British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[swalesboy]

Maybe one of the reasons the union is chasing hard for an appeal is because their lawyers have pointed out just how much trouble they will be in otherwise.

[Juan Tugoh]

What a load of nonsense, I suggest the "sack 'em all" mob should themselves read the TULRCA legislation. Protection is now the same as before they went on strike.

And by the way, I suggest you look up the meaning of injunction in the dictionary also, the previous strike is NOT now illegal.

Is that a legal opinion or just one from a mate down the pub, or if you want even worse legal opinion, does that come from a BASSA rep?:)

[OverFlare]

To be honest I don't think the injunction does make the strike illegal. An injunction is granted on the balance of probabilities - so the judge thinks it is likely that the ballot was improperly conducted - but a full trial would be needed to decide the issue. To be sure, given that the injunction was granted (but it might be overturned) I think BA would have a good chance of winning such a trial (although that "good" chance would be reduced if Unite win on appeal) - and then I understand the strikers could be exposed as having taken part in illegal action.

Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.

[Juan Odeboyse]

They have achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF BENEFIT TO THEIR MEMBERS and are decimating our once respected community

Totally disagree with this comment. Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute....and worst of all our own FD colleagues amongst them. :\

Shame on the lot of them.

[Juan Odeboyse]

...PCCC this is the way forward is it? If this mob are so confident in their thoughts and views why don't they come out of the closet and 'be brave'.

BTW...what are the membership numbers to date HiFlyer?

[OverFlare]

Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute....and worst of all our own FD colleagues amongst them

In fact, I volunteered to work as cabin crew out of professional courtesy to my employer who asked for my help. I do not care about trade unionism nor do I believe I have any professional solidarity with or obligation to a group of workers who refuse to negotiate with BA for a year and then try to dictate silly terms that don't begin to address BA's business plan.

BA would be much better off without the strikers, IMHO. Sadly, I don't think WW will quite go as far as to get rid of them.

[Juan Odeboyse]

In fact, I volunteered to work as cabin crew out of professional courtesy to my employer who asked for my help. I do not care about trade unionism nor do I believe I have any professional solidarity with or obligation to a group of workers who refuse to negotiate with BA for a year and then try to dictate silly terms that don't begin to address BA's business plan.

To put that in a few words "I just care about myself and my pension, sod everybody else"

[Blink182]

Wrong !

To put that in a few words "I just care about myself and my pension, sod everybody else"

That just about sums up the actions of BASSA

[dxzh]

UNITE must hope that it wins the right to appeal and does so successfully. Otherwise they may expect, besides BA, a large number of disgruntled SLF to claim damages (including consequential) for losses caused by BA flights cancelled or postponed due to unprotected IA authorised by UNITE. Moreover, individual SLF often have a tendency to exact revenge through the small claims court with a tenacity and vigour which would do credit to any union or management bully.

[Pornpants1]

You seem to be being a little selective in your arguments. Now I have been on leave for the last 10 days and still am.

I seem to remember you saying Ahem Wrbelestrum...I do not belong to Bassa but am very supportive of UNITE and its intended actions. are you crew? If so how do you legitimately carry out strike action? Its a genuine question, but alas you seem to have dodged answering any direct question so I guess I won't hold my breath.

Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute....and worst of all our own FD colleagues amongst them.

I'm not sure of your agenda here? If perhaps 60+% of your colleagues had not turned up for work then the strike may have been a success for UNITE/BASSA. Even a recent BASSA newsletter highlights this fact, but hang on your not a member so you would not know what it said.......right:ok:

FYI trained pilot VCC make up less than 15% of the total :ok: BASSA have been the companies best recruiter in this campaign, for every twist and turn has resulted in bitter, yet vague accusations and insinuation as well as a few insults against every department within the BA address book, time for reflection I think;)

[Pornpants1]

Just found the newsletter in my inbox:ok:

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.

This from BASSA Juan:ok:

[harryhoofter]

Is that a legal opinion or just one from a mate down the pub, or if you want even worse legal opinion, does that come from a BASSA rep?

I haven't got any mates so I rely on research and intelligence, and advice from some of the leading experts on employment law in the country.

I'll take their word over yours.

[harryhoofter]

22 Limit on damages awarded against trade unions in actions in tort
(1)This section applies to any proceedings in tort brought against a trade union, except—
(a)proceedings for personal injury as a result of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty;
(b)proceedings for breach of duty in connection with the ownership, occupation, possession, control or use of property;
(c)proceedings brought by virtue of Part I of the M1Consumer Protection Act 1987 (product liability).
(2)In any proceedings in tort to which this section applies the amount which may awarded against the union by way of damages shall not exceed the following limit—
Number of members of union Maximum award of damages
Less than 5,000 £10,000
5,000 or more but less than 25,000 £50,000
25,000 or more but less than 100,000 £125,000
100,000 or more £250,000
(3)The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) so as to vary any of the sums specified; and the order may make such transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4)Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5)In this section—
“breach of duty" means breach of a duty imposed by any rule of law or by or under any enactment;
“personal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition; and
“property" means any property, whether real or personal (or in Scotland, heritable or moveable).

[PPRuNe Pop]

Speaks for itself.

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v UNITE THE UNION

QBD (McCombe J) 17/5/2010

An interim injunction to restrain a trade union from proceeding with proposed industrial actions against an airline and inducing its employees to breach their contract of employment was granted as it was arguable that the trade union had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231 to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in a ballot were informed of the information specified under that provision.

The applicant airline (B) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (U) from inducing B's employees to breach their contract of employment by proceeding with proposed industrial actions. U had proposed to proceed with industrial actions between certain specified periods following the results of a ballot which supported the actions. B's case was that although U had taken every step to communicate the results of the ballot it had failed to take reasonably necessary steps to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231, namely the number of votes cast in the ballot, the number of individuals answering "yes" to the relevant question, the number of individuals answering "no" and the number of spoiled voting papers. B maintained that all relevant information was available in a scrutiniser's report but U had not taken any active steps to make the information available.

According to U, the information in question was available from separate sources, including websites, notice boards at work and news sheets at suitable locations. B submitted that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Act and, therefore, its industrial actions would be without the protection afforded under s.219 (http://www.lawtel.com/Content/Document.aspx?ID=AF4000087) and illegal.

B also argued that there would be severe economic and reputational damage if the injunction was refused. U argued that in view of its rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.11 the injunction should be refused.


HELD:

(1) In light of the decision in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (2009) EWCA Civ 829, (2010) ICR 173 (http://www.lawtel.com/Content/Document.aspx?ID=AC0121797) concerning the requirements imposed on trade unions by the Act and restrictions on rights under art.11, the court would refuse to grant an injunction on the basis that s.231 of the Act was incompatible with the Convention, Metrobus followed.

(2) In exercising its discretion whether to grant the injunction, the court would have regard to the likelihood of success at trial in accordance with s.221(2) (http://www.lawtel.com/Content/Document.aspx?ID=AF4000087) of the Act. It was not possible to hold that U's likelihood of success at trial was overwhelming. Also, it was arguable that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of s.231, namely to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified under the provision. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction to B.

Injunction granted.

[Caribbean Boy]

Juan Odeboyse (http://www.pprune.org/members/323404-juan-odeboyse) wrote:
Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this disputeCrikey, those 1,000 VCC of whom 300 worked during the last two strikes must be the most powerful people in the land to have decimated BA.

[ArthurScargill]

To be honest I don't think the injunction does make the strike illegal. An injunction is granted on the balance of probabilities - so the judge thinks it is likely that the ballot was improperly conducted - but a full trial would be needed to decide the issue. To be sure, given that the injunction was granted (but it might be overturned) I think BA would have a good chance of winning such a trial (although that "good" chance would be reduced if Unite win on appeal) - and then I understand the strikers could be exposed as having taken part in illegal action.

Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.


These are the facts, so everyone should digest this before pontificating on what might happen next.

Maybe one of the reasons the union is chasing hard for an appeal is because their lawyers have pointed out just how much trouble they will be in otherwise.

However, i share this opinion. If UNITE are busted now, or after the appeal, they'll lose all credibility to run a strike and more and more employers will run up against them. And more and more employees will wonder exactly what they pay their £xxx/year subscription. I think UNITE are now in a very precarious position.
I can't see the CoA overturning the decision - the precident has been set in the metrobus case last year and to overturn this decision would affectiely mean a law change. This is likely to have to go to the supreme court to do. Will UNITE go that far ? Can they afford to ? Can they afford not to ?

[PPRuNe Pop]

AS. You might care to look at section (2) of the injunction. You may consider that it answers your question regarding a trial.

[Pornpants1]

Arthur

These are the facts, so everyone should digest this before pontificating on what might happen next.


I hear what your saying:ok:and agree with you, but then you go on to pontificate on what might happen next

However, i share this opinion. If UNITE are busted now, or after the appeal, they'll lose all credibility to run a strike and more and more employers will run up against them. And more and more employees will wonder exactly what they pay their £xxx/year subscription. I think UNITE are now in a very precarious position.
I can't see the CoA overturning the decision - the precident has been set in the metrobus case last year and to overturn this decision would affectiely mean a law change. This is likely to have to go to the supreme court to do. Will UNITE go that far ? Can they afford to ? Can they afford not to ?

[ArthurScargill]

Busted !!
I meant about the 'sacking' of strikers/illeagl strike etc....

However, guilty as charged for pontificating on UNITEs precarious position. I seriously think they are in a pretty dark place right now. Damned if they do appeal, damned if they don't. Its certainly gone beyond representing CC - thats for sure.
[See - just can't help myself !! :oh: ]

[DownloadDog]

UNITE must hope that it wins the right to appeal and does so successfully. Otherwise they may expect, besides BA, a large number of disgruntled SLF to claim damages (including consequential) for losses caused by BA flights cancelled or postponed due to unprotected IA authorised by UNITE. Moreover, individual SLF often have a tendency to exact revenge through the small claims court with a tenacity and vigour which would do credit to any union or management bully.


Have been watching this forum, but have been angered by BASSA and the utter chaos and disruption they have caused to BA, it's customers and fellow employees.

It is not only the paying customers and BA that have lost money, consider all the staff that should have been woking but couldn't - they have lost money too. I for one will quite happily go to the Small Claims Court against BASSA for loss of earnings.

Making a Claim (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm)

[Satan]

None of the blinkered BASSA-forumites seem to have realised that it was not "Unite" who made the error that has placed them here, but their very own representatives.

So for one of the BASSA-forum lurkers (yes, I know we are "vile" thank you) why not go and ask your reps directly on the BASSA forum who was presented with the result, and who was responsible for getting the information out there? The vast majority seem to be blaming "Unite" and not realising that the very same reps they worship are actually the ones who dumped them in the poo. Go on, it's a matter of record on the full transcript, apparently, so they have nothing to hide.

[pcf]

Hi, followed your link .. when was this started ?
No posts .. thats worrying ??:confused:

[pcf]

:confused:

[Freddielaker]

Can we stop talking about this strike being 'illegal'? The only strikes which are illegal are those involving work groups who are expressly prohibited by law from withholding their labour - the Police or Armed Forces for example. Everybody else can strike whenever they want to and their actions will not be 'illegal', but they will be in breach of their contract of employment. Breaching a contract of employment is grounds for dismissal, UNLESS (and this is the important bit....) you are taking part in industrial action which satisfies the stipulations of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. If your strike satisfies the demands of the Act (balloting, notification etc) then your dismissal for having taken industrial action is automatically deemed unfair and can be challenged and redressed in court. If your strike did not satisfy the stipulations of the Act - and this is the judgement handed down to Unite on Monday - your dismissal will not be unfair and your breach of contract could stand as grounds for dismissal.

[ChicoG]

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

Actors of course.

[Melissa1510]

i just watched the video, it could not be more pathetic if they had made her cry real tears, sign of desperation from Unite really...

[Litebulbs]

Can we stop talking about this strike being 'illegal'?

Freddie,

It has more impact if you say illegal, rather than a dismissal may not be automatically unfair.

[dave3]

giza I didnt come to work I went on strike stand by my beliefs and will continue to support my union and my crew 100% some of the posts on this forum are beyond comprehension I can not believe I have worked along side crew with such malice in their hearts we live in a democracy and have the right to views.. ... my point was you back BA no matter what your view....crew who went on strike should not be put down by the im backing ba slogan.... We all back BA some more than others by giving up wages and staff travel when believing in their right to legall IA... Look at your wage packets this month volunteers... will you be giving your extra pay up and giving it back to BA in an erfort to back BA even more????

[Abbey Road]

'dave3'? Are you sure? Sound an awful lot like watersidewonker, I think. A bit of punctuation would help those here understand what you're trying to say.

[MrBunker]

So, Dave 3, by your splendid logic, and by extension to the extreme, the best way you could back BA is to be on strike forever and take no pay whatsoever? Certainly if, as you claim, you backed BA more by going on strike, that would seem to be the case.

MrB

[dave3]

sorry lol I most def do not work at waterside....Understand why you would think that though as I asked the volunteers to give their money back lol
What I am trying to convey is that We all "Back BA " just because we may have a different opinion does not mean we are not backing BA some have a vision for the long term, the product and the quality of staff that we will be able to engage in the future.

[MrBunker]

Ta for that, I don't think there's any employee in the airline with a long-term future in prospect who doesn't feel that way.

ATB

MrB

[malcolmf]

volunteers to give their money back lol

Didn't get any to give back as I did the course on my days off, it actually cost me petrol etc.

[77]

Some interesting comments from the SLF forum to put the legalaties in perspective...

>>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

>>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

>>"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".

[TopBunk]

I didnt come to work I went on strike stand by my beliefs and will continue to support my union and my crew 100%

Sounds more like the 'Duty' BASSA rep to me, with the highlighted section above suggesting some sort of ownership of the crew.

[JazzyKex]

Dave 3 must clearly be a troll and oddly with the same grasp of grammar as our friend WWW.

I find it hard to think anyone who works for BA in whatever capacity has such a poor gasp of logic to genuinely think that striking is somehow backing BA. Even BASSA/Unite would find that a hard line to spin!

Please try not to feed the troll, there is enough strong sentiment flowing without intentionally exacerbating the problems.

[Hotel Mode]

Ah, Jazzy, you're forgetting that BA Cabin Crew ARE BA (it says so on BASSA!). Therefore by backing BASSA some people think they are backing BA. They seriously believe that they are guardians of BAs product and service, not simply employees. Logic isnt a feature.

Add in the fact that the vast majority of BA crew worked during the strike and you have to wonder if its BA who are actually backing the majority of BA crew and not BASSA.

[License to Fly]

does anyone know how much the loser of the High court case will have to pay ? Bet its not cheap

[malcolmf]

Dave3
If you are a BA staff member then have a look at this page on the intranet.
https://planetba.baplc.com/general/aptrix/aptrix.nsf/Content/CSP+-+Terms

[Wirbelsturm]

So, what exactly is the strike about now?

Anything? As in the ballot request?

Imposition? Seems to have been forgotten about!

Crewing levels? Can't work any harder now can we?

Pay? Nope, no one is offering a paycut are they, except the Union that is?
New Fleet? Can't strike over a possible change BALPA proved that to their cost. Plus BA is promising to protect pay into the future.

