British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Miss M,

Discrimination, in legal terms, is a very clearly defined term. An employer may not discriminate by race, colour, gender or age. Applying different terms based on any other criteria may not be fair, but discriminatory, it is not. Besides, being non-contractual, it matters not anyway.

There is a big difference between what one may believe is morally right, and what is legally so.

[Reargunner]

Why on earth would he/she do this? It would simply open the door to more industrial unrest - IMHO far better to leave a permanent reminder to everyone else that striking has consequences so you'd better not do it.

This seems to me to be the truth. All BA are watching what this LT do and they will all see that they cannot take a dispute to the point of IA. I'm not sure I can see that as a message of loyalty to those who acted to strike break...but I do think it is a message.

Our contracts already are as basic as you suggest here:
The basic contact should be along the lines of:
-You are to work for the company employed at the agreed salary.
-Your hours and rosters will be in accordance with CAA regulations.
- You will report for work punctually, do the job as defined by the company with the resources you are given and you will do it cheerfully.
- All other legal requirements of employer and employee are in accordance with UK employment law.


The industrial agreements are in addition. Do you really suggest that contemporary contracts do not include job-descriptions and details? Do you mean that is where you would like BA to go with all contracts, or just the cabin crew ones? Would BA be better of without the GSS, Pilot, A scale, engineering, management, tech management and non craft agreements?

I would have thought it would create utter chaos. Surely a corporation needs a balance between flexibility and rigidity? Not totally one or the other?

[Pornpants1]

I don't believe that breaking a strike is anything to be rewarded for. It's nothing but a very disgusting behavior that is not acceptable

Disgusting to whom?You?BASSA?, once again your failing to see this from anyone elses point of view. Unfortunately BASSA don't appear to see the bigger picture either.

but I should thought that all of those ground staff and pilots enjoyed their little time at the trolley. If you had all that time to be away from your regular job it must be a sign that sometimes is superfluous.

BASSA propaganda yet again, I don't think the company can spare the amount of people they have trained, but BASSA have given BA little choice. Just 10% of those trained were used over the strike period because regular crew came to work.

It doesn't take a degree in law to understand that it's discriminatory and wrong.


I don't wish to labour the point, see my earlier post on the layperson and their interpretation of the law:ok:

I understand the company are using an unnecessary night stop in Shannon on Monday night to highlight to investors why 1970s cabin crew contracts need to be altered to reflect the challenges of operating in 2010:ok: Talk about crew shooting themselves in the foot, interestingly all the other widebodies were able to fuel and go.

If I were crew I would be more concerned about the quality of information BASSA have been supply from November 2008 to the present day, and how BA can crew 3 747 departures with volunteer crew without as much of a whimper from BASSA:eek::eek:

[Reargunner]

Edited to add
I'm so, so sorry to hear this...our posts crossed and I don't want you to imagine I ignored your much more important message.
Please be carfeful about expressing your feeling here or anywhere else. You are frightened and angry, don't give them anything else to use and manipulate.


The fact is that the law is indeed a strange place for most people. A possible case over staff travel is not impossible just because the company declare it to be discretionary.
There are legal precedents which show that the courts will still consider whether it has become contractual through custom and practice.
The company have to make a case for the discretion they use in applying or withholding discretionary benefits.
There are individuals who seem to have a slightly different case based on the fact that some staff travel is awarded for promotion...all sorts of possible complications.

However, I totally agree that it is a long, slow, and expensive way to go.


The only certain thing with the law is that it is never certain.:)

[L337]

Jemina:

If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I am sure you will be reinstated.

The sad truth is that once war is declared the innocent become collateral damage.

[Beagle9]

Jemina,

I echo L337's comments and would like to add, that new ways of people communicating like Facebook and forums such as these, have only been around a relatively short time and what is and isn't possible with them is a mystery to many, myself included.

If you can so easily, unwittingly become a "bully" via what OTHERS imput onto your space, that's worrying indeed. It sounds like you need to take an expert in how mediums such as Facebook work, into your disciplinary hearing with you. If you can prove that it's possible to appear guilty as easily as you say through no action on your part, I would think you have a good chance of winning.

Try to be calm and reasonable in your approach, rather than combatitive, even though I know it must be hard for you. In my experience, that's the best way to get a favourable hearing.

Good luck.

[ArthurScargill]

Hi Jemima,

If your version of events is 100% true, then i can't see how you will not be reinstated.
Its seems you've been 'naive' at worst.

If you do lose your job and your post isn't missing any salient points then you seem to have a very good case for unfair dismissal. I'm sure however BA will treat you fairly in your hearing though ??

Good luck.

[The Blu Riband]

If your version of events is 100% true, then i can't see how you will not be reinstated.
Its seems you've been 'naive' at worst

I totally agree.

You have been suckered in, and treated for a fool --- by Bassa.
Bassa have lied and misled you relentlessly. In fact they have shown by example how NOT to be honest , open, objective and informative.

Bassa have done their very best to incite hatred and division amongst all BA staff, especially crew. At no time have Bassa tried to stop the intimidation of "scabs" or vcc; or anyone who dares to speak out or question the Bassa line!

BA have a duty to protect EVERYBODY.
So if a complaint is made they have to follow it up.

This is why there will be no amnesty because justice must be done, and be seen to be done.

If all Jemima did was to receive some messages on her wall then it is impossible that she would be sacked.

However somebody, somewhere, must have initiated the message.
What did it say? Was it a threat? Or a list of volunteers?

Jemima, you are also a victim because you have been suspended at a similar time as many of your colleagues. Some of their offences are probably significantly more serious and may well be sackable, if not criminal, offences.

As a fellow BA staff member I would defend your right to a fair hearing fiercely.
Just as I would defend any victim of bullying or harrassment.

[demomonkey]

Hang in there, I'm sure it will all work out fine in the end. If you feel like it, by asking BA for a timetable of what is going to happen and when you can return to work (be positive presumptious in a friendly way) it might chivvy them along to make a decision and probably give you the 'don't do it again' stern talking to. If you make an explicit request for a timetable and they don't respond a lawyer would make it look like they were being unreasonable and bullying.

I'd recommend you to write a full and detailed account of what happened for your own records. Ask someone you trust to read it so that it is thoroughly proof read and very clear if you ever had to rely on it at a later stage. I'd be surprised if you would have to though. Probably worthwhile to make sure BA get a copy if they call you in for a chat so that they can't argue they weren't aware of your side.

I hope your Union are supporting you with appropriate legal support/advice?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Jemina
Fully support what deamon monkey says. Tried to send you a mail but got a mailbox quota reply saying full up. This suggests that folk out here care for you unlike BA perhaps. They only worry about WW's ego.
Don't let the buggers get you down :mad:

[Hotel Mode]

Not meaning to be cynical but..

From

BASSA > Latest News > More Worldwide Fleet News

SUSPENDED CREW - THE BRUTAL AND FRIGHTENING TRUTH
Mar 14th, 2010 by admin

These are the suspended parties

FACEBOOK

•Crew member 1: His facebook page. Several comments re his desire to name and shame list of scab flight crew though he never actually does.
•Crew member 2: Several comments regarding wanting to know the names and gossip regarding one of the flight crew who is never named but whose identity is confirmed as being "the one they both know"
•Crew member 3: One comment: Send me a private msg. Good to know who not to trust x
•Crew member 4: His facebook page: several comments re the fact that he is in possession of the list of flight crew training as cabin crew, how he is in two minds what to do with it but how he will not post it publicly because he knows one of them personally very well.
•Crew member 5: Asks for the list and says she will pass it on.
•Crew member 6: One comment: Name and shame, honey, I say!
•Crew member 7: One comment: Can you private message me please?
•Crew member 8: One comment: Please forward the sms to me
•Crew member 9: One comment agreeing with calls to name and shame and adds that she wants all the necks she can get her hands on.
•Crew member 10: One comment: Name and shame
•Crew member 11: One comment: suggesting the name be sent to a third party for that party to name and shame.
•Crew member 12: One comment: saying he would like to know the names and asking to be texted.
•Crew member 13: One comment saying do not post the names in any chat rooms or forums and to pass the list to BASSA.
•Crew member 14: One comment asking for the list in a private message.

Even from BASSA i'm not seeing anyone suspended simply for having stuff not written by them on their Facebook wall.

[winstonsmith]

March 14? That's an old list - I have heard of others having been suspended after that date.

[Reargunner]

Are you sure that Jemina is in BASSA? She doesn't say anything about union membership...only that she does not take part in strikes. Could be non union or part of CC89/Amicus?

What do you think about todays request (from BA) that we work with regular crews but include 2 volunteer crew members to get through the repatriation and back to a normal schedule?

I find it hard to understand how the need to keep their identities secret (like in the facebook suspensions etc) can be made to fit with them working along with regular crew.

winston...yes it is a very old list...galley fm says there are about 50 suspended and 6 sacked.

[flyblue]

Jemina's post has been deleted at her request.

[Dangermouse38]

Why?

I'm suspended too for the same reason and I was applauding her bravery especially in the face of the earlier responses which were soon after deleted.

[flyblue]

She didn't give a reason, only asked for her post to be deleted. I guess you'd have to ask her (PM?) if you really are interested.

[ottergirl]

Hand Solo

The problem is Ozzie that BA are starting to introduce performance management for crew. Newfleet will be first then it will be rolled out into old fleet. Crew will no longer be able to come along just for the ride aan the pay cheque. Everyone will be assessed, and those who aren't up to scratch will be performance managed out of the company. BA may not get the best out of you but you don't want to be among the bottom 10% when the new regime is in place.


What complete tosh! BA CC have always been Performance Managed, everyone is assessed on the a/c every 120 days. CSD's have an annual appraisal where one of our KPI's is how many assessments we have completed on our crew. Additionally, the CCM team manage attendance and punctuality in a very pro-active way. UK employment law does not allow one to simply 'performance manage' the bottom 10% out of the company; there is a very lengthy series of warnings and stages beforehand. :=

[harrypic]

Think you misunderstand performance management - it would be performed on a per flight basis based upon customer surveys - the same as is norm in many industries....

[Dangermouse38]

Sorry to sound stupid but how do I PM someone on this forum?

[flyblue]

Go to your Private Messages page (top right), select "Send New Message", fill in all the required fields (recipient username, title), write message and hit "Send" :ok:

[Jemina]

I asked for my post to be deleted because I regret posting it. I realise that it was probably not a good idea to write about it but it's something I did in the heat of the moment. I have had messages sent to me since I wrote it implying that I'm representing BASSA and that my posting appeared at a convenient time.

I can't, or don't want to, give details about the messages at Facebook.

I just wanted to share my story. All of us who have been suspended are not evil or abusive people who deserve to be suspended. I know that most have been suspended because they have shown an aggressive and threatening behaviour. That's something I think should be dealt with. I have always kept a low profile at work, avoided discussions about the strike, never been nasty towards anyone or used nicknames. I have been against this strike from the very beginning and would have gone to work if I hadn't been suspended.

I know BA is acting as they should as there's a procedure for this. But, I haven't done anything wrong but I still have to face all of this. It's taking a very long time. I don't know what will happen. I'm sad. I'm scared to death. I'm suffering financially. I'm worried.

But, no. I'm not representing BASSA neither am I a union rep.

[Tiramisu]

BA CC have always been Performance Managed, everyone is assessed on the a/c every 120 days

Ottergirl,
IFA assessments are exactly that, an assessment of your performance inflight and in my view it's not enough. Whilst you as a Customer Service Trainer does performance manage, and so do I, we both know that majority of our supervisory colleagues don't.
The trouble is that some of our colleagues see the job as a popularity contest and when it comes to real performance management, won't put pen to paper. This is the reason certain individuals in the company have got away with 'murder' so to speak.
Additionally, a lot of junior crew have also been scared to document inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour from some senior crew who in turn have got away without being performance managed through lack of evidence.

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

[Pin-Lever-Pin]

Sorry but cabin crew aren't performance managed. When they are they, most likely, will be assessed on a regular basis. (which I think Ottergirl was referring too) but they will also have a a annual performance review where their owning manager will discuss their work over the year. Anything from helping pax out during disruption, applying for promotion, letters from customers, even to uniform standards will be taken in to account. The crew member will then be put in some sort of band, from memory Exceptional, Substantial, Strong, Developing, Weak.

Your pay-rise and any bonus (if any) will be calculated from your performance, and effectively if you continue to have weak performance you could be 'managed out of the business'.

This is the way the airline is going for all staff, by the looks of it.

[The Blu Riband]

Ottergirl

You are probably one of the conscientous csd's who assesses accurately and honestly.
But you don't get the opportunity to see just how poorly your job is sometimes done by others.

[essessdeedee]

Ottergirl,

Look at the new performance management process for the management community and pay particular attention to the section entitled 'Forced Distribution' which makes reference to the bottom %age being managed out of the business.

If it starts here, its only a matter of time before it is rolled out across the rest of the company.:mad:

[Reargunner]

I thought it was pretty clear that this 'forced disribution' and performance based pay is intended for the whole of BA when we saw the Pp slides regarding the desired structure for cabin crew from the January negotiaitions.

I think the 'forced distribution' part is the pattern for the initial period...it is designed to accelerate the results of performance management.

Has nobody any information about the decision to mix the regular and volunteer crews? I had the one email yesterday. Have the volunteers been informed about this plan?

[Litebulbs]

Are you suggesting that there should be a cull of % crew members a year, based on some sort of review?

[64K]

The corporate policy being rolled out through the rest of the business has something along the lines of 'find new job or exit the business' for the lowest performing percentage. Can't remember if it's 5% or 10%, but it's what is worked to by management and 'band 3' staff... If I am seen to be under performing, the view would be that either I'm in the wrong job, or that I'm the wrong person for the company.

The views above are my own and not those of my employer.

[Litebulbs]

Measured against what?

[Eddy]

an implied commitment that when he goes, as a gesture of good will, the incumbent BA CEO may give it backKeith Williams??? You think?

[Reargunner]

I have seen posts by some of these people saying they have not been awarded any bonus because the scheme...while it is in this 'forced distribution' mode, it means that it is not possible for all the group to be found to be performing adequately or meeting all standards...the bottom 10% has to be under the bar.

I think, after a period it is supposed to change to a mode where the bottom 10% are also deemed to be possibly good at their jobs too...

It reminds me of the very old A level and O level system....followed by the shift to the current one.

Tragic for any department that is made up of really good people, but maybe department heads have the ability to plead exceptional group performance?

[Litebulbs]

So in that system you could still find yourself out of a job, when you have achieved all the required standards?

[Reargunner]

Lightbulbs,

Like I said...its a bit like the old education exams...the effect is that you are benchmarked against your peers, not some external standard. If your in a very high performing group, you're in the do doo. If you work with malingering idle good for nothings, you'll be good.

I'm sure that's an oversimplification and there must be another layer of benchmarking that overlies the departmental one.

Forced distribution is based on the assumption that there is a lot of poor performance that needs very stringent managing and that this is reduced over time until you reach a healthy work culture. Once you get there then you change the model to one where the performance is benchmarked on an external standard again.

[Litebulbs]

Are you measured objectively or just by someones opinion? WW or BF have never said that BA crew are poor, they just don't want them striking.

I don't how performance management will improve the IR issues at BA.

[Hotel Mode]

I don't how performance management will improve the IR issues at BA.

Its not supposed to. Its supposed to improve the safety and customer service issues that a very small minority of our cabin crew have.

None of this is part of the dispute anyhow, its been predicted for the future though.

[Litebulbs]

Its not supposed to. Its supposed to improve the safety and customer service issues that a very small minority of our cabin crew have.

None of this is part of the dispute anyhow, its been predicted for the future though.

What issues have BA got, or is it what issues do people who post on here have with BA crew?

[Litebulbs]

Absolutely agree. But BA staff are assessed as Ottergirl explained. I was just wondering why performance management appeared on this thread.

[MissM]

Performance Management? This should be interesting to see how it is performed seeing as BA is not an expert when it comes to administration or paper work. You put something on the post addressed to Cranebank only to be told that nobody has no idea who has it. You leave a sick note in the red box and it goes missing.

[tomkins]

Having spoken briefly with Martin Broughton on a flight back from FAO ,an sccm would be taking 17 crew under his / her wing ,performance managing them (part of a larger group that would consist of 17 sccms each responsible for 17 crew).Every month each sccm would be ground based dealing with everyday crew problems of the whole lot ie. 17x17 for two days,refering back any problems that arise to the relevant sccm responsible for the crew member.I got the impression that the sccms would fly regularly with their bunch,thus being in a far better position to monitor their performance.
This would seem a far better way to have feedback on crew than the current system of managers who each have far too many crew to manage,who dont get the opportunity to see how crew work onboard,who have to rely on IFAs to get any idea on a crewmember,and who probably would not recognise one of their team if he walked right in front of them.

[ottergirl]

an sccm would be taking 17 crew under his / her wing ,performance managing them

The best thing about being in this industry for a quarter of a century is that you get to see old ideas, which didn't work and were scrapped, being reinvented and launched to a great fanfare. So here we go again!

Last time (circa mid 90's) it was called FIP (Fleet Improvement Plan) every CSD had a PSR and a group of main crew and was supposed to fly with them at least twice a year. This proved unworkable due to scheduling constraints so it became once a year which still was too hard so it died a sudden death with everyone agreeing that it was a great idea but just couldn't be made to work given the logistical problems. We also had Fleet Directors (early 90's), who had a small team but only really managed to fly with their CSD's so that didn't manage the main crew or pursers. Most recently 'CSD X' has been kicked around as well.

