BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II [Archive] - Page 2

Betty girl

26th Jun 2010, 22:22

Winch Control,

If you want to quote me at least quote all of my post.

If you had read all my posts you would know that I am a hardworking crew member who supported BA through the strike. I do not support BASSA and am not a Labour supporter. I have worked for BA for 22 years and am an experienced E/F Purser and I am happy to accept this new offer.

The post you quoted was a general observation of the problems we as a society will have if wages are forsed down and young people are no longer able to put money into pensions. It was not about BA per say. It is the vast number of people with the right to work in the EU that is causing employers to be able to pay people 11K a year. The cost of living is actually going up especially in the south and around London. It was merely an observation of what is happening to the UK job market and how people in the city are scoffing in the troff while ordinary people are being told how lucky they are to have a job. Not specifically about BA and not in support of BASSA.

Thank you.

I feel you have quoted my comments completely out of context.

Diplome

26th Jun 2010, 22:43

And the hysteria continues, by Ava Hannah:

Why? BA were being unreasonable and would not participate in serious negotiation.
You are represented by a Union that refused to view financial documentation, refused to sit in the same room as other union representatives, and sent text messages during a confidential negotiation session.

They played a nasty trick on us commuters. It wasn't a "trick", it was a statement regarding BA's position that they followed through with. BA thought they could scare us by threatening to remove our most valuable benefit should we go on strike. By all means, they removed it but good luck getting a deal with our union which has some 10.000 members unless Staff Travel forms part of it. Good luck with the 10,000 members when the majority of them came to work during the last strike. BASSA is down to 2,000 or at the most 3,000 hardliners and losing members daily. Unite have repeatedly said they will never recommend a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of it. Bassa have also given us reassurance that they will not either. I for one will never accept a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of Staff Travel. I for one would never accept a proposal that doesn't include my being a natural blonde and my gardener actually listening to my suggestions. Both of our suggestions have equally as much impact upon BA.

To take industrial action is a democratic right. To punish people for taking industrial action is not. Willie Walsh and his regime seem to think they are above the law. If BA is acting outside of law Unite/BASSA is more than welcome to take them to Court. Many of us have been at BA a long time and have great pride in our careers. We have created BA. No sweetie, you haven't "created BA", you've simply worked for BA. You may have been a very positive employee, but you no more "created" BA than the guy in the mailroom "created" MicroSoft. Look what has happened to this company because of Willie Walsh. Was one airline not enough for him to destroy?

Let's ballot again. I know where I am putting my X. Better yet, let's see BASSA actually put an offer up for vote to their members. They haven't done that yet.

beesflyer

26th Jun 2010, 23:04

Teesider53: Wouldn't worry too much. There are loads more volunteers now being trained and now lots more in the pipeline. BASSAmentalists just do not understand how much the rest of staff outside CC are against these strikes.
Willie Walsh will continue to deliver everything he has said he would. This, with the help of BA staff excluding the nutters within BASSA and they are very much in the minority.
There are some really great people within the BA CC community who have taken very brave steps to come into work and been prepared to face some of the intimidation that is around from BASSA CC.
How BASSA members can hold up banners stating Willie Walsh has bullied them and called the airline Brutish Airways is laughable. I do wish the press would pick this up !!!!

rgds
EB
ps Thanks for sticking with us, that includes all SLF ( not a term I had heard until I started reading this site ).:ok:

wiggy

27th Jun 2010, 07:16

Perhaps BA should insist that all commuters have at least as much local rest near LHR (or LGW) as BASSA or BALPA would require them to have after an on-duty positioning flight of the same duration

I like your logic, must look up what BASSA's requirement is for rest post positioning :ok:

To be fair most commuters I know are very careful about pre-duty local rest.....

TightSlot

27th Jun 2010, 07:56

If you need to refer to a post on another thread or in another forum, please post a link rather than the text of the post - Many thanks.

slf22

27th Jun 2010, 08:37

I see from the Mail that 25,000 want those "poorly paid" Cabin Crew jobs.
25,000 want BA ¿scab¿ jobs airline is creating to beat the strikes | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289946/25-000-want-BA-scab-jobs-airline-creating-beat-strikes.html)

There is 20 applicants for every single job available. BA could effectively sack all of their cabin crew and re-employ them twice over. I wonder if that will concentrate some of the BASSA minds.

slf22

27th Jun 2010, 08:54

Ooh they just said on the Andrew Marr show that they have just heard the Unite Union has postponed the ballot.

Snas

27th Jun 2010, 09:16

Yup, looks like it: - BA Cabin Crew Industrial Action: Unite Leader Tony Woodley Says Strike Ballot 'Will Be Postponed' | Business | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/BA-Cabin-Crew-Industrial-Action-Unite-Leader-Tony-Woodley-Says-Strike-Ballot-Will-Be-Postponed/Article/201006415655468?f=rss)

johnoWhiskyX

27th Jun 2010, 09:39

Soo, if the offer new T&C is accepted, would BASSA/UNITE still ballot for industrial action over their published grievances of disciplinaries, staff travel and bringing in staff to break the strike?

Certainly to those CC who have lost staff travel as a result of striking with union advice it would be returned in 5 minutes. It would appear that the union is deserting them if it is brushed away by BASSA/UNITE.

In essence how can a union and its members throw away its grievances which it was prepared to ask staff to strike over?

If i was a union member who had lost staff travel i would be going mental at my BASSA rep demanding to know what they were going to do to reinstate my travel or ay for it as i had lost it " under advisement" from them.

Winch-control

27th Jun 2010, 11:05

If i was a union member who had lost staff travel i would be going mental at my BASSA rep demanding to know what they were going to do to reinstate my travel or ay for it as i had lost it " under advisement" from them. Quote is from johnowhiskeyx today at 10.39 pprune time.

Just another couple of thoughts..

If a perk is withdrawn, after advisement, then what is the way forward, and what are the consequences of persuing the same road?
Given that Bassa/Unite have actually formally drawn breath on this one may be an enlightenment. Time will tell.

If you were to sack, for example 10,000 cabin crew, and look at re-employing, 10,000 cabin crew the next day/minute, what would the cost be? Assuming those you sack are earning 25k basic, and those you go on to employ earn 11k.

There has been a lot of talk about the standard of service BA offer; yet it is proven (previous posts that BA CC do not feature in the top 5 airlines for customer service). So that becomes a red herring. Just what does your extra 13k a year give you? Not safety as all are trained to the same standard; not experience, as few have been involved in an a/c emergency (and I know this has been done to death so please dont go there).

Ah but the cost of living is higher in London? Ok so give the job a London weighting, lets call it 10% above market value...

Tightslot: if I quote from other forums in the future, I will include the link . My apologies.

Betty girl: I have read all posts on both the CC forum and this one since October last year. I have read all of your posts. Mine was not an affront to you personally. I did not introduce UK politics to the thread, I merely replied. I did not take your post out of context. I did use your post to highlight how inadequate (in my opinion) a labour government has been for the UK. I will not comment on (UK) politics here again; and if it is of any help I was surprised at the post you made in light of your previous posts. I do respect you as CC working for BA, whether or not you support Bassa/Labour/any other party or union was never an issue. I do not make any judgement, it is only an opinion that I profer.

Litebulbs: As I found out recently on changing jobs, there is no requirement to be part of a union (although pressure may be applied to join). You have to way up the pros and cons. Again as has been said previously, in this day and age it may well be better (and cheaper) to go for an individual agreament, rather than a collective (union) 0ne.

PAXboy

27th Jun 2010, 11:12

On one occaision in my life, I was hampered by belonging to a Union and was intimidated by Union members - the print unions in late 1970s.

On one occasion in my life, I was hampered by NOT belonging to a Union and found out too late they could have helped me - broadcasting in the early 1980s.

So I'm even handed about Unions, but many of these folks have never worked in any other line of work or employer or Union (yes there are many that HAVE) so it is not surprising that they have a narrow view. In the years to come, many will have the leisure to see what happened.

We are now in the end game of this dispute.

ExecClubPax

27th Jun 2010, 13:04

Whereas I would like to hope it were so, I don't think this is the end game of the BA v BASSA dispute. The Unions have invested too much capital in their war against BA and would never allow a company to achieve what most impartial observers will see as a thumping victory.

What might happen is Unite/BASSA recommending acceptance of the latest offer (having secured extra assurances on the assurances). With that out the way, they will take up the cudgles again over Staff Travel and disciplinaries. It's interesting to see BA has already put the Unions on notice that such bases for balloting might place Union members in jeapordy. However, remember, BASSA wants a guerilla war.. and just announcing a ballot is sufficient to put would be travellers off booking flights with BA and thus keep inflicting financial pain on the company.

The current BASSA leadership has nothing to gain from industral peace within BA. The only thing it has left is to bring the company down, Samsonlike, on its own and its members heads.

LD12986

27th Jun 2010, 14:09

Company's latest offer to Unite:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/230610RevOffer.doc

Letter to Unite's Joint General Secretaries:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/Coverletterrev.doc

This note on the Unite website is dated 25 June, and seems to have been superseded by today's announcement.

This afternoon Unite General Secretary, Derek Simpson met British Airways with ACAS where an amended proposal was put forward to the union for consideration.

The majority of the offer is as before, however there are two specific changes. An amended offer was not entirely unexpected, as cabin crew concern over the imposition of mixed fleet, which was announced on Monday, had begun to escalate.

We are your union; our job is to represent you responsibly and that is exactly what we intend to do.

So to be absolutely clear, we will seek your views on this latest offer. If this offer is the basis of a settlement or not, will be strictly your decision.

General Secretary Tony Woodley will be in contact with British Airways over the weekend seeking clarification on several areas. There will then be a briefing on specific details and any additional points - including staff travel, that are not contained in the offer. This will be finalised on Monday -when a further statement will be issued, as to our next step.

Our ballot is still scheduled to be issued on Tuesday

Diplome

27th Jun 2010, 16:19

LD12986:

Thank you for the quote.

This reads like more parsing by Unite. It does not look like they are going to put the offer to a vote, it seems they are simply going to look for advise.

Why does the idea of BA pulling flights some of the more lucrative flights into New Fleet with the explanation that BASSA made it necessary due to their continued cost to the airline not seem unreasonable.

The damage that BASSA keeps inflicting upon their membership is appalling.

PAXboy

27th Jun 2010, 17:33

ExecClubPaxThe current BASSA leadership has nothing to gain from industral peace within BA. The only thing it has left is to bring the company down, Samsonlike, on its own and its members heads.That's why I said: End Game.

Since a considerable majority outside the union now know that the battle is won by BA, it is only a question of how it ends. Yes, BASSA might yet bring the company down but I doubt it. It has long been my view that BA was in it's own end game, long before BASSA helped. One of the reasons that it is in it's own end game, is all the times that the mgmt have failed to manage in the past.

teddybear44

28th Jun 2010, 08:11

I thought I saw previously that any costs arising from the dispute would have to be met from within the crew budgets. I am interested to see that the latest offer to BA cabin crew seems to contain guaranteed pay rises from 2011 for existing crew. I am wondering how this reconciles with all that and how it compares to the position of the rest of the staff who I thought were on a pay freeze. I don't claim to be aware of all the facts but I am curious.

Hotel Mode

28th Jun 2010, 09:00

I am wondering how this reconciles with all that and how it compares to the position of the rest of the staff who I thought were on a pay freeze. I don't claim to be aware of all the facts but I am curious.

The other staff groups pay freezes end in 2011 too. It was 2009/10. I suspect they will get a better deal than the cabin crew when the negotiation comes round.

New fleet more than covers the cost of IA. The imposition made all the required savings everything else is a bonus.

teddybear44

28th Jun 2010, 09:43

Many thanks for explaining that.

Ancient Observer

28th Jun 2010, 10:58

Will bassa explain the risk in any new ballot?

BA have made it clear that they believe that the proposed grounds for a ballot might lead to a strike which is not protected by current legislation.

If bassa run a ballot, which gains a majority, and asks its members to break their contracts via a non-protected "strike", then each individual member has foregone their rights to protection for breaking their contracts. They can then have any action taken against them that their employer can dream up - including losing their job, and being sued for the costs incurred due to their withdrawal of their labour.

Will bassa forewarn their members of this risk?

(Pigs might fly)

To any lawyers out there - if bassa do not forewarn their members of a risk that they should reasonably have been able to anticipate, and therefore warn their members about, can they be sued?

It might be worth someone's time and effort to strike in an unprotected strike, lose their job, and then sue Mr Holley for damages......

LD12986

28th Jun 2010, 11:29

Given that one of BASSA's recent communications included a contact at the following address I would have absolutely no confidence in their legal advice!

Lipstick and Law - Blogging of an Air Hostess Law Student (http://www.lipstickandlaw.com/)

Ancient Observer

28th Jun 2010, 14:03

My reading of the law is that if an "Official" of the Union had reasonable grounds to believe (whether or not they did believe) that the issues covered in the ballot were not "new" issues, then the ballot - however well constructed, would not give the employees/the TU any protection if they withdrew their labour or failed to work "normally".
The ballot would not give Unite any protection either.