What ifs? BASSA/Unite has produced so many 'what if' scenarios it defies belief. Give a million monkies typewriters and they will eventually come up with the complete works of shakespeare! The scenarios of all the 'what ifs' available would take about the same time! Good reason for strike action and job loss? Nope.

Staff Travel? Not a contractural perk I'm afraid, if it was you would have to pay tax on the benefit thus it is a management perk that can be removed if wished. Do you really want to pay tax on your staff travel tickets? You can lose your perks by upsetting those that give you the benefit. Fair? Possibly not, legal? Yep.

Facebook Rubbish? Dismissed for passing sensitive, personal, protected data over an unsecure web service that demands copyright over everything posted. I wonder why they were dismissed?

Suspension of employees? Nothing like protecting your own buddies whilst casting out the futures of thousands hmm? They have gone through the Union agreed process and have been found wanting. If they have a grievance then they have the legal process to appeal. No need to threaten the jobs of thousands for their stupidity.


Right then, must be the hot towels in WTP then.

Good luck.

[The Blu Riband]

Dave3
if you "backBA" then why try and bankrupt the company with a series of unjustifiable strikes with no identifiable aims.

And if you back the majority of your colleagues - then go to work, and do your job.

[dave3]

A Post Seems To Have Been Cleared.. Funny That..
It Was When I Responded To Hotels Comment That "Volunteers Worked For Free" And "You Cant Beleive All You Read On The Bassa Forum"...
So Please Let Me Ask You Again I Presume You Are A Member Of Bassa In Order To Read Its Forum And What Post Did You Mean From The Bassa Forum???....
When You State Volunteers Worked For free You Mean free

[dave3]

I have a view.. I do my job I have taken part in IA that is my belief... I also believe that this would have been over long ago if BA employees had stuck to doing their own jobs and not volunteering to do others....

[donaldson]

Well put, I think.

Air Strike -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7130098.ece)

[Missyminx]

Dave,

The Bassa membership have been continually misled unfortunately; some people have been quicker to understand this than others and have resigned from the union. During the last strike, there were monumental inaccuracies communicated to Bassa members (and worse, the press) –eg: messages to say that planes were circling LHR empty (laughable) and that only 6 crew had shown for work in CRC!: In my briefing (at the time of such texts), there was the full complement for 777 – of regular crew, all backing BA. At work, not because they were ‘scared’ or ‘not wanting to lose staff travel’ but out of a moral duty and a desire to do the right thing
I’m sorry Dave, I understand you may be backing your union, but in no one’s books could the behaviour of the aforementioned union be said to be backing BA. When a group of employees sets out to destroy the very hand that feeds them, to possibly destroy the careers of their colleagues – both immediate and wider – it is most definitely NOT an act of support, in fact it is an act of sabotage. This is the very reason why there are so many passionate comments on here from people who want to see our company shine again. We all, cc included, need to contribute to that end.

[Caribbean Boy]

Wirbelsturm (http://www.pprune.org/members/320680-wirbelsturm) wrote:
So, what exactly is the strike about now?Willie Walsh said in an article in The Times yesterday:
... the obstacle to the resolution of this dispute is the refusal of this small group of Bassa hardliners to accept that the world has changed.

To Bassa, we are still in the 1970s: British Airways is nationalised, facing little competition and ever ready to do a cosy deal with the unions knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

Nearly everything harmful about that culture has now disappeared at BA — apart from the legacy of a hard core of union activists who think they have a right to control day-to-day cabin crew operations.
I do believe that this is correct: the dispute is about whether WW or BASSA runs BA. Any other reasons given such as imposition, staff travel or disciplinaries are just fabrication.

[Dutchjock]

Well said Missyminx!! :ok:

Here's a few quote's from the above mentioned article from the Times Online:

"The remarkable lack of public sympathy for striking crew is not the result of slick corporate propaganda. It is the result of them being so clearly and palpably in the wrong."

" It is time for BA’s workforce to stop thinking only of themselves, and start thinking of their company, the economy, and most of all, their passengers."

[old school]

'Staff Travel? Not a contractural perk I'm afraid, if it was you would have to pay tax on the benefit thus it is a management perk that can be removed if wished. Do you really want to pay tax on your staff travel tickets? You can lose your perks by upsetting those that give you the benefit. Fair? Possibly not, legal? Yep.'

We did pay tax on staff travel tickets - it changed some years ago to being taxed... Does that therefore mean it is contractual - following your argument?

[melc]

"their passengers."

That says it all really because without the passengers there is no airline.

So lets get back to the business of having the best CC in the industry - because patently we are definitely not the best anymore. That's clear from passengers views who have changed airlines because of the strikes and will never come back to BA - they have found something better!!

Its going to take years to repair the damage and I plead to you that the strike will not get you anywhere - or maybe it will without jobs to go to.

The airline HAS TO reduce costs to survive and the majority of BA staff across the airline accept this and have acted accordingly so why can't CC - I DONT GET IT!!!

BA is the only company that has not made one compulsory redundancy only voluntary - do you really think this will remain the case - I doubt it THE AIRLINE HAS TO SAVE MONEY TO SURVIVE - it is losing without the strikes and ash cloud millions each day.

When the banks foreclose as losses get higher and there is no end in sight I wonder if you will think of all your other (out-of-work) colleagues across the airline or just feel sorry for yourselves.

[IYCSWICSWICW]

Prescient, melc - Amen.

[melc]

The thing is the dispute is now only about perks and reinstating staff.

1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.

2) Re-instating staff without going through the correct disciplinary procedures opens up the flood-gates for the future - if you have procedures (as agreed with the unions) then these should be followed.

The unions can't set out rules and then want them disregarded.

They are calling strikes for no reason now - CC have been given what they want - or is it that UNITE and BASSA can't agree!!!

[Wirbelsturm]

OzzieO


melc a very passionate post and in parts so very true. But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.

He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.

Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.


What have they been doing for the past 14 months then?

Every time a solution comes close BASSA move the goal posts and start raving on about something totally tangental.

If BA and Willie Walsh were so poor at negotiation and so obstinate how have they managed to get ALL other departments of BA onto new, negotiated contracts? Including the loaders and baggage handlers who have traditionally been some of the most difficult to handle?

Why is it that the rest of the company are not backing BASSA? Not because of the 'cabin crew bashing' that BASSA continue to publicise but purely and simply that BASSA have misrepresented their membership, spun lies, deceit and misinformation directed at keeping the LH CSD's that BASSA represents in their cushy position and protecting the interests of the part time BASSA board. Even Tony Woodley was overheard to say that BASSA were a loose cannon! (printed in the Express I believe but I have not read the article so cannot comment on the factual authenticity)

BASSA do not want a resolution. They want Willie Walsh to be sacked so they can continue to hold BA to ransom whenever they feel like it. The board of BASSA deserve no respect. They are holding the jobs, futures and livelihoods of their members in their grubby little fist and using them to protect their own somewhat overfunded lifestyles.

Enough. The BASSA board have a duty to ensure that the interests of their members are put above all else. If, as Tony Woodley stated on 5 Live, an agreement can be reached then that agreement should and must be taken. BASSA cannot continue to bleed money from BA for the reinstatement of perks and sacked Union buddies when their mandate for strike has been resolved. Accept the deal and then, if you are still standing BASSA, negotiate on reinstatement. Don't use your members jobs, the jobs of all BA staff and the misery of our customers as a bargaining chip and then cry on You-Tube that you are hard done by.

Enjoy!

:E

[essessdeedee]

so.... what is it that the crew want?

Willie Walsh has already stated that he has achieved the cost savings with the changes already made. He has offered staff travel back (provided agreement reached and no further action).

EG901 is a clear process with a variety of outcomes. surely the union don't believe themselves to be above company/union agreed processes.

Can you share with the rest of BA what it is that you really want?:confused:

BASSA do not want a resolution. They want Willie Walsh to be sacked so they can continue to hold BA to ransom whenever they feel like it. Lizanne Maloney deserves no respect. She is holding the jobs, futures and livelihoods of her members in her grubby little fist and using them to protect her own somewhat privilidged lifestyle.
:=

[ottergirl]

The thing is the dispute is now only about perks and reinstating staff.

1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.


WW has only offered to re-instate their travel with a joining date of now so any strikers will lose all on-load seniority, accrued free tickets, etc. Additionally, the new offer came with a rider that the strikers would agree not to pursue BA in court for full re-instatement of staff travel. Many feel that this takes away their rights to legal redress in respect of whether the removal of staff travel constitutes penalising staff for taking part in a legal strike; the case for which is already in progress. If staff travel had been fully re-instated this whole affair would, IMHO be over!

I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.

[flybymerchant]

But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.

He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.

Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.

Walsh is very definitely NOT part of the problem. At least that's how the City, the Shareholders, the Board, the Press, the rest of BA's employees, the majority of BA Cabin Crew and what few passengers we have left see it.

If, by some freak occurrence, Willie Walsh were to stand down, do you think the next CEO would just say, "OK CC, you work FAIRLY hard (although less then in any other airline in the world), and you don't earn MASSIVE amounts of cash (although you do earn double what our competitors pay) but your terms & conditions are the best in the industry and we ARE losing almost a £BILLION each and every year, and all other staff groups HAVE cut their costs to keep us afloat, and it IS just you cabin crew who selfishly refuse to contribute for the better good of the company.......but I'll tell you what....why don't we cave in to your outrageous hostage situation, let's forget about the £140 million that you were asked to save, let's foget about the Volcano catastrophe and the crippling World Recession, they don't REALLY affect our ability to stay solvent, let's forget about the £100 million+ you have caused to us DIRECTLY AND MALICIOUSLY by your unjustified and unpopular campaign of terror. Let's forget about how you have dragged BAs good name through the courts, the papers and the mud. How about we just forget all that and put that one crew member back on, and no, of course we won't recruit them on New Fleet Ts&Cs, we'll let them have your incredibly high pay structures and incredibly restrictive work practices, all nicely tied up in a ribbon-bowed contract.":ugh:

you also said....

He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly:D ...good one

[Wirbelsturm]

Ottergirl,

Many feel that this takes away their rights to legal redress in respect of whether the removal of staff travel constitutes penalising staff for taking part in a legal strike; the case for which is already in progress.

Be careful what you wish for!

If the 'perk' of staff travel becomes a legal, contractural right, as many are saying it is or it should be, then it becomes a taxable asset. As a concession it doesn't have to be declared thus doesn't attract a benefit tax.

Consider the taxation levied on a company car that is offered as a contractural addition. It forms part of your tax return as it is considered a 'slice' of your income not required to be spent on running your own vehicle.

If a similar HMRC view were to be taken with staff travel you would continue to be offered the ID90/ID100 tickets however they would be declareable at their full face value. Thus you would be required to pay 20-40% tax on the total ticket sum at the end of the financial year.

Quite alot if you have a family of four travelling club to Sydney for example.

BASSA could be holding a very big gun to their heads with this one.

[StudentInDebt]

Many feel that this takes away their rights to legal redress in respect of whether the removal of staff travel constitutes penalising staff for taking part in a legal strike; the case for which is already in progress. Except that, in all probability, it was not a lawful strike so if they have started legal action to get staff travel back in full they're going to have to rethink their case somewhat :ooh:

[melc]

Ottergirl:

What you say maybe correct BUT and a BIG BUT staff travel is a PERK and can be withdrawn at any time regardless of any reason - so how that can stand up in a court of law beats me.

If you read your contract of employment there will be a clause in their stating exactly that.

Your staff travel can be withdrawn for a variety of reasons, for example if you continually arrive back late from a holiday on a staff ticket without back-up tickets you can be warned that staff travel will be withdrawn - this has happened to me. If you are off sick you are not allowed to travel on staff tickets either 'APPARENTLY'.

The point is CC knew BEFORE they went on strike that staff travel would be rescinded but they went ahead anyway with full knowledge. If it had been taken away AFTER the strike then yes I would certainly think they had a case but in a court of law a 'PERK' is at the discretion of the company and is not contractual.

[Human Factor]

But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.

If Walsh is the problem, why is Standard Life (major shareholder) so keen for him to remain in situ to deal with this (their words) "malevolent union"?

[melc]

Ottergirl: If staff travel had been fully re-instated this whole affair would, IMHO be over!

I doubt it!!!

[ottergirl]

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)

Something a bit different from the Independent today.

melc
What you say maybe correct BUT and a BIG BUT staff travel is a PERK and can be withdrawn at any time regardless of any reason - so how that can stand up in a court of law beats me.



Not saying they would win, what is in question is whether, in a fair society, their right to legal redress should be taken away. The legislation states that staff taking part in a legal strike should not be treated unfairly because of exercising that right. The removal of perks could be argued to be unfair treatment but would need testing in a court of law. Clarity for both sides and if BA are confident that they are in the right, then they have nothing to fear. Refusing to allow that right might suggest they are not confident.

[melc]

I may be totally wrong here but how can there be a legal readdress - its not a contractual perk therefore not part of a staff contract.

[dave747436]

Ottergirl said:
If staff travel had been fully re-instated this whole affair would, IMHO be over!


But isn't the current offer from BA as near-as-damnit the same as the final offer before the first strike?

When nobody had as yet lost their staff travel?

The one that Duncan Holley said that he wouldn't even touch, it was so unworthy?

(Or, of course, I might be completely wrong!)

ATB

[essessdeedee]

do you not think that
WW has only offered to re-instate their travel with a joining date of now so any strikers will lose all on-load seniority, accrued free tickets, etc. Additionally, the new offer came with a rider that the strikers would agree not to pursue BA in court for full re-instatement of staff travel

is a substantial movement from his original position that was declared before any strike action took place.... the one of ' staff travel will be removed permanently ' ?

And, are you really saying that

If staff travel had been fully re-instated this whole affair would, IMHO be over!


This is a strike over removal of a company benefit? One that was advised well in advance of any strike action.:ugh:

Did the union hold a proper ballot for this? I don't recall any ballot papers being sent out.:=

Do I hear another court case being prepared?:ouch:

[Chuchinchow]

What's happened to Watersidewonker, MissM, A Lurker and all the other pro-BASSA apologists? We haven't seen much sabre rattling recently?

[essessdeedee]

Dare I suggest that even if breach of contract is not enough to go to immediate dismissal, it is clearly enough to remove the benefit of staff travel. :eek:

[Nevermind]

Is it just me?

I am fed up of hearing how people have a fundamental right to strike,blah, blah, blah. Of course they do!

But seem to fail to grasp the fact that in doing so they cost the company millions of pounds and spoil the travel plans of many of our passengers, thereby making some of them refuse to ever fly with us again.

Do you really expect both BA and the rest of it's employees to say "Fair enough, we don't mind. We all turned up to work and you didn't, but please don't worry, no offence taken" .


And we are led to believe that some of the suspensions are for allegedly serious offences. That process should always be outside any settlement.