The bottom line with crew is that they have to be managed on the day by the SCCM so you have to be sure you've promoted the right people.
it would be performed on a per flight basis based upon customer surveys
It is nigh impossible to performance manage based on customer feedback given that the feedback is flawed and affected by general perception of the whole journey experience. (Many customers will complete their form before even seeing their meal much less eating it!) Even CSD annual reviews can only use trends from GPM's and these are greatly influenced by the fact that for the most part, a customer will only oblige with a GPM if they're in a good mood to start with.

So call me cynical but I look forward to the re-invention of the wheel with great anticipation but very little hope that it will herald any great transformation.

[pcf]

you are so right Ottergirl - all this has been covered many times :uhoh:over the years - new managers think they have come up with something new ....but why is this being raised now?

[Reargunner]

ottergirl, you made me all nostalgic. I remember team flying in the FIP too. I did once fly with my CSD (accidentally, from a stby).

Maybe this new crew tracking software will make it more feasable now?

I'm pretty sure that when it is a choice between the economic scheduling if trips, so as to not waste crew, and having performance assessed and evaluated by someone they have met previously, only one is going to be a clear priority.

Mind you, the full performance plan actually involves the CSD taking over the role of the crew manager, I think...wasn't it in the same documentation that you do days in the office? I took it that you will do your 900 flying hours and then manage the admin on top?

You're gonna be awfully busy!
Broom?
Backside?

[pcf]

Sorry I am changing the subject -
Reading the BASSA website is so sad that members are desperate to communicate with reps.
I am reading the pprune posts and feel you are anti Union crew/pilots BA employees and whilst I am anti-strike I feel very strongly about our fellow colleagues, they really believe in BASSA and are truly committed.

Reading this forum many of you are not cabin crew and have very strong views about cabin crew/BASSA members. I would suggest that most of you are also in a union and whilst you have settled with WW now, next year he will be back and will hold you to ransom (ST) in the same way, we are on a rollercoaster with WW, by the way yes I am backing him but his tactics mean that- WE - that is all BA employees when we feel we want to say NO will have the same treatment. Taking away ST is not good for anyone of us and we should all make ourselves heard and NOT condone his actions.

[M.Mouse]

I am reading the PPRuNe posts and feel you are anti Union crew/pilots BA employees and whilst I am anti-strike I feel very strongly about our fellow colleagues, they really believe in BASSA and are truly committed.

I am sure that all but the most unfeeling would feel a degree of sympathy for the CC feeling out on a limb but they have been led by the nose by those they elected to represent them. How anybody can be truly committed to BASSA after the fiasco which started early last year is beyond me.

Reading this forum many of you are not cabin crew and have very strong views about cabin crew/BASSA members.

Correct but the asinine behaviour of BASSA and the CC members without the intelligence or will to ascertain and analyse a few facts for themselves has made many, many other BA employees angry beyond belief. Those of us who have had to suffer the effects of arcane CC agreements which BASSA have protected at all costs are probably the angriest of the lot and, reluctantly, I have to admit a sense of gratitude that someone has finally had the balls to face down BASSA.

I would suggest that most of you are also in a union and whilst you have settled with WW now, next year he will be back and will hold you to ransom (ST) in the same way, we are on a rollercoaster with WW, by the way yes I am backing him but his tactics mean that- WE - that is all BA employees when we feel we want to say NO will have the same treatment. Taking away ST is not good for anyone of us and we should all make ourselves heard and NOT condone his actions.

I have to agree with you. How did we get here? By reasoned and logical negotiation or by 1970's intransigence defending the indefensible when the commercial imperative is plain to all except those who do not wish to see? The outcome of WW having won this battle and BASSA being beaten and being SEEN to be beaten has made negotiation by any other group that much more difficult. The threat of losing ST is a big stick which many will fear.

I learnt a long time ago to only start a fight when I figured I had a better than even chance of winning. It is plain that BASSA have backed themselves into a corner and have absolutely no idea how to proceed. Members clamouring for information and about all the communication that they have received recently is some bleating reference about how difficult it is to carry out BASSA duties when the reps. are not being de-rostered. What about the reps. currently suspended? What about telephones and...er... e-mail and the use of CC internet forums? Skype for a conference calls?

The next BASSA elections should prove interesting and if the current bunch of incompetents are re-elected then what little sympathy I presently have for CC BASSA members will evaporate.

[Litebulbs]

Are any of these 1970's crew left flying or are they all living in there retirement homes on a warm beach overseas? I ask, because lots of people keep drawing reference to this time. When I remember the 70's, I don't remember times of great affluence and money being splashed around, to whoever went on strike. Then that woman got hold of the keys to No 10.

[ottergirl]

the full performance plan actually involves the CSD taking over the role of the crew manager, I think

That was the plan for CSD X as well but the stumbling blocks were remuneration for the ground days, access to Crew Personal files and potential effect on CRM; imagine conducting a disciplinary one day and the next embarking on a 8 day trip together. (Also, not such a problem on Eurofleet, but on WW the CSD's often commute from all over the world so popping into the office for a couple of days is a bit inconvenient. Fine if thats what you signed up for but not if the goal posts have just been moved.) There has been a team of managers working on a job spec for this role since 2000 and no progress has been made.

many of you are not cabin crew
Welcome to Pprune pcf. Lots of us are CC and more coming all the time now that this discussion is just airline staff. Spread the word, this forum could be fantastic if we flood it out! There is some anti-crew feeling on here and many of it coming from FC colleagues but mostly its just people who feel strongly about the survival of BA. FWIW I feel the same as you that I am sad for our colleagues in BASSA who find themselves in a horrible position and I am worried about the implications of imposition but we have to have the wisdom to fight the right battle and this was not it.

[Hotel Mode]

Are any of these 1970's crew left flying

Lots. Several hundred at least.

[Hotel Mode]

There has been a team of managers working on a job spec for this role since 2000 and no progress has been made.

Sounds like a cushy number... Quelle suprise!

Seriously, I'd imagine that it will be introduced on new fleet not old fleet. Theyll then be able to write the scheduling agreements around it, and not try and work a new role into the current inflexible ones.

I am sad for our colleagues in BASSA who find themselves in a horrible position and I am worried about the implications of imposition but we have to have the wisdom to fight the right battle and this was not it.

Well said, fingers crossed for Tuesday.

[Litebulbs]

Lots. Several hundred at least.

The next step is whether any post on here. I would like to know how good the job was in the 70's.

Oh and a couple of hundred is not lots in a workforce getting on for 13000.

[pcf]

I'm a 70's relic !:eek:

[Hotel Mode]

Oh and a couple of hundred is not lots in a workforce getting on for 13000.

More than 200 less than 1000. 3 out of my last crew of 14, heaven knows if thats representative.

More importantly in this regard, they, as a group are massively over represented in the BASSA leadership, with most of the main protagonists having 70's DoJs. In fact it was these 1970s contracts that was the basis of the high court case.

[Litebulbs]

Hi pcf,

What was it like at the start of your career? Many posts refer back to this time and suggest that this is when unsustainable (today) agreements were made.

[Juan Tugoh]

The problem is that a culture or mindset can exist long after those responsible for setting that mindset have retired. In a sense we learn how to relate to our employers from those who are our "elders" when we join an organisation. If for any reason that culture does not change - indeed as BASSA have not changed over the years, then a 1970's mindset can easily prevail. Just because one joined later than the 70's does not mean that in terms of industrial relations you do not have an antiquated attitude towards your employer. This, sadly is where BASSA are; the confrontational, mistrusting, all managers are evil and out to screw you approach is a relic from the seventies.

At the moment it is in danger of leading BA into the same place as BL and all those other well known brands from yesteryear that are no longer with us. They believe that they provide the best product in the world but it is expensive, unreliable and hyper resistant to change and innovation. The need for change and engagement with management is self evident to all bar those with the antiquated mindset - primarliy the BASSA leadership who are mired in the old way of thinking.

[Litebulbs]

BL did not go bust in one exceptional year after showing sustained and record making profits.

[Bucking Bronco]

after showing sustained and record making profits

Are you serious?

That would explain all the generous dividends that BA paid between since July 2001.

To save you looking it up, 5p final dividend paid July 2008.

What a fantastic return for shareholders!

[Litebulbs]

That wil be down to the management team, not the T&C's of one employee group.

[M.Mouse]

I have just seen in the SLF section an extract from a BA press release regarding the repatriation of stranded passengers following the volcanic ash chaos.From a BA release 23/4, regarding the 'recovery' plan for stranded pax:

Our preference is to use Heathrow and Gatwick cabin crew to operate
these extra flights when we can. Where there is a need for us to alter
normal industrial arrangements, for example to reduce the rest time
downroute in order to bring our customers and colleagues home quickly, we
are asking Unite to agree. Where the union declines our requests, and
unfortunately this has happened today, we will use volunteer cabin crew.
The first example of this will be a Hong Kong to Heathrow flight this afternoon.

This would explain what I read on the BALPA forum of the extraordinary situation where volunteer cabin crew have recently flown some rescue flights working alongside regular CC. Whether the regulars included strikers or not I do not know.

This is yet another example of where Unite/BASSA religiously uphold their industrial agreements irrespective of the consequences for our paying passengers.


Litebulbs, are you saying BA's lack of long term profitability has no elationship at all with the cost of CC agreements which are a part of the whole?

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs, are you saying BA's lack of long term profitability has no elationship at all with the cost of CC agreements which are a part of the whole?

Long term profitability? In the last 10 years, what is the balance of profitable years, to loss making ones?

Treat every employee the same, new contracts on new fleets/working agreements for all. Reasonable?

[Juan Tugoh]

Nice to see, as usual, you ignoring the main thrust of an argument. Concentrate on the minutiae all you like it does not change the fact that BASSA are acting like a 1970's union where the mistrust of management is not conducive to the company's and therefore, the workers best interests. BL did go bust, their relations with union played a major part of this process, much the same as much of British manufacturing. You fail to address these issues, much the same as you fail to address my other comments. I can only presume that you must agree and can only quibble over trivia.

[pcf]

Hello Litebulbs,
Whilst there are still a few of the old diehards (many 70's male crew were ex seamen ) In my experience junior crew can be just as millitant.
Mrs T changed the unions forever - but some cabin crew still feel they are untouchable. The 12 day strike at Xmas - union members are unable to comprehend why the strike was deemed illeagal - same with the 'imposition' case -if only they would read for themselves instead of relying on the union for all knowledge.
Without the union our jobs would be very different and we should be respectful of that - The Trade Unions movement is a good thing, however Unite must move with the times
If the union is crushed it will be a very sad day for all - millitant or not - it will affect you.

dashing out for BBQ - hope this makes sense

[Litebulbs]

Pleasant tone as usual.

Ok, so profit is trivia then?

pcf - with regard to the ballot, it was illegal because Unite did not do enough to check who they were balloting, that cannot be questioned. Unite will need to change its relationship with BA too, but that change should be on equal terms.

[Hotel Mode]

Profit's great, but how many of those years did BA make enough to replace their aging fleet in a reasonable timescale? Answer 1. The same year as the dividend.

If BA cant sustainably make that margin they will wither and die like Pan AM, TWA, Swissair and others before them.

[Hotel Mode]

The only problem with this new one is that logically there wouldn't be any further strike breaking if staff travel was in a settlement.

I have just heard something which may explain why WW is prepared to give staff travel back to strikers but not with their original seniority.

This is 100% reliable information and not gossip -

the pilots have told Walsh they will "withdraw all co-operation" (ie assist in any further strike breaking) if BA fully reinstates our staff travel.

So the pilots are holding Walsh to ransom, probably so they get their reward by moving up the staff travel seniority ladder. Makes you wonder who is actually running this airline at present.

Nothing ceases to amaze me any more concerning our so-called colleagues in the cockpit. There may be some "good ones" out there but if they are standing by and letting this happen then they are at least guilty by association.

Course it is. :ugh:

[Pornpants1]

I'm now at a complete loss to try to rationalise how much lower BASSA can fall.

The suspended branch chair must be getting more and more desperate now, seeing UNITE cobble a proposal behind his back, which does not include automatic reinstatement of suspended and sacked staff.

A proposal that does not include the automatic reinstatement of staff travel, just the predicted start date of some time this year (in this case October 2010)

This combined with a general apathy amongst BASSA members may mean that any proposal would be accepted.

The branch chair, with statements such as the one above, must clearly do everything in their power to scupper any deal such as this, and march Cabin Crew back into a strike which few want.

[Eddy]

This would explain what I read on the BALPA forum of the extraordinary situation where volunteer cabin crew have recently flown some rescue flights working alongside regular CC. Whether the regulars included strikers or not I do not know.
I'd be very, very interested to hear if it did.

Afterall, I can only assume that the reason we're bringing volunteers in is because what the company is trying to do with these flights is operate them outside of the Worldwide Scheduling Agreement - i.e. against the union's wishes.

However, the majority of the destinations (certainly from Heathrow) that relief flights are being sent to are long-range destinations (i.e. money earners). So there's every possibility the lure of the cash will mean some strikers might go ahead and operate.

See, the problem for the majority of the striking crew is that it's going to be difficult to sustain a further period with no income. Following the previous spell of strikes and the week of grounding as a result of the volcano, money is extremely tight.

Indeed, a couple of my friends who DID go on strike said to me that they'd probably have to go to work next time because they can't afford more time off.

I tried to explain that going to work even if they'd gone on strike last time would mean that they are in the same boat as all the other "strike-breaking" crew, including myself. Infact, they'd be in much the situation as those who went to Bedfont on an MBT but when to work the next day......

My friends tried to tell me that it wouldn't because they'd gone on strike first time around and that the only reason they're working second time is because they need the cash, but doesn't everyone who goes to work during a strike have their own reasons for doing it?

For those who went on strike first time around - people for whom I have absolute respect - they've set a prescedent, and going to work during the next strike will make all they've done and all they lost completely pointless.

It's a worrying situation because I personally don't see Walsh budging on the staff travel issue or the suspensions (though I wish he would on some of them). And for Bassa to accept anything less than the complete re-instatement of both travel perks and suspended crew wouldn't really bode well.

[M.Mouse]

What a disgraceful lie from Duncan Holley. 'the pilots' have said no such thing not that it would make an iota of difference to WW's plans. The statemenmt quoted in the post above doesn't even make sense '"....withdraw all co-operation" (ie assist in any further strike breaking)....' is contradictory.

Litebulbs,

Long term profitability? In the last 10 years, what is the balance of profitable years, to loss making ones?

You seriously believe that a meagre annual profit for most of the past 10 years makes a sustainable future? I cannot believe you are stupid so that statement must be a wind up, yes?

Treat every employee the same, new contracts on new fleets/working agreements for all. Reasonable?

Perfectly reasonable if we are talking about market rate for similar work, Ts & Cs. I would be happy to be benchmarked.....again.

[Pornpants1]

The BASSA branch secretary has admitted that only 2000-3000 are in line to lose staff travel (strange BASSA don't know exactly how well their strike has been supported).

This then broadly reflects the claim made by the company about numbers of Cabin Crew turning up for work during the strike period. Circ 1100 crew turn up daily to work, that's 7700 over the period of the strike, give or take some strikers being caught for both sets of strike dates it shows that the strike was supported ,by using the lower figure of 2000 by 26% to 38% using the 3000 figure, not really enough to have an impact:ok:

[Stelton]

Loss of seniority in return for staff travel to be reinstated. Would they lose seniority only when it comes to staff travel or also when choosing their working positions, applying for part-time, promotion etc?

[Eddy]

SURELY it would only be when it comes to staff travel....

If so, not a huge deal - except perhaps for commuters to the likes of GLA/MAN/BCN/MAD.

[Pornpants1]

And in further news why is it that Duncan Holley cant stop lying? Does he have some issues? The only problem is that logically there wouldn't be any further strike breaking if staff travel was in a settlement.

Quote:
I have just heard something which may explain why WW is prepared to give staff travel back to strikers but not with their original seniority.

This is 100% reliable information and not gossip -

the pilots have told Walsh they will "withdraw all co-operation" (ie assist in any further strike breaking) if BA fully reinstates our staff travel.

So the pilots are holding Walsh to ransom, probably so they get their reward by moving up the staff travel seniority ladder. Makes you wonder who is actually running this airline at present.

Nothing ceases to amaze me any more concerning our so-called colleagues in the cockpit. There may be some "good ones" out there but if they are standing by and letting this happen then they are at least guilty by association.
Course it is Duncan. :ugh:

Further to the above, I have been doing some research, The Pilot volunteers do not have any official or unofficial spokesperson, BALPA do not speak for them. They are split evenly across all ages,sexes, both ranks, and all fleets, as I understand it they are not a coherent group. so the statement the pilots have told Walsh they will "withdraw all co-operation" (ie assist in any further strike breaking) if BA fully reinstates our staff travel. holds little water.

Furthermore, the argument is flawed, if the company were to give staff travel back a deal would more than likely be struck, ergo no need for VCC.

I and all my colleagues have absolutely no doubt who is actually running this airline at present. and its not the Pilots I can assure you:ok:

I stand by my first synopsis, this is little more than a fairytale, along the lines of "the 42 year old stewardess" or "an email from someone that went to work"

In short fiction to rally the troops:yuk:

[wiggy]

As a BA pilot and a BALPA member can I add my voice to this, for the benefit of any BA Cabin Crew reading this thread.

the pilots have told Walsh they will "withdraw all co-operation"

The pilots have not said any such thing.
BALPA has not said any such thing.

[PC767]

M.Mouse & Co.

BA requested the disruption agreement on the 21/04/10, and Bassa were in agreement. It is due to expire today but may well be extended. Also there was an agreement that long range diversions will be reduced to 1 night rather than the agreement of 2 nights.