McCarthy's letter is not quite strong enough to give the Officials reason to believe. McCarthy needs to send a second letter to the relevant FTOs which is more clear, and which lets them know that if they intend to pursue the ballot, then BA will both seek an injunction, AND use any powers that they have for any reason against anyone they choose, to ensure that unprotected action does not damage the interests of either the airline, or its various stakeholders.

BA would have to take on Unite - tempting though it might be to take on the Champagne Charlies/Charlottes in bassa. Holley et al are so far in to their "cult" that they would love to become martyrs to the Champagne cause.

I would have thought that Unite had some more deserving causes to take on, rather than BA. How about Simpson spending his time on attacking the low-wage economy??? - rather than the high-wage economy.

As to that Grauniad (Private Eye spelling) piece, the writer ought to know that there are lots of unwaged and capable managers who would be delighted to help out at BA, for the price of a New Fleet Cabin Service Operative.
Clearly, neither Holley nor Grauniad writers have any empathy with the Unemployed and/or the low waged..

ChicoG

28th Jun 2010, 14:28

This dispute should never have been about what Unite WANT.

It should never have been about what BASSA rep CSDs WANT.

But that's what it's about.

Instead of being about what the company and its employees both NEED.

Shame on both parties mentioned above for screwing the company and your members!

call100

28th Jun 2010, 15:16

Actually the dispute is about what those who vote want.....
Two things wrong with fighting your IR battles in the press....Forums like this that spawn lower deck lawyers with all sorts of clap trap and a harder road to reach a resolution.
As I understand it the next ballot is only a consultative ballot that has no legal bindings whatsoever.

Ancient Observer

28th Jun 2010, 21:00

call 100,
if you have a problem with the veracity of my posts, do please let me know.
If it is not my posts that are causing you a problem, let the other posters know.
ta
AO

ChicoG

29th Jun 2010, 04:35

Two things wrong with fighting your IR battles in the press....Forums like this that spawn lower deck lawyers with all sorts of clap trap and a harder road to reach a resolution.
As I understand it the next ballot is only a consultative ballot that has no legal bindings whatsoever.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, that one?

:}

BTW call100,

Actually the dispute is about what those who vote want.....

This dispute started because BASSA rep CSDs resented being asked to do a little work.

It's still going (if you can call it that) because they continue to foment unrest among their members to serve their own agenda, by way of a litany of lies and half truths.

It's failing because most of those voting had no idea that their union were going to make such an issue out of something so minor (so minor that they had already agreed that Gatwick could do it), and were wrongly advised that the company would cave at the first sign of IA (much as they were wrongly advised to ignore BA's statements regarding ST, as "it would be returned very quickly").

I think that the next strike ballot will be a dismal failure, as many people realise that what the union deadheads are squealing about is not worth fighting for; plus, on the big points, they don't appear to have a clue what they are on about, or are simply lying to their members.

But I think it's reached the point where it doesn't matter to BA any more. They have probably achieved far more than they had ever hoped for, thanks to BASSA's amateurish actions and UNITE's 70's-style comedy trade unionism. "Brothers! Comrades! All out!", etc.

:}

Mocamps

29th Jun 2010, 08:04

I am a new contributor to this forum but have watched the BA strike and the PPrune forums relating to it with interest and a mounting sense of incredulity. At the beginning I was bemused by the over-reaction to the company's decision to remove one staff member at a time of major cutbacks and world recession. Were they not just managing in difficult times as best as they could? I thought they did rather well as no-one seemed to lose their job unless they wanted to and no-one seemed to have a pay cut (although it now seems that other branches of the airline HAVE taken pay cuts)

I then felt slightly sorry for the cabin crew who seemed to me to being completely mislead by some very selfish union reps who I could only surmise had their own agenda. I have since learned from these forums that a lot of the reps are apparently the ones who were affected by these changes so a BIT of self interest there perhaps?

I lost a lot of sympathy when I saw the ridiculous displays from Bedfont where you have supposedly underpaid workers with flashy cars drinking Pimms with their children being provided for with bouncy castles and the like as if they were on a day out in the sunshine rather than striking for a genuine cause. I also thought it irresponsible for these parents to be parading their children in this way. With the sheer amount of obviously unsympathetic responses from the rest of the company, the media and the general public, I am staggered that this strike has ANY cabin crew at all who still support it. Yet reading some of the posts on the cabin crew forum from AVA Hannah (and her predecessors who seem to have taken a back seat now) I am dumbfounded!! AVA Hannah apparently lives in S Africa and commutes to Heathrow!! I thought it was bad that Liz Maloney lived in US but this is getting silly!! No wonder BA are in trouble!! How can these staff afford to do this? This is a job that you would expect to find being done by unskilled manual workers. It requires a few WEEKS of training!! Even with subsidised travel I would not expect to see even qualified professionals like nurses, teachers and social workers (who complete a 3 YEAR training) commute from so far afield. The cabin crew earn FAR too much if they can afford to do this. And now AVA Hannah thinks it is a disgrace because she has had to buy a ticket for £500 because she has lost the subsidised travel that enabled her to get to her (quite obviously overpaid) job having been warned in advance that this is what would happen. I really do not understand what calibre of staff BA have if they cannot work out that it was perhaps a bit foolish to go on strike in these circumstances.

So are these people brainwashed? Is this the sort of mentality that allows cults to thrive? I reckon a psychologist would have a field day!! It's all a bit much for me to work out. I can't decide if these crew need medical help, an education or a kick up the backside!!

What IS really going on here? I read somewhere that a lot of the strikers are Hobby Jobbers (lovely term!) and that they have great part-time contracts that mean that they hardly go to work at all anyway and other incomes so are not dependent on their incomes from BA. If this is the case, this continuing dispute is just plainly immoral because there are thousands of BA staff who are working hard to try to make up for the actions of these few. They DO have families who are dependent on their salaries from BA (unlike those parading their children at Bedfont) and will really suffer if BA go under.

So all in all I have decided that it is this latter category that I need to support and so will continue to fly BA just so the likes of AVA Hannah do not succeed in jeopardising the futures of the rest of the company. So this is one passenger (not keen on the SLF terminology by the way. I think it is disrespectful!) who is still, despite the best efforts of the few, Backing BA!!

Mariner9

29th Jun 2010, 08:27

I see the commuting striker on the other thread remains unhappy. Not surprising seeing she is facing a £500 ticket cost every time she reports for duty.

I do hope Duncan Holley & Co realise just how much they have let down their members over their unjustified initial promise that ST would be returned "in about 5 minutes" and then making it worse by recommending rejection of a deal that returned ST to commuters.

If I had been a commuting striker, I would be considering legal action against the BASSA leadership.

JuliaHayes

29th Jun 2010, 09:57

I think it's an interesting assumption that Ava Hannah is a real person rather than a Bedfont Keyboard Warrior.

I don't wish to get into attempts to personally identify posters, but on the other thread, one BASSA militant departs, and lo and behold a newly registered BASSA militant appears with the time to compose long, yet illogical, responses to what are generally reasonable questions.

If there really is a member of LHR CC who commutes from JNB, and who relies on ST to commute, and who went on strike anyway in the belief that BA couldn't or wouldn't follow through with their threat, then I have zero sympathy for their plight - or in fact, in an acronym littered posting, my sympathy level is at is SFA.

bizdev

29th Jun 2010, 10:02

As I understand it, this is not about reducing the aircraft team of CC by one person - its about doing it without the agreement of BASSA. It could easily have been about 'imposing' something else which was not agreed by BASSA? - however this particular imposition does appear to have hit a nerve with the BASSA leadership :}

bizdev

Mocamps

29th Jun 2010, 10:21

Thank you Bizdev.
Does that mean that the management have tp get the approval of the union before making ANY small changes? Oh dear!

I have now seen that Ava Hannah is complaining that her commute from S Africa is difficult!! I was just going to get drawn in by wondering whose choice that is to commute and it suddenly occurred to me that maybe I am the one who is being naive here as i don't usually contribute to these sorts of forums.

Could Ava Hannah REALLY be a sympathiser of BA who is trying to wind people up by appearing to take an obviously ridiculous stand of expecting the company to make it easy for her to commute from S Africa? I mean, surely cabin crew do not REALLY commute from that distance,do they? On a cabin crew wage? I think maybe that was the reaction the person wanted and that maybe this is a bit of game-playing on the forum and I have fallen for it! After all, the only cause Ava Hannah is helping is the BA non-strikers as her posts seem absolutely outrageous to a bystander like me.

Moderators, are any steps taken to ensure that people are genuinely what they say they are?

I think I should probably revert to my previous position of watching with incredulity from the sidelines in case I start to look silly!!

Winch-control

29th Jun 2010, 10:44

The nub of the matter; it is about crews having a CSM on board that has to work. In all the threads, on all the pprune forums, there is no one that has declared a case for CSM's not doing cabin service duties (with any reasonable argument)... Speaks volumes?

Bassa's gripe? we didn't suggest/agree it; BA imposed it.

Of course this has then led into, we strike because we have lost a,b,c and probably d (New/mixed/start again Ba fleet) when it is introduced.

Ancient Observer

29th Jun 2010, 12:03

CC commuting "rest"

As the BA CC continuously claim their importance in areas outside the drinks, meals and duty free service, (and there are many examples of this importance), I do hope that each and every BA CC member is keeping a detailed personal record that their rest period, following their commute, is a reasonable length of time.
Guessing that the duties outside the service area require the same alertness as, say,driving a car, BA CC might like to know that large multi-nationals now ban staff from driving for 48 hours after taking a long-haul flight.
Their lawyers have told them that is reasonable rest.

I suspect that the nice people from the Belgrano will be looking in to this shortly...........................as many of them are, I suspect, avid readers of pprune.

Human Factor

29th Jun 2010, 17:07

Moderators, are any steps taken to ensure that people are genuinely what they say they are?

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

;)

Some of us have been around a while so our credibility can be vouched for (to a certain degree). Others who have made only a dozen or so posts, perhaps less so.

winstonsmith

29th Jun 2010, 17:48

Crew - both flight and cabin crew - are commuting from all over the world.

Most of them do - however - live in Europe and generally in Spain, Italy, France and Switzerland.

I do know of crew who commute from South Africa, Hong Kong, Angola, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and all the way from Australia.

teddybear44

29th Jun 2010, 18:21

On the other forum you infer that WW should have resigned after 'the fiasco' of T5. It may well have been just that but I think you over-egg his role in it for your own ends. As a Joe Public, it looked to me that there was a lot wrong with procedures and systems outwith his control. I am sure that there might have been things that the airline could have managed better in the lead in phase but to credit him with the blame for the fiasco, is wide of the mark IMHO.

If Joe Public can make a reasoned evaluation of what the scenario was, looking in from the outside, I think you should be even better positioned to do so and that you simply wish to take any opportunity to criticise the man who currently is trying to ensure future viability of BA but in doing so, impacts on your own lifestyle choices.

Ted

call100

29th Jun 2010, 18:21

call 100,
if you have a problem with the veracity of my posts, do please let me know.
If it is not my posts that are causing you a problem, let the other posters know.
ta
AO
I don't think I questioned the veracity of anyone's posts and no one's post is causing me a problem.
I merely pointed out the disadvantages of fighting a dispute in the public eye. If the cap fits wear it.....

west lakes

29th Jun 2010, 18:56

On the subject of staff travel some interesting points rear their heads from time to time.

From what I have been told, on a recent internal BA forum with the head of IFCS, the question of the return of ST was raised.

He pointed out that BA had written to Unite with the following suggestion: -

When the dispute is settled ST would be returned to all with a revised seniority date

ST for those that leave BA at any point in the future would be in accordance with the booklet, with the start date for ST being the date of joining BA

ST would be returned with existing seniority on one fixed route for commuters

This offer is still on the table and is dependent on there being no further strikes over this issue.

There is no evidence that Unite have informed their members of this offer!!

scotbill

29th Jun 2010, 19:40

Could anyone currently a member of BASSA enlighten us as to when the next council election is? Or have the current splendid leadership managed to secure an indefinite extension of their powers?
Interestingly, no one has yet denied the scurrilous rumour that most of them have been off sick while the rank and file lose their staff travel. It would be useful to know whether we were misinformed.

SB

Mariner9

29th Jun 2010, 21:23

Lots of posts today from the duty BASSA poster, currently Ava. Her views on most things seem to be sadly misguided.

I have worked for this company for over 17 years

and when accused of having no experience of the real world responded:

Some seasonal jobs during school. Don't try to make me appear as I have no contact with the 'outside' world because I do

If Ava thinks the current outside world is the same as a seasonal job undertaken at least 17 years ago she's in for a big surprise...

west lakes

29th Jun 2010, 21:43

It also seems that a lot of the strikers are unhappy finding they have not been paid whilst on strike. With some actually getting a minus figure on their wage slips.

I am sure they were comforted by the 4 figure sum one of their collegues complained about getting, despite claiming to be on strike.

Diplome

29th Jun 2010, 22:24

I'm not understanding the logic of "Ava" on the CC board.

On one hand she's mad about having BA's salaries compared to others yet she keeps speaking of Mr. Walsh's salary in comparision to President Obama's.

