bullying hardliners and keep your jobs or just resign -there are many in the North East who would take your place

[bizdev]

A number of posters over the past few weeks have mentioned that WW should/would/wll use the nuclear option i.e. sack the militants and take the 'hit' (fine) at the tribunals which would likely follow.

If I was in WW's position I would most likely resort to this option in order to stem the ongoing bleeding of customer confidence, but hasn't (yet), and I wonder why. Well he is obviously cleverer than I am (I am not in charge of one of the world's largest airlines) and he has access to Legal and HR expertise that I could only dream of - plus a strategic planning department (I assume) with experts in scenario planing (probably) - so is he holding his powder dry until the right moment or is there something that I am missing?

It got me wondering - what would happen if WW went Nuclear? What would Unite do? Would this trigger the mobilisation of the whole of the Unite group of unions or even the rest of the UK Trade Unions - a general strike - as this would set a worrying precedence for the trade union movement as a whole? Could we see the police charging the barricades with horses like in the miners strike, and country-wide protest?

Just a thought
Bizdev

[Snas]

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the Employment Tribunal has the power to order reinstatement.

Out of 151,000 cases last year, 7 were awarded reinstatement - like those odds?

Annual Reports (http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Publications/publications.htm)

Extract: -
Employment Tribunals accepted 151,000 claims in 2008/9, a decrease of
20% on the 2007/8 figure (189,300), but an increase of 14% on the
2006/7 figure of 132,600.

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

[What the Fug]

Still cannot understand what this argument is about, but get the feeling that what an old miner said to me is rather apt

Joe Gormley never called us out unless he thought we could win



Not very comfortable about living in a country were BA tactic rule though

[pvmw]

It got me wondering - what would happen if WW went Nuclear? What would Unite do? Would this trigger the mobilisation of the whole of the Unite group of unions or even the rest of the UK Trade Unions - a general strike -

Could you actually imagine anyone who is a member of any other part of Unite going on strike in support of BASSA?? There is no support for them outside their own little world. Even McClusky has done a runner. I'm sure the militants think everyone else will support them, but we've been seeing for the last year how deluded they are.

Come on WW, This nonsense has gone on long enough. Put an end to it once and for all. Sack the strikers and replace them with people who want to work rather than ride the gravy train. The passengers, shareholders, rest of the workforce and the GOOD CC will all support you.

[Hotel Mode]

Hotel Mode

Yes, the company can refuse to comply with a reinstatement order, but there are two consequences. Firstly, an additional amount of compensation (not strictly a fine) can be awarded for the failure to reinstate. Secondly, the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal is lifted, so there is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.

Its not unlimited, its very limited, see below. Tribunals hardly ever call for reinstatement anyhow. Especially where the return of said employee is likely to cause problems, something I dont think BA would have much trouble proving.

Unfair Dismissal Claims: The Additional Award
Should the employer fail to comply with a tribunal order to reinstate or re-engage the employee, the tribunal can award 26-52 weeks pay in addition to the basic and compensatory awards..

Given the amount BA will save on lower basics for new staff its still a big win for BA should they wish to use this route.

[Parsnip]

Joe Gormley never called us out unless he thought we could win

so very very true WTF
I'm a ppl I dont pretend to be an airline employee but I've had more hard end IR experience than most on here, and most of that in the late 70s early 80s when we were big lads taking on Mrs Thatcher.
This strike is doomed to fail, the world has moved on but for christs sake what on earth are the BA board doing keeping on this muppet WW who manages to lose them £500M annually. Sack him and maybe the airline will survive to fly another day.................................

[ChicoG]

This strike is doomed to fail, the world has moved on but for christs sake what on earth are the BA board doing keeping on this muppet WW who manages to lose them £500M annually. Sack him and maybe the airline will survive to fly another day.

Have you been in a cave for the last 18 months?

Do you know how many airlines have gone bankrupt through loss of business?

Do you know how many airline employees have lost their jobs since the start of the financial crisis? (Did you even notice there was a financial crisis?).

Do you know how much these striking militants have cost BA in that time?

How much the winter lockdown and the ash cloud cost the airline?

Walsh is there with the backing of the board of BA and its shareholders. He is probably the only reason it hasn't already gone down the toilet.

And this despite the best efforts of some of the most expensive cabin crew workforce in the industry - most of which goes to the very overpaid BASSA troublemakers that are driving the airline to the wall.

I would suggest you start reading up on what has happened both in the industry and the global economy before you make any more ludicrous and flippant statements like the above.

[moleytt]

I felt so sorry for the girls and boys who desperately want this nonsense of a strike bought to end. .
Having also been reading the main CC thread, I totally agree with you on this.

From some of the CC who have posted, it's clear they are getting really upset about the criticism being dished out to CC in general without regard to those who didn't strike and who are trying to keep BA flying. I think this should be remembered when posting on here - there are many devoted CC who shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as the striking minority.