[melc]

British Airways and the cabin crew strike | CLB Employment Solutions Blog (http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2010/02/british-airways-and-the-cabin-crew-strike/)

This is interesting

[ottergirl]

I am not saying the strike is over staff travel; we all know it is over imposition.:\ However, any negotiated 'way forward' document will look to cross t's and dot i's for the avoidance of any confusion later on. Thus the strikers that I have spoken to at work each day have a position (right or wrong) that they should not be penalised for taking part in a lawful dispute and they are seeking to protect that right. Any successful resolution therefore should take that into consideration. Most of them seem to accept that disciplinary cases will run their course and are outside the union's sphere of influence.

So I say again, I believe that, if staff travel was offered to be fully re-instated before the next ballot, this dispute will be dead in the water and a NO vote registered.

[Litebulbs]

What's happened to Watersidewonker, MissM, A Lurker and all the other pro-BASSA apologists? We haven't seen much sabre rattling recently?

I imagine they will never return to this site, due to the way that they were treated. Maybe not by you or the majority on here, but when they were attacked, not many posters defended them. You do not have to agree with a single word they say, but playing the player happened too much.

[ottergirl]

Nevermind
But seem to fail to grasp the fact that in doing so they cost the company millions of pounds and spoil the travel plans of many of our passengers, thereby making some of them refuse to ever fly with us again.


OK, playing devils advocate here. The striking cabin crew do grasp that (and believe me our customers have told us that most vociferously on the aircraft) but there is no way for CC to strike and not have that happen. Can you think of any other way for them to lawfully withhold their labour and not affect our customers? Same for any front-line Customer service staff in BA or outside. The whole point of a strike is that it is a last resort of disgruntled employees and the final tool in their negotiating arsenal.

I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.

[Hotel Mode]

Thus the strikers that I have spoken to at work each day have a position (right or wrong) that they should not be penalised for taking part in a lawful dispute and they are seeking to protect that right.

1. It seems it wasnt a lawful strike

2. Re 'Rights' See the article above in particular this paragraph

Under UK law the starting point is that an employee generally has no rights against an employer who has treated him less well than others because he took part in industrial action.

[The Blu Riband]

I am not saying the strike is over staff travel; we all know it is over imposition.

Utter rubbish! Was it ever about imposition? Whatever that means.

Try and find 10 crewmembers who can agree over, and clearly discuss, the reasons for the strike. :rolleyes:

You should have bitten Willie's hand off over the last offer, which included a very fair deal on staff travel.
What will the next offer look like?
My advice ............... Take it!!

Then find some new reps.
Oh sorry, forgot , you can't because they changed the constitution (on a show of hands I believe) so you can't get rid of them.

[Nevermind]

Ottergirl

If you accept that staff should not be penalised for taking part in a lawful dispute, why should the company be financially penalised for being in dispute with BASSA? Why should the passengers be penalised also?


Instead, BASSA has currently led the crew into a potentially job threatening position.
I feel sorry for the crew, I truly do. The loss of staff travel and possible job loss must be very worrying.

However, I feel sure it will not come to that.
Why? Because regardless of the rhetoric from BASSA HQ, BA are not the evil employer being portrayed in these embarrassing comms.

Staff travel will return, even though WW initially said it wouldn't . He HAS compromised.
But seniority will probably not be returned alas.

He owes that to the crew that did turn up, as much as anything else.

[ottergirl]

Speaking personally, as a Crew member who did turn up, I have no problem with Staff Travel being re-instated IN FULL for the Crew members who did take part in legal action. I make this statement because no other group in BA who have taken strike action i.e T1 ground staff, have ever suffered a loss of Staff Travel even when it was an unlawful strike. I see no benefit in denying them other than in spite, as a punishment or a deterrent to other staff groups.

In the interests of the company I work for and the job I love, I would be happy to see common sense prevail.

I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.

[flybymerchant]

you wrote that...
The whole point of a strike is that it is a last resort of disgruntled employees and the final tool in their negotiating arsenal.

'Negotiating arsenal'?! Give us a break...you know as well as I do that the union did NOT attempt to negotiate with BA.

I put it to you that striking is the ONLY tool in this lots' 'arsenal' and it has proven to be monumentally ineffective and self-damaging beyond comprehension.

Please don't trot out the usual BASSA crap that they only want Willie to get back around the table...they refused to sit at it for 14 months (and way beyond the deadline) and when they did finally pretend to sit down and 'talk', they chopped the table up into little pieces and burned it along with their self-respect and any hopes that CC might have had that BASSA even wanted a settlement!

[ottergirl]

It may well be that it is their only tool in your opinion but it is still their right to use it. I don't like the way they do business, I have no desire to be part of them but I still do accept that it is their right to strike. Of course, as Spiderman knew "with great power comes responsibility", and so, the consequences of that action is theirs as well. I never want to see the day when a group of employees with a legitimate grievance would not have a voice.

I don't support BASSA or even Amicus in this but I will defend the right to belong to a Union if you want.

I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.

[flybymerchant]

as a punishment or a deterrent to other staff groups.

I see no problem with this - isn't that how life works ,from the playground onwards?.....he did what he said he would. He gave fair warning.

The only problem I can see is that BASSA 'promised' cc that they couldn't get sacked (doh) and that Willie couldn't take their staff travel (doh).

If I were cc I'd be taking BASSA to court for all the lies and deliberate misrepresentation, very easily provable to have been in the interests of a few at the top to the detriment of the fee-paying masses at the bottom.

.....and let's face it, BASSA are shockingly good at just ONE thing...losing court cases.

[ottergirl]

flybymerchant

So, why do you believe that CC should be singled out to lose their staff travel when no other employee group has been? Shouldn't we then retrospectively remove it from every dept who has ever withheld their labour? Why not extend that to every negotiating group who have ever threatened to strike eh? We could wipe out half our employees staff travel that way and what a happy and fulfilled bunch they will be.

Or could this be the time to move on and get back to our core business of flying folk from a to b? Wouldn't it be better to make headlines for our fantastic product or winning awards for innovation instead of the constant negative?

I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.

[flybymerchant]

I agree that we should all belong to a union and I haven't seen any evidence that BA want it any other way. Fair and sensible union representation has a well-deserved position in the modern world, and has clear benefits for the employee AND the employer. Unfair and idiotic/destructive 'representation' has no place....anywhere.

The onus should be on cabin crew to leave the union and stop paying for this campaign when they realises that they have been lied to and misrepresented but it looks like they fear that there is no alternative at the moment (until PCCC gets recognition?)

As the cc seem unwilling/scared to help themselves, Willie Walsh has a duty of care to his employees to destroy the cult....he may not get the chance unless he hurries up though, as they themselves seem hell-bent on self-destruction, with their silly videos and their pathetic attempts at withdrawing labour that doesn't really get missed and will become less and less damaging as Willie starts external recruitment immediately.....as the strike was unlawful/illegal, there is currently no active dispute at BA, so he's free to recruit straight away as I understand it.

Also Unite appear about ready to turn their backs on BASSA.....again

[flybymerchant]

Ottergirl
So, why do you believe that CC should be singled out to lose their staff travel when no other employee group has

Willie Walsh cannot be seen to be giving into demands from (commercial) terrorists. He said it would happen, why the surprise?

Previous strikers were not warned that they would lose staff travel, so retrospective removal would be unfair....something that BA takes great pride in, and quite rightly so.

Also, no other employee group refuses to change with the times and support British Airways in these dire times.

Most other employee groups can see that if BA fails, they fail, so as such aren't selfishly trying to get away without paying for their share of the bill.

[Fuel_on_Mixture_Rich]

Ottergirl,

It's not like there wasn't fair warning about ST being removed.

And as so many were crowing about ST being rubbish, being worthless and chanting "You can stick your ID90's up your a**e" on the picket lines, all of which was televised, in print etc. don't you think that's something of a mixed message the CC who stood to lose it are sending out?

What's changed since being offered a "year zero" reinstatement? What's now making staff travel the issue of choice this week?

Moreover, why should any other employee of any other department stand by and watch it be given back? I'm genuinely interested as to what you think about that.

[swalesboy]

Striking cabin crew have a fundemental right to strike, I agree. So using the same logic, British Airways have a fundemental right to look after it's business and do whatever it deems fit to protect it.

[Hotel Mode]

I dont think anyone disagrees with the fundamental right to strike. Just like we all have the fundamental right to live. What we do have to do is abide by the law when we're doing it. Whether or not you agree with the law is not relelvant. If the Act says that for a strike to be lawful that the BASSA chair must present the ballot by hopping around the perimeter road in a pink tutu, then whatever we may think of the law, that is what they must do.

The right to strike comes with the responsibility to comply with the law. Something that BASSA (and this AGAIN was BASSAs mistake not Unites) keeps failing to achieve.

[flybymerchant]

Don't bring logic into this Swalesboy!

Logic has no place in the hijackers' demands. This is about something much more important - we don't know for sure what that is, but rest assured that the union are ON IT!!;)

[Chuchinchow]

It has more impact if you say illigal, rather than a dismissal may not be automatically unfair.

Litebulbs: Please clarify. In the meantime, the correct spelling is still "illegal" - even if the trade union movement would prefer otherwise.

[essessdeedee]

I make this statement because no other group in BA who have taken strike action i.e T1 ground staff, have ever suffered a loss of Staff Travel even when it was an unlawful strike.

The key difference here is that, specifically wrt the CC dispute, BA gave, in the wise words of flybymerchant - He gave fair warning.

[Nevermind]

Ottergirl

I admire your willingness to give staff travel seniority back. No doubt many crew have been misled, and when they look at what they were offered last June, will wonder how they ended up with an inferior deal AND loss of their staff travel.
We all need BA to get back on track, and the cabin crew are the face of BA on our aeroplanes.
However. How do you give people their staff travel seniority back without re-inforcing the view that they were justified in striking and damaging our company?
There are many crew who will wonder how it all came to this.
Equally there are many crew who's contempt for both BA and their colleagues will never cease - some post/bait people on this forum occasionally.

Why should BA give them their seniority back?

The problem is that you can never make a distinction between the two groups, although their contrasting attitudes will no doubt be visible in your galley over the next few years!

[Chuchinchow]

I imagine they will never return to this site, due to the way that they were treated.

Too bad. If they can't stand the heat . . .

[melc]

Nevermind: The problem is that you can never make a distinction between the two groups, although their contrasting attitudes will no doubt be visible in your galley over the next few years!


That is the problem unfortunately the attitudes of some cabin crew on the passengers - no wonder they are staying away in their droves. What's it going to be like if they lose this court case - I shudder to think and the non-striking CC have my greatest sympathy in having to work with them.

[Nevermind]

Chuchinchow

Sorry but I completely disagree. Many are on this site to show how smart they are, bore the pants off us with lengthy diatribes and be very rude to people who disagree with them.

I'd have to put my hand up and say I've lost it on here a couple of times. You win neither arguments nor friends with that approach.

How do you convince someone to see your side of the argument by scaring them off?

No doubt there have been a few contributors who come on to bait people, but looking past their childish taunts, there is little substance.
Equally, in denying facts known to be true, they simply embarrass themselves. I'd rather they did that than me attempt to do it.

[melc]

Well said Nevermind

[melc]

Just scrolling through other forums - see below what has happened to Air Lingus crew will most probably happen to BA crew sooner rather than later:


230 Aer Lingus cabin crew who rejected a €97m cost reduction programme will only receive the legal minimum redundancy payment when they lose their jobs in a month's time.

All cabin crew will be made redundant after a 30-day consultation period.

Most of them will be offered immediate re-employment, but on lower pay and conditions.

Redundant cabin crew will get two weeks' pay per year of service, compared with six weeks in total for 440 staff accepting voluntary redundancy among pilots, administration, ground staff and craft workers.

Yesterday, the airline announced that it would have to secure cost savings through compulsory redundancies rather than by the voluntary deal that the cabin crew turned down by a margin of two to one.

It also said that it would not do any 'sweetheart' deal for the cabin crew, which was the only one of five groups to reject the restructuring agreement.

It is understood that the airline intends to make all senior cabin crew members, known as cabin managers, compulsorily redundant in an attempt to 'de-layer' the cabin crew organisation system.

The IMPACT trade union has said that the compulsory redundancy programme announced by Aer Lingus is 'brutal, targeted and unfair'.

The union is requesting that the Labour Relations Commission reconvene in order to 'find a mutual solution'.

In a statement this afternoon, the union says that despite assurances by the CEO of the airline Christoph Mueller, the measures 'look very much like a form of retribution against cabin crew for voting against the proposals'.

IMPACT says that it believes that the measures, if fully implemented, 'will damage the long term sustainability of the airline'.

Aer Lingus has said that it has no mandate from the board to enter further negotiations with cabin crew.

A spokesperson for Aer Lingus said that after four months in the Labour Relations Commission, there was nothing left to negotiate.

[dave3]

The crew have lost staff travel and money from their wages for daring to take IA... so WW got the crew to pay for their right to strike... staff travel may be reinstated but with loss of seniority...
All the crew comming on this forum joined an airline with a union in place...The union negotiated the terms and conditions that you came over on and that a few enjoyed when volunteering...
My oriiginal question on this form was if you were so passionate about"backing BA " why didnt you work for free.. Hotel in reply stated that the volunteers did work for free... (that reply deleted for some reason) I have given money back to the company.. have the volunteers????

[melc]

I'm sorry but I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say. Are you saying that other parts of BA haven't made any changes - that is so untrue and why should volunteers work for free - have you

[gr8tballsoffire]

Hotel mode
Quote
BASSA chair must present the ballot by hopping around the perimeter road in a pink tutu,

That is be a requirement that WAS met!!

[dave3]

although our CEO asked us to work for free whilst he was on such wonderful wages.. no I have not worked for free.. I have had my wages taken off me tho.. Volunteers are just that volunteers and you do not get paid for it

[melc]

Sorry Dave 3 but some ground staff at T5 gave up a months salary to help the company and I'm sure other areas did as well. The volunteers VOLUNTEERED to help out non striking Cabin Crew to keep the airline flying so in that context it doesn't mean it was free they would have received their normal salaries as they would have been working anyway but in this instance in the air and not on the ground.

We are all meant to be in the same company - therefore why should other parts of the airline meet the requirements to help out an ailing BA and not others who just cost it more money. BA IS NOT JUST SICK ITS TERMINAL and soon working for free is not going to help either.

[dave3]

Definition of a volunteer "a person who performs a service willingly and without pay" yes you are right we all do work for the same company so when ground staff went out on illegal IA why did they not loose pay and staff travel????

[melc]

Dave3 - you are missing the point - they 'volunteered' or if you like AGREED to help out cabin crew and be trained to do so - so as I said earlier its a different context.

As far as ground staff striking - how do you know they got paid and as I remember it was very short-lived. They didn't lose staff travel because agreements were made - they have a much more flexible union than BASSA. By the way ground crew would love to earn the same as CC.

[Spanner in the works]

I presume the inference by Dave3 is that volunteers are mercenaries just looking at topping-up their wages for the odd allowance that crewing a/c entails.

Volunteers gave up weekends and evenings to train. Vounteers were carefully selected (in our area anyway) so the impact on those they left behind would be minimal - however, workloads inevitably increase for everyone else covering them.

I personally took two weeks unpaid leave last year. Many of my colleagues did the same. Some took "unpaid work".
And we are still catching-up with some of the backlogs that created.