There is a large section of the population in the U.S. that makes more than the President, as there is a large portion of individuals in the U.K. that make more than the Prime Minister....and its still not relevant to BASSA's disagreement with BA.

Amazing that all of this rhetoric, all these destructive side issues, came out of a simple staffing decision that operates smoothly out of Gatwick.

JuliaHayes

30th Jun 2010, 08:41

Ava's logic is that, as she has lost so much by striking, she must continue to do so.

There is a concept in accounting known as "Sunk Costs", and it's about the realisation that you can't let emotion take over and pursue something to the bitter end, just because you have already spent a lot of money.

An example would be that you have spent £10,000 fighting a strike. You are offered £5,000 to stop, but you refuse because you have already spent £10,000 and the £5,000 won't cover what you have lost.

It's the wrong choice. The original outlay of £10,000 is blinding you to the clear fact that if you take the £5,000 you will be better off than you were earlier today, and that it's the best way to mitigate your position, even if you won't be better off than when you started.

The £10,000 is a Sunk Cost. It should be irrelevant to your choice now.

In short - consider everything on its own merits and ignore the past. You should only continue to strike if you think that there is a better offer coming - but don't forget that a better offer of £6,000 is really no better if it costs you a further £1,000 to achieve it.

BASSA don't recognise Sunk Costs, and soon the only thing sunk will be them :O

Mariner9

30th Jun 2010, 09:00

Good post Julia.

If Ava's posts are to believed, she's now having to pay £500 per commute. Assuming 2 commutes per month, that would make her £12K taxed income pa worse off than if she had accepted the BA deal. Perhaps equivalent to say 15K off her gross salary before tax. (I've no idea what the SA tax rate is)

I wonder what she would have said a year ago if BASSA had explained to her she had a choice of either a £15K pay cut or to agree that the CSD's should push a trolley?

Mr Optimistic

30th Jun 2010, 09:47

ah, but wasn't the original official reason 'imposition' ? Don't hear much about it now. Such a silly union.

ChicoG

30th Jun 2010, 12:19

If I wanted BASSAmentalists to come up with one of the most hilarious and inappropriate descriptions of themselves, I could not have thought of one better than AH's on the other thread, viz:

They don't want any of us 'Heritage' crew.

But then I realised it wasn't an attempted joke. It is indeed true. Willie Walsh inherited them.

:}

The SSK

30th Jun 2010, 12:20

Ava Hannah: They have been constantly comparing, and exaggerating, our salaries to other LCC's throughout this dispute with the only purpose to make us appear us overpaid belladonnas.

What an unfortunate malapropism.

ChicoG

30th Jun 2010, 12:49

Continuing the theme from the other thread about people not knowing what is happening in the real world: two reports out today that should demonstrate the pressures employers are under:

BBC News - Forecast suggests 600,000 public sector jobs to go (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/10457352.stm)

Some 600,000 jobs are expected to be lost in the public sector over the next five years, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said.

BBC News - Dismissal warning to 7,000 Neath Port Talbot staff (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/wales/south_west_wales/10449934.stm)

A council is warning it may dismiss its 7,000 workers and re-employ them on new terms without agreement on savings.

Among changes Neath Port Talbot council wants are to cut overtime, food and travelling allowances and freeze pay.

It says the savings would help avoid compulsory redundancies and dismissal is a "last resort".

But Unison, which represents 3,000 council staff, described the move as "a big gamble" and said the authority was "negotiating with a gun to its head."

PAXboy

30th Jun 2010, 13:53

This country has been in Boom since 1992 (or so) and now it is time for the bust. Anyone who thinks that we are starting to lift out of recession has been listening to politicians. We might be 'bumping along the bottom' of the slump but my guess is that there is a lot more pain to come.

Unison appears to be stuck in 'boom' mode and, further, they have no option on their control panel for 'Accept some redundancies and try to negotiate the best interest of your members'.

Having had the big boom of mgmt dominating all and now the big boom of unions dominating all, perhaps (just perhaps) we might find in a few years time that we reach a state of balance? Nah. :*

Ancient Observer

30th Jun 2010, 20:29

"They don't want any of us 'Heritage' crew. "

If by "Heritage", the Champagne Charlies' current nominated poster over on the other thread, means "striker", then it is NOT WW and/or BA that do not want strikers.................it is us, the fare and salary paying customers that do not want "Heritage" crew.
We want JSL, Tira, and HiF., not the baasa'd champagne charlies.

Swissflyer

1st Jul 2010, 11:14

I agree. As a gold card holder for many years, I am fed up with the "Heritage" crews, their bleating and rude behaviour and giving the impression that they are doing me a favour when I fly. I would like the opportunity to know where and when New Fleet will be operating so I can choose not only the flight I want to take but also the crew. It is time for change..

k3lvc

1st Jul 2010, 12:13

It is time for change..

And that is exactly what pax/shareholders/the BA Board both want and need yet BASSA seem unable to grasp/accept

SwissRef

1st Jul 2010, 13:20

Having followed all of this I really don't understand what it is all about.

Firstly BA and the unions started to negotiate, but the Unions were not willing to sit in the same room as each other at ACAS (as documented in the court case). The court case also highlighted the Unions cost savings were not as large as initially claimed.

BA fed up with this imposed a change in staffing levels and work requirements, to meet financial targets.

The Unions decided that this was illegal/wrong (your choice), but it was shown in court that this was legal, and in line with the agreed contracts. The Judge, despite basically throwing the Unions case out of court as baseless, even pointed the Unions in the direction of what needed changing if they want things like this covered by the various contracts.

The Unions then decided to strike over imposition. An imposition of terms they were willing to accept? :ugh: Why not enter negotiations and say you are willing to accept the changes, provided the relevant contracts are changed to require agreement in the future? In other words use the acceptance as a goodwill bargaining tool?

Then they strike. The offers get worse. They still strike. They are told they will lose Staff Travel if they do, and are surprised when they lose Staff Travel?

Then an offer which is pretty similar to the original offer is on the table (except now with New Fleet), and they will accept it, but want Staff Travel back.

Member of senior BA management on a online forum (taken from thread on here) says that if they accept the deal, then BA will restore Staff Travel without Seniority, except on 1 route, where they will restore it with Seniority (to appease commuters). But some CC don't understand this/trust this/or something.

But in essence the CC are in a worse position than before the strike, with a similar offer on the table, a New Fleet being introduced, and pax avoiding BA now. This forces the company to have to make MORE savings, so putting more pressure on ALL areas (CC included) to cut MORE costs, and to speed up the introduction of New Fleet.

And CC wonder why the public isn't on side - they went on strike over the legal imposition of conditions they were willing to accept!!!!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Personally I hope the moderate members accept the offered contract, and then BA uses SOSR on all those on the original contracts.

Mariner9

1st Jul 2010, 15:31

Meanwhile BASSA supporter in Chief Ava Hannah point out that most CC's don't understand the "real" issues at stake

Q to Ava:
If this offer is as acceptable to the majority as it is to you, why would they jeopardise their ST to protect yours?

Answer from Ava:Because they are thinking shortsightedly. Unfortunately some in this airline don't understand what is at stake.

Q. to Ava:
It is possible the writing is on the wall, and perhaps your best solution is simply to vote to accept??? What's the alternative?

A. from Ava:
Unless Staff Travel is reinstated without any sanctions, I can't
vote to accept this proposal.

So, to summarise her views, the rest of the CC don't know what this IA is about and should strike and lose ST. But if she was given back ST she would vote to accept the deal she feels the others should reject if they knew what it was really about.

I have to say that the double standards shown by BASSA are quite breathtaking. They expect the remaining staff to strike and lose their ST while at the same time saying they will accept the current offer if ST is returned to them. Incredible!

PS Excellent summary Swissref :D

harrypic

1st Jul 2010, 19:26

There's been alot of talk about commuters and non doms, so I thought I'd clarify the tax position of commuters.

Your domilicility is not determined by where you live - it's alot more complex than that. Generally you are domiciled where your father is born and this is incredibly difficult to change. Just because you move abroad doesn't change your domicility, just your residency status.

If you are domiciled in the UK you cannot avoid paying tax on ANY UK earnings, irrespective of where you live. Now, I would imagine, as working for BA would mean your place of work is the UK, that, unless father born outside UK so therefore classed as non dom, the commuters have to pay UK income tax.

The only way around this, if you are UK domiciled, is if your place of work, hence your earnings, are outside the UK and you spend less than 90 days in UK in a tax year. Then you are "normally" not liable for UK income tax on such earnings ("normally" means you have to have a formal contract showing your place of work is outside UK and you have filed a P85 with HMRC and they have accepted your non resident status)

Therefore, I would summize the majority of commuters do not enjoy tax free salaries and will be hit hard by the removal of ST and having to buy their own full price tickets.

1st Jul 2010, 20:25

Unfortunately you are wrong in your assumptions. They are not Non Doms. I believe they are considered as not ordinarily resident.
They pay tax in the UK on earnings whilst in the UK. As they spend a lot of time overseas for work these earnings are not taxed in the UK.
As long as their country of residence has a reciprocal agreement with the UK then a good proportion of their salary can be tax free,
I believe it is an old maritime arrangement. Again I believe the UK revenue has tried to repeal the rules but it is rumoured they have been thwarted by MEPs who use the same rules.

In short there can be a tax advantage in commuting from overseas.
That's why so many cabin crew work part time from overseas as the take home pay can be the same as full time and living in the UK.

cavortingcheetah

1st Jul 2010, 20:59

Please allow me to completely and utterly destroy any ideas that anyone may have about clarity when it comes to domicile, ordinary residence, residence and taxation as far as HMRC are concerned.

Interesting reading on these subjects of considerable complexity may be found here below. Please note that much of tax law in Britain is not based upon statute law and therefore is entirely open to interpetation and whim. This is one of the conundrums facing the new government, the stabilising of an inherently disjointed and unpredicatable tax structure.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/hmrc6.pdf

Since the inception of the application of self assessment, HMRC will not rule on residency. HMRC may inform a tax payer who is not resident in the UK, that he no longer is required to complete a UK tax return, but this is not the same as the previous system under which a letter would be send to the tax payer by HMRC confirming his non residence.
Any doubts as to the sensibleness of this policy from the point of view of HMRC will be rapidly dispelled by a reading of the recent appeal court case of Gaines-Coooper v HMRC, a case which Gaines Cooper lost.
It is interesting to those who have studied the above case to note that Gaines-Cooper had apparently not applied to HMRC for a change of domicile of origin. At the moment however, HMRC seems quite content to allow questions of domicile to remain unanswered, presumably awaiting some form of statutory guidance from the present government as to both domicile and a residence test. Up until very recently however, a change of domicile of origin was a matter which had to be agreed between tax payer and HMRC.

In the case of South Africa, the tests of ordinary residence and residence apply, much as they do in the UK. Cohen v CIR and Kuttel v CIR will provide further information on the interpetation of ordinary residence for those who are seriously interested.

The internal revenue systems of both the United Kingdom and South Africa take various forms of expenses and deductions in to account when it comes to the calculation of individual income tax returns. These would be matters which would have to be declared to and agreed with the internal revenues of the countrys concerned. The compliance divisions of both country's internal revenue departments are in close communication and are, to the best of their abilities, quite efficient.

Each case of domicile, ordinary residence and residence is taken on an individual basis and circumstances which might hold for one determination in one case will not necessarily achieve the same result in another. In the event of any doubt at all on the part of a sensible tax payer, a professional adviser should be consulted. The concept of a statute of limitations in Britain and South Africa is not well developed. This helps to explain why Mr Gaines-Cooper may find himself liable for taxes ranging back over a period of some twenty five years, totalling £30 million, even though no fraud was alleged or commited. If cabin or flight crew have been mismanaging their tax affairs or declaring incorrectly on their self assessment returns then retribution might attend their efforts with, at the least, penalties and interest. It must be that the attention of HMRC has been drawn to the salary and benefit structure of the emolluments of cabin crew, and, by extension, flight crew. I would expect there to have been a compliance section established at HMRC to deal with this.
All however is not entirely gloom. In the case of this BA pilot, he won his suit.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/6697/7842/034-035_TA_0408.pdf

However, it is worth noting that the results of this case will almost certainly have found their way, through the usual compliance channels, to the desk of another, more southerly situated, internal revenue service.

Please take note that the function of a reciprocal tax treaty is not to allow a person to avoid tax or to enable him to pay less tax. The purpose is to ensure at least that the tax payer is not taxed twice over. The tax treaty between the US (where tax is generally lower than the UK) and the UK provides that tax on dividends but not income is witheld at 15% concession in the United States, provided and only provided, that any income afforded such a benefit will then be imported in to the UK and declared to HMRC for taxation in the UK. At that point, the tax already paid in the US may be taken into account in the calculation of actual UK tax liability.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

LD12986

1st Jul 2010, 21:03

Having followed all of this I really don't understand what it is all about.

As you say to outsiders this has no logic. But I suspect some in BASSA see picking a fight with WW as unfinished business from the 2007 strike that was called off at the last minute after WW did a deal with Tony Woodley. There was a lot of anger at this in the BASSA camp and I suspect that some have been spoiling for a fight ever since.