The wonderful girls of BA who have stuck by BA can feel proud that they took the right stance. The public will welcome you back. I truly believe that they will.
Absolutely. They get my vote :D

moleytt

[bubblesuk]

I doubt very much the public will welcome them back, if any public do care about this strike then i doubt they will have much ,if any, sympathy or empathy for them. lets not forget that out in the real world many,many thousends of people have lost jobs, had hours and wages cut etc. Some have to survive on minimum wage, so why would they give two hoots about the highest paid CC hanging on to allready very good wages? The simple answer is they won't. the only time the public will care is if they are wondering if their flights will go ahead or not. There is a perception that CC are little more than airheaded trolly dollies (not mine i hasten to add) and they and their unions baffling drive towards self destruction only reinforces that perception.

[jetset lady]

bubblesuk,

I suspect moleytt and RTR are talking about those of us that are NOT striking.

Jsl

[Hotel Mode]

but for christs sake what on earth are the BA board doing keeping on this muppet WW who manages to lose them £500M annually. Sack him and maybe the airline will survive to fly another day.................................

Go have a read of Air Frances annual results, and no doubt Luftys when they come out then come back and say that. They are are in a much worse revenue/loss situation.

Key points - Loss of 1.559 bn Euros - £1.35bn, revenue down 4.0 bn Euros.

[AlpineSkier]

@Hotel Mode

Since you are apparently Flight Crew can you please say what can be done - if anything - to alleviate the position of crew who are 'sent to Coventry" down route (see CC thread for recent example )

I don't see how people can be forced to socialise, but equally see the humiliating power of someone being ostracised outside work

[interpreter]

There are going to be a great number of unhappy CC when this dispute ends - and of course the only "happy" ones still on full pay and benefits are messrs Woodley and Simpson. However, seeing the performance outside the courts yesterday and witnessing some of the theatricals of the strikers I can only assume recruitment has gone "downmarket". In the old days BA CC were considered the creme de la creme and they behaved accordingly. The old ones must be turning in their graves. I was fortunate a couple of years ago to sit down to a dinner next to one of the first Air Stewardesses on the Comet 1s. Well educated, articulate, charming and very much the "old school" How standards have dropped.

[Mariner9]

An overiding puzzle to me in this dispute is if only a couple of thousand CC went on strike, why the heck have the other 8,000 or so BASSA members not resigned their BASSA membership in protest at BASSA's actions? I know a few have resigned, but it appears to be a small number. Presumably anyone still a member of BASSA must be in agreement with the dispute, despite working through the IA :rolleyes:

From this, it follows that even if BA sack the 2,000 or so strikers, the remaining BASSA members will still be in dispute.

Perhaps explains why WW has not summarily dismissed those who went on strike last time.

[Hotel Mode]

Since you are apparently Flight Crew can you please say what can be done - if anything - to alleviate the position of crew who are 'sent to Coventry" down route (see CC thread for recent example )


Difficult one, as we wont often know its happening. I've noticed an increase in the number who come out with us flight crew as we tend to be less likely to jump on either opinion (believe it or not!). The trouble is that the BASSA 100% brigade are so convinced they are right that they simply dont accept any other opinion.

Sending someone to coventry downroute is a specific offence in the disciplinary code in BA, so the bullies are taking a risk if discovered.

[call100]

An overiding puzzle to me in this dispute is if only a couple of thousand CC went on strike, why the heck have the other 8,000 or so BASSA members not resigned their BASSA membership in protest at BASSA's actions? I know a few have resigned, but it appears to be a small number. Presumably anyone still a member of BASSA must be in agreement with the dispute, despite working through the IA :rolleyes:

From this, it follows that even if BA sack the 2,000 or so strikers, the remaining BASSA members will still be in dispute.

Perhaps explains why WW has not summarily dismissed those who went on strike last time.
If 8,000 have not gone on strike then why did they not vote NO when balloted?
Resigning is pointless, far better to remain in and change things....vote in moderate stewards and vote against the strike.
I think somewhere along the line the figures have been distorted by both sides.......There cannot be more members working than striking surely?? If this was the case the only sensible option would be to call off the strikes...
I think both sides need to do a lot of growing up.....:(

[ChicoG]

From Sky News:

British Airways and the Unite union are set to resume talks today in a bid to avert the five-day strike scheduled to begin on Monday.

The latest talks are aimed at averting another round of strikes

The announcement came hours after BA revealed a record annual pre-tax loss of £531m.

The results, covering a 12-month period to the end of March, include an estimated £40m to £45m loss from the first round of cabin crew strikes earlier this year - but not the fall in revenue caused by the disruptions caused by the volcanic ash cloud.

Peter Harwood, chief conciliator at Acas, confirmed the two sides would resume negotiations.