Volunteer crew are being used, however there is annoyance that fulltime cabin crew remain unused on standby and 24hr available duties. As a non-striker I find it inflamatory to use volunteer crew in place of regular crew and more so to ask them to work alongside regular crew. It cannot be nice for them either.

[Tiramisu]

PC767
BA requested the disruption agreement on the 21/04/10, and Bassa were in agreement. It is due to expire today but may well be extended. Also there was an agreement that long range diversions will be reduced to 1 night rather than the agreement of 2 nights.


Fact.
To be fair an email was sent to all cabin crew on Friday evening by Bill Francis, where he was pleased to confirm that UNITE had agreed to extend the disruption agreement until midnight on Wednesday 28th April.

[HiFlyer14]

I am worried about the implications of imposition


The point is: it didn't have to be this way. If we had agreed the deal that was on the table last year, we would now be sitting fairly comfortably in the following position:

a. Imposition would not have occurred.
b. A fair and reasonable Monthly Travel Payment would be in place which would have stemmed the loss of allowances for those sat at home during Ash Week.
c. No strike would have taken place, therefore no loss of staff travel and the additional bitter dispute it brings with it.
d. Ditto with the suspensions.
e. We would have been sitting on a firm and fair 3 year pay deal - instead Ash Week may well reduce any pay deal even further.
f. Part-time lists would be being actioned.
g. Transfer lists would be being actioned.
h. Disruption payments would still be the same.
i. It is likely, that because of Ash Week, New Fleet would have been delayed or numbers reduced even further.
j. We would have been working to exactly the same crew complements that we are now working to anyway.
k. The possibility of an extra staff ticket, subject to company performance.
l. The possiblity of a bonus in 3 years time.
m. The possiblity of a share scheme.

But by far the most important thing is that there would be no volunteers in place and probably no temps employed to be able to put us in the sorry position that we now find ourselves in. It may well be inflammatory to use volunteer crew in place of regular crew, but sadly we only have ourselves to blame.

All of the above was rejected by Unite on our behalf on a show of hands in a very intimidatory fashion at a Race Course.

So, the 6 million dollar question for the 6 millionth time: Do the BASSA loyalty still think that was the right course of action? If so, how?

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

[M.Mouse]

From BA's statement 23/04/10:Where there is a need for us to alter
normal industrial arrangements, for example to reduce the rest time
downroute in order to bring our customers and colleagues home quickly, we
are asking Unite to agree. Where the union declines our requests, and
unfortunately this has happened today, we will use volunteer cabin crew.


From Tiramasu a few posts ago:Fact.
To be fair an email was sent to all cabin crew on Friday evening by Bill Francis, where he was pleased to confirm that UNITE had agreed to extend the disruption agreement until midnight on Wednesday 28th April.

Does the disruption agreement cover downroute rest reduction?

Litebulbs, I was not insulting you, I assumed you were not serious. Instead of looking for offence where none is present nor intended why not explain your position which appears to be that a multi-million pound company making minimal amounts of money for at least the last 10 years and having all but paid no dividend in that time has a sustainable future trading in that manner?

Who is BarbiesBoyfriend, what does he do to be earning £25K and who is he employed by? I do not understand your reference to pay to fly. I abhor the practice.

[MissM]

Few pilots were used during the last strike and many volunteers were stood down because enough cabin crew turned up for duty. That's if you belive what's being said.

In such case WW shouldn't need to worry about the pilots threatening to withdraw their services if staff travel is reinstated.

[Hotel Mode]

Where's the logic there missm? If staff travel has been reinstated then the dispute is therefore over. In which case why on earth would Willy worry about whether the VCCs were willing to do it again? It's just cloud cuckoo land.

[wiggy]

MissM

In such case WW shouldn't need to worry about the pilots threatening to withdraw their services if staff travel is reinstated.

He won't worry because "the pilots" have threatened no such thing. That threat is a figment of a BASSA Reps fevered imagination.

[Bollinger 1999]

Miss M Your comments amaze me, I can not believe that you feel disgusted that people have not gone on strike and chose to work.. we all have the right to choose what is right for oneself, I respect you for choosing to strike as you believe in striking. I chose not to!!!
I am DISGUSTED in some of the comments on the Bassa forum, people posting that non-strikers are scum, and there is NO excuse for not striking!!
Well let me tell you my reason for not striking.. I have a lovely home and WISH to keep hold of it!!!!!
Is BASSA going to pay my mortgage??? I dont think so, I have seen people posting things like get a mortgage holiday!! get a low rate credit card!! GET real Miss M!!!!! There is a a chap on the Bassa who has posted on the site that his family has been torn apart his house is on the market, what Miss M do you have to say to him?? One lady on the site stated she has every confidence that by April 14th Bassa would GET her staff travel back!!!!!
We all have to accept changes, Bassa have made promises they can not keep, What are you fighting for Miss M???

[Strimmerdriver]

MissM

wiggy beat me to it. The "pilot withdrawl" story is the invention of a poisoned mind.

Regards SD

[strikemaster82]

It is interesting to see how quickly a complete BASSA lie becomes the truth because it has been posted on the BASSA forum by a rep.

I am convinced that eventually this union will be used as a case study in brainwashing on some psychology course somewhere. How do they do it?

[GS-Alpha]

Unfortunately people believe what they want to hear. That is how they do it.

[TheKabaka]

What BASSA refuse to accept is that if an agreement is untenable, it will be ignored or worked around. Intelligent negotiation would mean the effects of giving up these agreements could be mitigated.

If this reality dawned on the reps they may start meaningful talks. How can they be convinced?

[wiggy]

The "pilot withdrawl" story is the invention of a poisoned mind.



And the next question is: why invent the story?

At best the BASSA Rep misunderstood BALPA's stance on the use of pilot volunteers on recent recovery flights to/from the Far East..I know BALPA have contacted BASSA over this and if it was a misunderstanding I'm sure BASSA will be issuing a correction :hmm:

At worse some of the BASSA Reps are carrying out a scorched Earth policy, hoping to leave the working relationship between Flight Crew and Cabin Crew completely in tatters before the door slams behind them.

I know which explanation I think is the most likely...

[naginata]

So, first Engineering was 'accused' by BASSA (something said about BA aircrafts being poorly maintained etc etc, remember ??? Yes, yes UNITE have apologized for the kerfarfel but then again, what is said cannot be 'unsaid', right??) and now its the turn of the Pilots ...... hmmmmmmmmm who next, BASSA ? Icelandic volcanoes? Ground staff ? Baggage handlers and cargo loaders ? Airport Authorities and the CAA ????
And I thought the 'divide and conquer' tactic is only adopted by management types all over the world but it seems BASSA is assisting them now !!! Way to go, BASSA!!!:}:ok:

[S76Heavy]

As FD (not BA) I wonder how the legalities are of publishing untruths that can and probably will damage relationships between different staff sections? Would it be considered libel for instance?
I mean, even unions cannot be above the law, can they?

[wiggy]

wonder how the legalities are of publishing untruths that can and probably will damage relationships between different staff sections? Would it be considered libel for instance?
I mean, even unions cannot be above the law, can they?

I'm led to believe this has been the subject of discussions at a very high level within BALPA this weekend (i.e. above the BA Company Council). No news yet of if "big" BALPA are going to go down the legal route...

[Weopon X]

Long time reader , first time poster ! ;)

The Rep concerned is highly respected and is very well loved by Bassa members , he has always been forthright and honest in both his postings and Emails , i trust him , i believe him and perhaps you flyboys need to ask yourselves if you are the ones being lied to ... because a senior rep , backed by an undisclosed senior manager says you are ... maybe just think about it before you dimiss it outright !! Cheers :D

[Hand Solo]

Sadly Duncan has been caught telling porkies many times before, and not just about us. Remember how only 26 crew reported for duty on the first day of the strike? How about he names his undisclosed manager, instead of saying "somebody told me but I'm not telling you who" like a 5 year old spreading tales.

[mjc507]

Perhaps you should go back to being a reader and not a poster.:rolleyes:

[TopBunk]

As I understand the situation, Mr H has his disciplinary with the company later this week, for whatever he has been accused of.

A cynic might just suggest that his latest set of unproven allegations are the last throw of the dice from someone who just wants to queer the pitch / stir up as much unrest as possible before he is managed out of the business.

I would put it at no better than evens that he will be a BA employee when this is done and dusted, and frankly the company will be all the better for his type being let go.

If it happens though, what is the bet the McClunky will find him a nice little earner at Unite.

[wiggy]

because a senior rep , backed by an undisclosed senior manager says you are ...

It's interesting that having spent months hearing the more vociferous BASSA supporters trotting out to all and sundry, at every turn, "you can't trust BA" that there's suddenly an "undisclosed senior manager" that BASSA obviously does trust.

[Pornpants1]

Few pilots were used during the last strike and many volunteers were stood down because enough cabin crew turned up for duty. That's if you belive what's being said.

In such case WW shouldn't need to worry about the pilots threatening to withdraw their services if staff travel is reinstated.

I'm glad you yourself have seen the flaw in The Branch Secretaries argument:ok:

Weopen X because a senior rep , backed by an undisclosed senior manager says you are

Perhaps he could name said manager?

Perhaps he could name the Pilot VCC spokesperson (there isn't one)

Mr Holly has been caught in too many lies for anyone with half a brain to believe that this is anything other than as described in TopBunks post above

A cynic might just suggest that his latest set of unproven allegations are the last throw of the dice from someone who just wants to queer the pitch / stir up as much unrest as possible before he is managed out of the business.

[Beagle9]

Lightbulbs

Re Profits:

The important thing here is not the number of years BA makes a profit as opposed to a loss, but THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT.

It's generally accepted in business, that less than 10% profit on turnover is a poor result. Significantly that has been BA's profits target for triggering staff bonuses in recent years.

How many times in the last 10 years has BA ,managed this?

Once.

The reason BA HAS to make this amount of profit and more, is, as mentioned by other people, aircraft renewal, pensions deficit, product refreshes. You tell me, do YOU think any of these issued DON'T need addressing?

[Reargunner]

So, are you saying that this message from Duncan is wrong because it is untrue that the pilots who have been supporting the BBA initiative and volunteering as cabin crew would not withdraw that support if ST was restored?

Or is it only wrong, because there is no official spokesman for this gang, and therefore, nobody can voice their point of view?

Isn't this attitude a least half implied by the posts on here talking about Willy needing to keep/reward the loyalty of his volunteers by not returning staff travel to cabin crew?

No pilots seem to be posting to say that it can't be true because they are voluneers but do not hold this opinion.

If you're genuinely concerned about the deterioration in the relationship between pilots and the "other half of the airborne team", then perhaps those few pilots that have been loudly boasting about how easy it's going to be get staff travel seats now cabin crew are out of the picture should be advised to speak a little more quietly?

I find it increasingly difficult to convince anyone in the cabin that not all pilots feel little but contempt for cabin crew, that many of them are motivated in their actions by genuine principal and not a vindictive enjoyment of others' losses.

You may imagine that this view will change as soon as BA has sacked enough crew...but I'm afraid it will become worse. I wish the only problem was what BASSA reps say - a lot of responsibility lies with what pilots say and do. Brainwashing, was mentiond...but few people actually would give credance to this if it clashed with their everyday experiences.

Eddy, the volunteers are being sent out on regular flights, not just 'rescue flights'. In fact, it sounds like everything went out one down or with two voluneers instead of real crew.

S76Heavy, Duncan posting his personal opinion on our website is unlikely to be more libelous than people posting on here that they think he is a liar and a trouble maker who should be sacked....is it?

[Hotel Mode]

Reargunner, can you explain then the logical disconnect in what is said.

Why on earth would Willy care what the VCCs think? If staff travel is part of a settlement he has no need for VCCs anyway, surely?

Is there a secret cabal of pilots meeting Willy nightly to update him on opinion in the ranks? We should be told. Is there a book depository involved or are some people in BASSA just going a bit nutty?

[demomonkey]

Regarding Duncan's '100% true, not gossip' statement:

the pilots have told Walsh they will "withdraw all co-operation" (ie assist in any further strike breaking) if BA fully reinstates our staff travel.
BALPA has remained neutral in this dispute (like BASSA did during OpenSkies issues) and left the decision to volunteer to the individual. A senior BALPA rep who did volunteer stood down and will not be re-instated as a Rep just to demonstrate that there is neutrality. I understand that other Unite branches followed a similar route.
It is in BALPA's interest for CC to have ST re-instated. Reason: if BALPA ever call future strike action and a CEO were to remove ST then we would obviously want it back for the same reasons as CC do now - derrrrr!
BALPA's BA Chairman has publicly stated that Duncan's comments are untrue. If the BACC Chairman was lying, he would be extremely foolish as he if he were ever found out he would face de-selection or possibly legal action. He's not the foolish type and does not have a track record of mis-statements. Others might tell you that the sky was green and the grass blue if it thought it would further their personal crusade.So what Duncan probably meant to say was '100% gossip, not true'.

Duncan needs to wake-up and realise that just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them your enemy. Or maybe he lost sight of reality along time ago when things stopped going his way.

It's free choice to listen to every viewpoint but it's an active decision to choose what you believe.

[Sporran]

Reargunner

I have never heard such a suggestion from ANY pilot. The chairman of the BA section of BALPA has refuted the whole suggestion strongly and also complained to miss lala herself.

I believe very strongly that WW has been a man of his word throughout this long running debacle. He stated categorically on numerous occasions that strikers would lose their ST for ever!

Sorry if it offends, but I did my bit to keep BA solvent and I EXPECT WW to keep his word and ensure that strikers do not get ST back. This is not from a position of being vindictive, but I believe that it would send out the completely wrong message to those of us who volunteered to keep OUR company going - including numerous members of unite – if he went back on his word and ‘rewarded the very people who were happy to put the rest of us on the dole.

I am sorry if some of my colleagues have upset those of a gentle disposition who were willing to see me and my family out of work and losing all that I have worked for. I believe that these comments will have been said in jest – poor taste – but jest none the less.

The ONLY people that seem to think pilots have contempt for cabin crew are these vindictive, lying trouble-makers who have been doing their best to stir up trouble for many, many years. The vast majority of pilots hold cabin crew in very good regard. The vast majority of cabin crew are a delight to fly with and also to socialise with. However, the rotten apples are indeed rotten and are intent on trying to blame everybody else – except the lying leaders of bassa. Flight crew are an easy target for these people because if enough people say something is true, then people will gradually believe it is – even if it is a total pack of lies.

You talk about BA sacking crew as if that is their aim. BA is certainly not my first employer, but it is certainly the best employer that I have worked for. The suspended crew will be given a fair hearing, but some of the incidents that they are alleged to have been involved in require sacking as the final sanction.

Brainwashing – that would be the bassa complaint of passing on verifiable information rather than so many of the outright lies peddled from bassaland.

On the subject of telling numerous lies – your man duncan just cannot stop. There are numerous pilots clamouring for BALPA to take a much more robust line against his poison.

[Jadzia]

Found this on the web, some people clearly have to much time on hand:

Cover Page (http://web.me.com/delankev/Site/Cover_Page.html)

[Hand Solo]

I guess if you have numerous XXXX days to fil......:rolleyes:

On the subject of Duncan and his version of the truth, I seem to remember hearing him on Radio 5 telling the world that pilots were being paid £500 overtime to train as cabin crew. Another lie peddled that had to be backtracked on. Having been pointed in the direction of BALPAs lawyers Duncan is now backtracking on the claim that BALPA are involved in blocking the return of staff travel (but still sticking to the idea that it's a mysterious bogeyman who was once a BALPA rep who is orchestrating the whole thing), and he was only told this by a mate who was told it by a senior manager at Waterside, who's clearly in the business of divulging BA's negotiating secrets and tactics to the friends of BASSA reps. It's laughable, even if only for the fact that it suggests Unite have got WW and BF to shred their own credibility and consider giving any staff travel back to strikers.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Damn, its like south park, but less funny

[Human Factor]

This is 100% reliable information and not gossip -

Given who allegedly wrote this, the fact that he has to insist that his own work is 100% reliable information suggests that he's protesting a bit much. :rolleyes:

At least we shouldn't have to put up with it much longer. ;)

[midman]

No pilots seem to be posting to say that it can't be true because they are voluneers but do not hold this opinion.

Pilots aren't posting to say it can't be true because it doesn't make logical sense for it to be true. Why would we withdraw co-operation if that co-operation wasn't needed because an agreement had been reached, which included the return of ST? That would be pointless!!

I'm VCC and most of my mates are and I can assure you there is no 'body' representing us in talks with WW.

[MissM]

Found this on the web, some people clearly have to much time on hand:

Cover Page

Maybe but it's amusing!

[midman]

MissM
Can you imagine the outcry if a pilot created something similar taking the p out of cabin crew?

Would you be amused?

[MissM]

I never take things personally or too seriously so I probably couldn't be less bothered if a pilot, or anyone else in the company, created something similar about cabin crew.

[Openclimb]

Yes, but, can you imagine the outcry?

[freddydog]

Staff travel is awarded to staff for loyalty and length of service rewards,
therefore if staff break their service i.e strike, then they should have to start from the beginning again.So give S.T back to them again as new starters..

[gr8tballsoffire]

It is not all that amusing and I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot we would be besieged by a collective outbreak of hissy fits.
Is it really appropriate to call your CEO a gob****e and distribute it to thousands of colleagues.?
It is childish and disrespectful and unfortuntely symptometic of BASSA's style.
It's clearly not enough for them to have their chairman call WW the C word. They still can't raise their level above the gutter.