Also, Mixed Fleet heralds the beginning of the end for BASSA (if it hasn't happened already). Mixed Fleet will have no seniority and fewer supervisory positions. So, it is likely to have a much higher level of staff turnover and staff are likely to feel less need to join a union if they don't expect to be in the job for more than a few years. Add to the that the fact that a separate body of crew at LHR forming a separate bargaining unit means that BASSA's negotiating strength is going to weaken considerably.

When Mixed Fleet starts, I await with interest to see how BASSA responds, ie whether BASSA try to undermine Mixed Fleet crew and leave them out in the cold or bring them onside and try and stir them up.

harrypic

1st Jul 2010, 22:06

77,

Perhaps my post was unclear - my point was exactly that, they are not non doms.

They may be considered non resident, but even if you are non resident (or considered ordinary non resident) any UK earnings are still taxable. As their place of work is UK, then that is classed as UK earnings, irrespective of how long they are out of the country for.

The non ordinary resident status only allows your foreign earnings not to be taxed by HMRC.

For example - I am non ordinary resident in Dubai, my earnings, earnt in Dubai from a Dubai company are not taxed - But I rent my house in the UK and as that is earnings in the UK it is taxed.

Therefore, as the commuters place of work is UK, its UK income and they should pay tax on it.

harrypic

1st Jul 2010, 22:25

Cavorting,

My post was merely to correct the misunderstanding that many of the commuters have tax free salaries, not to clarify HMRC position on domicility and non resident status. You are correct though, HMRC will not confirm any status in case they can come back at you at a later date - its a very grey area, which in a nutshell I beleive was what you were trying to say....

Why say in a thousand words what you can summarize in 20?

Mocamps

1st Jul 2010, 23:47

Despite saying in my last post that I am now going to revert to sitting on the sidelines, I find myself being drawn into Ava Hannah's latest offerings on the Cabin Crew thread!!

However, I can't make up my mind about whether she is REALLY STUPID or just trying to wind us all up!! If it is the latter she has succeeded and may or may not have achieved her aim depending on who she really represents!!

It would now appear that Ava is not dependent on her income from BA and is indeed a 'hobby jobber'!! She has a farm in South Africa - and maybe this is really how the other half (being BA cabin crew!) live!! She is NOT dependent on her income from BA and so can afford to play with the lives of those who are.

This is life in the real world outside of BA -

This week I have witnessed first-hand the anxiety faced by people who have been told that their jobs are 'at risk'. These are people who are not earning half what the average BA cabin crew member is earning and are probably working a lot harder. They were talking about not being able to afford to go on holidays that they had already booked in Cornwall, never mind whether they can afford to pay £500 to commute from S Africa. They were worried about how to pay for the necessities in life - food, school uniforms etc

Whatever the games people are playing on these forums, I would really like you to appreciate that in the real world outside of airlines people are hurting in this present climate. The ones that DO splash out and pay for BA flights to go on holiday would really appreciate it if you would just this once try and stop thinking about yourselves and start to think about those who REALLY pay your wages - the passengers!! Without us, you are nothing!! It won't matter whether you are Backing BA or, (as I see it as an outsider), are believing everything your well paid self-interested union reps are feeding you and choose to deprive people of their hard-earned holidays! If we can no longer afford to take a gamble on BA (and that is what it is at present!) you will all be getting a taster of the real world, whatever branch of BA you work in.

So wake up!! Smell the roses (seems to me you have plenty to smell in BA - how many other jobs have the part-time opportunities you appear to enjoy? Opportunities that allow you to even contemplate commuting from South Africa!!) and start to appreciate what you have before you join the rest of us in the real world.

johnoWhiskyX

2nd Jul 2010, 07:34

Regarding some posts in the other forum from a striker. I'm of the opinion that the poster is just trying to wind people up.
For a person who has managed to create a fantastic lifestyle cannot be stupid, yet the poster shows clear indications to the opposite in their writings.

I was amused to hear about striking CC wearing their ID's inside out as some sort of playground secret society recognition, I mean come on, are these people suposed to be mature professional adults?
I would like to know, purely for curiosity which CC on a flight I was on were strikers, so any form or recognition would be welcome. The only problem is that if any move was made to distinguish this group apart there would be hell to pay with yells of victimisation.

2nd Jul 2010, 08:01

Therefore, as the commuters place of work is UK, its UK income and they should pay tax on it.

see my previous.....There can be a tax advantage in commuting from overseas.

cavortingcheetah

2nd Jul 2010, 08:40

A summation usually has the advantage of an argument or a proof that has gone before it. I thank you harrypic, for providing the latter to my former before that itself were writ.
Both the threads running here in Pprune on the problems British Airways are encountering with certain of it's more intransigent employees reflect an apparent prediliction with tortious and sometimes even illogical argument. It seems obvious enough that certain of those who correspond here are perhaps, just a trifle, out of touch with certain aspects of corporate and financial reality. International tax mitigation is an extremely complex subject and its numerous booby traps have proved disastrous for many in the past, (q.v. my previous case histories as quoted and in particular Gaines-Cooper.)
Those who wish to ensure that they do not fall foul of some regulatory tax authority in the future or in retrospect would do well to heed my words and, as I have said before, ensure that they seek professional advice specific to their own particular case rather than relying on random pieces of information or conjecture addressed to the world at large and presumably read by many whose economic experience and knowledge ill befits them for a cogent analysis of the facts of their matters.

Snas

2nd Jul 2010, 08:45

Following on from the tax case of the BA pilot Shepherd, it is not so easy for UK national pilots and cabin crew to claim a non-residence status even where flying time outside the UK remains within the 90 day average and 182 day annual UK visit limitations.
It will be necessary to demonstrate that you have made a permanent move with your family to another country and settled there, to have a chance of your claim succeeding. Local taxation advice should also be taken in that country.

Source: - A UK Tax Service For Non-Resident Landlords,Pilots,Aircrew,Seafarers,Non-Doms - Pilots Aircrew & Tax (http://baktax.com/page_1246532592750.html)

My partner and I looked into this a few years back as I have a home in Spain from where we could have been resident. The downside, for me, was that I quite like the UK and the restrictions on the amount of time my partner would have been able to spend in the Uk put us off.

It's not all about money after all.. For us anyway :)

There are advantages to tax reduction and if you are really interested in the details, which are complex, I'm sure you could call the number at link and they would be happy to explain all.

More reading:-

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/general/residence-pilot-error.html (http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/general/residence-pilot-error.html)
http://www.adviserbreakthrough.co.uk/ifanews/article/82.php (http://www.adviserbreakthrough.co.uk/ifanews/article/82.php)

Bucksbird

2nd Jul 2010, 10:42

As a frequent long-haul passenger (LHR-Houston), I am constantly amazed at the terrible attitude of some CSD's.

They barely manage to crack a smile and I always wonder why they are doing a job they appear to detest.

The 'good' ones stand out a mile but are few and far between. They are the ones that stick in my mind, however.

Time to get rid of these sour-faced members of staff.

Ancient Observer

2nd Jul 2010, 12:11

Couple of points.
1. The poster on the other thread is the Champagne Charlies' current nominated poster. They seem to rotate them

2. As customers, maybe we need PCCC to form a pax union for us, (and the folk on flyertalk) so we can put our demands to WW?? Like - no "Heritage" crew on my flights, thank you very much!!

Neptunus Rex

2nd Jul 2010, 12:21

We now find that the Jo’burg Jetsetter owns a farm.
One wonders whether her farm workers and domestic staff enjoy:

Subsidised travel to and from their workplace
Free meals and drinks whilst at work
Free medical care
Paid sick leave
Maternity leave
90% discount on their employers’ products
Wages that are above the local average
Automatic annual pay increments
Free or subsidised pension plan
Generous rest periods during their shifts
Comfortable bunks for rest
And, last but not least – Union representation

I think we should be told.

Mr Optimistic

2nd Jul 2010, 12:55

First post by 'her' that I can find is 26th June. Odd the silence before that. Not sure if the release of all the personal details is the result of a disarming openess or a desire to brag. Sits oddly with the previous silence and is hardly calculated to gain sympathy for financial plight.

Incidentally, how do the moderators know that someone really is cabin crew ?

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 13:17

I see the pprune poster investigation team is swinging into action again. I am sure the insult committee is getting ready too.

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 13:42

Litebulb:

I am sure the insult committee is getting ready too.

A tad on the rude side.

I agree that the moderators seem to do a pretty good job of finding out who is truly personnel and who are not so much conjecture is rather pointless but your statement regarding an "insult committee" is a bit overwrought.

Debating the statements of an individual poster is hardly an "insult" unless you are of the same mind that being told "No" is being "bullied".

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 14:10

A tad on the rude side.

Not at all. I note that you did not comment about AO's post and the Champagne Charlie reference. Or is it OK to be rude, as long as it agrees with your position?

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 14:22

It is not my obligation to comment or correct any and all posts when I don't concur 100% with the content. In fact it would be very inappropriate of me to do so.

...and the fact that I have no idea who or what a "Champagne Charlie" is would have made it even more inappropriate in this instance.

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 14:59

So we agree then.

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 15:14

Litebulb:

I make it a rule that I don't engage in passive-agressive circular debates.

At the moment the only thing I'm aware of that we agree upon in our previous exchange is that I need to google the definition for "Champagne Charlie".:ok:

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 15:32

It's lucky this is not one of those debates then. You not seeing the agreement answers my point.

Mr Optimistic

2nd Jul 2010, 15:54

Insult to whom exactly ? Given the heat the new poster is generating elsewhere, I thought it relevant - and curious. There has been speculation about 'Miss M' being one and the same person. Anyway, how do you join this insult committee - is there a fee - looks like I have been nominated.

GCI35

2nd Jul 2010, 16:06

A suggestion on the other thread by SQC7791 that posts from MissM and Ava Hannah are the work of a committee could have some credibility, therefore I'll risk the wrath of Mods with this offering.
MissM is accredited with 294 posts on PPRuNe, her last being No.161 on the 21June when she denied being Lizanne Malone. 294 posts since Dec 09 is a considerable output particularly when taking flying duties into consideration.
Ava Hannah pops up on 26June all guns blazing because despite repeated warnings she struck and lost her ST. Living in JNB from choice as she does is no doubt an inconvenience but as she would not accept an offer of all the money in the world unless ST was given back one wonders what her priorities really are. Seemingly it's ST.
After post 462, Ava's third in which she mentions the loss of her son to leukaemia there is a change of font. Easily explained of course, a new PC perhaps or a new author. Thereafter her output on the other thread gains pace and currently stands at 34 posts in 4 days.
It's safe to assume that most, if not all contributors here follow the other thread and draw their own conclusions. There are inconsistencies, she works 50% and goes to the UK every 28 days or she goes to work 4 -5 times per month. One seems to contradict the other and if money is not the issue why is she bleating about paying £500 for a ticket to LHR when through her own decision forfeited her right to ST.
I may be completely wrong and if so apologise, but the similarities in syntax and style suggests to me that MissM and Ava Hanna and posts attributed to them is the work of one person.......or a committee!

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 16:15

It is a constant theme on pprune, that whenever a poster comments against the majority, they are examined for who they are, rather than the content of their post. If you feel insults serve a purpose, then insult away.

cavortingcheetah

2nd Jul 2010, 16:35

But interrogation bordering on the vituperative can be just one of the more entertaining facets of Pprune hazing. In this particular case though, the question becomes rather more one of collectivity rather than individualism. It seems to me that certain people are trying to establish whether they as individuals are corresponding with individuals or whether they are merrily scribbling away with representatives of the Bassa wrecking commitee. Under the present circumstances of intellectual argument, it's a neat distinction of no great significance.

Ancient Observer

2nd Jul 2010, 16:40

Ava herself defined strikers as "Heritage" crew, I believe.
Champagne Charlies are those with a champagne lifestyle. I am unwaged, so do not have a champagne lifestyle. (Not as often as I would like).
I would love to afford to drive to BFC in a drophead BMW and drink lots of pimms with the strikers, and give a customer point of view. However, the price appears to be to join either the cult, or Socialist Worker. By the look of it, and a drop head BMW would be handy aswell. I can't afford one of them.
I have no desire to either join the cult, or to join Socialist Worker. The millionaires that run Socialist Worker strike me as the worst sort of two-faced so and sos.
Is calling the cult "Champagne Charlies" an insult? If it is, it is far less insulting than the insults which bassa et al give out to customers, - and as to what they say about BA management, I need say nothing, as they say it all.

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 17:01

Where has this cult term come from?

cavortingcheetah

2nd Jul 2010, 17:06

'Champagne Charlie' is a music hall song for those fortunate enough to have experienced that fantastic medium of mirthful and talented diversion, guided by the talents of that priceless manipulator of both audience and performers, the compere!
Any comparison of music hall with the present attendant goings on in certain union circles only serves to remind one of the excellence of entertainment of the former with the quite incomprehensible mirthless moronity of the latter.