He said: "Following Monday's meeting, I believe that there is a window of opportunity this weekend for a negotiated settlement to be achieved.

"If an agreement is not reached this weekend there is every possibility that additional pressures on both sides will ensue which will make a final resolution more problematic."

In an interview with Sky News' Anna Jones, BA chief executive Willie Walsh called on Unite's leaders to show "leadership" by persuading the Bassa branch to agree to a deal.

It is thought the next round of strikes could cost the airline £100m - as well as a potentially devastating drop in ticket sales as the uncertainty caused by the stand-off continues.

[ChicoG]

That :mad: Woodley has turned up for supposedly conciliatory talks and instantly blabs his fat mouth off to Sky TV.

How are you supposed to negotiate with these morons?

The only thing he didn't do was use the magic "macho" word again.

[fincastle84]

'John', a persecuted Bassa member, was given 5 uninterrupted minutes by the unbiased BBC to pedal the usual Bassa c**p. In particular he was allowed to pedal a total untruth as to how he was being forced to take a 2/3 pay cut. Dimbleby was very sympathetic & continued to use this rubbish during the subsequent interviews.

Unfortunately it's not yet available on the BBC i player.

Why do I have to pay my licence fee?

[ExecClubPax]

BBC iPlayer - Any Answers?: 22/05/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sdz2x/b00sds54/Any_Answers_22_05_2010/)

[Rusland 17]

Why do I have to pay my licence fee?To get both sides of a story, perhaps?

[fincastle84]

Blatant untruths are not the same as getting both sides of the argument. If I want Bassa propaganda I can easily get that on the CC forum.

I was brought up to believe that the BBC was an unbiased news system. It probably was 50 years ago.

[Ten West]

I'm not sure there's any such thing as an unbiased news service anymore. Which is one of the reasons I haven't bought a newspaper since 1987.

[ChicoG]

The "Socialist Workers Party" (read dole-scrounging lefty troublemakers) broke into ACAS to disrupt the talks.

Why am I not surprised.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

some complete and utter ****-wits going by the name of the socialist workers party have stormed ACAS and are alleged to be sat 1 floor under the round table talks. How on god's green earth will that help the Unite case? How on earth is it going to benefit pax if the talks are disrupted?? What a bunch of tits! :ugh:

[ChicoG]

Ironically the retards have placards saying "No more job cuts" or words to that effect.

How many jobs will disappear when the airline fails due to this witless union?

These people are as thick as sh*t.

Added: Woodley is "furious" with the outside interference. I don't suppose him sneering and bitching on TV before the talks possibly encourages these primates, does it?

Give me strength.

[Basil]

1. SOCIALIST
2. WORKERS
3. PARTY

I guess 2 outa 3 aint bad :rolleyes:

I must be regressing to childhood - a ten year old could have come up with that :)

If someone told me WW had paid them to turn up I'd almost believe it :p:}

[fincastle84]

I'll bet that there were some Bassa members among them. I just hope that I never have to rely on these retards in the unlikely event of an emergency.

My comments are NOT aimed at the majority of excellent BA CC who have looked after me for many years.

[wiggy]

some complete and utter ****-wits going by the name of the socialist workers party

It's nothing new, the same ***-wits, or more likely their fathers or even grandparents, were marching under the same banner in the 70's, causing chaos in the Universities. In those days they were just messing around with folks education, now they're threatening people's jobs.

[Rhayader]

So here is the situation. Need to book a flight to Istanbul for a trip to Gallipoli in September. Cheapest by £5 is easyJet, next is BA. Its usually a no brainer for me because I like BA. Full service, better flight times and not having to put up with a scrum at the gate.

Because of the uncertainty at the moment - and the fact that I have to book in the next week or so - unless it is settled soon I will have to look at easyJet, Turkish or Pegasus instead. This will cause BA to lose more custom and must be replicated a thousand fold by other punters out there.

[Snas]

Mr Walsh is a cool one it has to be said..!

BBC News - BA and union talks stopped by protesters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10140911.stm)

[fincastle84]

Mr Walsh isn't just a cool one, he's a winner. Bassa have no idea about what is going to hit them in the next few weeks.

[Basil]

Organise! Occupy!
We will win the struggle!

If only we knew WTF it was for . . :p:}:p

Oh, yeah, that's right, mate; we want all these cabin crew out of a job, innit?

If it wasn't so serious I'd be ROTFL.

[footprints07]

Finding it hard to believe Derek Simpson thought it was appropriate to give a running commentary on the talks throughout this afternoon on Twitter :ooh:

Derek Simpson (derekamicus) on Twitter (http://twitter.com/derekamicus)

Pretty much sums up the professionalism of Unite!