So, if you are saying - the rest of the airline haven't done their bit then find out some facts first.

We are all working feverishly to clear up the devastation that the strikes are causing.
And all you can do is say volunteers should be working for free?

Unbelievable.

Sorry - but the strength of feeling among ALL fellows employees I have spoken to is not one of just "disagreement" with the actions of CC so far, but is now one of anger.
I don't think you realise how alone in the airline, you are.

[dave3]

no you are missing my point if you volunteered you volunteered you should not have been paid.. any volunteers pilots,, mangers from waterside, ground crew anyone should give money back that they got whilst volunteering...

[Spanner in the works]

Why should they give money back?
What point are you making?

[cotswoldchap]

Dave,

I am starting to suspect you may be posting statements which are so outlandish simply to wind people up. If you are, it's not very constructive and a little pointless. If you genuinely believe what you are saying allow me to apologise but perhaps I could ask a question?

Are you actually saying that while you were on strike, attempting to cost your employer tens of millions of pounds and not doin the job you are paid to do ou should be paid by BA? That seems to be what you are saying but I may be misinterpreting your posts

[fly12345]

By striking you are destroying the company by volunteering you are trying to save the company.
Easy!! Simple!!:ugh:

[dave3]

The volunteers made more money out of the strike than cabin crew would normaly have made in a working day TRUTH.... and a volunteer should not make any money, no matter how you answer, volunteering is just that ,volunteering.. if you chose to volunteer you should not have been paid

[fly12345]

The volunteers only received meal allowances exactly as much or as little as regular cabin crew, after all they need to eat as well.:ugh:

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Litebulbs has been a long running contributor to ALL the BA v BASSA threads, and has, earned his spurs, as it were. Whilst I
ay not agree with all of his points, I think he provides an interesting Unite slant to the thread.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by banning him??:confused:

[Spanner in the works]

IF that were true - what on earth has it got to do with anything?
Any remuneration - however it is paid - is between BA and employees.
Talk about smokescreen argument.

Folk are on strike and you are bickering about some expenses their replacements receive?
If it's done anything - it's opened peoples eyes regarding the things CC claim for, which is the whole point of what WW is trying to amend is it not?

VCC gave up weekends and evenings to train anyway - so why should they be out of pocket as well for doing the job you have decided you don't want to do?

I suspect this is a wind-up.

[melc]

Either a wind-up or he just doesn't want to listen or doesn't understand the difference

[Wirbelsturm]

The union negotiated the terms and conditions that you came over on and that a few enjoyed when volunteering...

BASSA never, ever negotiated the current contract they have merely defended it. The current contract is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as it was when BA was privatised and as such was 'gifted' as 'market rate' back when the privatisation took place when fuel, aircraft, landing fees etc were cheaper and tickets were far more expensive.

All credit to BASSA for struggling on to keep what they have until now. Unfortunately it makes the fall to current, modern terms and consitions all the more painful.

Shame they didn't negotiate and rationalise a little more evenly over the years.

[dave3]

You seem to turn and twist all agreements on this forum to suit yourselves.. a volunteer is a volunteer they cost the company money.. it is my belief that they were given more than allowances... taxi to work. hotel accomadation paid for, taxi home and extra money to enjoy themselves whilst away..not just a small point one that cost the company more money than needed...

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Dave3 the COD definition of volunteer is a person who voluntarily (of his own free will) takes part in an enterprise


So, you go on strike, hence lose your basic pay. You also expect the person doing the job in your stead to receive no basic pay??

If I were in your position as a striker, with the current legal position, I would be worrying about far more than the pedantic definition of volunteer.

[fly12345]

In reality they should have been given all of the above as they are trying to save the company while you are trying to destroy it.
Sadly they only received normal meal allowances nothing more or less.:ok:

[Rescue3]

volunteer

• noun 1 a person who freely offers to do something. 2 a person who works for an organization without being paid. 3 a person who freely enrols for military service rather than being conscripted.

• verb 1 freely offer to do something. 2 say or suggest something without being asked. 3 freely enrol for military service rather than being conscripted. 4 commit (someone) to an undertaking.

— ORIGIN from French volontaire ‘voluntary’.

[dave3]

fly oh please!!! they were looking after their pockets! work for free if you wanted to save the company the planet or anything else

[melc]

If CC don't like it then don't strike - do what you are paid to do and then you wouldn't have to put up with volunteers - simple.

Without them BA would have lost even more money than they have already and more passengers than they have already - lose anymore and its curtains for BA.

[cotswoldchap]

Dave

I tried being subtle and polite but to no avail. In fact I have only posted on here about 5 or 6 times. Each one has been a genuine question looking for a genuine answer. I've never actually received a straight answer.

I'll try the direct route

Do you believe you should of been paid by BA while you were on strike?

The volunteer argument is, to be honest a little weird. I'm not sure what you are saying. I suppose that as people were paid allowances (they have to eat!) alongside their normal pay perhaps volunteer is not technically the cottect word. There you go. You have someone agreeing with you. Your point is technically correct. I'm not sure what that's achieved though?

[dave3]

they did not just receivemeal allownaces they received much much more..do not make them out to be the saviours of the airline... the real saviours are the ones who put their necks on the line and lost money to try and save the terms and conditions for all... I expected to loose money for the days I took IA no more no less.. I took IA for 1 day got 11 days pay taken off me...

[rampss]

I am sure there is alot of ground staff that actually earn "more"than cabin crew, even without overtime!!!;)

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Litebulbs has been a long running contributor to ALL the BA v BASSA threads, and has, earned his spurs, as it were. Whilst I
ay not agree with all of his points, I think he provides an interesting Unite slant to the thread.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by banning him??:confused:

Sorry Sir,

Just rechecked the rules hence the deletion however do you think it would be deemed acceptable if an ALM posts a few comments :ok:

(Pretty sure you and I did a few Gulf Sched's together :ok:)

[melc]

Dave3 - Hahaha - you really believe that don't you. There is no point in saying anymore you are obviously brainwashed.

[dave3]

fly so only your oppinion will count then....lol

[Hotel Mode]

taxi to work. hotel accomadation paid for, taxi home and extra money to enjoy themselves whilst away

Complete, total and utter rubbish.

The only people who got an allowance to get to work were cabin crew breaking the strike.

As for 'extra money to enjoy themselves'. Laughable. This is BA remember.

Just more BASSA forum lies. Dont you think its funny that its always the ones who are proud xxxxxs who claim to know what was going on during the strike.

[wiggy]

the real saviours are the ones who put their necks on the line and lost money to try and save the terms and conditions for all...

Oh please, "for all".... not my T&C's you weren't or the majority of the company's employees T&Cs for that matter, so please don't tell me you were on strike for the greater good.

BTW the reason the likes of wonker, puss in boots et.al. didn't last here is not because they were given an unreasonably hard time, it's because they didn't like and/or couldn't cope with reasoned argument; fortunately this forum is not a clone of the BASSA site.

[dave3]

I have facts and you dont like the truth.. the truth hurts.. it would be seen to be very bad if the press got hold of the true facts that the volunteers got more than the striking crew they replaced.. I will not labour any more on the point..
VOLUNtEERS DO THE DECENT THING AND PAY YOUR MONEY BACK TO THE COMPANY YOU SAY YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE SAVING

[BABOBO]

You seem to turn and twist all agreements on this forum to suit yourselves.. a volunteer is a volunteer they cost the company money.. it is my belief that they were given more than allowances... taxi to work. hotel accomadation paid for, taxi home and extra money to enjoy themselves whilst away..not just a small point one that cost the company more money than needed...


Offcourse the volunteers are costing the company money... training, allowances to eat down route, uniforms and not to mention the fact that there will be a backlog with their own work!!!

Fact of the matter is however, that because of the volunteers and our 'regular' cabin crew who came into work during the last strike, we have been able to keep BA flying and get the majority of our customers to where they want to be.....

Don't start moaning on here that volunteers cost the company more money than needed, while you, your union and your fellow strikers are the cause of this absolute mess we are in.... :ugh:

And maybe, just maybe.... if BASSA would have worked with the company instead of against it, there would have been a negociated and sensible deal by now, and all those extra costs you are talking about would have been avoided and we as a company would have been well and truly on the road by now of building a strong and competative BA!!!

[Spanner in the works]

I see it now - finally.
They went on strike to protect MY terms and conditions as well as their own.

I have had no pay rise for three years.
My section is down 4 people on two years ago.
My workloads have increased due to the above and extra work being taken on.

Thanks for your hard work though - working with one less management crew on board must be an absolute nightmare.
Maybe you could get another week of rest days after a Glasgow round-trip to cope.

[Spanner in the works]

Quote Dave3 volunteers got more than the striking crew they replaced.. I will not labour any more on the point..
VOLUNtEERS DO THE DECENT THING AND PAY YOUR MONEY BACK TO THE COMPANY YOU SAY YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE SAVING

Even if they did get more, even if they did get monies to induce, even if they got promised lots of tea in China.
What on earth has it got to do with the original reason for striking?

Good on em I say. If true, it's not enough. Pay em more.

[fly12345]

fly so only your oppinion will count then....lol

Mine is not an opinion but fact.
You are not willing or able to understand even when clear, unbiased and factual reasoning is used to explain an event, no wonder you are still believing the spin and manipulation of your union there is nothing I can say or do to make you understand how dangerous your behavior has became to yourself and your colleagues, I guess the only way to make you realize how bad things really are is going o be when the only thing flying you ll see are going to be crispy P45s.
Good luck.

[Spanner in the works]

It's no wonder we are where we are with that mindset.

It's like a small child that has just broken something in your house.
Not sure whether to be angry with them or feel abject pity and teach them gently the error of their ways.

Patronising? You bet.

[sparkoflife]

dave3

I'm VCC, and can only assume your claims come straight from BASSA. If you want FACTS, here they are:

I'm in my third year of pay freezes. My team's workload has increased, whilst my team has shrunk from 11 to 7. I volunteered to spend a year on a 4-day week (so lost 20% of my salary) to help company finances.

As a volunteer, I've kissed goodbye to my personal life for the last 3 months, and am prepared to do without it for more months to come if necessary. I sacrificed evenings and weekends during training, and the only expense or allowance paid during this period was for reimbursement of visa costs.

If I operate a sector that's 12 hours long, I'll get paid the same as I get for a day at work in Waterside. Additionally I get a single daily allowance - which is taxable - that barely covers my meal expenses. No box payments, no one-down allowances, no knocking the light fitting out for a few extra quid. I drive in using my own car and my own petrol, although the company would reimburse me for a taxi should I feel threatened by striking crew or pickets. In other words, I make nothing extra for being a volunteer. In fact, I'd venture that I'm probably slightly out of pocket for volunteering.

But that's fine, because I'm not doing it for personal gain. I'm doing it because I love this airline, and I won't let a bunch of self-serving 70s throwbacks lead the blissfully unaware down a path that will result in all of us joining the dole queue.

So please, get your facts straight before trotting out utter rubbish.

[BAAlltheway]

no you are missing my point if you volunteered you volunteered you should not have been paid.. any volunteers pilots,, mangers from waterside, ground crew anyone should give money back that they got whilst volunteering...


Dave,
I am one of those "managers from waterside". I DID take unpaid leave to support BA. I have been volunteering in BACK BA roles. And i have been TOTALLY unpaid for this in anyway. In fact, my day job doesnt go away, so what generally happens, is that i do a backing ba shift instead of my regular hours- hence it is unpaid. And then i go home and do my day job at home, in the evenings and weekends to catch up. Oh, and guess what. No overtime is paid, so i do 2 roles for the price of one.

Same goes for the other 4 people in my immediate team who are doing various Backing BA roles.

Add to this the fact that i am actually also covering the work of 2.5 other managers from my team, all more senior than me, who left in the 2008 voluntary redundancy scheme, not to be replaced, and for no extra salary, no promotion. No pay rise for 3 years. No bonus, no increment. Oh, and as a manager you dont get an extra ticket for 20 years long service anymore.

To be honest, i feel like i have done MORE than my fair share...
Do you start to see why "the rest of us" are feeling a bit miffed?

[Pornpants1]

dave3 is another in yet a long line of people who come across from another forum, in order to put the cat amongst the pigeons:ok:so to speak, to sock it to all the people who don't take BASSAs word at face value and don't dogmaticly follow their every word without reflection or thought.:E

Once they find that their wildest claims are picked apart they normally head off, only to make an appearence from time to time with a few more liberal with the truth accusations!

Its probably the same person who was complaining loudly about his post being removed earlier;) or whom needs help defining "volunteer"

Come on dave3 you (claim) to have the information about the huge amounts of renumeration that VCC are enjoying, share it with us, leak it to the independent, but remember it best stand up to scutany unlike the last BASSA claim of pilots being paid £166 per hour and Captains being given £1000 to treat crew to quote Hotel Mode aboveThis is BA remember.
:ok:
dave3,
I look forward to pprunes equivelent of the MPs allowance scandle when you go public with as you say "the truth";)


On top of that dave3, I hope you and all the other 3000 crew are going to declare your strike pay to the tax man!

[trolleytrolley]

Hi Everyone,

I have been reading these posts with interest. I am a Purser and a CSST I have been with the company for ten years and started on the ground.

So I have seen both sides of the company. The burning question did I strike NO!!!

I have my personal personal reasons as to why I never and one day I may think I did the right thing or I may not..I don't have a crystal ball so who know's.

One thing I would like to ask tho and I think everyone in the company should be asking the same thing and that is WHAT ABOUT PENSIONS.

I do admire WW for his business skills but at the same time I am wondering is this a very very cleaver man... take my example: before you start thinking oh hear we go another WW hater I am genuinely not!!

He starts on the ground and get's everyone to accept a deal and a paycut and increase there workload...same for pilots. He then trys to do this with c/c knowing the union will say no to alot of things.

He then divides the workforce because everyone has to give up something...and rightly so should c/c...so everyone is so angry with c/c they decide to break the strike so it has less impact on our customer's and a deal will have to be done.

Okay so they set up New Fleet and save x amount per year...they also make it very attractive to c/c and more so Lgw and they start on New Fleet as well.

They get all C/C who wants to transfer to New Fleet to sign a new contract...new t&c's and new pension package which won't be the final salary or the current one it will actually be alot less.

So they manage to acheive this with 12000 Cabin Crew...what about the rest of the work place do I personally think he will stop there no. If Ba employs 40000 then he has succeeded filling the pension deficit by only 30 %. These numbers are all estimates for example that is.

Surely then after this has all happened won't he then have a reason to do the same to everyone..Well if cabin crew have done it everyone can...phrase comes to mind!!

After ten years of working for BA which prides itself on been the best airline with the best staff I can't help thinking that the career I signed up to is soon going to be long gone and that is a horrific thought if i'm honest.

I am not posting this to have a dig at anyone who volunteered like I said I came to work myself and I understand why you all did what you did because I used to work on the ground. I don't agree in some thing's the union have done but at the same time I can't help thinking that there is a longer term plan to all of this as well. The most prolific of these is the merger with Iberia.