How do CC put up with it is beyond belief.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

I would reccommend that nobody tries to "Out" the author of this page, or in any way make comments that could be construed as bullying/harassment.

There are people out there determined to take someone down with them. All fora/chatrooms are being searched for posts, the intent being to "down a
pilot".

Be careful out there. Lets not make someone elses problem bring down one of us.

[HiFlyer14]

This is tedious beyond belief. Whilst OUR offers are being eroded by the minute due to the incompetence of BASSA (yes BASSA) we have to put up with even more BASSA driven drivel.

Reargunner, MissM, et al. You seem like intelligent people yet you put faith in an absurd, unsubstantiated comment like this:


For the record a very senior manager (who would know if it is true) said in Waterside last Friday (not to me but someone very close to me who I trust 100%) that "the pilots have told WW that if the strikers get their full staff travel back then they will withdraw their cooperation in helping break the strike. Nothing more nothing less.


It is wrong, to answer your questions Reargunner, because IT IS HEARSAY. End of. Ask him for the evidence. If you dare, because just look at the way he has treated someone on the BASSA forum who DARED to write to BF. This is going beyond appalling. Think about it. He is allowed to believe a "comment" made by a "Senior Manager" to a 3rd party. Yet a cabin crew member is berated for writing to BF for clarification on the matter. Absolutely unbelievable.

And now, time, effort and money is being spent on yet another spoof website. Do you not care how they are spending your money? How they are wasting time? How low they are degrading our community? I do.

BASSA are simply winding people up by creating stuff like this BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO OFFER IN DEFENCE OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. If they stuck to facts, no-one could possibly support them or their actions, therefore they have to fabricate rubbish in order to get support.

And by talking about it on here, we are simply fanning the flames. We need to stick to the facts of the Industrial Relations issue, before we have no more offers left to discuss.

[Litebulbs]

Lightbulbs

Re Profits:

It's generally accepted in business, that less than 10% profit on turnover is a poor result.



From what I have read on the net, the accepted profit margins for legacy carriers is around 5%. BA have exceeded this more times than not in the last 15 years, when the industry has suffered from 09/11 and the credit crunch.

[Hand Solo]

Do you think it's acceptable to continue to make legacy carrier profit levels when the competition are now making far more money, which means more money to invest in their products and grow their businesses as at our expense? Times change. Do you not think BA should move with them?

[Litebulbs]

Do you think it's acceptable to continue to make legacy carrier profit levels when the competition are now making far more money, which means more money to invest in their products and grow their businesses as at our expense? Times change. Do you not think BA should move with them?

It is how you quantify more money, either as a percentage of turnover or an actual figure. I am sure BA would like to be Google, but it isn't.

Easyjet have flown more passengers than BA over the last four years with a smaller turnover, but have also have made less money as a figure and a percentage profit that has reduced as they have grown. The same with Ryan, although Ryan's figures appear to be better.

But I am out of my depth now and these are my fag packet calculations based on these internet sources (easyjet.com, ryanair.com and wiki), so feel free to rip them apart.

[Litebulbs]

Well, it only took one post to see errors in mine!

I was reading this -

The Bottom Line On Margins (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/042804.asp)

as a reference to 5% and it is only one person's opinion and a debating point. As I have said, it was simplistic calculations on numbers from company websites and wiki.

[Litebulbs]

Thanks for the info on the IATA site.

This is interesting with regard to premium traffic -

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/PremiumMonitorJan10.pdf

especially -

A robust rise in world trade seems to be driving the upturn in premium passengers, which is largely business travel. It now looks as though the recession in premium travel has been cyclical rather than a permanent fall. Economy travel is also likely to be benefiting from the return of business travel.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Cabin crew urged to reject BA offer - News & Advice, Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cabin-crew-urged-to-reject-ba-offer-1955844.html)

British Airways cabin crew are to be urged to reject an offer aimed at ending their long-running dispute over jobs and working practices after talks ended without agreement, it was revealed today.

Unite said it will ballot its 12,000 members on the offer, with a "strong recommendation" to reject, raising the threat of fresh industrial action.

Unite said it would not set any fresh strike dates before the ballot result was known, but stressed it remained in dispute with the airline, which has lost tens of millions of pounds in recent weeks because of the industrial action and the grounding of flights due to the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud.

The union said BA was insisting on taking "vindictive" disciplinary action against more than 50 union members as a result of the strikes and was refusing to restore travel perks taken away from those who took part in the industrial action.

Officials accused BA of not operating in the spirit of seeking an agreement, adding that the ballot result was expected before next week's General Election.

Tony Woodley, Unite's joint leader, said: "It is disappointing that talks with the company have concluded without producing an agreement we can recommend to cabin crew.

"However the blame for this rests exclusively with an intransigent management which is determined to attack trade unions and persecute its well-supported, lawful strike action.

"This represents a major failure of industrial statesmanship on the company's part."

BA said the cost of the strikes were estimated at between £40 million and £45 million.

The airline put in place contingency plans to minimise disruption, including leasing aircraft and crew from other firms.

Cabin crew urged to reject BA offer - News & Advice, Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cabin-crew-urged-to-reject-ba-offer-1955844.html)

[Pornpants1]

Problem is now that UNITE/BASSA claim 2000-3000 crew went on strike, that leaves circa 10,000-11,000 who didn't. Are these people likely to support further industrial unrest?

Both UNITE and BASSA have not delivered their promise to crew who have lost their staff travel as a result of going on strike. Even their legal team are not even sure which court to put the action in, with any legal action taking 18 months to 2 years to settle, its going to be a long time and costly. Is that a battle UNITE want to fund?

Added to that some crew have now been without pay and/or allowances for a very long time (snow in December again in January, strikes, and the ash cloud), will they be able to continue to strike?

UNITE officials are deserting the cause as quickly as they can be reassigned to other areas.

Some are viewing it that cabin crew are being hung out to dry.

When UNITE say they are going to ballot their members, is this a proper postal ballot or an online one?

[Hand Solo]

@ Litebulbs - a rise in business travel in Asia and LatAm is a good thing. Unfortunately BA have no exposure to intra-Asia routes and a single intra-LatAm routes. There's a global recovery beginning but not in our markets.

The union said BA was insisting on taking "vindictive" disciplinary action against more than 50 union members as a result of the strikes and was refusing to restore travel perks taken away from those who took part in the industrial action.

And there was me thinking the disciplinary action was a result of the individuals abusive or threatening behaviour towards their colleagues, or their breach of contractual requirements not to talk to the media. No, apparently is a result of the strikes.:hmm:

[demomonkey]

If BASSA go on strike again, BA will redeploy the VCC plan again. The strike (likely to be indefinite) will probably be as or less effective than prior and will collapse sooner or later. Then BA will impose much worse conditions than are being proposed now. Result: within five years most current crew will have left and BA will have a mainly New Contract Workforce in the Cabin.

BA (WW long since departed and beyond caring) will have achieved way more than they ever hoped for last year and honest, decent, hardworking CC will have lost careers they love. For what? Two nights in a GLA hotel due diversion? Keeping someone in their office on a jumbo? Be careful for what you wish for....

[Juan Odeboyse]

Problem is now that UNITE/BASSA claim 2000-3000 crew went on strike, that leaves circa 10,000-11,000 who didn't. Are these people likely to support further industrial unrest?

Both UNITE and BASSA have not delivered their promise to crew who have lost their staff travel as a result of going on strike. Even their legal team are not even sure which court to put the action in, with any legal action taking 18 months to 2 years to settle, its going to be a long time and costly. Is that a battle UNITE want to fund?

Added to that some crew have now been without pay and/or allowances for a very long time (snow in December again in January, strikes, and the ash cloud), will they be able to continue to strike?

UNITE officials are deserting the cause as quickly as they can be reassigned to other areas.

Some are viewing it that cabin crew are being hung out to dry.


PP are you making this up as you go along?

Do YOU know of any crew that 'have been without pay or allowances for a very long time'?

Which UNITE officials are 'deserting the cause'?

Who are viewing this (about 1 hr since statement) that ' the CC are being hung out to dry'?

[Caribbean Boy]

Pornpants1 (http://www.pprune.org/members/316754-pornpants1) wrote:
When UNITE say they are going to ballot their members, is this a proper postal ballot or an online one?
I believe it is going to be an online consultative ballot lasting five days.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

J O,

There are reports that Steve Turner has been replaced as National Officer for aviation, and that Len Mcluskey may be moving sideways. As yet, they are unofficial, but from a reliable source.

[Juan Odeboyse]

Not another "reliable source" in this dispute !!

[License to Fly]

are crew really going to vote for the proposal (and settle the dispute) on an online vote ?

We all know computers monitor our every move and BASSA/Unite will be able to easily identify how everyone votes .... it looks like an easy way to rig a result to me

LTF

[Caribbean Boy]

Litebulbs (http://www.pprune.org/members/40799-litebulbs) wrote:
A robust rise in world trade seems to be driving the upturn in premium passengers, which is largely business travel. It now looks as though the recession in premium travel has been cyclical rather than a permanent fall. Economy travel is also likely to be benefiting from the return of business travel.Premium traffic is recovering on the back of lower yields. Currently, these remain poor and need to recover by 30% to get back to 2008 levels.

The premium markets showing the strongest growth include within South America, within Far East and Europe-Far East. However, BA is poorly placed to take advantage as its costs remain higher than the competition. And on the North Atlantic where BA has made its money for a long time, not only is the growth tiny but the likes of CO, DL and US are running LHR flights in direct competition with BA.

[BentleyH]

Meanwhile, the training of more volunteer cabin crew continues. I've been asked to crew another famil flight for ground staff next week. There's still 40 more crew rolling off the production line each week and countless temps coming through Cranebank too. When is BASSA going to realise this battle is lost and it's time to move on?
Despite Woodley's rhetoric, I wonder whether he's secretly hoping the offer will be accepted, thereby demonstrating to BASSA that their reps are clearly out of touch and should step aside (just as Mr Simpson already thinks)??

[Caribbean Boy]

Unite has issued this statement today in Microsoft Word (why?). As most people would struggle to read it, I've copied it here.

No Staff Travel? Europe may come to you!

As you may be aware, BA tried everything they could legally to prevent our strike and mitigate its effects. One of the most significant of these measures was to carry out their threat to remove staff travel from strikers.
Can BA legally do this? Many of you have asked questions about the legal position.

Firstly, there are some basic fundamentals with procedure with which BA have not complied.

Secondly, there are issues around the potentially contractual nature of staff travel itself.

And thirdly, some interesting points arise in relation to European law.

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 position is different though if the detrimental treatment by the employer is sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach of an important contractual term (such as the implied term of "trust and confidence"). In some circumstances, this particular breach is so serious that the employee would be entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal. In that situation British law gives the employee very clear rights, but no doubt BA will be boldly taking that risk and seeking to ensure that any removal of what it calls “non contractual benefits” falls short of that hurdle.

However that is not the end of the story. Recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights may lead to changes in UK law. As noted above, detrimental action against strikers must be of a fundamentally serious nature if it is going to provide strikers with legally enforceable rights. The European Court of Human Rights has recently suggested that this is too tough a test. In a series of cases involving Turkey and Russia it has recently indicated that it thinks the law should move on and has ruled that if an employee is treated less well than others because he or she has taken, or intends to take, part in a strike or other industrial action he or she will have a legal right to sue their employer under the Convention.

British courts must interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention and if that is impossible can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" which is likely to lead to Parliament making appropriate changes to UK law. In some circumstances it is even possible for direct applications to be made to the European Court of Human Rights.

On the face of it, this could pose a problem for BA. Currently, the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows direct application of the Convention only in respect of the activities of public authorities and persons carrying out functions of a public nature, and it does not give private citizens or companies directly enforceable rights against each other. So while the judgments of the Court of Human Rights noted above may lead to future changes in UK law which might then strictly prevent BA taking the sort of action they are taking against strikers, BA may feel that they are currently immune from legal action with their "benefit removing" plans. However, what they need to bear in mind is that the UK Courts and tribunals have a higher calling – and often shown that they are prepared to go to great lengths, even inserting words into Acts of Parliament, to ensure that they fulfill their duty to interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention. Beware BA.

So, assuming Unite explore every avenue open to us, BA may find they are on treading on thin ice if they go ahead with permanently removing, or in any way reducing the provision of benefits for strikers.

We shall keep you informed of our progress with this matter.

[Hand Solo]

That's yesterdays statement (general sentiment: "You ain't getting you're staff travel back unless they change the law")

Todays statement is here:

Time to wake up and smell the future...

During the 7 days of our industrial action, those that grasped the enormity of what we all face took action and came to Bedfont; those that didn’t went to work.

By "backing BA" it has allowed a change so big to come about right under people’s noses, that many people could not - or will not - simply believe it.

The nature of that change?

The culmination of a three-year plan, as reported in the Guardian to crush the union that protects you -that aim has now been all but achieved.

On Thursday of this week Duncan Holley, the secretary of our branch, is going to be dismissed over an on going disagreement with British Airways, over derostering for undertaking union duties on your behalf.

Today the few reps that attended a briefing from Tony Woodley heard an update on any progress he had made and to finalize arrangements on how your opinion could be sought via an electronic ballot. British Airways chose to not deroster any reps to attend and indeed insisted that any who were able to attend would have their basic salary deducted.

These are hardly the actions of a company seeking to achieve negotiated peace, instead they are designed to be as provocative and confrontational as possible.

They could not send a clearer signal of their intent, if they tried. At the same time they also have revealed that Branch Chair Lizanne Malone will also be the subject of a disciplinary along with Amicus Convenor Blair Veakins.

Without being rude if this does not tell you anything, then we may as well give up...and that means ALL of us.

We are now getting to the point where it is difficult to believe that we can ever find a solution to the current situation. Things now are so bad that they will simply never be the same again.

No matter how hard we try to negotiate to improve the situation, things just seem to go from bad to worse.

As you already know, we have been supporting Tony Woodley as he has tried to find a fair and reasonable solution and to bring a welcome peace within British Airways. To be fair, he has worked incredibly hard to try and make that happen. His intentions were honourable, and he did his best to obtain a proposal for you to consider. Later this week you will be asked your opinion via an on-line ballot.

Against this approach it would appear that determined elements within British Airways’ management, far from wishing to "meet us half way" and achieve any kind of resolution, simply appear determined to be as deliberately antagonistic as possible.

Crew members continue to be dismissed and others suspended as we try to find a solution to the outstanding fifty plus dispute related disciplinaries. The very reps that are working with Tony Woodley on the solution have been refused release to work on it. "Do it in your own time or don’t attend, your choice" was the BA flat response.

Until last week, we have not been approached or asked for an alleviation of any kind since summer 2009; we were simply not asked, they simply believed it is their right to break any rule they wished, when and wherever they wanted to. All agreements are now meaningless. As a result of the volcanic ash the disruption agreement was requested and happily and promptly given to assist in repatriating crew and passengers. Then, out of the blue an "alleviation" was requested to operate a Hong Kong service with reduced rest but with a threat "if you don’t give the alleviation, we will use strike breakers". The "threat" was unnecessary as a positive response was again given within the time scale.

A request to reduce rest on an ad-hoc basis for other "mercy" flights for the next two weeks was also asked for and in the circumstances would have been given.

Their recognition of this cooperation? To assemble a crew of "strike breakers" from retired crew and ground staff and operate the flight - 12 crew, 13 hours rest, £2.40 an hour.


Friday’s Delhi? Same again! A positioning "strike breaking volunteer crew" who would operate the return inbound flight, with just eight crew- they consisted of four ground staff, two temps. Two "normal crew" were called off QRS. These "real" crew were booked into economy, the volunteer/strike breakers? Club of course.

Over the entire weekend "strike breaking ground staff volunteers" were rostered in pairs to a wide number of flights, to fly with "real" crew.

Many of the Euro fleet crew who returned to base after being away up to twelve days, were then expected to report for duty the next day. BA were of the opinion that the crew had achieved the appropriate days off whilst marooned down route.

Quite simply this is how Bill Francis has been instructed to do business. If we are not all prepared to stand up for ourselves then we best all get used to it and quickly.

Temp crew and volunteers continue to fly along side regular crew, on a different agreement and on an hourly rate and different days off, while our own crew sit at home unused and on 24 hour availability.

If people don’t wake up and see what’s happening right under their noses and how the wording of this agreement is so important to them, then they never will. Bill Francis is building on his vision of the future and whether we like it or not, we are all going to be a part of it, one way or the other.

Your union has been effectively shut down now for months and if things do not change, will remain so. We no longer have any meetings with British airways on any subject. We no longer have a say or a voice. Our offices has been sealed closed and shut down and lets be honest here, so has your union.

Backing BA?

That’s exactly what some people have done; backed BA in their ambition to destroy their union and with it, any hope of their own future job security - if they do not wake up pretty soon, it will be too late.

During the last strike days, we even had the ludicrous scenario of people who had chosen to break the strike, ringing our emergency phones asking us to complain to BA that they, BA were breaking their agreement!

Is this really how out of touch some of our community have become?

Worried about new fleet? You should be - it’s growing right under your nose. So believe us when we say that if you don’t support your union now by remaining united, by standing firm to secure a meaningful deal the future looks very bleak. If an agreement cannot be reached then regrettably more strike dates will have to be announced. If we fail then the job as you know it is over.

At the end of the day, we represent you. If you’re not that bothered, fine, we will stop beating ourselves up trying to protect you from something that worryingly doesn’t seem to concern some of our community.