[Snas]

Looks like this is where today's drama got started: -

Right to Work conference shows opposition to BA boss Willie Walsh|22May10|Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=21303)

Extract: -


One of the highlights of the day came when a striking British Airways (BA) cabin crew worker addressed the rally. He received a standing ovation, after explaining how the BA’s cuts affected staff and how their situation was misrepresented in the media. He pointed out that his basic salary was only £12,000....

....many supporters wanted to actively show their support for the strikers. They heard that BA boss Willie Walsh was holding talks nearby.
Some 200 conference participants marched from its venue at Friends Meeting House to Euston Towers, where Walsh was meeting Unite union negotiators at the Acas conciliation service.

[LD12986]

Euston Tower is a 36 storey building.

I doubt it was a purely spontaneous demonstration, someone must have told them exactly where to go.

[Winch-control]

Mr Woodley said BA was wrong to blame BASSA for the deadlock.
He said he had urged his members to reject BA’s latest offer on staffing and work practices because of the company’s ‘petty, vindictive attitude’.
The main sticking point between the two sides is BA’s decision to strip 2,000 cabin crew who went on strike last month of lucrative travel perks which allow them and their families to have free and cut-price flights. Unite wants the perk reinstated before it calls off the next wave of strikes.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280583/BA-stockpiles-1-7bn-fighting-fund-WIllie-Walsh-vows-dysfunctional-cabin-crew.html#ixzz0oj4zpXTu (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280583/BA-stockpiles-1-7bn-fighting-fund-WIllie-Walsh-vows-dysfunctional-cabin-crew.html#ixzz0oj4zpXTu)


At least we are now clear as to the reason for the strike!

Beggars belief! They strike over..err the issue of the last strike!:ugh:

[Dairyground]

Neptunus Rex

I think that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider all the BA staff on the open topped omnibus to be bringing the company into disrepute.
Grounds for dismissal? It would be a start.


But they should be given the opportunity to strike first, and enjoy the fruits of that, just in case the disciplinary process results in something less than dismissal.

[ExecClubPax]

It suprises me no one here has yet commented on Derek Simpson's alleged tweeting to the outside world during yesterday's talks.

Contributors to the cabin crew forum suggest his messages were aimed at BASSA membership and the text has been displayed on the BASSA forum. Given the sensitivity and gravity of these talks, does anybody consider it appropriate behaviour from someone who is supposed to be a senior Union official?

BA boss Willie Walsh surrounded as demonstrators storm union talks - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7752577/BA-boss-Willie-Walsh-surrounded-as-demonstrators-storm-union-talks.html)

[slf22]

WW is on The Andrew Marr show today (some time in the next hour) BBC - BBC One Homepage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone) . If you miss the show they usually have it on the iplayer

[Snas]

It suprises me no one here has yet commented on Derek Simpson's alleged tweeting to the outside world during yesterday's talks.



There is nothing alleged about it, I saw the feed. The man is a fool.

[Diplome]

BASSA promised "guerilla tactics" and having observed their coarse behavior in the past nothing surprises me.

The idea that someone was sending out messages from a private negotiating session is incredible.

What was Derek Simpson and Unite thinking???!!!

How does anyone take these individuals seriously?

[Mariner9]

Tweeting was obviously inapropriate and inadvisable in the circumstances, but it is not as if any major secrets were revealed. Indeed, I would say it shows that contrary to the BASSA line, WW was not being totally obtructive in the discussions.

Settlement of this dispute favourably is far more important than this minor issue, and I don't think WW should or will make too much of it.

[Landroger]

And why isn't tweeting from a confidential meeting like that a fireable offense?

It would be in most companies in similar circumstances.

The guy is a dope.

p.s. Does the appearance of the anarchists at the Euston building foreshadow more "spontaneous" guerilla protests, perhaps in places like T5 or the parking lots or other places BASSA cannot picket? Makes me wonder if the Euston event was not just a one-off.

If it isn't a fireable offence - and I rather think it is, no matter what the import of any information revealed - then it can only be considered unhelpful and irresponsible. At best. The man is, indeed, a dope - which, given the severity of the situation - ought to disqualify him from taking further part.

As for the 'Flying Picket' from Socialist Workers Party - I always thought 'socialist worker' was an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence' and 'political integrity' - you would have to consider Euston Tower to be a relatively 'soft target'. I guess if they tried that at T5, it would attract the undivided attention of an Armed Response Unit at least and risked the involvement of 'The Hereford Gun Club'.

BASSA are clearly under almost unendurable pressure at this point and now they are getting nasty and even more irrational - that makes them dangerous.

Roger.

[Diplome]

Mariner9:

I must respectfully disagree.

That sort of conduct is simply never done during negotiations for very obvious reasons.

Simpson knows he went waaaayyy over the line with that stunt. Would not surprise me if BA refused to enter into further negotiations with him present. You can bet its already been suggested.

An absolutely stunning, juvenile and unprofessional stunt.