Also I was wondering: the monthly payment is an average of 2008/2009 allowances so therefore how come Eurofleet will get £2500 and Worldwide will get £8500..am I missing something because that would equal £208 per month which means take home £1350??? before tax!!!

Thanks for reading all on a lighter note: before writing this I had a cigarette and put it out and i had an ashtray ontop of a recycling box...I must of missed and I was sat here thinking something was burning....thought it was my computer took battery out and still could smell it...then I heard a big bang and when I investigated...I only set fire to the recycling box and there was flames coming out of it!! so I became the fire fighter and dampened down a few towels and through these over it!!! Needless to say I don't have a recycling bin anymore!!!!!!! Oh well I am Cabin Crew at the end of the day!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[melc]

Dave 3: VOLUNtEERS DO THE DECENT THING AND PAY YOUR MONEY BACK TO THE COMPANY YOU SAY YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE SAVING

What on earth are you talking about - I'll tell you what you give your salary back to BA - you are talking utter twaddle (I'm being kind here it is a forum after all) - where on earth do you get your 'so called facts' which they most certainly are not. You didn't lose money you made the decision to strike - ergo no salary - why did you expect to be paid? Ask BASSA don't they pay you - and if not why not - have you asked them that question.

I suggest you really digest what is being said on here and make up your own mind and not have the mindset of the unions and believe every single word they have said.

I'll tell you what with people like you none of us have a hope - I and my husband have worked for BA for many many years and in all that time I have never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. You are making me MAD!!!

[Spanner in the works]

Pensions deficit is strictly regulated.
The current "hole" is created because expected income against expected outgoings is less over the period of cover required for current life expectancies.
This hole is to be filled by us either paying more or for longer, or receiving less or all three.
They HAVE to sort it this year. It's the law.

You can't fill the hole with possible changes to workforce over the next 5 years lets say.

While your arguments have some merit - there is ALWAYS a long term plan, there has to be for any company - I think the pensions deficit is scary enough for all of us without putting more scary issues out there that links it to the current CC situation.

[Hand Solo]

Who really cares if the volunteers get paid or not? Why don't we just make it simple by paying them and calling them Temporary Cabin Crew? Perhaps then the regular crew will start to realise the significance of the T in TCC, and how easy it would be to drop that T when the P45s start hitting the doormats after 12th June. Sorry strikers, BA doesn't need you and BA doesn't want you. It's time to start making plans for a new life after BA.

[Pornpants1]

After ten years of working for BA which prides itself on been the best airline with the best staff I can't help thinking that the career I signed up to is soon going to be long gone and that is a horrific thought if i'm honest.



You,me and most people across the whole of BA. Unfortunatly BA must stand on its own 2 feet in this world. Income per seat has fallen, other costs have increased, and to make matters worse everyone wants a share of our market, the best example is EK, but you can add in many of the other far eastern airlines, who are doing it better and cheaper than BA:ooh: Other airlines are investing in the Airbus, brand new 777 and the 787s BA are not generating the cash to make large wholesale investments like the other airlines. If we don't change (and every other dept has) then we do a Pan Am, that is manage ourselves out of business!

The biggest threat to the pension right now is the regulator and continued strike action by the minority, not WW or BA.

[Hotel Mode]

Also I was wondering: the monthly payment is an average of 2008/2009 allowances so therefore how come Eurofleet will get £2500 and Worldwide will get £8500..am I missing something because that would equal £208 per month which means take home £1350??? before tax!!!

Don't forget meal allowances aren't included. It's only short turnrounds, telephone etc etc. Whatever you earn in meal allowances will remain on top as now. BASSA haven't really explained that very well. Most people I've come accross think they'll be at least evens and often slightly better off.

It's higher for ww as it includes box + back to back payments etc.

[paddy_22002]

Cmon Dave3.....lets hear the 'facts'.

[Spanner in the works]

You wont get any facts from Dave3 - as stated above, he only popped-in to stir things up and get a reaction.
He's probably boasting about it on another forum right now.

Which is the saddest part - I think some see this as a bit of a game.

I have not yet seen one solitary argument to justify current actions.
Even speaking to pro-strike crew - I have received replies of "imposition" or "get rid of WW".
None seem to know what to say about where and how savings can be made or more importantly understand why - which is the crux of the matter.

Which makes me even madder when folk like Dave3 come on and try and stir about total irrelevances.

[gatbusdriver]

Which is why I reported him to the Mods.

He had nothing constructive to add to the debate.

[trolleytrolley]

Spanner in the works!!

Thanks for that I can assure you I didn't intend to put more scary thought's out there.
Whilst you say links to the current cabin crew situation: I am only trying to get all the facts and understand the current situation for myself! I understand that the unions have been at fault and if anything have let there member's down very badly in some ways, however I just don't believe ww is an angel!

Pornpants 1!!

Change is what we need and i'm certainly not disagreeing, however I really do fear for my furture and also pension and I understand at this sensitive time anyone who works whithin Ba also do!!!

[flybymerchant]

The only facts that dave needs are that most people lost money by volunteering, and unlike some parts of the company who only ever do things for extra payments the main reason that people volunteered was to protect BA from the kamikazi sabboteurs.

The only reason I volunteered is because BASSA dared me to and I had nothing better to do with my evenings and weekends

[Beagle9]

TrolleyTrolley

Hotel Mode is right. If you look at your payslip, you will see that the vast majority of your variable pay is meal allowances, these and DOA/NIAs will continue to be paid ON TOP OF the MTP.

The reason WW MTP figure is so much higher is that THEIR MTP includes box payments and ETP which make up a MUCH bigger proportion of their variable pay. Meal allowances on WW are a relatively small part.

The MTP was calculated by taking the grand total of all these non meal/DOA allowances paid to the crew community crew, by grade and fleet, in 08/09, (INCLUDING, incidently, off schedule ETP triggered by delays/disruption that year) and dividing it by the number of crew in that grade and fleet. Transparent - no diddling.

The reason that so many people don't understand it still, is I suspect, as usual the BASSA Ministy of Misinformation.

I really, really am getting very angry and frustrated to have to, even now, correct inaccurate information from my fellow crew.

Having said that, sorry to hear about your bin.

[TightSlot]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/work-employment/42943d1244227297-can-you-believe-i-got-fired-do_not_feed_trolls.jpg

Please do not feed the Trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

[trolleytrolley]

Hi Beagle 9,

Thanks for that all makes sense now! :ok:Sorry for you having to explain it again but yeah we do sometimes get bogged down and mislead sometimes!!!

Oh yeah and bin is well and truly dead!!!! :sad:

[The Blu Riband]

Dave3 is currently undergoing some much needed therapy. :bored:

[CantFlyWithoutEngine]

IT IS EASY TO RESIGN FROM BASSA....
Log on to the bassa home page, click on 'contact us' and fill in all relevant details, send message saying "i wish to cancel my monthly subscriptions with immediate effect"

Once you have done this contact Pay and People services and tell them that you want to stop your union subscriptions, they will then tell you what you have to do...Guys it is as easy as that....

THE PCCC Have a new website.......
Please log on and join asap, we now, more than ever have to get rid of BASSA, they have caused us nothing but grief and hassle
LOGON TO www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk/)

[sillybassard]

so the timetable is:

COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS’ COURT COURT 71
Before THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND & WALES
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS and
LADY JUSTICE SMITH
Thursday, 20th May, 2010
At 9:30
FOR JUDGMENT
APPLICATION
C1/2010/1197 British Airways Plc -v- Unite The Union. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal.
Before LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
LORD JUSTICE MOSES and
LORD JUSTICE MUNBY
Not Before 12 o'clock
APPLICATION
A2/2009/2293 Taylor-Forrest -v- Owen & Anr. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if granted.
APPEAL
A2/2009/2666 Owen and anr -v- Taylor-Forrest. Appeal of Defendant from the order of Mr Justice Jack, dated 29th October 2009, filed 13th November 2009.

if BASSA win the right to appeal, it looks like the appeal itself won't take place tomorrow, so what next?

[yellowdog]

I understand emotions are running high at the moment, however I would just like to point out the following;

Belonging to a union is not just about the unions ability to conduct IR. It is also an insurance policy for yourself.

Consider carefully before leaving a recognised national union for a consultative committee(cc), what would happen if you were injured at work. Would the cc have legal nouse to help you out? If you were unfairly dismissed would a cc be able to offer you full legal support?

Having worked for an airline on which I was part of a cc, some good things came from it, however we eventually went over to a unionised labour force purely for the other options it gave us.

[sillybassard]

you could still consult the same solicitors that the union use, on pretty much the same kind of deal if you have a good case

[melc]

There is also ACAS who would advise you. Apart from collecting subs each month and recommending strikes what else do they do? My husband needed Unite's help a while ago and they were worse than useless.

He cleared up the matter on his own.

So no neither of us now belong to a union.

[yellowdog]

you could still consult the same solicitors that the union use, on pretty much the same kind of deal if you have a good case

Understand that but how many people would actually do that of their own back? Taking a big multi-national company to court?

It is so much easier with the support of a big union behind you.

Not trying to pass judgement just speaking from personal experience.

[melc]

It doesn't matter there are many lawyers now that will take cases on - no win no fee basis - and they won't take it on unless they are pretty sure you have a good case- they are as well resourced as any other law firm and specialise in dismissal cases or accident cases.

Many companies do not have unions and use outside resources.

[sillybassard]

It is so much easier with the support of a big union behind you.


why? the solicitor is the one doing the work, for the same fee ( if not a bit more) - the union don't really have a role, other than introducer

[flybymerchant]

Am I the only one that's laughing myself silly at seeing one of the reasons to stay with BASSA as their legaleagleness?!?!!

Oh, I think a bit of wee came out!!!:D

[CantFlyWithoutEngine]

Ditch Bassa Now - Heres How
IT IS EASY TO RESIGN FROM BASSA....
Log on to the bassa home page, click on 'contact us' and fill in all relevant details, send message saying "i wish to cancel my monthly subscriptions with immediate effect"

Once you have done this contact Pay and People services and tell them that you want to stop your union subscriptions, they will then tell you what you have to do...Guys it is as easy as that....

THE PCCC Have a new website.......
Please log on and join asap, we now, more than ever have to get rid of BASSA, they have caused us nothing but grief and hassle
LOGON TO www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk/)

[M.Mouse]

dave3

You have every right to put your case, in fact it is welcomed. However, what we all seem to see from UNITE/BASSA supporters/strikers is frequent posts seemingly designed to antagonise and short of any logic or facts. Posts which do not seem to question what UNITE /BASSA have achieved or what the current goal is or what the dispute is about or how it is going to be settled.

We frequently read that WW has to return to 'sensible negotiations' when it surely must be apparent to even the terminally stupid that that cliche means give in to the demands over disciplinaries and ST. Anybody witnessing this train crash from the beginning and from the inside knows that WW may drive a hard bargain but doesn't do it for his health but is trying to make BA fit for purpose in the current cut throat shambles which passes for the airline business.

When this started I thought that UNITE/BASSA would capitulate fairly rapidly. They didn't but they didn't win either and nor are they ever likely to win. They will be ineffective for many years to come after this debacle but what truly worries me is that the damage they have inflicted on BA may well prove terminal for BA and the 40+ thousand employees around the world.

As I said your presence is welcome but it would be refreshing to see a cogent post with some constructive argument defending your corner instead of short and irrelevant nonsense about whether VCC deserve to be paid and quoting untruths about what volunteers are actually being paid. It is notable when asked for more detail you ignored the request.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

When we talk of "Only ST and malicious BA disciplinaries" let's not forget what some of the suspensions are for.

Written/phone threats to kidnap a pilot VCC's children

Written/txt threats to poison pilots food.

Compiling/ disseminating lists of "Pilot Scabs"

Creating "dodgy" websites and linking to PCCC/BA via google

Refusing to talk to operating Captain, instead turning away and giving him the bird in a briefing.


Should BA overturn these to appease Unite/BASSA???


As to ST, personally, I'm not that fussed. My only concern is that I want to discourage willful striking instead of proper negotiation, so I am leaning towards no ST, maybe the limited return Willie offered last time is a deal is forthcoming soon.

My real concern is we are left with a simmering undercurrent of malcontent, and we end up here again in 18 months. I think BA, including the vast majority of great C Crew deserve better than that.

[Beagle9]

Dave3, Quote:

well we will agree to disagree on the numbers that did fly you will have your view and I will have mine....

Dave, if by this you mean the BASSA text stating that just 26 crew turned up for work on the second day of the first strike, when I, on that very day, had been on standby at CRC on an 05.30 standby, then yes we'll have to disagree, my old mate. Now maths may not have been my strong point at school, but I can assure you that the numbers of regular crew (not volunteers) in CRC, just in the 4 1/2 hours I was there, (we were being sent home early due to there being little need for standbys and CRC was getting a bit crowded....) far exceeded 26.

I can also assure you, me old mucker, that the next day when my friend was on standby, that she nearly let out a little bit of wee laughing so much at the text from BASSA claiming that just 5 had turned up.

[Strimmerdriver]

I understand that the police are involved in some of those cases.

Reinstatement would be made difficult by the loss of ones airside pass.

[Doors To Manuel]

MELC I truly believe that BA will survive - the repercussions worldwide would be huge and is bad for the industry

Pan Am
TWA
JAL
Lehman Brothers

Sorry, but repercussions and industry impact are not longer 'get out of jail free' cards. Even the Roman Empire crumbled eventually :=

[christmaslights]

no matter how you answer,

Dave3

what you said, I believe is the heart of the issue:

it does not matter what other people say, does it? whatever you believe, you will not listen to what others are saying.

I feel like there is no point in arguing, and I guess I now understand how we got to a point where WW could actually say he did not believe his offers were going to be enough.

People with the attitude above do not want to negotiate, they want to win.
That is what the strike is really about: winning against WW and the other wicked WTS managers.

The more I read on this thread the more it seems to me that some CC only focus on looking at other departments: they earn more than we do, the other ones are paid to volunteer, the other ones did not loose staff travel, the other ones did not give anything up etc.

IF you are so keen on comparing than compare it all, not just the bits that suit you :=

[Juan Odeboyse]

Good to be back!

An interesting article for you all...especially the last sentence.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/ruth-wishart/industrial-relations-crash-land-in-court-1.1028707 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/ruth-wishart/industrial-relations-crash-land-in-court-1.1028707)

[M.Mouse]

juan odeboyse

An interesting article. Leaving aside the simple and clear guidance on how to disseminate ballot results being ignored by UNITE being called legal nit picking, the line Every piece of worthwhile research suggests that companies whose performance outstrips those of rival concerns on both sides of the Atlantic are those where the management and shop floor share and buy into common goals. strikes a chord.

The question is how is that achieved when one side is refuses to believe the necessity of change and after a mob ruled mass meeting votes for 'no negotiation' on a show of hands?

[4468]

Juan Odeboyse
An interesting article for you all...especially the last sentence.

Sorry to disagree, but actually for the overwhelming majority of the employees at BA, it's the first sentence that is the most important!

A small minority at BA have sought to bring the company down, over miniscule changes to their working practices.

It's a power struggle, pure and simple. I don't want 1980 union dinosaurs running BA.