In cultish terms, if we exclude Aleister Crowley, the usual definition would seem to imply manipulation, control and exploitation of a group of individuals by the leaders. That seems a reasonably justified, if slightly derogatory, definition to apply collectively to certain members of one or two distinct British unions.
In cinematographic history it is interesting to see that Zombies have also often been considered as members of a cult in various horror movies. Happily, there usually appears to be a permanent solution to that particular affliction.

'

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 17:31

Do cultish people get the chance to vote in secret postal ballots?

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 17:38

Ancient Observer:

I did indulge in a bit of learning curve regarding "Champagne Charlie" this afternoon and believe that it was hardly an "insult" to sear the hide of anything but the most soft of creatures.

As to the indentity of "Ava" I have no interest. If in reality "she" is a singular individual she truly is between a rock and a hard place but one that she squeezed herself into. There are far too many BA employees truly examining the issues and seriously considering their options to be nothing more than confused and a bit amused by those who are wearing blinders.

I'm looking for three or four short adventures for my hubby and I (his schedule simply will not allow for extended vacations), am specifically flying BA, and must agree with Ancient Observer. As SLF that views her flying time as an opportunity to be indulged the choice between being served by those Cabin Crew who worked through the strike, took the heat not only for their airline but for the co-workers in loading, passengers, etc., and being served by one of the individuals from Bedfont (spelling?) is the difference between booking Helen Mirren and getting Katie Price.

BA will survive this and I'm hopeful that the more fabulous of its Cabin Crew are able to instill their brand on the company again.

Neptunus Rex

2nd Jul 2010, 17:40

A more appropriate term would be 'Champagne Socialists.' It defines the latent hypocrisy of those who purport to be Socialists but are extremely wealthy. Most Union leaders are in this category, having risen well above the wildest aspirations of their own rank and file.

cavortingcheetah

2nd Jul 2010, 17:42

Do cultish people get the chance to vote in secret postal ballots?

Only if they are Zombies.

pvmw

2nd Jul 2010, 18:06

Litebulbs said......
Do cultish people get the chance to vote in secret postal ballots?

What, like this democratic and secret BASSA vote????

YouTube - BA staff to vote on strike again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1w4aauda-c)

101917

2nd Jul 2010, 18:10

cult, n. system of religious worship; devotion, homage to person or thing

Describes the unquestioning and unthinking followers of DH, LM and the Bassa hierarchy perfectly, I would have thought.

TightSlot

2nd Jul 2010, 18:13

This thread continues to dive to depths that the pressure hull was never designed to sustain - Folks, one or two of you really need to step back for a short while and adjust your perspective. I'm being serious - You've been too close to this for too long. Have a cup of tea, or even something stronger! Go outside, kick the dog and kiss the wife and take a break.

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 18:18

cult, n. system of religious worship; devotion, homage to person or thing

Describes the unquestioning and unthinking followers of DH, LM and the Bassa hierarchy perfectly, I would have thought.

That is strange. I was out with a BA crew member last night and he definitely did not show any of those traits with regard to BASSA. I did not question him on his God however.

robert f jones

2nd Jul 2010, 18:18

What an intelligent post. As a retired Bcal/BA pilot I am not allowed to go on the BA/Bassa site, but I would like this to get to the moderator of the site. It is now getting to be a nasty squabble between cc which brings in another, more serious topic, namely positioning to go to work, as described by the JNB lady. CC positioning is bad enough, but BA for years (As regrettably not noticed by the Flight Ops Section of the CAA) have allowed many pilots living abroad to commute. The Company are not allowed to schedule such a duty period, but it seems to be tolerated if opted by the individual crew member. After the recent fatal accident in the US where the crew commuted from Seattle and California to New York before their flight and "rested" in the crewroom, at long last the NTSB have taken an interest.
Perhaps this should now be addressed by both BA and the CAA.
One further shot in the foot by Bassa, cc crew allowances, especially in JFK. Take a look at the hotel "crew room/ party room" with microwaves and coffee machines. Nobody (cc) ever spends their meal allowance, so HMRC will eventually take note. Moderator, pull the plug !

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 18:27

Tightslot:

Do we really sound that abusive? I will admit, as a frequent flyer, that I'm approaching this with must be, as balanced as I try to stay, a biased view.

But are we really that out of line? I view the CC thread as much more contentious, though their issues are different than passengers.

I won't kick my dog (as I don't have one), hubby is at a meeting, so perhaps a walk in the garden with a VT is in order.

wiggy

2nd Jul 2010, 18:52

but BA for years (As regrettably not noticed by the Flight Ops Section of the CAA) have allowed many pilots living abroad to commute.

Here we go again. Being a commuter does not automatically mean being in breach of FTL's - many/most commuters are well aware of their obligations - which is exactly why I'm holed up writing this in a B&B near my base tonight , rather than pushing the limits by commuting and then operating tomorrow..and I'm not the only one with a similar sense of responsibility.

robert f jones

2nd Jul 2010, 19:45

Hotel Mode

2nd Jul 2010, 20:10

Take a look at the hotel "crew room/ party room" with microwaves and coffee machines.

Having stayed in the crew hotel in NYC more than 30 times could you tell me where the microwave is please?

There is a flask of coffee at certain times of the day I'll admit.

Hotel Mode

2nd Jul 2010, 20:17

I sat in Club a while ago whilst taxying out on an ATL flight listening to a cc dscribe how they had diverted to Stansted yesterday on a back to back, got transport back to LGW by late pm but still checked in for 9 am check in. By my calculation they were way out of duty hours, but their topic was the extra money involved made it all worth while. With the BA system I doubt the Captain was aware of his cc hours.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Let us know the FTL details but I cant see any way that a 2 sector ex USA day would make a following days trip illegal. The max duty time is simply not enough.

west lakes

2nd Jul 2010, 20:22

Especially as BA don't fly from LGW to ATL

Dawdler

2nd Jul 2010, 20:41

There is some conjecture on the other thread that BF's latest missive is an attempt to get non strikers to leave the union in order that they might individually sign up to the latest offer. It seems that union members will be governed by the union's response. Whether this is true or not, the BASSA membership continues to slide. Now down to 9775 an counting (downwards).

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 20:47

A BA director is trying to coerce and employee to leave a union? Is that allowed?!

Dawdler

2nd Jul 2010, 20:54

Who knows?

Snas

2nd Jul 2010, 21:06

A BA director is trying to coerce and employee to leave a union

No one who has read the ESS mail detailing the new offer could suggest he's doing anything of the sort.

Indeed rather the opposit, if you were a member of the union the offer isnt available to you to decide on individually as you have choosen to let your reps have that power, even if you left the moment you recieved the mail, too late.

No benefit in leaving, therefore no encouragement to do so on the part of BA. To have done so would have indeed have been unlawful - which is why they didnt.

Litebulbs

2nd Jul 2010, 21:34

You are both probably right, but just, if that makes sense.

Diplome

2nd Jul 2010, 23:16

BA's offer to non-union members is quite specific as to membership status and QUITE specific that no members of BASSA would be asked or allowed to sign the agreement outside of their union's agreement.

No coercion involved.

jetset lady

3rd Jul 2010, 00:43

You do not say if you are cc or flight deck, but the rules applies to ALL, not most ! Get yourself a copy of Flight Crew Orders, or better still the CAA ANO's, and then see if your colleagues are aware of the requirements. I sat in Club a while ago whilst taxying out on an ATL flight listening to a cc dscribe how they had diverted to Stansted yesterday on a back to back, got transport back to LGW by late pm but still checked in for 9 am check in. By my calculation they were way out of duty hours, but their topic was the extra money involved made it all worth while. With the BA system I doubt the Captain was aware of his cc hours.

If you are retired BCal/BA crew as you state, you will know that the crew can not and do not operate from base without a minimum legal rest period between flights. The flight is automatically recrewed. We don't even get a say in it and you can be sure ops would have known pretty much exactly what time the crew made it back to LGW as we have to sign out on the computer system. Even without the computer, they'd have the times from the transport company. But like I said, you don't need me to tell you that as you'll already know.

Apologies for the thread drift as this isn't even related to commuting, let alone the dispute, but I will not sit back while someone implies that we are flying illegally.

kappa

3rd Jul 2010, 02:57

Recently on the PPRuNe Cabin Crew forum I read that the following had been posted on the BASSA website:“Unite have also instructed our legal Counsel to progress and submit our application to The European Court of Human Rights for the removal of staff travel as a result of taking part in lawful industrial action. Together with our lawyers we are working through the paperwork and other details you have assisted in providing in response to our recent email, and in respect to the other claims this issue raises. We hope to be able to provide you with a further update very soon.”

Reading that it appears that BASSA is NOT pursuing legal action in the UK courts. And the posts by many BASSA supporters (a.o., Ava Hannah) indicates that in the absence of relevant UK law on the subject matter, they are relying on the ECHR to regain ST.

But on another forum on BA matters, the following comment was posted:"There are, of course, all sorts of problems in the way of the argument. Not least is the requirement that before you go to the ECtHR (where the respondent is the government, not the employer), you must have exhausted all your domestic remedies. Here, BASSA hasn't even started to invoke domestic legal procedures on this issue. That will take some explaining.”
If BASSA were to be honest (an oxymoron), that “further update very soon” will not be a positive one.

Neptunus Rex

3rd Jul 2010, 04:35

How long is it likely to take for the ECHR to hear this application?

ChicoG

3rd Jul 2010, 05:32

Do cultish people get the chance to vote in secret postal ballots?

I prefer to liken BASSA to Iranian democracy. You can vote how you like, and many of the brainwashed will vote for those in power. But if you vote against, your life will be made a misery.

Mr Optimistic

3rd Jul 2010, 07:18

ChicoG

3rd Jul 2010, 07:35

A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

And also trying to cause harm to your colleagues, as evidenced by the company-wide support offered to BA to limit the damage BASSA has tried to inflict.

What amuses me is how any criticism of their actions will automatically be described as an "insult", when insulted is the perfect word to describe the rest of BA's employees who have made sacrifices to aid the company, yet get called "scabs" - and much worse - for doing so.

Forgive me Litebulbs if I can't take your position seriously.

I simply find that the BASSA diehards are quick to blame everyone for ruining their strike, and point blank refuse to accept that not only was industrial action unnecessary, but that their actions have threatened the jobs of thousands of other employees who don't think it is unreasonable to ask a senior member of staff to get off their arses and do a bit more work.

Perhaps it dismays you that so many people are against Unite's actions, but in reality many of the people who disagree are members of the trade union movement and are not against Unite, but purely against the amateurs that run BASSA so badly.

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 09:26

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 09:31

OK. No offense intended, but don't you think it's odd ? A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

And a few more moments reading these threads will show you that I am not involved, so I am unable to be blamed for self serving actions.

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 09:35

I prefer to liken BASSA to Iranian democracy. You can vote how you like, and many of the brainwashed will vote for those in power. But if you vote against, your life will be made a misery.

Why don't you write to Mr Woodley and Simpson and share your view?

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 09:37

Kappa,

I agree that it is strange that it appears that the issue of ST, will be taken to the ECHR in the first instance.

Colonel White

3rd Jul 2010, 09:50

You asked
So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

The answer is that an existing BASSA member is not able to sign the contract on offer. This is because you have delegated all power relating to negotiating your terms and conditions of employment to the union you joined. If the majority vote is for accepting the offer, then you can sign it, however, if your colleagues reject the offer, the only way you might be able to sign the contract would be to leave the union and gamble that BA would extend the period in which the offer is open. It might be something worth asking Bill Francis about. BA cannot induce you to leave the union

Snas

3rd Jul 2010, 09:58

So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

They need only tell their reps, in suffecient numbers, by ballot or other means.

BASSA reps could do with being remined what "rep" is short for after all.

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 10:14

I imagine that the collective bargaining rights of Unite/BASSA is an express term in current contracts. I would imagine that this would not be so in any new contract offered. So why would you need to leave BASSA to sign a new contract?

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 10:18

They need only tell their reps, in suffecient numbers, by ballot or other means.

BASSA reps could do with being remined what "rep" is short for after all.

It would be very interesting, if elections were due before the next round of balloting. But then others would have to step up.

Snas

3rd Jul 2010, 10:38

It would be very interesting, if elections were due before the next round of balloting. But then others would have to step up.

Interesting indeed. I believe that’s part of the issue actually. CC tend to be the most apathetic of militants (an odd concept I know) and therefore they are easily lead, or mislead depending on your point of view. It is hard to imagine the style of BASSA changing easily.

From the comments on this site and my own conversations I haven’t before encountered people who’s strength of views are only matched by their ignorance of the facts. It’s this that leads people to start using unfortunate and unhelpful comparisons with cults perhaps?
The repeated statements of facts that we all know have been disproved time and again is a little weird to say the least?

There seems to be very little desire to make an informed decision using information more than one source, one seems to be enough for some apparently!

I have no confidence that BASSA is going to improve anytime soon, and neither did my partner, which is why she left a while back, and very happy about that choice she is too.

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 11:29

How do you think that BASSA managed to convince the workforce that your suggested facts are not what they seem? Is it the SCCM doing this on flights? A couple of mass meetings that you have to drive to, is not a realistic delivery mechanism for the pro BASSA position.

As to your partners choice to leave, do you accept that that makes the pro strikers position stronger?