Please stop leaving it to those with the strength and courage to support themselves, their union and their colleagues. Thousands of you, our members, selflessly sacrificed their trips and their earnings - some people lost up to two weeks of basic pay and their staff travel for the good of others, not just themselves - and for that Unite is immensely proud and grateful for their sacrifice.

If a deal had been achieved, it would have been bought about by their bravery. If we don’t get a solution, then quite simply it will be because too many people "looked after themselves" and broke the strike and so encouraged your management to believe that this is "the way forward" and is acceptable to the crew community.

If you are not one of the brave crew who supported us at Bedfont, and by taking action then what did you do? Do you feel proud of yourself?

Bottom line?

Please Do your bit before it’s too late, or simply sit back and enjoy the ride, but remember this, it’s going to be a wild one. Our conscience is clear...is yours? We have screamed from the roof tops for a year, exactly what will happen to cabin crew in the future.

If this warning continues to fall on deaf ears, you won’t have to wait too long to see it become reality...just glance at your next crew list.

[A4]

Yes but that's talking about what might happen. The removal of ST has already happened so any law change couldn't be applied retrospectively. Plus a perk is a perk - not a contractual benefit. If someone said "don't put your hand in the waste disposal coz it'll hurt" and you do...... Don't be surprised when it hurts!!!

Staff were told they'd lose ST....... why the surprise?

A4

[Hand Solo]

BASSA told them they'd get it back, and BASSA don't lie.

[Middy]

The surprise is because Bassa/Unite assumed that BA would back down again like it has under every other CEO, but surely they must realise that Willie now has the support of the city and all the weight that that amounts to and has a clear instruction to sort this out once and for all.

Bassa/Unite have long ago ceased to properly represent their members( if they have any left) and surely this is now a face saving exercise which will leave intelligent cabin crew begging belief at how they have been suckered by those elected to defend them.

I think and hope that any more picket lines will be a very lonely place to be.

[luke77]

Mr Solo, you are having a laugh I think?

Bassa have led their membership to this unfortunate situation through a wall of lies.

An open ended strike would bring out those that have to strike along with their "yes" vote against those that happened to have those 2 weekends off in ther nominated strike periods+the minority that actually struck?

Then Bassa will see its real "yes" voters. I think it would be the end of Bassa.

I don't think BA would mind that?

It seems a strategy? Just how I read it.

[Caribbean Boy]

According to press reports, the main sticking point is staff travel which, although BA has offered to reinstate from 1 October, will be without accrued service.

[Hand Solo]

Yes I was having a laugh Luke. BASSA members have taken to marching into Unites lawyers office demanding meetings and insisting on action, or asking for an opt out to ensure their union fees don't go to the firm. It's a pity they can't see that the reason they're not getting the answers they want to hear is that the law supports BA and not Unite. Like most things with BASSA, they'll carry on assuming they are right and the whole world around them is wrong.

[luke77]

Mr Solo

I agree. And I could see your point from the outset. :)

I think this CC IA issue is like the General Election. We know it's not going to be fun after, but it needs to be done and we need to move on.

I have a feeling that WW would like to just stick to his guns and make the real strikers (yes voters I meant....) show themselves.

..and whever they do (minority, because imho most yes voters will not strike), or do not (probably), I think it will be the end of Bassa..

My guess is that that is the move being made by WW

[miamimike]

So,back to square one!.No real suprises,given the length and depth of ill feeling between the Cabin Crew and the wee CEO.(and vice a versa).Add to the brew,FC tripping over themselves to bring the CC down,the wee man inflaming the situation further by touting for more VCC.Whatever the rights and wrongs....just imagine youre a prospective BA customer...who would you choose to fly with!!. :ouch: Time for Damage Limitation.

[OverFlare]

No pilots seem to be posting to say that it can't be true because they are voluneers but do not hold this opinion.

I'm not sure if this helps but my view is as follows. I think WW has made very clear statements about staff travel and I think he should stick to them. I think if strikers get ST back BA is more likely to continue to suffer this almost annual threat of disruption which I think is something it needs to change. That is my personal view.

But, of course, I am not BA's CEO and it is his decision to make. I am VCC because I think it's a good and professional thing to help our customers and I think BASSA are being silly. I will continue to operate as VCC, if asked, whether or not strikers get back their ST.

What I really want to know though is: are non strikers going to vote for this deal? What is in it for them?

[CaptainBarbosa]

are crew really going to vote for the proposal (and settle the dispute) on an online vote ?

We all know computers monitor our every move and BASSA/Unite will be able to easily identify how everyone votes .... it looks like an easy way to rig a result to me

LTF

But to what end? If the vote was rigged to give a yes vote , all that counts is the number who actually withdraw their labour, not the number of yes votes. It is long past the stage where a ballot result might be considered a bargaining chip. If the vote was rigged to a no vote, those that are running the BASSA campaign (and, I presume, the people who have been affected by the ST ban and/or disciplinaries) would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I think that an online ballot would be taken as valid by all parties in this situation.
Regards
CaptainBarbosa
All my personal view. My views may not represent the views of my employer.

[luke77]

I think people will chose BA when "this " is settled because it is a good brand. Big/T5/support network/booking....and a majority of good CC. Didn't Bassa state that people have short memories and the 12 days of Christnmas may have upset a lot of people but they would forget it all within a year???? :ugh:

Having personally gone on holiday a number of times in recent history with other airlines because of BA cc strike threats, I would most certainly rather have backed my own airline and put my money there.

BUT "we are BA" (many a cc quote) is certainly not part of that decision-making process.

As for the "ill-maintained" fleet, well, you can ask Unite what the BA engineers are doing about their memberships...and their Branch contributions

This will end as sure as the general election, but I think Bassa should be trying to "moderate" a little now as other factions of Unite and the general public have no time for their militancy imho..

[ottergirl]

At the moment, the proposal is only to ballot CC union members which is currently about 60% of the work force. Many of the NO voters have resigned and a large amount of the strikebreakers were not union members so the vote will be somewhat biased.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

add to that those who attended Bedfont, swore undying support and then, erm, went to work on strike days :=

[Juan Tugoh]

a large amount of the strikebreakers were not union members

If you are not a member of the union you cannot strike, and if you do withdraw your labour when others strike you can be dismissed with no legal recourse. These people are not strike breakers, they are employees and colleagues. Expecting them to risk their jobs to allow union members to have a solid strike is unreasonable.

[dave747436]

Many of the NO voters have resigned and a large amount of the strikebreakers were not union members so the vote will be somewhat biased

My thoughts exactly....

....and Willie must know this.

I wonder why he has not pushed for a ballot of the whole CC community?

[License to Fly]

So as we are aware, the following now applies I guess :-

The dismissal of any striking employee during the first 12 weeks of lawfully organised official strike action will be deemed unfair. If, as an employer, you lock out your workforce during this protected period, the lock out days are ignored when calculating the 12 week period. However, you can dismiss an employee after the 12 week period if you can show you have made genuine attempts to negotiate. This must include the proper use of any joint disputes resolution procedure.
Unfair dismissal claims may also be brought if you discriminate between employees by dismissing some of those who have taken part in the action but not others or if you've re-employed some employees but not others within 3 months of the dismissal. However, an employee dismissed whilst taking unofficial action cannot claim unfair dismissal.

Employees who are on strike and their union representatives can legitimately picket their own workplace and are protected from legal action as long as the picketing is peaceful, causes no obstruction, does not intimidate others and there is no damage.

Secondary action is not protected and those involved can be sued or prosecuted for damage. Secondary action encompasses picketing by non-employees, picketing of connected businesses, e.g. suppliers and sympathetic strikes by employees who are not in dispute with their own employer.

If so, it makes sense that this is the plan - BA got hold of c.£600m extra money last summer to ensure it got through any strikes. So far the strikes have not costs anywhere near that and we are half way through this period.

Part of the big plan to quickly make BA competitive again - What does everyone think ?

Clever WW - whatever it is, i think the deal should be approved and people cut their losses/look after the BA customer

[HiFlyer14]

Employees who are on strike and their union representatives can legitimately picket their own workplace and are protected from legal action as long as the picketing is peaceful, causes no obstruction, does not intimidate others and there is no damage.



As a non-striker who merely watched the Youtube video of the "Scabin crew" march outside the Arora, I found it very intimidatory. I wonder if crew who were inside the Hotel at the time have been interviewed by BA, and if so, can we expect another wave of suspensions?

The behaviour of Unite and its activists has gone beyond the pale now. Our company cannot prosper whilst this appalling faction exists within. If we can get rid of BASSA and its appalling influence on our community, then it will have been worth the sacrifice of losing the previous offers. If however BASSA remains, many of BA's loyal and dedicated crew (and other employees) will be completely demotivated, and the future success of our company will be uncertain. There is no doubt whatsoever that Mr W needs to solve this dilemma to take BA forward.


I wonder why he has not pushed for a ballot of the whole CC community?


Alternatively, he could ballot the entire community to see whether or not the majority of crew still support BASSA, or if they would rather see a fresh, modern approach by the Professional Cabin Crew Council. :cool:

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

[OverFlare]

I agree that BASSA needs to be dealt with - it can't come back after this, next year or the year after with more strike threats.

And I wonder if the deal was drawn up with this in mind: come up with something reasonable (inc return of ST) that Unite will not recommend. If they reject this is any court going to listen when they subsequently complain they still don't have ST? As BALPA discovered it is almost impossible to explain the rationale for "seniority" to people outside aviation - the complaint that they were going to get a date of joining in October will be laughed out of court.

So presumably all the BASSA supporters will vote no. I suspect some non strikers will vote no too and continue working through any further strikes - what on earth is in it for them if strikers get back ST? Why do they need a "deal" when they were happy to come to work anyway?

This is a deal that, potentially, will please absolutely nobody.

[Litebulbs]

HiFlyer,

How are you going to stop these militant BASSA membersjoining the PCCC and standing for election, if BASSA was de-recognised by BA?

[Pornpants1]

PP are you making this up as you go along?

Nope all my posts are factual unless I point out otherwise, search for them, look at the timings and see if I have been proved wrong:ok: The 2000-3000 claim came from the BASSA branch secretary, although I note UNITE are now saying up 5000 people may lose their staff travel, don't you find it odd that BASSA have no idea who has been on strike or not?

Do YOU know of any crew that 'have been without pay or allowances for a very long time'?

Yes I do, I have friends who lost trips in December, again in January and now have had nearly 3 weeks without work (thanks to the ash), thus they have not been earning any allowances and have had a few very poor pay packets, neither of them can afford to strike.:eek:

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence from another site suggests that there are more in the same position:ok:

Which UNITE officials are 'deserting the cause'? I'm not about to name names, because I may be moderated, but at least one UNITE official whom was at Bedford has asked to and will be moving on, he is being replaced a more moderate chap who has worked in the airline sector before specifically with BASSA.

Would you care for a side bet based on a legal challenge, post "online poll" results?

[Chuchinchow]

As BALPA discovered it is almost impossible to explain the rationale for "seniority" to people outside aviation

Even my non-English speaking grandmother, aged 96, understands the principle of "first in, first on".

It's not rocket science, you know.

[wiggy]

Even my non-English speaking grandmother, aged 96, understands the principle of "first in, first on

Yep, we all know what the word means, but in this day and age of rights and anti-discrimination legislation it that can be difficult to justify in a Court of Law.

[SlideBustle]

This proposal should definately be put forward to all cabin crew to ensure that it is unbiased and as it is a proposal for all cabin crew then every crew member should be able to vote for it.

I feel now that it may be slightly biased towards Yes voters who are getting in a tizz about the fact that Staff Travel will be returned just with a brand new seniority of say October 2010!!

Now I don't really agree with the removal of staff travel as it is sort of a ''punishment'' and abit like blackmail but at the end of the day if it is non-contractual and they were told it would be removed before they striked, which they were, then why they get themselves in a tizz over seniority/DOJ of ST!!

[Caribbean Boy]

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle) wrote:
This proposal should definately be put forward to all cabin crew to ensure that it is unbiased and as it is a proposal for all cabin crew then every crew member should be able to vote for it. Willie Walsh is reluctant to ballot crew, possibly via a third-party, as he would be accused of undermining their union. As an ex-union rep, he would understand the implications of doing this.

[Eddy]

According to press reports, the main sticking point is staff travel which, although BA has offered to reinstate from 1 October, will be without accrued service.Source (please)?

[freddydog]

That is correct. Staff Travel is awarded after six months continous service.

[flybymerchant]

So, having promised not to give staff travel back, Willy Walsh is, in this new deal, giving it back....is that correct? Has anyone seen this offer?

[Strimmerdriver]

Do you think that the return of ST is a figment of bassa's imagination which is being used to put pressure on BA to return ST/ stir up the troops if BA don't?

There is no mention of it anywhere trustworthy.

[dave747436]

The Way Forward - Have your say on your future



Under BA’s proposals, we’ve listened to you and the things you said really matter.

There are firm commitments on your pay, your individual contracts, your lifestyle choices and your future career opportunities.

Your pay won’t be cut
Your contract won’t change
You won’t be forced to move fleets
You won’t lose all the best routes to a new fleet
Unite says it won’t agree to this proposal. Will you?

Keep reading to find out more about this proposal and what it means for you.



Protecting and increasing your pay

You are not being asked to take a basic pay cut.

Although there’s no change in basic pay in the first year, you are guaranteed basic pay rises in line with inflation for the following two years.

And for most of you, you keep going up the increment scale each year worth between two and seven per cent.




Putting more cabin crew onboard

We’ve agreed to reinstate 184 crew to some routes.

We’d find the money to do this by removing the world wide early report and the telephone and language allowances, freezing increases on variable pay and overseas meal allowances, and changing crew meals.

We’d make it happen by beginning recruitment of cabin crew on new contracts and start a separate Mixed Fleet.




You won’t lose out to Mixed Fleet

We know you’ve been worried about what this means for you and we are offering you assurances about your future.

You can stay on your current fleet and keep your current terms and conditions.

You can still be promoted in your current fleet and transfer between Heathrow fleets, both on your current terms and conditions.

If you work at Gatwick, we have promised to look at limited opportunities for you to transfer to Heathrow also on the current terms and conditions.

You can apply to join Mixed Fleet, flying both short and longhaul.

You’d have a new contract with bonuses for good customer service, faster promotions and different ways of working.

There will be a fair share of routes and aircraft types between fleets to protect your lifestyle and any variable earnings.




A Heathrow monthly travel payment

If you work at Heathrow, a fixed monthly travel payment would replace some of your allowances.

This isn’t about saving us money. It is about protecting your average variable earnings.

The travel payment for full time crew would be worth between £2,266 and £9,676 a year depending on your grade and fleet. For part time crew it would be pro-rated. The amount will rise with future pay awards.

You will still get meal, disruption and some other allowances.

You can find out more about the allowances that stay and go, and how much you would earn each month by clicking here ( link to full proposal )





Opportunities for you

If you’ve listed for part time, you will get an offer by March 2011.

There will be part time opportunities in the future, all on existing fleets and terms and conditions.

If you work at Gatwick, we have promised to look at more long haul routes for you.




Working together for all our futures

We promise to play our part in building a bright future and we want you to be sure about what this means for you:

Your current pay, hours and leave won’t change unless your union agrees
You can apply for promotions on your current terms and conditions.
You can transfer fleets at Heathrow on your current terms and conditions.
Your current agreements stay the same so your working conditions do too.
You will be offered a part time contract on your current terms and conditions by March 2011, if you’ve already registered.
You won’t lose all the best earning routes to a new fleet
You get a regular monthly income at Heathrow with the monthly travel payment even when you’re on leave, 24 hours, standby and SEP training.

[Hand Solo]

So nothing about staf travel then.

[HiFlyer14]

Having read the full and final version of the latest offer, it seems very fair and reasonable to me. BA have improved it by taking the MTP back to 2008 levels, and reducing the paydeal to 2 years instead of 4.

There is therefore no reason whatsoever for Unite to recommend that its members reject this offer. But it has.

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

[HiFlyer14]

Oh sorry. For those of you unsure as to why Unite have recommended a rejection of the offer, this explanation taken from their website should clarify::hmm:


All of us within British Airways were hoping to be in a position, to be able to recommend, at long last, a deal that would bring about a welcome return to normality for our airline.

This has not been possible. After a sensible pause for reflection from both sides since the last days of industrial action, talks resumed directly with our General Secretary Tony Woodley and British Airways CEO Willie Walsh.

These concluded late yesterday evening and were unsuccessful.

Though the dispute was over imposition, British Airways insisted that any settlement must include several new areas.

* New fleet
* Changes to the disciplinary, grievance and redeployment agreements
* A complete renegotiation of the trade union facilities agreement
* Two year pay freeze
* Two year capped pay deal
* Introduction of monthly travel payment
* Future promotion
* Route transfer procedure to new fleet
* Ops and choice
* New disruption agreement

Though not ideal, with good will on both sides this could have formed the basis of "A way forward"

The words were fairly broad and not particularly specific or detailed, as it would require a huge leap of faith to entrust or guarantee the rest of your flying career to "good will."

Your union was prepared to fulfil our half of the bargain but in the end what was missing was the complete absence of any " Good will" on behalf of British Airways.

Without that, it would be impossible to have the required faith in what are essentially just words.

Actions speak far louder. A systematic insistence of zealously pursuing an increasing number, now over fifty, dispute related disciplinaries and applying disproportionately harsh sanctions - for trivial reasons. Alongside this an obvious desire to permanently "punish " all those, who participated in a legal and lawful strike have become the stumbling blocks.

How could we recommend, in good faith acceptance of a set of words, the spirit of which has already been broken before the ink is dry on the paper? We would be misleading you and were just not prepared to do that.