They can't even organise a legal strike! :rolleyes:

[Juan Odeboyse]

You are all going to have to stop the 1970's / 80's comments to these CC negotiations.
Remember we were within £10m of what was needed...and that was due to the unknown NF, so I feel UNITE were doing pretty well. Along comes WW with just one agenda - union busting...and here we are all today.

This is NOT the way to manage and run such a large company as BA. UNITE are not without their problems but WW is causing this dispute to drag on.
A simple way out would be to re-instate ST for all and if needbe give those that came to work a free tkt or similar.

[Fuel_on_Mixture_Rich]

...a reward and carte blanche to repeat and rinse each year then?

[Human Factor]

If the judgement goes against Unite, it has indicated it will hold another ballot of cabin crew in the row over pay, jobs and working conditions.

Actually, that probably depends upon whether BA choose to ask for a full trial, which if it went the way of the injuncion (in all likelihood) would cause the earlier action to be deemed illegal and Unite to be held liable for damages in the tens of millions.

A betting man may suggest that there won't be another ballot in exchange for BA not pursuing Unite for the earlier strike. :oh:

Who knows, although this cycle of ballot-strike-injunction has to be broken at some point.

[Meal Chucker]

Remember we were within £10m of what was needed


What was needed was a permanent change - so in fact Bassa's temporary offer didn't actually come anywhere near what was needed.

Bassa's offer also required a full pay back after two years, so please Juan Odeboyse explain where the actual savings for BA are?

[wiggy]

for the overwhelming majority of the employees at BA, it's the first sentence that is the most important!



Agreed; the first sentence rendered the rest of the article utterly academic.

( A bit like asking: "Apart from that Jackie, how was the rest of your day in Dallas...?")

[Doors To Manuel]

Guardian onlline:
10.11am:
The verdict was due at 9.30am, there was even talk of it being released at 9am. Not sure why the court is keeping us waiting.

9.35am:
Still waiting for a verdict. At the court Helen Pidd has spotted both of Unite's joint general secretaries, Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson. It's their first appearance at the court, she says. Read into that what you will

[gr8tballsoffire]

Juan
You know as well as the rest of us that the so called £10 m gap was smoke and mirrors, The gap was considerably more than that, furthermore BASSA wanted the proposed savings returned after three years.
Sadly, your reps have never negotiated in good faith and have led you and your colleagues down the road to potential large job losses as well as endagering the jobs of thousands of others. They have acted irresponsibly, incompetently and in some cases criminally.
It is difficult to fathom how a clearly intelligent and articulate individual like you can argue in favour of such a bunch of 70's pantomime figures.

[Doors To Manuel]

Guardian online:
10.21am:
One of the judges, the Lord Chief justice has allowed the appeal. But we are still waiting the verdict of the other two judges, Helen reports. If one of the agrees the appeal is upheld.

[Doors To Manuel]

Guardian online:
10.43am:
It's going to extra time. A second judge, Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, has dismissed the appeal. So it's now 1-1. The decision rests on the verdict of the third judge Lady Justice Smith

[trafficnotsighted]

Appeal courts rule in favour of Unite

[flybymerchant]

Juan...

Remember we were within £10m of what was needed...and that was due to the unknown NF, so I feel UNITE were doing pretty well.
I remember nothing of the sort. What I do remember is that BASSA offered pay-cuts that the membership did not want, were not consulted on & certainly didn't vote for.

They also cut-n-pasted a small part of the pilots' sacrifices and jumbled them all together with some other ill-thought out and, of course, undemocratically decided policies. These they presented to British Airways AFTER the deadline that everyone else managed to meet and at which WW said he would have to impose changes (who's dragging this out?).

This package of 'cost-savings', was woefully short of the required amount (as independently audited by PWC) and was TEMPORARY!!! Now, that I do remember! BASSA claiming that BA had made up the recession to beat them down!!Hee hee, shouldn't laugh I suppose!

Either way....savings that need to be repaid in full in two years time are NOT permanent savings nor what was clearly required and what every other department managed to deliver, without the delay-tactics, the tantrums and the foot-stomping.

A simple way out would be to re-instate ST for all and if needbe give those that came to work a free tkt or similar. Not too bad an idea, but what of all the victims of war crimes that BA has holed up in bamboo cages under 2 metres of putrid water? You seem to skip over the fact that BASSA have deliberately demanded something they know Willie cannot give.

UNITE are not without their problems but WW is causing this dispute to drag on.
....let me guess, Wicked Willie Walsh ticks ALL of the boxes that BASSA demand to be ticked (as Woodley has confirmed), EVEN reinstatement of staff travel, albeit with an earlier get-over-it d.o.j (let's be fair, any staff travel back is a RESULT!).

The only hoop he is UNABLE to jump through for reasons of fairplay, honesty, morality and in fact legality, is giving in to BASSAs OUTRAGEOUS demands that he abuse his position of authority and turn a blind eye to accusations of bullying, harassment, intimidation, poisoning, (which, lets face it, if you get done for poisoning a pilot will be dealt with as terrorism) and even kidnapping!!!

So BASSA make sure that one of their ridiculous demands is not just difficult, as with the staff travel, but physically IMPOSSIBLE, especially due to the fact that the police are involved.........Yes, I see where you're coming from, it's Walsh who is 'causing this dispute to drag on'!


Along comes WW with just one agenda - union busting...and here we are all today.
Really? That's really what you think? No faint recollection of a little global financial crisis, aviation hit hardest, BA hit the worst within the aviation sector, losing more money than we ever have before, two years in succession (also a first), all departments given a year to outline cost savings measures OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING? None of this ringing any bells?

All other departments inspecting the company books, taking independent financial advice, canvassing opinion from membership, coming up with proposals, balloting and voting on said proposals, coming to a DEMOCRATIC AND INFORMED decision, agreeing to (yet again) work harder for less money and doing all this WELL WITHIN the year deadline TO KEEP BA FLYING!

All this done in the knowledge that the precious cabin staff would fanny around for months (now years), bluster randomly about human rights, whip normal cc up into a frenzy about nothing and, in the face of no better plan, pull out their tired old trump, a lame and unpopular strike.....(we all said it at the time, it wan't a surprise to us and obviously not to WW!)

Did BASSA do any of the research and negotiation that the other work groups undertook? No, they did none of those things, because they knew they were just going to stick their fingers in their ears, as always, claim victimisation, as always, and take the membership out on an unjustified strike, as always.......you say this was only ever about union busting. I say it was an entirely predictable consequence of poking a relatively gentle and friendly bear with a big pointy stick my friend. Why do BASSA think all the other work groups agreed to the required changes? Because we're not as good as them?

This is NOT the way to manage and run such a large company as BA
Let's leave the management up to the those paid reassuringly & justifiably large sums for their demonstrable skills at managing, shall we?

....Or do BASSA think they can run the company better?.......You know what, I think actually they probably do think that, and that is the HEART OF THE PROBLEM right there.

[VSOP Fables]

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS’ COURT COURT 71
Before THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND & WALES
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS and
LADY JUSTICE SMITH
Thursday, 20th May, 2010
At 9:30
FOR JUDGMENT
APPLICATION
C1/2010/1197 British Airways Plc -v- Unite The Union. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal.

Before LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
LORD JUSTICE MOSES and
LORD JUSTICE MUNBY
Not Before 12 o'clock
APPLICATION
A2/2009/2293 Taylor-Forrest -v- Owen & Anr. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if granted.

Every news agency is saying that Unite will carry on with strikes on Monday, but surely by looking at the second entry above they just have 'permission to appeal' and not actually won THE appeal??? So they still have to appeal???

[demomonkey]

Winners: BA & WW, through a tactical play they have reduced the effective strike period by 75%. Based on the show/no-show rates of the previous strike we could operate a 75% service as a minimum for the remainder of the strike period (fingers crossed).

Losers: BASSA and their members. The man is gonna show you no mercy now. I can imagine that Plan B of sacking 1000s of people is gonna be put in place. What else can he do? No company is a 100% perfect employer but there is no way we can survive with a suicidal militant tendency attempting to scupper the company at every turn. He was reasonable, he was fair and he tried to negotiate - what else could he have done???

[BentleyH]

Unite have won the appeal!
Both the right to appeal and the actual appeal were both wrapped up into one, although that's not quite what the agenda described!

I never thought this injunction was a good idea. For the first time, Willie has taken the wrong turn.

Big question now is does he blink or does he hold firm? I hope he holds firm because otherwise he'll look weak. Assuming he holds firm I expect the strike will be back on from next Monday.

The injunction has also confused the operational plan. I'm flying a freighter out to the US today and back as a freighter on Saturday. What a complete waste of time and money! Come on Willie, sort it out!

[Human Factor]

I never thought this injunction was a good idea. For the first time, Willie has taken the wrong turn.

Corporate law requires WW to look at all contingencies to prevent loss to shareholders. He probably had little choice when he was advised that these grounds existed.

[melc]

BentleyH: He will have to hold firm but actually the offer he put on the table was accepted by Unite (apart from the ST and disciplinaries) - its BASSA that don't want to accept the terms.

He has put ST back on the table (albeit in a diluted form) but that is better than nothing bearing in mind the CC have said originally it and I quote:
"Wasn't worth the paper it was written on" so why are they holding out for ST if its not worth anything to them - hypocriticial or what.

WW cannot and should not do anything about the disciplinaries - they must run their course through the right channels as if he does he is opening himself up to a load of trouble in the future.

Lets face it BASSA would find an excuse even if WW did agree to all their terms - then it would just be something else - they are power mad - and unfortunately they are going to take all of us down with them

Have a safe flight

[Sunshine Express]

Annual results are due on Friday.

Possible that compulsory redundancies may follow?

[ranger07]

We need these disloyal political hot heads REMOVED from our company.
These people don't give a dam to those that pay their wages,much less to the staff that have worked so hard to make our airline work.
It cannot be right that these militants hold the Airline to ransom.
Not only are they jeapordising our future, but as sure as blacks's not white, they will rear their political mugs time and time again if they have their own way. 2012 is one such danger. They really care about no one other than themselves and their own warped politics.

[flying_chick]

Hotelmode in case you have failed to notice we haven't backed down we won the appeal today.... little effort hate to say it but I bet WW thought he was going to win this fight with minimum effort.. wrong!!!! :E

[LD12986]

Note the court has only decided on the issue of whether BA can obtain an injunction.

It has not decided on whether the March strikes (and, by extension, next week's strikes) were legal or not. Regardless of whether BA obtained an injunction, this would have always have had to go to a full hearing.

BA still has the right to sue Unite if if thinks if has a case.

[flying_chick]

ok I am signing off now. Whatever you think it correct. Justice has prevailed. :D

[Watersidewonker]

WW has got it wrong once again my contacts (not BA staff) tell me fewer pax in T5 than on a strike day. Getting paid and not going on strike is Willie's master plan going from bad to worse time for him to leave I think. Many Vols are waiting around confused no doubt wondering what happens next.

[flybymerchant]

The law only protects you for 12 weeks....any subsequent ballot that is related to the first does NOT extend the 12 weeks. Therefore I think I'm right in saying that anyone out on strike in about 3 weeks time can be legally sacked.

Perhaps this was part of WW's masterplan.......the nearer he gets to that 12th June(?) date, the better chance he has of pulling out his Big Willie Eye-Waterer......locking out all the strikers (he's done it before) for the last couple of weeks and sacking them on the 12th- is that a possibility?

[demomonkey]

Waterside: I didn't volunteer in the last round of IA but now I am very ready to volunteer anything. I'll personally drive our Pax / Crew to T5 if it helps keep the operation moving and me in a job.

Your lot are disillusioned, ill-informed and can't see the wood for the trees. Yet I am not even going to attempt to convert you because that would be like pushing water uphill. You've made your bed now lie in it. This is going to be over soon and I guess that there will be tears before bedtime (OK, fewer of the bed related metaphors).

I'm backing BA and I imagine like most other Volunteers your union's actions over the last few weeks have only strengthened our resolve to see our company come through this period safely. If the atmosphere is half as good as it was in the last few strikes it will be a fab place to work!

I'm Backing BA :ok:

[Hotel Mode]

locking out all the strikers (he's done it before) for the last couple of weeks and sacking them on the 12th- is that a possibility?

No lockouts are excluded from the 12 weeks, that would just be prolonging the death throes of BASSA.

[swalesboy]

I am totally against the strike but I am also pleased with today's ruling. This situation needs to be brought to a head and let's see what unfolds over the coming strikes and also what happens when the record loss is announced and also what happens when the 12 week period is up. A new ballot over the loss of staff travel I suspect will see the union back in court quicker than they can blink. Proving a link between the 2 strikes will be easy.

[Newyorker001]

For any crew who may want to see what may happen if you actually took a step back and agreed to the sensible agreements. Look at what the recent agreement between the Postal unions has managed to change..

Royal Mail profit up to £404m - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/royal-mail-profit-up-to-pound404m-1978009.html)

[Watersidewonker]

BASSA/Unite have backed it's workers and today we saw justice against the the bullying tactics of a company acting like a headless chicken.

[Juan Tugoh]

BASSA/Unite have backed it's workers

This nicely displays what is wrong with some of the thinking here. BASSA/Unite workers have not been on strike, BA has some workers that they are in dispute with, but until BASSA pay your wages you do not work for them.

[swalesboy]

There are some basic facts here that I think strikers are failing to get. Willie Walsh cannot let this continue. We have seen that he will not back down so this can only leave one other option for the cc who will not accept the deal. I can see it, everybody else in BA can see it and so can probably the rest of the Uk population. If this carrys on, these people will not be working for BA in 6 months time. He has proven he can run the operation without you, and when a pretty full schedule is flying after a few days of the strike starting, you will be surplus to requirements.

[M.Mouse]

watersidewonker

I was pleased to see UNITE granted their appeal because I am actually pleased the suicide strikes will go ahead because it will hasten the end of the dispute. With the uncertainty of the past few days and the prospect of another ballot, etc. it was just dragging out the inevitable conclusion to the dispute.

Instead of making a vacuous jibe at the company why do you not make some constructive comments and observations about what this is all about and what you would hope to see to settle the dispute?

[Get Smart]

www your claim that T5 was deserted today are untrue I'm afraid. I was there on sby and walked down to M&S and it didn't seem any less busy than a normal day to me.

Ruptions at CRC today as it seems they were very over-crewed. Crew who's flight had been cancelled were put to sby and there were plenty of those. Evidentally 150 sby crew - not that I can confirm that but it certainly was standing room only.

In addition to that, due to BA's contigency plan, obviously some of which seemed to remain in place, there were vcc's rostered for flights and the original 'real crew' due no strike, also reported. Rumour around CRC was that management had removed 'known strikers' from the trips and kept the vcc's on. Again - a rumour and not confirmed but I did see managers running in and out of briefing rooms having intense conversations with crew and I there were a few angry faces around.

If this is true, I don't feel any sympathy for strikers that have been sent home. Quite happy to hijack the company when it suits them and not to show up for work, but when the company doesn't need them and sends them home, they don't like it. Well, I lost my very lucrative nightstop as well due to the cancelled strike and sat there on sby loosing money but I didn't complain!!