ChicoG

3rd Jul 2010, 11:33

Why don't you write to Mr Woodley and Simpson and share your view?

Perhaps I could tw*tter them while they're in the next bout of the negotations they take so seriously. That's if they aren't in Cyprus or a Bangkok Whore bar.

TrakBall

3rd Jul 2010, 12:57

How do you reconcile the views of BASSA militants like MissM, Ava and WWW that it was BA that did not negotiate in good faith despite the ruling of a court case and the video of the meeting where the rank and file voted to not negotiate? I would prefer a direct answer rather than the usual tactic of responding to a question with another question. I ask because of your last response to Snas where you referred to "suggested facts".

Thanks
TB

Litebulbs

3rd Jul 2010, 15:51

I would only know the actual facts if I was there, or a detailed transcript was published from the negotiations. However, I cannot deny that the ruling showed the internal struggle within Unite in a very bad light. Did that struggle help its members? No.

Mariner9

3rd Jul 2010, 17:50

What would you advocate that BASSA/Unite should do from this point Litebulbs? Vote for further IA or accept the deal and attempt to get ST returned through the courts? Or some other strategy?

Neptunus Rex

3rd Jul 2010, 18:55

Mariner 9
A straightforward question, which demands a straightforward answer.
Over to you, Litebulbs

Mr Optimistic

3rd Jul 2010, 21:56

Litebulbs et al. Give it up, it's not worth this. How can you not know ?

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 13:15

I would be testing the removal of ST as a tactic to stop and then punish strikers, through the courts.

johnoWhiskyX

4th Jul 2010, 14:18

So when presented with 3 options, one of which was taking the deal and attempting to get ST back through the courts.

Was your answer inclusive of taking the deal or are you being awkward and evasive on purpose in only saying, "I would be testing the removal of ST as a tactic to stop and then punish strikers, through the courts. "?

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 14:44

JEM60

4th Jul 2010, 15:18

LITEBULBS. Firstly, as other people have said, I welcome your views from the Strikers side, but they are no longer making good sense.Surely it has been said ad nauseum on this, and other sites, that ST is a perk, and non-contractual. Surely there would be no difference if I was running a business, and decided to install a free coffee machine for the workers, and discovered after a few months that the costs were unacceptable to me. If I then removed it from the rest area, how could this be considered illegal!!. It's a perk that was offered by me to the workers. There is surely no difference with this hypothetical scenario, than there is with removal of ST. Why can you not understand this.? Why, when you knew you were going to lose it, did you strike in the first place. You don't seem to have a leg to stand on over this issue.. You were told, quite categorically, that it would be removed, and it happened. Big surprise, but only, it seemed, to the strikers. I'll offer you a little advice. Take the offer, go back to work, and eventually things might get a little better for you , but the strikers have nobody but themselves and their Union/Dis-Union to blame for the loss of ST.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 15:42

To use your analogy of a coffee machine - you remove the machine, it is removed for all, not a select few. What you and many others keep failing to grasp and what I keep repeating, is that I would test whether going on strike is something that you can be punished for. Just because BA has carried out an action, it does not make that action lawful.

JEM60

4th Jul 2010, 15:58

No, I don't fail to grasp it at all! You lost it because you went on strike, the others kept it because they didn't. It's a perk. If it was contractual, then it would be illegal. Yes, you were punished for going on strike. Did you not expect to be?. It's legal to remove it, otherwise BA wouldn't have done it. You had ST. Your actions [all strikers, I'm not being personal] cost your employer millions on a very selfish strike. Take the consequences, because you won't have a choice.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 16:03

Yes, you were punished for going on strike.

And that is the question I would be testing legally and I think you mean they.

robert f jones

4th Jul 2010, 16:12

This somewhat curt, shoot from the hip, response to my post regarding the previous (openly discussed by the cc) duty period whilst taxying out from Gatwick typifies the intransigent attitude displayed by the pro strike people to their CEO and his negotiating managers clearly displayed on the BA/Bassa site. Any implied criticism is treated with immediate hostility.

I did say "a while ago", yes there was a Gatwick flight to Atlanta and by listening to the crew talking, they were way out hours having diverted to Stansted and returned to their Gatwick by road and believe me "Hotel mode" I didn't make it up.

JayPee28bpr

4th Jul 2010, 16:33

I think you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of your argument. I have not seen any posts from the Union side complaining that BA discriminates amongst staff within its staff travel scheme when such discrimination benefits the Union. You all crawl out of the woodwork only when it doesn't.

BA's scheme includes a right to higher class of travel etc for more senior staff does it not, eg a CSD gets to fly First/Club whereas the oiks slum it in World Traveller? Isn't this discriminatory? And doesn't it benefit the class of staff from which about 95% of BASSA reps belong? How come this has never been a problem of discrimination that needed to be tackled?

It would seem that not only has Unite/BASSA expressly acknowledged over long periods that staff travel is a non-contractual perk provided at the absolute discretion of the company, but within the scheme itself they have happily accepted a discriminatory seat allocation structure. I'm afraid it's a bit late to start rolling out the sibling solidarity line now. If BA wants to adopt a policy that further segments access to a discretionary perk then they are perfectly entitled to do so. All the guff about Human Rights Act protection and ECoHR is just nonsense. It's entirely inapplicable. If there were any chance to Unite winning such an argument, the legal action would have commenced already. They know the provisions often quoted do not apply.

You, and others, seem to think that legislation, including HRA and ECoHR somehow protect people against any form of discrimination that may arise as a result of taking industrial action. It does not. It provides a degree of protection to individuals against action for breach of contract. More importantly, it protects the Unions calling for action against the (normally) much higher claims that might be made against them for costs arising out of action they have induced members to take. However, BA can take many discriminatory actions against staff with no fear of legal redress against them. Provided such steps do not break specific legislation on discrimination (eg based on colour, gender etc), then BA can do pretty much what it likes.

You need to get over the idea that somehow discrimination is always disallowed. It's actually entirely the reverse. Discrimination is always allowed except in the specific circumstances laid out in law when it isn't. We are all discriminated against at work, normally on the basis that we don't have the necessary skills and experience for a particular role. If BA wishes to provide an employment perk, and then segment access to that perk, it is perfectly entitled to do so. The fact that one element of the segmentation is that persons who went on strike are disallowed, or otherwise handicapped in enjoying the perk, is allowable. "Fairness" only enters into it to the extent that they treat everyone in each segment equally. So, for instance, if BA were to decide arbitrarily to grant full access to staff travel to some strikers but not others, that may be grounds for challenge. However, if all strikers are treated equally, then BA is free to do pretty much what it likes with its non-contractual perks. I think you'll find there are Tribunal cases along pretty much these lines, but I'm not sure if there are any High Court or Employment Appeall cases to provide legal precedent.

ExecClubPax

4th Jul 2010, 16:34

Litebulbs; can we clear one thing up? I thought you said in an earlier post you are not aircrew neither are you employed by BA.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 16:40

Litebulbs; can we clear one thing up? I thought you said in an earlier post you are not aircrew neither are you employed by BA.

Correct. I have said it more than once.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 16:53

I am sure you will find many precedents to show that it is reasonable and fair to have varying benefits within a scheme. What we are debating is whether taking part in industrial action is punishable or not. For that, I cannot find any precedents to whether it is lawful or not and their would be only one way to find out.

Mariner9

4th Jul 2010, 16:58

Thanks for answering Litebulbs.

So you would advocate a legal challenge to the removal of ST. One might question why Unite did not instigate immediate legal action in support of their striking commuters, who utterly depend on ST for their employment.

Given that BA almost certainly sought legal advice before removing ST, and that Unite probably did likewise once it was removed, do you not think it significant that no action has yet been lodged by Unite? Further, why would Unite seek to prolong the dispute by making ST a sticking point if it could easily be restored through the Courts?

In my view, Unite have likely been advised by their legal team that they risk defeat in Court. If they went to Court and lost before the dispute was settled, it would seriously affect morale and the appetite for any futher strike action amongst their members. Hence their inaction on this point to date.

LD12986

4th Jul 2010, 17:04

Again, if it was me, which it isn't, I would have pushed to the union to legally challenge the removal when it happened. So, no, I would not be accepting the deal until a result was determined.

Litigation on the withdrawal of ST could easily run for several years.

Perhaps the reason why Unite has not instigated legal action is because it has already blown millions of its members' money of fruitless court cases (failing to get an injunction to block the crewing changes, losing at the High Court on the crew complements case)?

As suggested elsewhere the best hope for the full reinstatement of ST in the future is to accept a deal now, and hope that ST can be put back on the agenda when this has died down and there has been a period of "good behaviour" by BASSA.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 17:21

I am not saying that ST will be restored through the courts. It would be as incorrect as saying ST would be restored in 5 minutes.

But to risk defeat in court would not make the situation worse for those that have lost ST, but it could improve it. Whether they would get ST back is another point too. They may just be compensated by BA, if their was a breach of some national or EU right.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 17:31

It is true that litigation may take some time and I would suggest that is why it has not been approached yet, rather than the risk of failure. But that is only my opinion.

Mariner9

4th Jul 2010, 18:00

I don't agree that legal action would necessarily take years. An injunction against the removal of ST could have been arranged in weeks. All Unite/BASSA would have to show to obtain an injunction is that they had a reasonable chance of getting the removal of ST overturned in a full Court hearing. That was the approach they tried (ultimately unsuccessfully) over the removal of the crewmember.

In my view, the fact that no application has been made to Court speaks volumes. If I was a striking commuter I would be both extremely worried and absolutely furious with my union for the misrepresentations made regarding the return of ST.

west lakes

4th Jul 2010, 18:04

If I was a striking commuter I would be both extremely worried and absolutely furious with my union for the misrepresentations made regarding the return of ST.

As previously posted there is an offer for the partial return of ST on the table with Unite.
An offer that Unite seems not to have communicated to it's members.

Any that pay attention to BA communicatins would know this!

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 18:23

I mostly agree with you, but I also feel that this is traditional union style negotiation. Give it back and the deal is done, without including a third party.

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 18:27

You are right, but the partial return is still punitive reduction.

4th Jul 2010, 19:12

I did say "a while ago", yes there was a Gatwick flight to Atlanta and by listening to the crew talking, they were way out hours having diverted to Stansted and returned to their Gatwick by road and believe me "Hotel mode" I didn't make it up.

But you may have misunderstood the conversation. IMHO cabin crew in BA are very aware of industrial agreements but not necessarily as aware of scheme (legal) limits.
They probably exceeded their industrial agreement but were within scheme rules. Had they exceeded scheme they wouldn't have been onboard. A standby crew would have been used. If no standby crew was available the flight would have been delayed until either a fresh crew was available or the original crew had achieved the required rest period.

west lakes

4th Jul 2010, 19:30

Litebulbs
The (civil) legallity of the action will, I think, be debated for a long time and as you say will not be settled until a court rules on the issue.

It is likely that whilst there is a valid offer on the table that it could prove difficult to raise any court action.
Admittedly one of the conditions attached is the ceasation of strike action (if permanantly of just surrounding this dispute, I don't know).

What seems odd is that the "give ST back" school do not seem to recognise or be aware of the offer as there has been no sense of any comment along the lines of "we want full ST returned as the BA offer is not enough"
I can see the concern of the commuters which this offer does seem to cover, is Unite deliberately saying nothing as it reduces their case for further IA?

What, further, seems odd is that no-one on the CC thread seems to have pointed this out to Ava, the very issue which seems to be making her vote to turn the offer down!

Mariner9

4th Jul 2010, 19:41

Personally, I dont see why a company cannot punish strikers. Strikers after all are "punishing" the company.

Nobody seems surprised when basic salary is withheld from the strikers. What is that if not punishment? Why is the withdrawal of a non-contractual perk seen by some to be punishment and discrimination but withdrawal of contractual salary seemingly accepted?

robert f jones

4th Jul 2010, 19:44

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 19:45

beamender99

4th Jul 2010, 19:59

west lakes
Just to clarify ST a little
I can see the concern of the commuters which this offer does seem to cover,
It has far less affect on those commuters with little service as onloading from standby is in simple terms, after commercial standbys are accommodated, the longest serving are on first subject to seat availability.

What, further, seems odd is that no-one on the CC thread seems to have pointed this out to Ava, the very issue which seems to be making her vote to turn the offer down! As a long serving CC she would go to the very back of the standby queue thus significantly reducing the chance of getting a seat. That in turn would mean either trying BA day(s) earlier or another carrier direct to London - Virgin or SAA ( very low priority ) or another carrier via Europe / the Gulf with yet another standby or at a last resort, financially, some form of commercial fare.

JEM60

4th Jul 2010, 20:10

LITEBULBS Yes, of course, should have been 'they' although I think I had made that point earlier. Apologies.

west lakes

4th Jul 2010, 20:20

Beamender
As it was read to me from the forum with BF, commuters would retain their present seniority on one chosen route (the commuter route)

The only time reduced seniority would apply would be on routes other than this, which in the main could possibly be leisure

beamender99

4th Jul 2010, 20:40

west lakes
Thanks for that clarification, something I missed. Things do make a bit more sense to the rest of the world but still not to certain CC.