British Airways customers must ask why there are still on going threats to their travel plans, essentially over punitive decisions our CEO opted to take. If he had not chosen to take these actions, this dispute could well have now been resolved.

It would be wise to reflect that for many in higher management the focus appears to be on crushing cabin crew, rather than the business of running an airline and carrying passengers. There simply is no sensible business rationale to insist on enforcing decisions that will affect between 4000 and 5000 people permanently, unless it is over pride or a desire for revenge. It simply does not make sense.

There will of course be an on line ballot to ask your views in the next few days, but to be absolutely clear, we have no other choice but to join both Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson in recommending that you join us in rejecting this proposal .

[Reargunner]

My first reading of this suggests that the union are absolutely right to reject. This document signs off to the new redeployment arrangements one month from now. It says that the details of the mechanism for intra-fleet transfer of work/aircraft is in a side letter, but that BA will base this on commercial needs.

Does this not make the MTP ineffective as a mechanism to protect existing crew?

What commercial need could exist that would induce BA to transfer work onto the old fleet once the new fleet was fully manned and operational?

At that point, existing crew would no longer have work and would have the right to 52 weeks on the sliding decreasing salary to find a new position...which would be where the flying has gone. New Fleet.

The union is to have 12 weeks (from 6th April) to agree new consultative framework in replacement of existing negotiating bodies.

Obviously, some people hold the opinion that all employment changes should be unilaterally imposed, but I do not accept that there should not be mutual involvement.

[Wirbelsturm]

So, BASSA rejected the deal.

Unite no longer have the power to force BASSA's hand. The decision to call off strike action MUST come from the BASSA reps.

Odd then that the next set of hissy fit strikes will have absoloutly nothing to do with the original premise of imposition. The next bunch of useless actions will be down to the consequences of taking ill advised action in the first place to restore lost ST and in a vain attempt to re-employ some of those who were guilty of bullying, threatening and obstructive actions. Many of whom were BASSA reps themselves, nothing like looking after your own whilst blindly ignoring the masses.

Seems like a good reason to lose your job.

[Wirbelsturm]

Reargunner,

Whilst the concerns you have voiced are valid the threat of 'New Fleet' is another battle to be fought.

Trying to call IA over new fleet will result in an immediate injunction by BA as the ballot was for imposition, nothing more.

Rejection of the above plan is based simply on the refusal to reinstate those under suspension and staff travel as 'goodwill' gestures.

[Reargunner]

Sorry Wirbelsturm, I don't understand you.

I was simply saying what my reason for feeling I should reject the proposed agreement.

BA have introduced these terms (settlement of the new redeployment agreement is to be in one month...work transfer to New Fleet is to be made on commercial needs...restucturing the union negotiating bodies to be completed in 12 weeks).

How can I agree this now and then fight them in the future? I'm pretty sure I can't. Surely if I accept this document, then I have accepted all of it, not just the bits that I am ok with?

[cessnapete]

In negotiations there will always be parts of an agreement you perhaps do not like. You end up with the best deal possible. BA and BASSA have been discussing this since Feb 09 (or not discussing, in BAASAs case)
It is time to bring this to a close and get on with trying to save an Airline.
If IA is called again on anything other than the past imposition, BA will again surely injunct.

[Reargunner]

cessnapete...IA can be called at any time on the existing ballot's mandate. No new terms need to be introduced. The Union are only polling crew on the proposal tabled and I am explaining why I don't consider the proposal to be something I can accept.

I don't think the parts I find unacceptable are minor slightly disgreeable parts of an otherwise ok deal. They are fundamental. These are exactly the same aspects of the deals offered by BA that have caused me to vote against it before.

The change to the redeployment agreement along with the company's refusal to make a binding agreement to how work is removed from existing crew makes BA's deal sound to me like I am signing away my job.

Just like the Open Skies fight, I cannot prevent the company from creating a low cost base...I can only resist by fighting for terms that will offer existing crew some protection from its consequences.

In the Open Skies battle, the effort to get the best possible protection floundered because BA found a legal loophole, but then BALPA took the next best step and pushed the company to strengthen the scope clause to protect the work of BA pilots.

The pilots used industrial muscle to get this (limited) protection from the company. The cabin crew are having their attempt undermined because some employees have been persuaded that the battle is not justified, that it is "unreasonable" and that Backing BA involves necessarily betraying a group of colleagues.

[Wobbler]

Reargunner,

We are where we are.

I guess the question you should be asking is - If you do not accept this proposal - do you think you will end up with a better deal if you elect to strike again?

With WW having played hard ball up to now and done everything he had said he would do; with over 70% of rostered crew having turned up on the last day of the last strike; with the previous strikes and no flying because of volcanic ash there are many crew who, however much they might want to, simply cannot afford to strike again, do you genuinely believe that you will be able to get a better deal out of him by rejecting this deal and striking again? Bear in mind that it will all need to be done in a relatively short space of time as after 12 weeks from the initial strike date he will be able to sack anyone who does not turn up for work.

If you genuinely think by rejecting this deal you will get a better one then that is fair enough. However, don't reject it because you don't like or agree with it - this is no time to be sending 'strong messages' to the company.

[SR71]

Just like the Open Skies fight, I cannot prevent the company from creating a low cost base...I can only resist by fighting for terms that will offer existing crew some protection from its consequences.

Presumably they need a low cost base to remain competitive?

So its just that you're unwilling to play your part in making it so...because you might take a hit?

Someone else ought to take the hit perhaps?

Welcome to the dichotomy at the heart of modern Western business...

[HiFlyer14]

The change to the redeployment agreement along with the company's refusal to make a binding agreement to how work is removed from existing crew makes BA's deal sound to me like I am signing away my job.



Reargunner

1. The only thing that is bringing in New Fleet faster is BASSA's insistence on putting 184 crew back on planes. If we want to prevent New Fleet, then to ask for crew back on is utter madness. BASSA are NOT representing our interests by doing so.

2. Where in the latest offer does it mention the redeployment agreement please?

[Reargunner]

Wobbler...do I think I will get a better deal by striking? Do you think I will get a worse one?

As far as I can see, accepting this deal means I will keep my existing T&C until New Fleet is fully operational then I will lose all of it. I will be told there is no work for my existing job and put into Careerlink.

The redeployment agreement I will have just accepted gives me 3 months on full basic to find a new vacancy. Then 3 further months on 75% of that basic and then a further 3 months on 50% etc. So, if New Fleet is still growing and recruiting I can apply for a job there or leave.

If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.

As far as I can see, there is very little between the two threats to my livelihood.

[Reargunner]

HiFlyer. Page 6 EPC ...Changes to corporate policies that apply to all colleagues across the company and covered at the BA Forum and EPC have been subject to discussion. It is the intention to conclude these discussions within one month of completing this offer.

The Employment Policy Committee has been seeking agreement on new redeployment, grievance and disciplinary proceedures.

Also previously described by bill Francis Oct 23rd as part of "our package of changes to IFCE"....he says "we added to our package an offer which includes a new monthly travel payment, proposed changes to the disruption agreement and our proposed new redeployment arrangement"

and that this is
* Surplus colleagues given 52 weeks to find a new role
* Surplus colleagues given preferential access to job vacancies
* Pay protection run down over 52 weeks for those redeployed
*Pension protection during last 5 years before retirement for redeployees
* Voluntary buy-out of existing Personal Differentials

When quizzed about the working of this on the BA forum, before it was closed down Bill's repeated reply was that crew have never been placed in Careerlink and he would not be drawn futher.

184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see. It WOULD affect how fast part-time offers are made. The part-time contracts that make up the rest of the manpower adjustment with the bit of VR that was given last year have not been actioned.

[Hand Solo]

The redeployment agreement is contractual. It's use is is not. If the agreement is not renegotiated to make it relevant to modern business conditions then BA will simply make people redundant instead of redeploying them.

[Pornpants1]

A genuine few questions, how long before they get "new fleet" up and running in substantial numbers?

How long has is taken for "new contract" crew to outnumber "old contact " crew?

Do you really believe that BA would have large numbers of crew sat around for up to 1 year, which would by your figures would cost them 7.5 months pay per crew just to redeploy them to new fleet?

If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.

Your nearly right, in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts, who have been on strike, just as long as they treat all the strikers the same. They don't need to issue new contracts.

Perhaps this set of proposals is just a "tick boxing" exercise on behalf of the company, so they can demonstrate later that meaningfull negotiations had taken place, just a thought:eek:

PS

Best one I heard to day in CRC.................. "I'm not even going to bother to read the proposals, I'm just going to vote NO anyway" Sadly this is the mentality that BA are dealing with:{

[Reargunner]

SR71,

Errm...we are taking a hit, as you put it...just like the rest of the airline our costs are being reduced. In fact IFCE is taking a bigger cut than most other departments.

The savings to be made from New Fleet are not part of that saving.

Did BA pilots think that they should accept Open Skies T&C or defend as much as they could of their contracts?

Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base.

[Megaton]

IFCE may be taking a bigger hit than most other departments but then again it is much bigger than most other departments and has taken smaller, if any, cuts in recent years.

[Wobbler]

Reargunner,

I am no expert on employment law, but I would be very surprised if BA could recruit cabin crew on different T's and C's and then tell exisiting cabin crew that their job is redundant, and then continue to recruit more cabin crew. If they were able to do that I suspect some of the old contract crew would have been told they were 'redundant' many years ago. I would imagine that any new fleet could only grow through natural wastage or BA expanding. Perhaps an employment expert could enlighten us!

Do I think you will end up with a worse deal by striking - short answer - Yes!

[Hand Solo]

Did BA pilots think that they should accept Open Skies T&C or defend as much as they could of their contracts?

Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base

Open Skies was not about bringing low cost to LHR, it was about bringing low cost to a European start up. BA pilots offered to match any cost base BA could achieve using external pilots in Open Skies.

[HiFlyer14]

Reargunner, with all due respect, you are mixing offers.

Please discard all previous offers, print this offer, read it, digest it.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of the redeployment agreement. To requote BF's statement in Oct about redeployment is false. Until we know what EXACTLY is in the redeployment agreement, then we cannot comment.

BF also said in October that we would get a bonus, sharesave scheme and an extra Free Ticket. I don't see you quoting that anywhere because that has long gone now.

BASSA, you, and everyone else, really need to move on with this. You are cherry picking reasons to reject it, that aren't even on the offer. And you are being led up the garden path.

If and when a redeployment agreement is on the table, and if and when we don't agree with it, should we not discuss that THEN and NOT NOW?

You also state:

184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see.


Perhaps BASSA are deceiving you by not highlighting this very clearly stated fact in Final Version, Page 3?


Understandably any new recruitment to facilitate complement changes will be into the New Fleet.


To put 184 crew back on OUR planes, BA will recruit 184 into New Fleet. Say for example 184 crew equates to 5 routes - JFK, BRU, GVA, MIA, BOM.

BA will transfer 184 people onto OUR planes and those 5 routes (that have lost 184 crew) will then be operated by NEW FLEET.

What purpose does having 184 crew back on our planes serve?
- It is costing us because we have to give up more variable pay.
- We have to FREEZE meal allowances
- We have to FREEZE other variable pay
- It starts New Fleet IMMEDIATELY

Have you asked BASSA what is the purpose of putting 184 crew back on planes when we are operating quite well without them? We are paying a very HIGH COST for it, and, as you have demonstrated, nobody has noticed.:{

This is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[4468]

Reargunner

It's probably pointing out two things to you:

Pilots have taken a significant pay cut as well as 'productivity' savings in the current round of 'save the company again' cost savings. As far as I'm aware the cabin crew were not required to take any pay cut whatsoever?

(Though BASSA very kindly offered one!)

Just a small productivity saving was required. Sadly that affected many BASSA reps.... :rolleyes:

Secondly: BA pilots would have worked for Openskies with the terms and conditions being offered to external applicants. The company still chose not to accept mainline pilots! Very different circumstances I'm afraid!

[Reargunner]

Pornpants1

Q1 I don't know. According to BA the rate of growth of New Fleet will depend on the rate at which they transfer work plus the rate of business growth.

Q2. Yes I'm afraid I do. This proposal offers an existing ww main crew member his basic wage (£17,000) plus allowances plus £8,000 in monthly flying pay per year.

So, to put him into Careerlink for 3 months costs BA £4,200.(£1,400 basic x 3)

Giving his work to New Fleet in order to do that costs £15,000 to £17,000 (basic of £11,000 plus hourly flying pay). That is BA's estimated cost of main crew on New Fleet.

So, even in the most expensive point of the process (the first 3 months) and ignoring all the more difficult to calculate sums about productivity and flexibility, it still saves money.

Q4. I have been afraid of that being true since day one, that BA never intended to find any negotiated settlement.

Q5. Not all of us. I try very hard to read every proposal (more than once) and to listen to other perspectives. Until the current atmosphere, where I became afraid to talk about work issues at work, I used to discuss it with anyone that seemed interested.

[Hand Solo]

Reargunner - a question for you. Do you think the redeployment agreement, as it currently stands, is fit for purpose, given that it can (and has been) used by redeployed cabin crew who have no intention of ever flying for BA again to sit at home on basic pay for two years before taking VR.

[Pornpants1]

Thank you for some of you replies, the don't knows and the what ifs are the worrying part, I believe that had BASSA sat around the table like adults and negotiated, then alot of those "what ifs" could have been ironed out.

I note you took a basic cabin crew members pay for illustration rather than a Purser £26K-£34K or a CSDs max £43K, this would cost BA quite a significant amount more:ok:

I don't believe the BASSA hype and do not think BA would utilise the "career link" for cabin crew in the arrangement you or BASSA suggest.

As someone has said in an earlier post BASSA are using the "what ifs" to put the fear into Cabin Crew, at point some crew are going to have to take a step back and either try and put some faith in their employer or move on.

Incidentally it has taken some 12 years for "new contract" crew to outnumber their peers in MPE:bored:

[Reargunner]

HiFlyer

Yes this offer says they will put the crew on and recruit into New Fleet the equivalent numbers...on the same page as it says they will continue and give out part-time to all the crew on the existing list.

I'm saying that the return of the 184 does not HAVE to be made up by recruitment it can be made up by a simple reduction in part time offers, but the company chooses this route.

As I said, the reference to accepting the conclusions of the EPC within 4 weeks is on page 6. I'm sure you have read it and if you think the decision to change those elements of redeployment, grievance, disciplinary and pension protection of all contracts has changed from last year, then BA have opened a Q&A phone line, where I'm sure they will be able to tell us.

4486 and Hand S. Yes there is a difference in location. The way you express the BALPA objection to Open Skies is a tiny bit confusing to those of us who don't talk about issues that only affect pilots very often. I understood that they wanted all the new pilots inside the existing seniority list (making these new pilots part of mainline) to ensure they became, in effect, an extension to the existing pilot community, rather than a potential future threat.

They weren't REALLY saying that pilots already working for BA would transfer to OS and their much lower T&C...they were saying that the new recruits can come in on the low T&C, but they should be part of the existing career pathway.

When that became unachievable, because of some manipulation of existing laws, they settled for ammending the pilots MOA scope agreement to strengthen the protection of London BA pilots against work being transfered.

Wobbly, I'm not either...an employment laywer...I serve tea and coffee! But, I think the I probably used the word redundant in the wrong context...when you are placed in a redeployment process, it isn't classed as redundancy, I don't think. I guess that's the whole point.

Finally, 4486 the productivity & pay deal for current cabin crew amounts to 14% of our department budget and about 30-40% of the total airline savings to be made. That is not small and New Fleet savings are in addition to that.

I'm afraid I have to go now. Out of time as always! I'm happy to discuss my opinion, but it gets very hard to reply to so many posts that seem to be directed to me. If I can I will come back and try again.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[dontdoit]

So is staff travel part of this latest offer or not ?????

[Pornpants1]

I'm afraid I have to go now. Out of time as always! I'm happy to discuss my opinion, but it gets very hard to reply to so many posts that seem to be directed to me. If I can I will come back and try again.

Take it as a complement:ok: and do come back, its a pity some other cabin crew don't share your demeanour

[ArthurScargill]

Excellent posts. Much appreciated to get a cohesive view from the other side of the fence.

However, can i just highlight the following:

Finally, 4486 the productivity & pay deal for current cabin crew amounts to 14% of our department budget and about 30-40% of the total airline savings to be made. That is not small and New Fleet savings are in addition to that.


CC make up 30-40% of the employer group, so it seems fair to me for IFCE savings to be that percentage of the total airline savings ?
The dept i work in probably shaved 15-20% off its budget last year. A lot through natural wastage (VR), granted, and voluntary reduced working hours/BRS, but it still amounts to that figure. Seems 10-15% is about the going rate i would have thought.

[Beagle9]

Reargunner

Wobbler...do I think I will get a better deal by striking? Do you think I will get a worse one?

As far as I can see, accepting this deal means I will keep my existing T&C until New Fleet is fully operational then I will lose all of it. I will be told there is no work for my existing job and put into Careerlink.

The redeployment agreement I will have just accepted gives me 3 months on full basic to find a new vacancy. Then 3 further months on 75% of that basic and then a further 3 months on 50% etc. So, if New Fleet is still growing and recruiting I can apply for a job there or leave.

If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.

As far as I can see, there is very little between the two threats to my livelihood.

Reargunner, given what you say above, I guess it's down to which possibility you personally find most likely to happen.

Nothing in life comes with a guarantee and sometimes you have to fight the battles as they happen, rather than fight them based on what MIGHT theoretically happen.