If any strikers were sent home then they only have themselves to blame and should accept the consequences. If you set out to cause mass disruption, the expect to be disrupted!! It cuts both ways :=

[yellowdog]

Am I the only one that's laughing myself silly at seeing one of the reasons to stay with BASSA as their legaleagleness?!?!!

Oh, I think a bit of wee came out!!!

Flybymerchant,

Me thinks you jump to too many conclusions;

1. I am not and never have been a member of BASSA
2. I have not and never have preached to anyone that they should be in a union.
3. I have first hand experience of the fabulous back up that my union provided me when something went wrong, personally, at work.
4. The legal expertise is not provided by BASSA, and I hope never will be because they are not legal people. The expertise is provided by Unite
5. I would never want to go back to the days of hardcore 70's "militantism"; just a healthy industrial relation between the employer and their employees.

All I'm saying is be practical when deciding whether to leave the umbrella of a union, for a consultative committee, which as far as I can see has no legal standing at British Airways. I know I will still be paying my subs to Unite long after all this has been forgotten, and yes my legal bills came to a lot more than I can ever pay Unite in subs.

Don't forget nearly every big work force is unionised; all the teachers, all the nurses, all the policemen can they all be wrong?

[Juan Odeboyse]

My major gripe about the strike is the actual dates...if it had been put back a few more weeks I could have watched the whole World Cup without the fear of flying away....and of course with good cheap beer and burgers at BFC! :O

[TightSlot]

You're all getting a little over excited and the toys are slowly being thrown out of the playpen.

Post facts, or arguments or indeed anything that is just a bit more grown-up than throwing rocks at each other. BASSA are bad, Willie is Naughty - If these are the sum expression of your post, then save your bandwidth and our time.

Cool down, step back and think before posting. If you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything

[StoneyBridge Radar]

I find it remarkable that BASSA-ites regard today's events as a massive victory which is going to force leverage on WW.

WW and the board have a corporate responsibility to protect the company by all means at their disposal; hence the move for an injunction to prevent industrial action.

What have UNITE achieved today? They have won the right to appeal and won the appeal to have that injunction overturned. What else? Nothing, nada, diddly squat, bugger all.

What have BA and WW achieved over the past few days? A postponement of industrial action; meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking away, tick tock tick tock to the day when he has carte blanche power and legal right to fundamentally change the face of BA CC and kick out the militant deadwood that is the BASSA stalwarts.

BA is no weaker from today's events. BASSA should be very, very worried.

[License to Fly]

I wonder what the agenda will be to end this strike....

I think in June it will (quite rightly) get very nasty for anyone who strikes and they will write themselves out of the business. Remember BASSA does not pay the wage, BA does.

I have just lost over £350 of flying pay for next week, thanks BASSA. I might even file a small claims court case for this money, i am that angry!

I am backing BA in anyway I can & if you are a striker I hope you understand what financial damage/disruption you are bringing to :-

-our customers
-other BA employees
-our caterers
-BAA
-taxi people driving customers to the airport
-and numerous other people you would not even care to think about that are connected to our business

All for what ?????????????????????????????? The CC job is not rocket science and most of the positions (apart from being a Pursar equivalent) are for people in the early mid 20's, a job for c.3 years before moving on. This is where BA needs to move to IMHO

It may be a game for some of you, its not for many others. CC claim to be careing people, at the moment i do not agree in the slightest.

LTF

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Watersidewonker
BASSA/Unite have backed it's workers and today we saw justice against the the bullying tactics of a company acting like a headless chicken.


Watersidewonker,
What about the bullying tactics of some of the BASSA die-hards against their own colleagues?
Derek Simpson said on Sky news today 'our cabin crew are not militants, they are intelligent and articulate people.'
How do you explain the posts below which appeared in News Of The World on Sunday,(not a paper I read btw) from the BASSA forum under a thread 'First Flight With Scabin Crew.'
I shuddered when I read it.
The bullying, if only the press knew the truth is only one way, from the the BASSA die hards!
One thing is for sure, I won't have to put up with this militant minority when I come to work to serve our customers during the strike, which I will, even if I have to work for free.


Harry’s no1 Post subject:
Posted: 06 May 2010 13:48
You'll recognise the SCABS right away as they have 3 eyes and have a very unpleasant stench coming off them....


DontTouchTheTrolleyDARLING Post subject: Re: FIRST FLIGHT WITH SCABIN CREW
Posted: 06 May 2010 13:58
dont worry,. they will need your help one day.. situation. a burning aircraft down the back.. scab caught up in balls of fire saying help me help me..
reaction.. burn you bastard burn. poor scabin crew!


I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views.

[BentleyH]

You insinuate that BA employees are the same as workers that you quote. BA pays your wages to state the obvious. It is a privatised company. It will not be supported by government. You can't compare workers of a private company to those you quote. Is that relevant enough for you?

[Human Factor]

BASSA/Unite have backed it's workers and today we saw justice against the the bullying tactics of a company acting like a headless chicken.

They're not BASSA/Unite workers, they are BA workers.

Secondly, corporate law obliged BA to seek the injunction if they thought it was workable. They had no choice so hardly "headless chicken".

[yellowdog]

You insinuate that BA employees are the same as workers that you quote. BA pays your wages to state the obvious. It is a privatised company. It will not be supported by government. You can't compare workers of a private company to those you quote. Is that relevant enough for you?

No not really!

Are you saying no private company should have union representation because the government won't be there to bail them out?

Why can't I compare workers from other unionised areas of the work force? Other big privatised companies also have unionised work forces, that surprisingly enough aren't militant and do a good job of go-between, between the employers and employees.

The way I see it is; BASSA have had it good for years and have got too big for their boots. They seem to think the Company revolves around them.

If we had a union that was more forward thinking and more able to understand the need for change then IR wouldn't be where it is today. Oh hang on we did have one of those - but then they seem to be forgotten in all of this.

At my base we always had very good IR, and things got sorted, deals got done and everyone was happy.

It is a shame people seem to be tarring everyone with the same brush; all BA crew do not belong to BASSA, all BA crew do not agree with the situation and how we got there, and all BA should think carefully when burning their bridges with regard to union membership!

[wiggy]

It is a shame people seem to be tarring everyone with the same brush; all BA crew do not belong to BASSA, all BA crew do not agree with the situation and how we got there, and all BA should think carefully when burning their bridges with regard to union membership!


I don't think all of us are tarring everybody with the same brush, but the question many are asking is how BASSA ended up with what seems, when viewed from the outside, such an extreme bunch of Reps. At best the BASSA electorate weren't paying attention to candidate's manifestos when putting crosses in boxes, at worse they knew what was going on but were prepared to turn a blind eye to some of the excesses because BASSA genuinely seemed to do a good job of protecting the LHR Cabin Crew cadre.

Personally I have always been a believer in the role of modern Unions but I always keep an eye on what my Union, and my Reps, are doing in my name.

[Betty girl]

I am a purser for British Airways and I have only just started to read the posts on this forum.

I did not strike and I have been upset for some time now that the union ( and I am in the usually more moderate branch Amicus/cc89) has not been more willing to negotiate. It has been clear to many crew that savings could be made. For instance on eurofleet we really do not need CSD's, Pursers are able to take out aircraft in-charge. We could have agreed to Fixed links and to work later on our last days and to the new crew compliments. In fact, if we had a union willing to negotiate, we would not be in this mess now with New Fleet bearing down on us. However many of the union reps are CSD's. Say no more!

This said, however, it is not all one sided. Mr. Walsh has agrivated the situation. He has fed false information about how much crew earn. The salaries quoted in the paper are those of the senior crew on the old contract prior to 1997. Crew that joined after that date earn less that 20,000 pa (which includes their allowances) Many of them have a basic pay of £12,000. He seemes to think it is ok to rubbish all of us and turn all our collegues against us.

Many of us did not strike and do not agree with the strike but we are all being tarred with the same brush. To hear some of the comments on this site is very upsetting.

The majority of us are stuck in the middle between TWO sets of children and we are unable to do anything about it. We are totally powerless. The last vote took place a long time ago and many crew voted the way they did because they were very upset with the way they were being portrayed in the paper.

Now many of them feel they have nothing to loose because they feel they are being punished for striking. As I said before, I did not strike but I have had many crew crying on my flights. It is not a nice place to work right now.It is very strange on some flights because people act like nothing is going on, because they don't know how others voted and they don't want to have any upset. We are all being made out to be these bad people but all crew want to do is safeguard there livelihoods. Unfortunately some have been persuaded to do this by striking. Now what we need is a CEO that looks at the bigger picture and gives this mad union a way out of this mess. He has not done this and I do believe that he does have a bigger agenda. Had he agreed to return staff travel this strike would certainly not be happening.

Please dont all hate crew because we are stuck in this situation and many, like me, who voted NOT to strike are powerless to do anything. Even crew who voted YES to strike are nice people (mostly). We would not be doing a job like this in the first place if we were not a caring bunch.

Some of the hatred on this forum is of no help.

Many thanks for listening to my side of this.

[Andyismyname]

For those who want to read the whole article that Tiramisu refers to, its at Union militants waged sinister campaign of abuse and threats against British Airways cabin crew. | News Of The World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/815230/Union-militants-waged-sinister-campaign-of-abuse-and-threats-against-British-Airways-cabin-crew.html)

Hmmm, I think that its not BA which is doing the "Bullying and Harrassment". Its a shame that The Times, Telegraph and Daily Mail havent picked up on it.

[Nevermind]

Betty Girl

You have my utmost sympathy, along with many of the crew.

But how do we sort out the wheat from the chaff? How do we give the wheat a way out, without sending the wrong message to the chaff?

Surely turning up on Monday is the final answer?

[HiFlyer14]

Please dont all hate crew because we are stuck in this situation and many, like me, who voted NOT to strike are powerless to do anything.


Hi Betty Girl,

I fully agree with most of what you say - except the above. Please do not think we are powerless - we simply cannot sit back and allow this corrupt and dysfunctional union to destroy our livelihoods.

You need to join the Professional Cabin Crew Council at www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) and together we must all show that we are not powerless. What other choice do we have?
See you in CRC on Monday.:ok:

[License to Fly]

willie walsh on YouTube today :

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)

apparently the sticking points are not ONLY staff travel/disciplinary issues

more union spin then ... :ugh::ugh:

[Wirbelsturm]

This said, however, it is not all one sided. Mr. Walsh has agrivated the situation. He has fed false information about how much crew earn. The salaries quoted in the paper are those of the senior crew on the old contract prior to 1997. Crew that joined after that date earn less that 20,000 pa (which includes their allowances) Many of them have a basic pay of £12,000. He seemes to think it is ok to rubbish all of us and turn all our collegues against us.


I seem to remember that the figures in the press came from the CAA not from BA. Willie Walsh has never, as far as I am aware, publically given exact figures. He has simply re-iterated that BA Cabin Crew are amongst the best paid in the UK industry.

Please dont all hate crew because we are stuck in this situation and many, like me, who voted NOT to strike are powerless to do anything. Even crew who voted YES to strike are nice people (mostly). We would not be doing a job like this in the first place if we were not a caring bunch.


The majority of posters who post sensible, balanced arguments, not the one liner rhetoric spouters are actually firmly behind the requirement of Cabin Crew to have a pro active Union. The target of anger in most cases is not the Cabin Crew or the Cabin Crew community but the Union that seems to think it can crash the company and to hell with the rest of us.

BASSA is the target. BASSA refuses to negotiate. BASSA want to re-instate Reps who have been through the Union agreed disciplinary process and been found wanting. BASSA call the disciplining of members who post sensitive data on public forums and threaten other staff members or their families as 'victimisation'. BASSA move the goal posts when even Tony Woodley agrees that a settlement can be reached. BASSA misled its members into returning non valid ballot papers. BASSA lied about the state of the company and its finances to garner support.

The list goes on.

Nothing is, generally, on a personal level and never should be.

:ok:

[Sporran]

Just had a call from a friend because his daughter was flying to Africa with BA on Hotline tickets that I had obtained.

Initial notification that her flight was cancelled and they were unable to get through on the phone. Before I managed to call my friend back I am delighted to say that BA Customer Services have come up trumps. Initially they were not able to get my friend's daughter on a flight for 2 weeks, but since she is going out to do voluntary work with children, as part of a larger group, BA have now re-routed her and her friends AND are picking up the tab for the connecting flights.
THAT is BA at it's best and makes me proud to be part of BA!:D:D:D

However, all the lies, deceipt, bullying and detestable behaviour from the scum from bassa is at the other end of the customer service experience. My flight today had a really nasty underlying feeling about it! The atmosphere is sometimes caustic and cannot go on. I actually believe that the conduct of some of the bassa die-hards is now having an effect on safety!!!!!!!!!!

WW has been incredibly patient so far - even with some totally awful conduct and personal abuse aimed at him!!

It is now time to take the gloves off!!

The results for 2009/10 will be out tomorrow - and will make scary reading. Such bad figures will be another weapon in WWs armoury and I will not be surprised if he decides to go for compulsory reduncancies - hopefully of the people that are causing so much grief to the vast majority.

[giza]

What I can`t understand is that anyone who has a case against the company and feels so strongly about it that they are prepared to go out on stike would surely do so with a heavy heart, but these militants positively revel in that they are now abble to go on strike, and bring down the very airline that has feed them so well in the paste, its unbelieveable that these people can be so short sighted that winning the battle exceeds all else, unless they see sense the war will be lost, for all of us, as someone will sense our weakness from battle weariness and pick us off, some one will come in and take us over , make huge job cuts and offer much less favourable conditions to those that are left.

Is that what you want, cos thats what will `appen.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

BA are about to announce yet another record loss. Over 400 million loss last year 600 + million loss this year.

Is it possible the company isn't actually being run that well?

[harryhoofter]

Willie Walsh has never, as far as I am aware, publically given exact figures.

British Airways' Willie Walsh: I can't let this union drag us to destruction | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=495949&in_page_id=3)

[mdj01]

Giza - I agree! Whatever the rights or the wrongs of this dispute - and our family is firmly in the Backing BA camp, it is cringeworthy to watch these 'so called' professionals embarrassing themselves both outside the court and also on the open topped bus. :yuk: What a rabble. I certainly look at crew with VERY different eyes now when I travel.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Unite/BASSA have chosen to go for the "nuclear" option whilst WW has been using kid gloves so far.
He has been very patient, has avoided making personal comments about any UNITE officials, even stating that he respects them.
On the other hand BASSA have made this a personal issue, and it seems that all they are capable of is to hurl insults at everyone who does not agree with their twisted logic, They are totally unable to articulate a coherent argument.
It will be interesting what happens when the gloves come off. after 12 June.What will be his "nuclear" option??? The city, the shareholders, the board and the vast majority of BA staff will want him to do something drastic.
BASSA, you should be very afraid!!
Sadly, I agree with an earlier poster that there is likely to be collateral damage to the majority of decent, hardworking and caring CC.
One way of mitigating that is to turn up for work on Monday. The more of you who do so the more likely that BASSA will lose their power base and hopefully their facilities agreement.