Mariner9

4th Jul 2010, 21:29

You are not being paid because you are not working, on a day off or on leave/sick. It is not a punishment

If you are right that withdrawal of contractual salary is not a punishment, why is the withdrawal of non-contractual staff travel because you are not working, on a day off or on leave/sick deemed a punishment then?

Litebulbs

4th Jul 2010, 21:58

Because when you return to work, you return to being paid.

binsleepen

4th Jul 2010, 22:56

If I owned a family business and some of my employees deliberately tried to destroy it by striking I would do my best to ensure that they suffered the consequences.This would include the lowest assessment for their annual reports to ensure they never got promoted and removal of all discretionary bonuses or benefits. What goes around comes around, and everybody has a choice in life.

On another point it looks like the union laws might get tougher with a majority of the entire work force required to vote in favour of a strike not just a majority of those voting. ABOUT TIME, It means that people have to put up or shut up and implies that a non vote is a vote in favour of not striking.

regards

5th Jul 2010, 07:11

As a Bcal GM I was one of the AOC holders and totally conversant with FTL rules. This cc were talking total duty hours (scheme ?) and obviously had insufficient rest for their rostered flight. However, the main reason for my post was not to be vindictive about this one off experience but to urge the moderator on the BA/Bassa site that constant reference to crew positioning prior to a flying duty (especially flight crew) will inevitably attract the attention of the CAA FIO. Having said that, it is probably long overdue, both here in the UK and (as previously mentioned) in the US.
No offence intended to cc in general.

As regards scheme we will have to agree to differ. I am also conversant with the rules and don't believe with the current systems that it would be possible to depart ex main base without complying with the necessary rules. After all one of the main problems BA has had with CC is lack of flexibility and subsequent costs incurred. Perhaps the computerised rostering systems today are better than in Bcal days.

I don't think the positioning question is the same in the UK as in the US. The US congress has highlighted the problem of low pilot wages in the feeder airline business in the states and the consequent safety problems.

In the main I think most commuters in BA arrive at work adequately rested. The fatigue level of those who arrive by car can be quite high. So far I believe most long distance commuters have been quite responsible.

Mariner9

5th Jul 2010, 08:28

We'll have to agree to disagree Litebulbs. My view is that if you can legally withdraw pay to strikers, you can certainly withdraw perks. Indeed, it seems BA can even sack strikers (though they might have to pay compensation if the sackings occurred during the 12 week protected period of a lawful IA).

Doesn't really matter what you and I think though. The important thing is what do the striking CC think when faced with this next ballot. If they believe BASSA's advice that ST will easily be returned, they could vote to accept the deal. If they don't have faith in BASSA's promises re ST, they'll have to vote to strike in an attempt to get it back! Seems converse but things often seem to be in BASSAland.

I guess the answer will only be forthcoming if BASSA/Unite pursue the matter through the Courts.

JayPee28bpr

5th Jul 2010, 09:23

I think you also need to keep in mind that HRA/ECoHR does not deal solely with workers rights. There are also some very powerful provisions in support of private property rights. Indeed, these rights tend to be supported more rigourously than all others, as they provide protection against unwarranted interference in citizens' lives by the State.

In this particular case, what Unite/BASSA is apparently arguing is that workers have a right to require BA to allow its members onto planes when BA chooses not to do so. Your argument seems to be that BA's preference to bar staff for no reason other than the fact they indulged in lawful industrial action is unfair, and a de facto breach of the protections offered in support of industrial action/workers rights.

Against that, however, is BA's right to use, and make available to others, its property, in this case its planes. BA is pretty much free to offer its services however it wants, subject only to specific legal restraints on discrimination etc. Flying on BAs planes is very much a contractual arrangement. There is no automatic right for anyone to be granted carriage.

I think the problem Unite/BASSA faces in claiming that its members' human rights have been violated is twofold. Firstly, there simply is no fundamental human right allowing persons to use the property of others. The rights of users to force owners to allow use of their property is very limited. Secondly, even if the Court accepts that withholding staff travel from strikers is a breach of workers' rights, it does not immediately follow that they will require BA to give back access to staff travel. What would be required is consideration is whether the breach of workers rights is suffiiciently serious to require moderation of private property rights. I think it's highly unlikely they would, as the moderation of those rights could potentially extend way beyond the rights of 2,000-3,000 striking cabin crew to enjoy discounted travel. In other words, the remedy of requiring BA to allow use of its property by a group of persons it prefers not to carry is possibly disproportionate to the damage suffered by the workers.

You need to keep in mind that BA and its owners have rights as well as its workers.

RTR

5th Jul 2010, 10:05

As someone just said, it is important to recognize that the CAA know about, and monitor, these forums and will if required act within their powers. The FTL scheme is THE rules they follow and therein is their yardstick. If any part of operations is found to be questionable they WILL act.

As for BASSA's spin coming to the fore in the other thread I am astounded by some of the tales being told about what they can do and will do for their members and how simple it is. Clearly, they have lost the plot. The simple fact is that BASSA has fired all its guns and all the ammunition has run out. They cannot, for example, re-run a dispute and they obviously do not have another bullet to fire.

It now seems that reps are saying anything to persuade the members that they are in 'control' and you can trust them. Mutton dressed up as lamb has been the trademark of unions since the war - that is a long time. Reps are clearly telling lies, believing they can keep spinning the same old stuff.

Unite, Woodley, Simpson and McCluskey, are keeping quiet. I wonder why? Their world is also falling about their ears as far as this dispute is concerned. IMHO I think they wish that BASSA would just lie down and die.

The final nail in their coffin is that BA hold all the cards and know how to play them. It is just sad that too many cc staff still hold candles for BASSA. That's fine, but do remember people's that candles have limited life.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 10:07

We don't have to agree, but I do understand your posts and it is an excellent point about whether the voters believe their reps, on the return of ST and what that may mean to an individual and how they vote.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 10:48

I think you also need to keep in mind that HRA/ECoHR does not deal solely with workers rights..............................You need to keep in mind that BA and its owners have rights as well as its workers.

I understand that and their would be an element of risk involved. But what have the people who have lost staff travel got to loose?

missrubytuesday

5th Jul 2010, 11:45

I really don't see how the hate campaigns of BASSA [their little marches, funny masks, 'willie bullied me' slogans, chants, war cries, 'merchandise' and that odd man with the Willie as Hitler t-shirt - there is nothing like 'mob warfare...'] have achieved anything - except perhaps making their aims look ridiculous against their very sloppy approach to a expression of disagreement with a policy. Plus.. that grave divide between Walsh & Woodley seems very childish.

One cannot generalise all of the strikers' conditions, I am sure many would be in a hugely uncomfortable position and at least they have a sense of 'belonging' amongst their fellow pickets. But have they not generalised the BA management? Are they not bullying the crew who refuse to strike, or step in? What happens to the rest of the BA employment force, seemingly in the 'middle' of this? Why so much name calling?

JayPee28bpr

5th Jul 2010, 12:08

But what have the people who have lost staff travel got to loose?

The flippant answer is whatever it is they'll have lost it well before any ECoHR case hears their claim.

The serious answer is that this isn't just about the BA staff affected. The cost of such a case would add another million or so to Unite's legal bills in support of BA cabin crew. Why should the 2 million members who aren't affected be paying for all this? If BASSA wants a degree of autonomy within Unite, then shouldn't BASSA's costs be similarly ringfenced from the rest of the Union? From the outside looking in, BASSA appears to wield a lot of power within the Union, but with very limited responsibility. Unite and BA's interests with respect to BASSA look remarkably well aligned to me!

Also, Unite is now one of several Unions looking at very significant job losses in the public sector. Personally I think the 600k estimate of such losses is probably excessive, at least within the next 4-5 years. 300-400k looks very possible though. I don't know what proportion of affected workers will be Unite members, but even if it's only 10%, that suggests 30,000-40,000 members at risk, which puts the 2,000-3,000 BA staff at risk of nothing more than losing staff travel into some kind of perspective, even if such a loss results in some of them having to leave BA's employ.

Unite needs to get a grip on BASSA even more than BA does. I rather suspect that, given the choice, most Unite members will want to reserve £1 million to fight job losses/pension losses etc in the public sector, rather than campaiging to establish the fundamental human right to cheap fares for airline staff. What influence do the 2 million plus non-BASSA members of Unite have in determining how the Union's overall income is allocated and spent? How are you justifying the ongoing transfer of value from your members to BASSA via strike pay subsidies and legal fees etc? And are your members supportive of this transfer of wealth.

Snas

5th Jul 2010, 12:59

The union has let its members down very badly indeed on the whole ST issue.

Not only should they have not promised that it would be returned “within 5 minutes” they should have actively advised those members who rely on ST to maintain their jobs (homes, marriages etc) to break the strike. As odd as that may seem it would have been the responsible thing for them to have done.

By all means they could have shouted to anyone that would listen about how members were being prevented from striking as a result, a position which I would have had to agree with to a point.

I still don’t support the principle of removing perks from strikers, it just seems wrong on many levels. I worry about more callus employers following the lead and converting all sorts of contractual rights into perks so as to allow their selective removal at the drop of a hat.

This is also the reason that I don’t think Unite would be wise to challenge it in court, a loss would legitimise the tactic.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 13:01

You are correct about what other Unite members must be thinking. It is OK pushing the moral argument about the rights and wrongs of BA's actions to attempt to stop a strike, but as you say, there are millions of other Unite members and a finite pot of cash.

I would imagine that the first time legal help was refused, then their would be some very disgruntled members and some

But, it is still is a major issue when you look at it as a principle, rather than an individual point. Well, I think it is, but what do I know.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 13:09

This is also the reason that I don’t think Unite would be wise to challenge it in court, a loss would legitimise the tactic.

I agree that there is a risk, but if it is not challenged now, it will only be a matter of time until it is, as it will be seen as a "legitimate tactic".

Mocamps

5th Jul 2010, 13:13

Well said, Jaypee.
I couldn't agree more. This strike looks utterly RIDICULOUS compared to the problems the rest of the country are facing. I keep asking myself why I continue to look at this forum because it only winds me up - a group of people living in their own little bubble and seemingly oblivious to what is going on around them. I wonder how many even bother to read what the passengers are thinking. You certainly don't seem to see many on this forum putting forward their viewpoint. It might be good to see if there are any BASSA sympathisers out there that even care about the passengers or the rest of the world outside of theirs.

Go on BASSA (Ava, Miss M et al) .....I dare you!! Let us know why any of us should have any sympathy at all!!

JayPee28bpr

5th Jul 2010, 14:14

:bored:
But, it is still is a major issue when you look at it as a principle, rather than an individual point. Well, I think it is

We'll have to agree to differ on this one then!

I'll give you an example of what I think is a fundamental matter of principle worth pursuing either via industrial or legal action (or both). It's being reported today that the UK government is planning to amend the compensation (ie redundancy) terms offered to public sector workers likely to lose their jobs in the next few months. These terms are clearly defined and have been the basis of previous redundancies. Public sector workers would be aware of them as an implicit safety net in case their job disappears. Now, with large numbers of jobs at risk and potentially very large payments under the scheme, the government naturally wants to limit the cost. It is argued that redundancy terms offered to public sector workers are generous versus private sector practice, and the government says it is merely intending to align public and private sector practice.

That may very well be the case, but the fact still remains that the government is simply seeking to adjust public sector workers' terms and conditions and reduce the cost of eliminating jobs: a double whammy for affected workers who lose current income and receive a depleted "safety" payment. Compare that to the entire BA dispute, where BA imposed new conditions that averted the need for any compulsory redundancies but which engineered the cost saving they required merely by increasing productivity (whilst actually allowing many staff to get the lifestyle changes they wanted incidentally). The dispute now appears to centre solely on workers rights to discretionary perks.

So I ask you, Litebulbs: you have a £1 million strike pay and/or legal fees pot. Fighting to maintain the redundancy entitlements of public sector workers who have done nothing to harm their employer, or fighting to force BA to continue to allow strikers who have harmed their business by striking to continue to access what is agreed to be a discretionary perk. The former impacts at least 10x the number of your members compared to the latter. Which is the better use of your pot?

As I said before, Unite and BA's interests are actually totally aligned in respect of BASSA. Unite should now follow BA's lead and deal with the problem. Failure to do so simply disadvantages the wider Union membership.

phiona

5th Jul 2010, 14:36

With regards to Ava Hannah on the other discussion thread, why do BA employ South Africans (I assume she is)? Surely BA would give preference to UK and EU nationals over other nationalities?

Snas

5th Jul 2010, 14:47

Ava may or may not be a UK national, who knows.

Ba do however employ a large number of international crew, as do many airlines.

Pohutu

5th Jul 2010, 15:03

Interesting posts, JayPee28bpr.

It is possible that Unite's lack of action on pursuing the staff travel issue through Europe is a strategic decision on their part. The issue of removing perks from striking workers is a significant unresolved point of law, and one which potentially affects every single union member in the country. As a composite union, Unite has many members who would be affected by the outcome of the court case, not just members of BASSA.