For me, given my experience over 28 years of BASSA's conspiracy theory/scaremongering style of drumming up support and subsequent proof of it all being a lot of twaddle, the first scenario seems less likely than the second.

However I can't be absolutely 100% sure. What I can be sure of is, there's unlikely to be a better deal, and BASSA have had their chance to nail down the detail over the last year or so, but they chose to squabble with Amicus, fight the wrong fights, tell porkies and generally act unprofessionally, so I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to take a chance.

[Caribbean Boy]

For some reason, people are debating debating an offer they have not read. So, here it is.


The Way Forward – British Airways formal offer to Unite

This formal offer is made by British Airways in a genuine attempt to resolve
the dispute in the best interests of our customers and our cabin crew.

We all agree that the airline needs to make permanent structural change to its
cost base to ensure its long-term survival. Both parties acknowledge that the
company will only be able to afford this agreement if there is a stable industrial
environment, without any further revenue loss or reputational damage as a
result of industrial unrest.

In doing so, the airline continues to recognise the professionalism and skill of
its cabin crew.

Pay

Increments
Incremental pay rises will continue to be applied.

Fixed Monthly Travel Payment
A new fixed monthly payment will be introduced which will be increased in line
with future pay awards.

Basic Pay
The company has offered a two year pay deal, effective from 1/2/2011 as
follows:

• Year one 2011/12 the company will increase base pay based on
December 2010 RPI and capped at the average of the independent
forecasts for Q4 2010 published by HM Treasury in April 2010

• Year two 2012/13 the company will increase base pay based on
December 2011 RPI and capped at the average of the independent
forecasts for Q4 2011 published by HM Treasury in April 2010

The next pay review will be effective from February 2013

Complements
The company will re-introduce a level of complement equivalent to a total of
184 full time crew into Eurofleet and Worldwide, the distribution of which will
be determined by the company. Understandably any new recruitment to
facilitate complement changes will be into the new fleet.

The level of flying remaining in Worldwide and Eurofleet will be determined by
the number of flights which can be covered with existing crew and
complement levels.

To enable the re-introduction of complements, further savings have been
jointly identified;

• Removal of early day report rule from Worldwide
• Removal of telephone allowance from Worldwide and Eurofleet
• Removal of language allowance from all fleets
• Non flying variable pay maintained at current levels, reviewed Feb 2011
• Crew meals aligned to world traveller specification
• Overseas meal allowances maintained at current levels, reviewed Feb 2011

Complements remain non-contractual.

New fleet
There will be a separate mixed flying fleet for new crew, with separate terms
and conditions and bargaining rights. There will be a separate negotiating body
for the new fleet, which will not discuss the terms and conditions of current
crew.

Assurances for current crew
Crew on existing fleets will have the following protections;

• Terms and conditions for current crew – A fundamental principle of this
offer is that crew will have a firm commitment from British Airways in
respect to their terms of employment. Current crew are assured that their
existing contractual terms will be maintained for the future, unless
amended through the agreed NSP negotiating procedures.

• Part-time – The company will continue to honour commitments to make
part-time offers to all crew on existing lists by March 2011. The offer will
be on existing fleets, terms and conditions. Future opportunities will
continue to be available.

• Access to route network – It is the company’s intention to ensure a fair and
transparent distribution of routes to all fleets, based on commercial need,
which will be discussed with Unite. The distribution will be reviewed at the
end of each season and will be considered as part of the broader TUC
review process after twelve months. Clarification of route access is
contained in a side letter to Unite.

• Monthly travel payment – To provide increased security of earnings, both
parties have agreed to introduce a monthly travel payment that
consolidates existing variable payments for Heathrow fleets. The payment
will be based on the average of the 2008 schedule (see appendix A). The
company will adjust the monthly travel payment each year, in line with base
pay.

• Allowances to be paid – Meal allowances, daily overseas and a number of
other allowances will continue to be paid see Appendix A.

• Access to aircraft type – It is the company’s intention to deploy new
aircraft based on commercial need across existing and new fleets. New
aircraft will be introduced on a fair and transparent basis across all the
company’s fleets. Existing crew terms, conditions and fleet agreements will
apply when new aircraft are operated on existing fleets. As new aircraft are
introduced across all of the company’s fleets, crew will be trained in order
to receive the necessary licenses as required by regulation.

• Career structure and opportunities for current crew – The career structure
for current crew within current fleets will continue on the basis of existing
practice, unless amended through the agreed NSP negotiating procedures.
The company confirm that where there are opportunities available, existing
crew will be promoted on existing terms and conditions on current fleets.

• Honouring current and future agreements – Both parties acknowledge the
importance of honouring agreements and are committed to working
together to create a climate of effective industrial relations. The best way
of guaranteeing this is through the successful completion of the industrial
relations review, which will include the appropriate application of cabin
crew agreements.

• Ability to transfer fleet/base on current terms and conditions – As with the
current process, there is no guarantee of achieving a transfer. However,
the company has committed to continue with the current practice of
transfers at Heathrow between Eurofleet and Worldwide, and to find a
mechanism to aid limited transfers from Gatwick under current terms and
conditions.

All current crew will have the opportunity to apply for all roles on the new
fleet if they choose. This will provide promotion opportunities for many
current crew. All crew joining the new fleet will have separate terms and
conditions. The company will recognise Unite for the purposes of bargaining
in the new fleet.

Opportunities for Gatwick crew
It is accepted that restrictions within the Gatwick Fleet memorandum of
agreement limit the long haul route network. It is agreed that discussions will
be held with a view to removing these restrictions to provide the best
opportunities for growth in the long haul network at Gatwick, for the benefit of
the business and our people.

Disruption agreement
In order to minimise the impact of disruption to our customers and our crew,
the following points will remain, or be incorporated into the Disruption
Agreement

• The definition of disruption remains unchanged
• The double night will be removed for Worldwide diverted inbound
services to anywhere in the UK and Europe, and a minimum of 15 hours
off-duty will be achieved if the aircraft is unable to continue to its
original destination
• When disruption takes place the IFCE management team will advise
duty representatives and crew colleagues when and how the disruption
agreement has been applied. A review will take place of any disruption
at the next joint meeting

Working together
The parties are committed to beginning the process of restoring and
improving relationships at all levels. With this in mind, it is important that there
is no victimisation arising from the dispute and both parties will work to ensure
that any issues are settled in a mature and professional way. Where there are
disciplinary or grievance cases, the intention is that these will be resolved
quickly. Where behaviour is found to be serious, any resulting action will be
measured and proportionate.

For the benefit of our crew, customers and business and in support of our
objective of making IFCE a great place to work, the company is keen to
develop a positive working relationship with the trade union to enable
effective industrial relations. The delivery of this agreement is dependent on a
radical change to our working relationships. In order to achieve the necessary
change a third party organisation will be engaged to support a fundamental
review of the company and cabin crew trade union relationships.

Future IR framework
It is acknowledged that the existing arrangements for industrial relations for
cabin crew need to be reviewed and made fit for purpose, for both the
company and the union in the 21 st century.

The union will re-engage with the existing facilities agreement. Negotiations
will take place between the company and the union nationally, with a view to
reaching a mutually agreeable framework within 12 weeks of completing this
agreement. The union have noted the company’s intent as outlined in the
covering letter of 6 April 2010 from Willie Walsh.

The company proposes the introduction of a broader business consultative
approach across British Airways, to engage our representatives and our
managers in a wider debate about our business performance and needs of our
customers. An example of items for discussion at the forum is the allocation
of routes. Prior to the start of each season the company will discuss the
allocation of routes with Unite.

Both parties are firmly committed to the effective application of company
procedures, which are currently the subject of negotiations in the Employment
Policy Committee and BA Forum.

Policy
Changes to corporate policies that apply to all colleagues across the company
and covered at the BA Forum and EPC have been subject to discussion. It is
the intention to conclude these discussions within one month of completing
this offer.

Summary
This formal offer maintains the contractual rights of cabin crew at their current
level. The offer does not reduce or extend them from where they are today.

Both parties recognise the assistance the TUC has given in securing this
agreement. The application of this agreement will be reviewed annually with
the TUC, at twelve, twenty-four and thirty-six months from the date the
agreement is signed.

Appendix A

Fixed Monthly Travel Payment

We have provided protection for security of earnings, having agreed a new
monthly travel payment, that consolidates existing variable payments for
Heathrow fleets. The payment will be based on the average of the 2008
schedule. The company will adjust the monthly travel payment each year, in
line with base pay.

How much will the payment be

The amounts have been calculated by fleet and grade and are as follows for a
full-time crew member. These rates are based on the 2008 schedule.


FLEET GRADE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT
Worldwide CSD £9,676
Worldwide Purser £9,258
Worldwide Main crew £8,085

Eurofleet CSD £2,470
Eurofleet Purser £2,470
Eurofleet Main crew £2,266


Part time crew will receive a pro-rata amount of the above monthly sums. If
part time crew are absent, the daily deduction rates will not be pro-rated as
the sum deducted relates to a single working day.

Fixed Monthly Travel Payment
This is a fixed payment to be paid on a monthly basis via 12 equal instalments
and will replace specified variable travel allowances currently earned by crew
(see below for specific details). The objective is to provide greater stability of
earnings for current crew in Heathrow Worldwide and Eurofleet to mitigate the
concerns over pace and mix of work transfer to separate new fleet.

Included within the Fixed Monthly Travel Payment

The Fixed Monthly Travel Payment will replace the variable allowances below,
which will cease to be paid:

Worldwide Eurofleet
Long Range Premiums (LRP)/Box Payment Long Day Payments (LDP)
Back-to-Back Payment (B2B) Excess Time Premium (ETP)
Destination Payment (DES) Base Early Report Payment (BER)
Excess Time Premium (ETP)

The following categories of allowance will continue to be paid in the same way
as they are today and are not included within scope of the Fixed Monthly
Travel payment:

Meal Allowances Daily Overseas Allowance (DOA)
Nightly Incidental Allowance (NIA) Time Away Allowance (TAA)
Line Trainer Payments Willing to work
Rest Day Working
Exceptional Payments from WW Disruption Agreement (One-Down and Zone
Closure)

Deductions
As this is intended to directly replace current variable flying allowances, daily
deductions at the normal rate for your fleet will be made to cover periods of
non-flying duties from the following list:

Sickness Unpaid Leave
Trade Union Activities Grounded Maternity (**)
Line Trainer Duties (*)

(*) Current Line Trainer payments will continue to apply
(**) Current Grounded Maternity Allowance payments will continue to be
made

[Caribbean Boy]

Reargunner (http://www.pprune.org/members/65881-reargunner) said:
Also previously described by bill Francis Oct 23rd as part of "our package of changes to IFCE"....he says "we added to our package an offer which includes a new monthly travel payment, proposed changes to the disruption agreement and our proposed new redeployment arrangement"

and that this is
* Surplus colleagues given 52 weeks to find a new role
* Surplus colleagues given preferential access to job vacancies
* Pay protection run down over 52 weeks for those redeployed
*Pension protection during last 5 years before retirement for redeployees
* Voluntary buy-out of existing Personal Differentials

When quizzed about the working of this on the BA forum, before it was closed down Bill's repeated reply was that crew have never been placed in Careerlink and he would not be drawn futher.
Isn't part of the problem that crew, unlike just about every other part of BA, have never been in CareerLink? Too many just think that BA is there to pay their mortgage and rent, and unemployment is for others.

In my previous department, I knew one person who was in CareerLink for two years until she took VR last year. I also know of 10 others who were placed in CareerLink in July 2008 and have failed to find a job (though not for want of trying).

So, it's not surprising that BA wants to change the redeployment agreement and limit employees' stay in CareerLink to 12 months. It's fact that most companies don't have anything like CareerLink. Indeed, if you were to work for a US carrier looking to get rid of, say, 500 crew, they would just chop the last 500 who joined.

Tough though it can be in CareerLink, it's much preferable to be internally unemployed than externally unemployed. If you keep going on strike, you may well bring forward the day when you become externally unemployed.

[Pornpants1]

Just got of the phone with a friend of mine, apparently the "online poll" is simply a link from Tony Woodleys' letter to crew.

It takes you to another page on the BASSA forum where it is simply a YES/NO vote, so here is the rub, they would have voted YES;) but are too afraid to do so, because you log onto the forum using your staff number (and password) and therefore they feel they could be tracked by BASSA.:confused:

[Tiramisu]

According to a colleague, Amicus members can't vote at present as they don't have access to the BASSA website.
Apparently on crew forum, the individual who runs it is saying the Monthly Travel Payment is all they'll get on top of their basic salary and telling them to wake up and smell the coffee!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Unbelievably, there are still crew who have no idea what the MTP is. I guess it's what happens if you press the 'delete' button or choose not to read your emails and make an informed decision.:rolleyes:

I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views and not those of my employer.

[WeLieInTheShadows]

Amicus and BASSA members can vote on the uniteba.com website.

Webform is there along with all the documents for all to see.

You have to include your membership number for the vote to be valid.

How else can they do it though?

[SlideBustle]

I think it is acceptable! Not brilliant but that is mainly UNITE's doing as last year we could have negotiated away New Fleet with last summers proposal!

But anyway why on earth reject this? And then strike?

Can a BASSA rep/UNITE official or any ''BASSA 100%'' supporter please tell me why I should reject it? As I feel like accepting it!

Do you honestly think the next proposal will be any better. What do you want?

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Ottergirl
At the moment, the proposal is only to ballot CC union members which is currently about 60% of the work force. Many of the NO voters have resigned and a large amount of the strikebreakers were not union members so the vote will be somewhat biased.


Not anymore!;)
I'm delighted that we all now have an opportunity to vote on the offer in an email sent to all of us from Willie Walsh late this evening.
If you are not a member of UNITE like myself, you can do this via a link on the ESS homepage under IFCE, The Way Forward - Have your say on your future.
I have voted YES to accept the offer.:)

[SlideBustle]

Tiramisu,

Oh that is FAB! As I was worried it would be biased aswell because of most of the votes would be NO!

Great News!

[64K]

The offer really is far more generous than I had expected. I do hope that people actually READ the proposal for themselves though and make an informed, adult decision on the basis of facts. You can end this dispute now and look to the future on your current T&Cs. Isn't that the best solution for everybody?

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Tiramisu,

Is that vote for non-union members part of the official poll, or just BA trying to show the overall picture?

[Abbey Road]

I do hope that people actually READ the proposal for themselves though and make an informed, adult decision on the basis of facts.Given the track record so far, that is a most unlikely thing to happen, unfortunately. The expected route will just be to blindly follow whatever the BASSA and Unite hierarchy call for. Blind leading the blind!

Just as importantly, Tony Woodley has written, in a letter dated 29th April:.... any agreement is only as good as the integrity and sincerity of those putting their names to it. By their actions and behaviour throughout the dispute, and continuing to this day, it is impossible to take BA management’s words at their face value.Whilst many might not agree with his sentiment about BA, what Tony Woodley is saying is that nothing that BA say can be trusted. That surely must lead to the conclusion that there cannot, and will not be any more negotiating with BA, in any form, because they cannot be trusted.

So, if a vote (and let us be honest, an online poll is fraught with the possibility of meddling) is made to reject the proposals, then what? Can any BASSA or Unite supporter explain that? Where do you go from here? It is a tacit admission that you have failed and have nowhere else to go! You can't negotiate with BA, because Tony Woodley says they cannot be trusted, in any from! You're up against the buffers with nowhere to go. So how do you extricate yourselves? It can't be done, can it. It just hastens the demise of those who seem to think they can bend BA's will. Dangerous thinking - be warned, many will be without jobs at all, never mind jobs they aren't happy with.

[BentleyH]

Does anybody know when the BASSA poll begins and ends?

To answer a previous question, BASSA will only be interested in their own poll and not BA's. I wonder how many days it will take before BASSA declare the BA poll a stitch up??

BA are obviously doing this to capture the sentiment of the non-members, which will no doubt be used in future communications, but won't have a direct impact on the BASSA ballot.

As an aside the language about not trusting the management was used by BALPA during the Open Skies debacle. It was one of the defining points for me when I knew BALPA had totally lost the plot. Unfortunately, it's been clear for some time that BASSA have never even been aware of the plot, so this is just confirmation of what we already know!!

[Snas]

Does anybody know when the BASSA poll begins and ends?



It has started and ends midnight 6th May

[Reargunner]

Hi all, just a quick message. I don't know how many have access, but Bill Francis is taking a Q&A session on the BA cabin crew forum "from lunchtime" today. As you are clearly interested and involved, those of you who can get in, might want to read. Those of you who are cabin crew will (I imagine) want to post. It is one of the only places all sides of this debate discuss the situation.

PS. The BASSA/Amicus poll is open from 1900 29th April to midnight 6th May...

[Pornpants1]

Reargunner, I'm afraid its the same old same old, lots of rambling posts with no real questions, just 12 pages (so far) of people "making a point":ouch: just like some "other" forums I can think of:oh:

[Juan Odeboyse]

You would say that PP...always the negative.

Unfortunately it is not a chat forum, but a Q&A. BF never gets into chats anymore, just starts to answer when the thread has been closed to all - unfortunately.

[giza]

Check out Willys message on the news intranet, he say that Woodley has stated that all CC concerns have been addressed with this offer, and he has written to all CC (please read, don`t bin it).

So what is the strike about now ?, If its about ST he has made that clear to, he will give it back to strikers as if new starters, if the offer is accepted.
However, even this will be removed if any more strike dates are called.
Thoughts ?