[Meal Chucker]

Ha ha ha!!!! The BASSAmentalists could only fill up 2/3s of the top deck of the bus. And as for "Willie Willie Willie out out out".....yawn.


Currently down route and the clip being played repetitively on the local news station shows the BASSAmentalists in their toy-town bus singing 'I'd rather shag a loader than a scab''

Well Done Bassa! - you just can't help yourselves - first it was the engineers and the ill-maintained aircraft comment, now your picking on the loaders.:D

[Spanner in the works]

I am becoming more and more bewildered over this whole affair.

I witness on these boards and speak to many, many crew who are against this strike and don't like the way things have turned out.

Well, the bottom line is that a lot must have voted "yes" in the ballot.
So, what is the position. They voted "yes" but didn't mean it really? Or voted "yes" not realising what this would actually entail?

I suspect the latter and things have snowballed to a position that most of them feel is out of hand.

So, forgetting the "mandate" that BASSA/Unite have, this is still their union.
Surely they could lobby their reps to register dissatisfaction - get a change in policy.
Whatever the legal rights of the unions mandate and what they can do with it, surely they should still listen to their members.

I do sympathise with Crew that have got "caught-up" in all this either innocently or without foresight.

But bottom-line is they voted to go down this line - isn't it up to them to try and halt it?

Maybe I'm being harsh and/or missing something, but those cheering outside court today didn't make me cringe - far from it, they made me seethe with anger because they were basically laughing at the rest of us. Cheering that our attempts to keep the airline running will be challenged once again.

[wiggy]

But bottom-line is they voted to go down this line - isn't it up to them to try and halt it?


I agree - but how? For example can the line members arrange/hold a vote of no confidence in their Company Council? Does the BASSA constitution allow for such a vote? What pressures would be put on the line members to desist?

From my limited experience of Union politics I'm of the opinion the Reps have a much better knowledge of the Union rule book than the electorate.

You're right though, this is getting very ugly and it will get worse. There are perhaps 5000 BASSA diehards threatening the jobs of 30,000 plus other BA employees.....

[Spanner in the works]

From my limited experience of Union politics I'm of the opinion the Reps have a much better knowledge of the Union rule book than the electorate.

Agree - but there must be some ex-reps or even current ones that feel the way the rest of us do. Can they not whip something up?

I had hopes that the PCCC would do something similar - but it seems to be a softly, softly - hope they come approach.

I'm an Engineer, but I'd happily walk round crew centres and car-parks garnering support for a vocal opposition.

[Dutchjock]

I am starting to doubt the master plan. Even after a full year WW is still negotiating. He's even giving back (partial) staff travel after being on record saying he'll NEVER give it back. I've heard so many times "after ... the gloves will come off" or "NOW he's going nuclear" or "after this courtcase blah blah". The lastest being: after record losses are announced tomorrow he will push the button and all will become clear.

Will it? Where is it going to end? Corporate clients, small business clients, holiday makers, everyone is slowly starting to avoid flying BA. I can't blame them. The company is slowly but surely being killed. BA has no right to exist. Take a step back and think before you jump for joy at being able to use your "civil right" to strike.

Even if some sort of agreement will be reached the company will be stuck with about 3000 people who will do anything to disrupt, discredit and damage BA.

I've worked for a couple of airlines, but I am honestly shocked by the attitude of employees in this company. It has got to get rid of this state owned, I-have-a-right-to-be-here attitude. If you're not performing as expected, you are out.

I have always really enjoyed working with cabin crew, but please WW, it's about time you took control of this mess. Dismissing a couple thousand striking cc and paying for an unfair dismissal claim has got to be cheaper in the long run then letting this situation continue to fester.

SACK 'EM and let's make BA a great airline with people who care.

Rant over

[Dutchjock]

Peter,

As a BA pilot, unfortunately, I have to agree with your sentiments. See my post above yours. But let me just make one point in favour of BA: it's "only" around 3000 out of roughly 14000 cabin crew that are trying ruin your plans and my company, so although it might feel like it, please don't assume BA as a company is to blame. Just about everyone in BA would love to see the back of them.

After this is over, please remember most cabin crew are doing their best to make your flight a great experience, so don't give up on BA completely

[gr8tballsoffire]

Currently down route and the clip being played repetitively on the local news station shows the BASSAmentalists in their toy-town bus singing 'I'd rather shag a loader than a scab''

Classy!!!

[Adi54321]

A piece from WW on the intranet today before the court decision. I can't see where anyone else has posted it but the line towards the end is significant where he says

"Should this strike go ahead it might not be the end of industrial action by BASSA but it will be the beginning of the end."

Apologies if someone else already posted this.

[hunterboy]

So how do the die-hards see this ending? Do they think WW will roll over and leave them untouched? Human nature being what it is...do they think WW would do this?
If I was a striker, I would be weighing up what I stood to gain/lose by continuing on my present course of action vs the risk of losing my job.
Would it be fair to say that the BASSA die-hards don't believe that they could lose their job over this? If that is the case then I understand your present strategy.

[Meal Chucker]

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

So BA announces record losses of £531M, I wonder if this news will put any crew off from striking?

BASSA will probably claim that BA has lied and that really the company actually made a profit!!

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

531 million lost this year.

401 million lost last year.

Share price drops 17% in the last month.

Company worth 2.2 Billion.

Pension deficit 3.7 Billion

and Now BA management are playing macho over cabin crew perks?

Wake up.

[plodding along]

BA gave in on staff travel. It was there if you wanted it back.
In light of all those losses you could equally say BASSA is being macho over a bit of seniority.

[Juan Odeboyse]

I seem to remember that the figures in the press came from the CAA not from BA. Willie Walsh has never, as far as I am aware, publically given exact figures. He has simply re-iterated that BA Cabin Crew are amongst the best paid in the UK industry.

Incorrect - a personal letter from WW was printed in full in the Daily Mail. In that he quoted LH CSD's averaged £56K per year (impossible)...I had two Gold ECH's on a JFK - LHR flt show me this while passing in the cabin along with a couple of snide comments as well. I took the article into the CRC to show a CC Mgr who was equally as shocked as I and my colleagues were.

He has deliberately(or his PR dept.) misled the UK public. In fact the highest a CSD earned was £84K and that was printed in the Independent....lie,lies,and more lies.

Mmmmm...who is the highest paid CEO of an airline worldwide?

Walsh must GO now.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

They're both being stupid but ultimately it's the management that are answerable to the shareholders.

In most airlines, the employees going on strike would lead to people in management being sacked. Prolonged industrial action is a failure of the management to manage their employees. It doesn't mean giving them what they want but it means reducing costs in a way which takes the employees on board. Most other airlines seem to be able to do it.

BA have an industrial dispute which will subtract millions from next years figures. Most people I know won't even book with BA if there is an alternative. It's time for WW to sort it out NOT prolong an industrial dispute by playing hard ball with an employees union over perks.

[Meal Chucker]

DJ only one person needs to be sacked to give us a chance of returning this proud company back to the number 1 airline in the world


The face at the top may change, but CC savings still need to made - the only chance this company has if both sides sit down and talk.

[Betty girl]

Just been listening to Lord Tebbit on 5 Live and he was critical of Mr. Walsh and felt that public opinion was moving towards the union because of Mr. Walsh going to court over a 'nit picking' issue with the vote.

Now, as I said earlier, I voted No. I came to work during the strike and I am so upset with all that is going on but I do feel it has been handled badly by Mr. Walsh. I never thought I would see the time when someone like Lord Tebbit took such a balanced view. It is worth having a listen to him.

I just want some of you to realise that not all crew are in the union. From the start of this over !/3 were not in the union. Now even less are. probably less than half now. Many have left but this actually makes any future vote worse because the vote is for union members only. As people leave and many have the proportion of yes votes go up!! When you leave you no longer get a vote. As I said in my last post the current mandate was taken just after Christmas and this was a time when untrue info was being fed to the media and when boards were being put up all over the company for people to write nasty comments on about crew. Even though I voted No I found it hard listening to the way Mr. Walsh talked about crew and this is what gave such a high vote for a strike.

Many crew who said Yes wish they had not but Mr. Walsh is not allowing a way out of this and that is making everything worse. The mandate the union are using is from way back and as I said earlier, if it was run again it still might be a Yes because so many crew have resigned now from the union.

I really am finding it hard to read some of the vitriol on this sight. It sadens me to hear some of this hatred. I work on eurofleet and I always have a great relationship with all the pilots and I hope none of the ones I fly with hate me the way some of you seen to hate all cabin crew.

I want this to end as much as anyone else and I know how damaging it is but wanting lots of nice and kind but misguided people to loose their jobs is not a good thing to be saying.

People need to step back and see what is really happening. Crew are just worried about their jobs just like everyone else but they have been badly guided by their union. By the way BA actually encourages Union membership on the traning course when people join the company.

We just need both Mr. Walsh and the union to step back abit.

Many thanks for listening. I probably wont post again because some of the postings on this sight are not nice and not helpful either. I am finding it very upsetting to read such hate for crew.

[Get Smart]

Noted that Unite haven't added another 5 days to the end of this strike to recover the ones they lost this week. Is this because they don't want to edge themselves any closer to the 12th June? It seems odd that they haven't ceased the opportunity to inflict more pain where possible? :uhoh:

[Dutchjock]

Whatdoesthisbuttondo:
and Now BA management are playing macho over cabin crew perks?

When will the message get through? They are managing their company. YOU are playing macho with the rest of BA

Most other airlines seem to be able to do it.

Yes, have a look at what happened to another intransigent cc group (Google Aer lingus, compulsory redundancies and new contracts) :ugh:

BA has just announced another record loss and you are still ignorant enough to blame WW and intent on striking? :mad:

I've lost hope and I am getting so desperate I would ALMOST agree with the diehards. Let the company go bust. See how you like that :{

BA has no right to exist. Look at history, Sabena employees we're still striking on the day the company went bust. I can tell you personal stories of people waking up to find they ruined their company. A lot of them thought "it would never happen"...

[Juan Odeboyse]

DJ remember we were nearly there with c£56M savings offered but still not good enough for even more talks.

It is Walsh who is jeopardising BA because of his stubborn nature throughout these talks - even a friend of mine in the BA IR team wonders what he might do next.

Walsh out now....savings implemented...staff tvl returned as before... and a close look at disciplinaries arising recently.

Its as simple as that.

[riga101]

For the sake of all our futures.

Let's get this sorry affair over with. The vast majority of your staff will fully support you when the time comes to .... SACK THEM.

Striking crew ... Note... This will not be long now :D

[Juan Tugoh]

With regard to the disciplinaries. If a union can decide it does not like the result of a disciplinary procedure, do they have the right to blackmail the company to achieve a change in the result. Is this not Industrial Bullying and Harrassment in itself? ie an attempt to force one's will upon another body? BASSA cannot bleat about a lack of democracy and then use bully boy tactics the next. How would BASSA and UNITE feel if another union decided that they would go on strike to overturn the result of a disciplinary hearing?

Disciplinary and grievance procedures have all been agreed with the unions well before the strike started. To decide you now don't like them does smack of a baby throwing his toys out of the cot.

[Meal Chucker]

DJ remember we were nearly there with c£56M savings offered but still not good enough for even more talks.

Juan Odeboyse, we were NOT nearly there - Bassa only offered temporary savings with FULL PAYBACK after 2 years - I suggest you re-read the Bassa offer.

This in my opinion is a big part of the problem, the Bassa mentality, not only are it's most militant supporters misinformed but completely uninformed

The most disheartening thing for me is these people are allow to vote on the various proposals without having a clue what they are actually voting for or against. :ugh:

[Dutchjock]

Stop rehashing this "our savings were nearly good enough"

It was not enough
It was not permanent

Stop blaming WW

Savings have to be made by every department. EVERY department

Riga101 I hope you're right. How about we all chip in 100 quid as an unfair dismissal fund

[77]

Juan and others

Apart from the BA losses, more worrying from the Daily Mail re APD..if APD rises again reinstatement of staff travel will pale into insignificance.
No airline, no job, no staff travel anyway.
Maybe Unite should concentrate on the bigger picture...saving jobs!!

Quote from Daily Mail...
Key Tory policies have been abandoned or watered down to finance the adoption of Nick Clegg's flagship policy to raise to £10,000 the starting point at which tax is paid.
. The document confirms the Tories have capitulated to Lib Dem demands to reform and raise air passenger duty - dubbed the 'poll tax of the skies'.
The tax will be switched 'from a per-passenger to a per plane duty' with the revenue raised going directly towards paying for the increase in tax thresholds.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the change would cost taxpayers an extra £3.3billion a year, more than doubling the amount of tax paid by airline passengers as airlines will simply pass on the new duty.
The Treasury raised just £2.4billion from the levy last year. But the change would see the tax paid by a family of four travelling long-haul economy soar from £220 to £522.
Brian Wilson, the former Energy Minister who chairs the pressure group Flying Matters, condemned the 'doubling taxation on aviation'.
He said: 'This is not a victimless offence but an absolutely crazy assault on one of Britain's most important industrial sectors.'
Ed Anderson, of the Airport Operators' Association, said: 'The APD rises will hurt ordinary hard-working people by not only making it harder for them to get away on holiday, but by slowing economic recovery and threatening jobs.'

[speedbird320]

The endgame approaches-we will wee what the strike response is.If the numbers of crew reporting steadily increases then the strike will be broken within a reasonably short time frame, and we will move towards a 100% flying programme without BASSA agreement and with imposition. If it continues then SOSR will become reality and a lot of cabin crew will be out on their ear by the autumn-replaced in short order by newfleet.
Regardless of the route, the result will be the same-the difference being that one route involves considerably less old fleet crew!

[77]

I believe Duncan protected his pension by resigning from BA before being sacked. Good financial advice.
I know that if you are sacked the only obligation the company has is to return your pension contributions.
How would other cabin crew fare if SOSR was implemented?

[mdj01]

The references back to the 70s union style are spot on. Do you EVER hear chants like 'Walsh out Now' and that disgusting chant from the open topped bus (that was supposed to garner support from the City:confused:) from staff at any other FTSE 100 company? Is this really the behaviour we expect from professionals?

This is all so unbelievably crazy and I hope that the MAJORITY of cabin crew, who I hope and believe are decent, sane individuals, will actually DO SOMETHING to stop this car crash of a strike.

I honestly cannot believe my eyes when I read some of the mindless comments and rhetoric. These are our livelihoods these people are playing with, it is all a game to them. As previously stated, Woodley, Simpson et al will all go back to their caves and enjoy their fine wines and beers, whilst some of us may end up with mortgages to pay and nothing to pay it with! :ugh:

Disciplinaries: IT IS NOT EASY to dismiss people these days. Those who have been dismissed MUST have had a case proven against them (and if they did not they can sue for unfair dismissal, using their union....). It would be totally inappropriate for this to become part of the current negotiations and surely the vast majority of CC can see this?

[Watersidewonker]

Well didn't little William look like he was caught in the headlights on this mornings breakfast tv. The presenter had him on the ropes many a time with young William trying to explain about the bullying and harassment pity he wasn't asked about the bullying coming from his flightdeck community. So it's Bedfont on Monday then unless young William has a change of heart, something i very much doubt.