[Re-Heat]

I am no expert on employment law, but I would be very surprised if BA could recruit cabin crew on different T's and C's and then tell exisiting cabin crew that their job is redundant, and then continue to recruit more cabin crew.
A common misconception - there is no such protection in UK law, and I have witnessed it in action.

[Caribbean Boy]

Isn't is astonishing that Tony Woodley has nothing negative to say about BA's offer but urges cabin crew to reject the offer because of loss of staff travel and disciplinary procedures?

Why should cabin crew go on strike to support the 3,300 who knew that their IA would result in loss of ST?

Why should cabin crew go on strike to support the 50 who are in a disciplinary procedure which entitles them to have union assistance and an appeal procedure? And in case anyone thinks that they did nothing wrong, why have four being sacked?

These are the sort of questions that people need to ask before voting.

[Pornpants1]

You make interesting points, most of which will be ignored by the militant minority. Pertinent questions could have been asked, but some "educated" supposedly "well informed" questioners would rather ask about an ongoing court case.........doh doh :ugh::ugh: as if anyone can comment on that without bringing into prejudice the outcome:ok:

Meanwhile the main body of BASSA members are being asked for countless ID requirements, inc part of your NI numbers, etc to even sign up to vote, I just wonder why these hurdles are being put in place???

FWIW I think the UNITE leaders have sen the writing on the wall:sad::sad:

[winstonsmith]

Caribbean Boy - Interesting points.

Why should cabin crew go on strike to support the 3,300 who knew that their IA would result in loss of ST?

Because the strikers believe they are in majority - they probably think 10.000 crew went on strike and 3.000 reported for duty.

Why should cabin crew go on strike to support the 50 who are in a disciplinary procedure which entitles them to have union assistance and an appeal procedure? And in case anyone thinks that they did nothing wrong, why have four being sacked?

Because the strikers believe the suspended crew have been suspended as a result of taking a legal industrial action - not due to the fact they have been harassing, bullying and intimidating other crew.

[Litebulbs]

Because the strikers believe the suspended crew have been suspended as a result of taking a legal industrial action - not due to the fact they have been harassing, bullying and intimidating other crew.

Do you know for a fact, that the suspended employees have acted as you state?

[Hot Wings]

Fact - tampering with safety equipment and threatening to poison "flight deck".

Fiction - "someone put something on my Facebook page".

You reap what you sow.

[Litebulbs]

Fact - tampering with safety equipment and threatening to poison "flight deck".

Fiction - "someone put something on my Facebook page".

You reap what you sow.

What, all suspended crew have carried out what you state?

[OverFlare]

From what I can gather a list of names from the first few VCC courses was passed around on facebook.

While I suspect merely receiving the list is not cause for disciplinary, if you were to receive the list and pass it on or make comments such as "these people should be named and shamed" then you potentially face not only internal company disciplinary problems but possibly a police investigation.

Don't forget that striking cabin crew threatened to kidnap the son of the BALPA rep involved in the first course.

This is all serious stuff and to believe, as some do, that BA is overreacting is quite the opposite of reality. In fact, BA have been pretty slow, IMHO, in dealing with it - most employers would have sacked you first and then had the disciplinary process later.

[Litebulbs]

Don't forget that striking cabin crew threatened to kidnap the son of the BALPA rep involved in the first course.

Striking cabin crew threatened what?! The crew I have spoken to, did not seem the types to be involved in kidnap. How come their have not been 3000 arrests?

This is all serious stuff and to believe, as some do, that BA is overreacting is quite the opposite of reality. In fact, BA have been pretty slow, IMHO, in dealing with it - most employers would have sacked you first and then had the disciplinary process later.

You must has had experience of some rubbish employers. That old employment law thing, it must only be for guidance?

[plodding along]

And of course BASSA claim the suspensions are all for trivia. One poor crew member was merely drinking coffee in a hotel lobby don't you know.

[Litebulbs]

And of course BASSA claim the suspensions are all for trivia. One poor crew member was merely drinking coffee in a hotel lobby don't you know.

What else were they doing then?

[64K]

Reportedly some of the behaviour that some people have been suspended for is absolutely vile. My personal view is that it is completely correct that no deal is done on disciplinaries. They are completely separate issues and must be treated as such.

(The opinions above are my own and not those of my employer.)

[Dr Stoke]

Get a grip people.

Talk of kidnapping sons of BALPA reps, thats a joke right?

Cabin crew intimidating pilots who fly the very aircraft they travel in.

When You Play Fire With Fire You Just Get Burned.

Anyway if you are cabin crew can you please tell you should vote yes.

if u cant remember how u got a scare you didnt go through enough pain to get it.

You have a job if you don't like it then do us all a favour and leave.

Everyone will be better off without you.

Your problems are only as big as you make them.

They can seem like a ripple, or a tidal wave.

But your always the only one who creates it.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Litebulbs
It is wrong to lump all strikers in the same category, but whilst there is no doubt that some CC have been caught up in this either innocently or through naivety there can be NO good reason for the internal process to be overriden by BASSA/UNITE's demands.
There may well be people who will be found innocent and some who will simply get a warning as in any disciplinary process.
I, like most of us on here have little knowledge of individual cases, but we have all heard of some extremely serious misconduct verging on the criminal. Would you want to work alongside people like that? I know I wouldn't, and if the story about the threat against the BALPA official is true that is truly appalling. How can you make light of that?
Furthermore, anyone has the option to take the company to an industrial tribunal if they believe they have been wrongfully dismissed. Do you want to bet that none will do so?
BASSA/UNITE had the opportunity very early to take a responsible stance by making a statement warning their members about inappropriate behaviour, yet they chose not just to turn a blind eye ,but condoned it. A real abrogation of duty to the membership, many of whom are no doubt regretting their actions.
.

[Litebulbs]

Yep, I agree with you.

[giza]

Why would Willy want to get in the way of BA procedures, those accused will be accompanied by the TU for support and the manager will have to give a fair hearing as he will be supported by PMA, there are two levels of appeal before it goes to tribunal, BA tends to follow the process as a given and as such, I dont know of any tribunal that BA has not won, most with the comments, "BA has made every attempt to ensure that a fair hearing has taken place"

I have heard that most of the accused have been advised by the TU to go sick rather than attend !!!, what is the point of that ?, that just delays things and can rob them of making a case as the hearing can be heard in there absence if not attendance continues.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Lietbulbs
What else were they doing then?


As a UNITE rep you shouldn't be prompting for an answer as to why someone was suspended on a public forum.:rolleyes:
It isn't what I expect from any UNION rep.
For the record BA just doesn't go round suspending employees for drinking coffee in hotels!!! If you don't know the facts, please don't make it up.

I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views and not those of my employer.

[Melissa1510]

I read the proposal and i think is reasonable, but i am not crew... so i have asked a manager in the area what's the future re mixed fleet , which is the concern of many. he said that the process to full implementation can take up to 15 years.

Are CC really worried about what is going to happen in 15 years? i am not even sure we will stil exist as BA...

A strike is obviously pointless , Willie has made his mind up and he has all the support of the LT and the board.

Any legal áction taken to obtain ST back will be long costly and ultimatelly pointless.

[Litebulbs]

Tiramisu,

With respect, I am not making any statements. I may have misread ploddings post, but in my opinion, there was a suggestion that someone was lying.

Why have you not made comments on what people have actually posted? Some have suggested facts, but how can you substantiate that?

[Tiramisu]

Why have you not made comments on what people have actually posted?

Litebulbs,
As a BA employee posting on a public forum, some things are not appropriate for discussion here like disciplinaries and what people are suspended for. If I was aware of details why individuals are suspended which I might be, I would not reveal it here.
There seems little point in posting if I can't back my posts with facts.

I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views and not those of my employer.

[OverFlare]

Sorry I thought it was common knowledge (the alleged kidnapping) which allegedly involved a small number of striking cabin crew. There is a police investigation currently underway.

As for employment law being for guidance only my experience is simply that the majority of companies don't have access to the legal advice that BA does so they tend to act first and find out the law later if they fall foul of it. Mostly they don't - as there are no unions to pick up the bits. The point still stands I think - in many companies these people would not just be suspended pending, they'd already have been booted into the long grass.

[Litebulbs]

Tiramisu,

My point was that you chose to criticise me for asking a question, rather than some of the comments made by others.

On a point of principle, as I understand it, some BA employees have been suspended. Suspension at this time, is not a punishment, but part of a process of investigation.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Litebulbs - I believe there is a person within the BASSA hierarchy with a lot of time on his hands these days, who is archiving posts of BA pilots he believes intimidatory, and trying to get BA to "balance the books" with disciplinaries. This certainly makes me think twice before ANY post on this subject, and I doubt I am alone in this.

[Litebulbs]

OverFlare,

Can't question your last post.

[Tiramisu]

Tiramisu,
Is that vote for non-union members part of the official poll, or just BA trying to show the overall picture?


P-T-Gamekeeper,
I'm not sure but I'll find out and let you know.
However, at the last Employee Forum at Waterside held by our CEO Willie Walsh a month ago, he spoke about balloting all cabin crew as our contract is with BA and not the union and I was very much in favour of this. Interestingly, he has done everything he said he would to date during this dispute.

I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views and not those of my employer.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs - I believe there is a person within the BASSA hierarchy with a lot of time on his hands these days, who is archiving posts of BA pilots he believes intimidatory, and trying to get BA to "balance the books" with disciplinaries. This certainly makes me think twice before ANY post on this subject, and I doubt I am alone in this.

I fully understand that. That is why I am surprised at some of the posts this evening.

[Tiramisu]

I believe there is a person within the BASSA hierarchy with a lot of time on his hands these days, who is archiving posts of BA pilots he believes intimidatory.


Pot, kettle, black springs to mind! This individual should look closer to home at their own website where they intimidate and post offensive posts about fellow crew members!
Unbelievable!:ugh:

[Litebulbs]

Walsh a month ago, he spoke mention about balloting all cabin crew as our contract is with BA and not the union and I was very much in favour of this.

In my simplistic understanding of employment law, that statement is correct and incorrect, but I may be correct or incorrect in what I have just said. Case law is fun, or not.

[Tiramisu]

In my simplistic understanding of employment law, that statement is correct and incorrect, but I may be correct or incorrect in what I have just said. Case law is fun, or not.

Litebulbs,
If I may correct myself please, what our CEO Willie Walsh did say was that 'perhaps' it may be an idea to ballot cabin crew with the offer.
However, it has happened.

[Litebulbs]

Tiramisu,

The interesting thing with this is whether Mr Walsh would have a ballot of the workforce, if no recognition deal was in place at all.

The words in the offer about a new style of recognition with a new body. Any ideas?!

[nurjio]

Yesterday, Melissa1510 posted something along the lines of 'Willie has made his mind up and has the backing of the board and LT'. Well, I would like to agree, and add that he also has the backing of the entire BA non-cc workforce (the odd one or 2, here and there excepted) - that's a lot of people. He also has the backing of a proportion of cc, and that is a critical mass of employees determined not to allow BASSA to destroy BA. To many, WW is regarded as the saviour of our airline. A lesser able business man would have crumbled and departed the fix months ago.

nurj

[License to Fly]

So the Unite ballot ends at midnight 6th may ... funny how the general election voting ends a few hours before ....:rolleyes:

Perhaps something to do with the £m's labour get from them as funding ? (IMHO)


LTF

[Wirbelsturm]

LTF,

Other way round, Unite are rankrolling upto 163 Labour MP's I believe.

Don't want to rock the boat before the boat do they. Those nasty Tories might get in with their damnable progressive Corporate views. The Morning Post couldn't have that could they!

Nothing like pulling the political puppet strings using the jobs, money and livelyhoods of the Cabin Crew.

Couldn'y make it up could you.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Seems like a good PR exercise as the likelihood is that WW will get a majority in favour of acceptance, but I doubt it will have any legal implications.

BTW, WW has NOT done everything he said since he has now agreed to restore limited ST. He has gone on record that he will never do so. This is either a pragmatic approach or a clever tactic to show that he has been negotiating in good faith.
It is essential to be seen to do so if he choses to use the 12 week rule later on.

It seems to me that UNITE have already broken one of the areas that WW has demanded i.e."to communicate in a balanced manner". By reccomending rejection of the offer and making general statements about lack of trust as opposed to simply presenting the facts they have stuck two fingers up to Willie. It seems like the militants in BASSA have won the internal battle. How can Derek Simpson reconcile his present position with his earlier "bunch of clowns" comments.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Does anyone know what this court case is about that WW wants Unite to drop as part of the deal?

[64K]

I think WW can demonstrate that he has been entirely reasonable in his approach and done everything he has said he would do.

He has tried to engage with the unions, compromised a little on restoring crew complements on some services, made noises about the potential return of staff travel in some form, etc.

Now if all these perfectly reasonable attempts are turned down, does that open the door for SOSR? Could people be shooting themselves in the foot big time with this one? :confused:

(The opinions above are my own and not those of my employer.)

[gr8tballsoffire]

This is taken from Unite's webpage.

WILL BA RESPECT THE DECISION?
The right to vote
The fate of our entire nation and every person in it will be decided in an election, next Thursday. This will be done by each person, registering to vote and having a valid polling day card and then having to make the effort to physically go to a polling station and cast a vote; there is only a narrow window of time on one specific day to do this, miss it and you won't be able to vote.
No threats or intimidation of voters is allowed under law and nobody can be victimised for their beliefs. According to this "democratic" process, the voters will judge the entire Government and leadership of this country and they will either carry on, or be replaced according to the result.
The fate of cabin crew will also be decided in a poll, next Thursday.
This will be done by each person going on line and then pressing a button to cast a vote. This can be done easily from any computer in the world, 24 hours a day, for a period of 7 days, starting from last evening.
Those who voted will have their votes counted. Threats and intimidation of voters will not only be allowed, but encouraged, and anybody with an opposing view to the leadership will be systematically victimised for their beliefs. This result will have no effect on our company's leadership, who will simply carry on and ignore it: because they are "right".
.. Sometimes, you can see why revolutions take place!
They are ignoring the fact that in a National Election everyone is able to vote regardless of what party they belong to.intimidation bearing in mind the number of BASSA members who are undergoing disciplinaries for that specific offence.

Methinks they protest too much!!
It's no a great idea for them to draw attention to the

[64K]

And when I go to cast my vote in the general election, do I have to provide my name, staff number, membership number, part of NI number, etc. to one of the parties? No!

[gr8tballsoffire]

Apologies, somehow my words got jumbled up in my previous post, but I guess you get the gist.

[Caribbean Boy]

gr8tballsoffire (http://www.pprune.org/members/325750-gr8tballsoffire) wrote:
Does anyone know what this court case is about that WW wants Unite to drop as part of the deal?It's this case:
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html)

Although Unite lost the case in which they claimed that the reduction of crew complements was a breach of contract, Unite has not ruled out an appeal.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Thanks...I thought this was something different.

[MissM]

Melissa1510

It will not take 15 years for New Fleet to be fully implemented. It will take less time than this. They have already suggested quite a few destinations to go over and once the fleet is running they will transfer over destination by destination. Why did they choose the least popular destinations for New Fleet? Because they think crew wouldn't mind losing them. For future route transfers, they don't need to negotiate anything with BASSA because the proposal says "discuss" and there's the difference.

Are crew really worried about what is going to happen in 15 years? I think you will find that many are worried about what will happen. It will not take 15 years.

MTP seems like a good deal but it also says that it will be adjusted every year and based on the flight schedule. As routes go over to New Fleet there will be a reduction in flights on both EF and WW and logically the MTP rate would also be decreased.

This proposal has far too many loopholes. I will not even touch it.

[Reargunner]

A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was concerned by the inclusion of the new redeployment agreement in this and all previous offers put to the cabin crew.

Bill Francis says that there is no connection between this and the creation of the new low cost fleet at London and that no cabin crew were ever in Careerlink. I still feel that creating a new fleet to do the work is going to change all the resons crew have been previously protected.

Now I hear that this same change to all BA contracts has important implications for the future of our pension scheme. I was given to this link to a report suggesting that one of the principle barriers to closure of the FSS schemes is this very old part of all our contracts.

Dr. Ros Altmann - investment expert, investment banker, economist and pensions industry adviser (http://www.rosaltmann.com/pr_ba_17dec09.htm)

Does anyone think this is a genuine concern? Have other employee groups already agreed to these changes?

[fruitbat]

MissM

Well good luck, as the offers will only get worse not better. BASSA have already conceded New Fleet, they are more worried about staff travel and suspended reps now.

It's truly appalling that in this day and age, with all the information out there, that union members still fall for the BASSA propaganda...

I wish you luck in this slow motion car crash.

[HiFlyer14]

First it was about "imposition" (despite the fact that negotiations had taken place for nine months).

Now, it seems to be all about the return of staff travel - read the Unite website drivel. The majority of posts on BF's webchat yesterday were along the lines of "I would accept this proposal if you give me my staff travel back".

Really? Well this proposal is in fact worse than the proposal that was REJECTED in March when Len McLuskey, under instruction it appears from the BASSA reps, took it upon himself to announce strike dates. So if it wasn't good enough then, why, subject to staff travel, would it be good enough now?

It really does prove how utterly useless and incompetent BASSA really are.

MissM - you have admitted to having a complete lack of trust of management, but please don't state things that you THINK will happen as facts.


The company will adjust the monthly travel payment each year, in line with base pay.


That is what is quoted in the Way Forward offer. Nowhere does it mention that it could "just decrease". Additionally, because it is contractual, BA would not be able to just "decrease" it any more than they can just "decrease" our basic pay.

BASSA have whipped people into a frenzy of unfounded paranoia, and it now stands to wreck all our livelihoods as they fail to see the grave errors BASSA is making.

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