Very few people outside BASSA seem to view the current industrial action as objectively justified (i.e. whilst of course they have the right to strike, it seems a disproportionate reaction to the issues in dispute). As you have identified, the court would be required to balance the competing rights involved, and Unite may well therefore be waiting for a case where the balance is more in their favour before pursuing the point. If they then manage to get a favourable ruling in another case, it would put them in a stronger position to argue for the reinstatement of staff travel in the BASSA case. But, more importantly for Unite, it would mean that they had best served the interests of all of their membership rather than one small part.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 15:42

The dispute now appears to centre solely on workers rights to discretionary perks.

It is the right of some workers........

At this time, there is a real dispute. What happens in the future is anyone's guess. Isn't the legal term in contemplation or furtherance of come to mind.

I would really like to be an observer at a branch meeting however.

Litebulbs

5th Jul 2010, 15:44

Very few people outside BASSA seem to view the current industrial action as objectively justified (i.e. whilst of course they have the right to strike, it seems a disproportionate reaction to the issues in dispute).

It is my understanding that the UK has no right to strike.

JayPee28bpr

5th Jul 2010, 15:50

I agree entirely. The problem, though, is that Unite/BASSA promised members that they'd get staff travel back "in 5 minutes". That's already stretched out to several months, and any legal challenge at the European level will take years. Given that there is an abundance of quotes in the public domain about how unimportant staff travel is to many strikers, then Unite/BASSA has virtually no chance of persuading a Court that a fundamental workers' right has been damaged to the extent that it should look to moderate BA's rights to utilise its assets as it sees fit.

I agree Unite may look for a better opportunity to fight a similar case. However, that then pushes out the legal fight to return staff travel indefinitely, which is even further away from the 5 minute timetable originally promised to their affected members. Again, it simply highlights to me the inability of Unite generally to control one dysfunctional branch. That would not matter if it were not for the fact that so much senior officer time and general Union income is being diverted to that one branch. It's difficult to see how this benefits the Union's membership generally.

JEM60

5th Jul 2010, 16:05

PHIONA. From reading AVA's previous posts, she has been employed by BA for 26 years, long before the job market in the industry became poor.
Personally, I have come to realise, through this and the cabin crew thread, that she [and many others] have simply been led down the garden path by their utterly useless union, and, therefore, I am beginning to have a little sympathy for the position she, and the others find themselves in. Although they are, ultimately responsible for their postion, very many questions must be asked of the Union about the lies that have been hoisted upon them by their representing body.
I implore all the strikers to not take part in any more IA, and then you may well find that conditions improve for you. Many of us on this thread feel that BA is part of us. I always love travelling with you, love the smile that I get on boarding, the chats at the back on long haul. Please let's all appreciate what we both have, passengers, and crew, and put this nastiness behind us, and return to the old days as much and as soon as we can. John.

JayPee28bpr

5th Jul 2010, 16:17

I would really like to be an observer at a branch meeting however.

I think meetings involving uninvolved FTOs would be more illuminating. I somehow rather doubt that the guy who represents, say, low paid local authority workers, is going to be overly sympathetic about spending members' subs on protecting travel perks for airline staff. Just google "local authority job cuts" or something to see what I mean.

My feeling is that senior officials of Unite are probably being asked to justify why BASSA is not being cut loose. If this is a step too far for organisations that still present a facade of sibling solidarity, then I'd be amazed if the leadership is not having to give assurances that the BASSA problem will be dealt with post-dispute. I'd love to be in on the meetings discussing this. My bet is that BASSA will be dismantled and integrated more closely into Unite's overall BA relationship. The public facade will be that this makes Unite stronger by more closely aligning all staff that it represents. Privately it will be to ensure that one very small group of members never, ever again causes such a colossal waste of money and senior officer time.

I think it is telling that BASSA members were somehow "forgotten" when it came to gauging support for the pension scheme changes at BA. All the other Unite-represented workgroups were consulted/balloted. BASSA members weren't apparently.

Tigger4Me

5th Jul 2010, 16:56

Folks. Please take a look at the post #790 by Juan Tugoh over on the Cabin Crew forum. I think it expressly very well what we all think and should be compulsory reading for all BASSA members.

LD12986

5th Jul 2010, 18:00

Interesting turn of events at BT where the CWU has withdrawn its strike ballot after legal warnings from BT. A case of a union heeding legal warnings or using this as a get-out in light of the current climate of hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses?

Union cancels BT strike ballot | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/05/union-cancels-bt-strike-ballot)

Boxkite Montgolfier

5th Jul 2010, 20:01

JayPee

Why did Unites leadership spend so much time on Bassa?
Were they not made to look foolish,posturing with the mindless?

Methinks, Woodley, McCluskey, Barber et al have hardly presented an endorsement of intellectual modern unionism. Frankly I think they have illuminated their bankrupt idealism by identification with such a palpably ill defined cause.

The frustrating sad fact is the damage that can be inflicted by a misguided customer service minority that clearly has no conception nor willingness to comprehend their ultimate loyalties. Any company,so infected, are manifestly obliged to offload the disgruntled, sharpish, to ensure a future which is so dependent on qualities of service.

JackMcHammocklashing

5th Jul 2010, 22:57

Very good post :ok:

Also reading the cc forum, it is a bit unbelievable, as to CC inteligence, I would guess that higher pay than those outwith BA would be related to a bit higher education and thought process

One states, How can BA afford to pay us doing nothing, whilst New Fleet has doubled and flying?

HELLO Err well being an ingnorant nerk myself I would guess, because you will not be there anymore being paid :confused:

Another has lost Staff Travel free but commutes 5500 miles a twelve hour flight before the start of shift, is this legal rest time CAA

How many multi lingual university grads would give their right arm for CC employment rather than burger flipping AND may even get a free flight home to see their loved ones

Having said that, Burger flipping is much more work than trolley pushing dishing out sarnies
Hells Bells BA Crew do not even have to go round flogging scratch cards every half hour

In the current finacial climate, I would tend to get my head down and work, thankfull that I was not on the end of a Job Centre queue awaiting my £64pw giro (oops sorry, at the end of a job centre queue for nothing the first six months PROVING I had looked for gainfull employment )

Whilst the mortgage protection scheme proves not worth the paper it is written on

Child care at £300 per week, is contractual, ie you can not just quit you are obliged to pay to the end of the year

Become unemployed and it is a right bloody destruction of your life, no home, but you can live on the half price sale of your original home until you are down to the last £3k and begin to get your £64pw job seekers allowance

Not really a problem as you join the 2.5 Million others, most immigrants find work picking potatoes in rural areas for up to £215 pre tax per 37hour week

IA this will be your outcome Check it out

Jack McH

call100

6th Jul 2010, 12:33

The next ballot will result in an acceptance by those voting. This will allow Unite to exit 'because the members wish it'.
ST will be returned slowly once the glare of publicity has moved on to some other issue to upset the Daily Mail readership.
Hopefully BASSA will have some elections and inject some moderation into it's camp....(optimism shouldn't be sneared at!!)
Anyway, for what it's worth that's my prediction......:ouch::ouch:

ChicoG

6th Jul 2010, 13:19

There is talk on the other thread of "outsourcing to India". That's probably a bit far fetched, but I have had the pleasure of flying Jet Airways and their cabin crew were absolutely top notch, as was everything about the service on board.

Be careful what you wish for.....

:}

PAXboy

6th Jul 2010, 14:46

This does look like we are heading for a vote to accept BUT if they return ST - then no one will ever believe another word that WW says. I don't think he's that silly in terms of his career. He fashioned himself as the hard man.

SamYeager

6th Jul 2010, 15:17

This does look like we are heading for a vote to accept BUT if they return ST - then no one will ever believe another word that WW says. When does WW move to his next job in the combined group holding company? This would give his successor the opportunity to make further movement on ST without affecting WW's reputation if BA so desired. Purely hypothetical supposition of course. ;)

Diplome

6th Jul 2010, 17:13

bhx01's posts on the other board are an interesting read.

He/she has only posted four times but her opening post reads like a pr move from BASSA..."I've worked before but now I'm so sorry and I will strike this time" sort of stuff.
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-post5791261.html#post5791261

In a later post she even states that she hopes the striking cabin crew can "forgive her".

Call me cynical but the timing is interesting.

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 18:01

I think we all concur :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/5793955-post843.html

Tiramisu

6th Jul 2010, 18:09

Sam Yeager asked,
When does WW move to his next job in the combined group holding company?

1st of January 2011.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Diplome

6th Jul 2010, 18:20

ranger07:

:) Nice to know I'm not the only cynic.

addendum: And she/he is still pitching with a "gosh" and "gee whiz" approach.

Unfortunately the argument fails the logic test. He/she states regarding credibility and who is to be believed..

Most likely the union after all they are crew like me.

The MAJORITY of your fellow crew members are not striking...and just to be a tad pointed Liz Malone hasn't asked one of us if we would like coffee or tea in ages and Duncan Holley, who developed what sounds suspiciously like an allergy to actually being Cabin Crew, is no longer an employee of BA.

PAXboy

6th Jul 2010, 20:53

I agree that the Union look like they can duck out with (their version of) honour as the staff want it over. Also, they have a brand new Conservative govt to fight now, so lots more fun and strikes to be had there.

JayPee28bpr

7th Jul 2010, 07:50

Today on Bloomberg:

British Airways CEO Wages `War of Attrition' as Pay Vote Starts - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-06/british-airways-mounts-war-of-attrition-as-cabin-crew-votes-on-pay-offer.html)

Worth a read

Snas

7th Jul 2010, 08:25

From the story linked above: - “The union is making no recommendation one way or another,” Unite spokesman Andrew Murray (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Andrew%20Murray&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said in an e-mail.

{On the ballot} - I've had the usual delivery of Unite/BASSA/Amicus crap through my letterbox this week that disagrees with that statement.

Ancient Observer

7th Jul 2010, 08:40

One of the folk over on the CC thread is now trying to re-write history - implying that bassa did negotiate, and was at those meetings, in the negotiating room, (rather than being in the adjournment room and refusing to meet either BA or amicus).

Re-writing history is one of the favourite tactics of Socialist Worker, a rather nasty organisation who appear to have taken a role in this dispute. By repute, many of the BFC attendees were not striking BA CC but were sympathisers from Socialist Worker.
Run for some time by the millionaire Redgrave family and their close friends, if bassa are dealing with them, I feel sorry for their members.

I was in a dispute some time ago when SW tried to muscle in on the issue. Fortunately the TU members saw them coming and told them to Foxtrot Oscar.
No matter how bassa are perceived by the travelling public, allowing SW to become involved in any way will make it worse.

johnoWhiskyX

7th Jul 2010, 09:23

A short lull in the other forums has nw been ended by a strong showing of declared BASSA supporters and undeclared BASSA supporters.

The declared supporters are very selective in what they say and it is telling that when presented with facts they tend to ignore them completely, generally responding with more spin or unique versions of events. Some of their comments are more Nostradamus like.

What for me appears obvious is the increase in undeclared BASSA supporters, purporting to be rational CC that have now come to a decision to strike or support BASSA as a result of genuine consideration of the facts or some tale of horror or woe that has befallen them when they worked through the last IA period.. Fortunately for us they aren't quite clever enough to carry the pretence off and revert to BASSA tactics of ignoring facts and spewing forth versions that have been refuted over and over again by BA supporters over there.

My personal wishes are that BASSA do announce a NO vote and go for industrial action. Forcing BA to begin dismissals or to sideline the strikers altogether and fly 100% of long haul and short haul. I simply don't want to risk having any trip I have planned disrupted by BASSA supporters. If BASSA win any form of concessions in this dispute at all, BA may as well hand over the keys. Becuase, if they can't win this dispute in this financial climate with the level of support from the public and the rest of BA now they have no chance in the future.

ChicoG

7th Jul 2010, 09:43

The last paragraph of that Bloomberg story says it all:

“If BA continues to recruit more people on different terms they’re going to have more options for being able to cover any future industrial action,” said Marshall-James’s Cook, who doesn’t advise British Airways. “The cabin crew will find almost that the world has passed them by.”

I suspect there are more than a few BASSA members already thinking exactly that. Their actions have been utterly futile.

And still we wait to hear how many reps have actually lost ST or instead have dodged the bullet by sneaking into work or feigning illness!

Diplome

7th Jul 2010, 09:45

Interesting comments from Mr. Walsh courtesy of Reuters:

"If in case of a strike 100 percent of flights will, as we believe, be guaranteed, British (Airways) will not only not lose money it will end up saving," Walsh told Il Sole 24 Ore.

Very good news for BA employees from all divisions.

BA's Walsh to guarantee flights if new strike | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6660LQ20100707)

Mariner9

7th Jul 2010, 11:32

Very interesting snippet from your link there Diplome:

"In terms of annual savings the benefit to the company is 65 million pounds per year. For now," Walsh said. (emphasis added)

I wonder if he's anticipating further reducing costs by (for instance) sacking staff who participate in future illegal strikes?

Redcap49

7th Jul 2010, 11:41

Interesting to read on the BACityFlyer website that they are looking to recruit cabin crew at LCY on a starting salary of £11083 pa plus £1750 London Weighting plus £2.20 per hour flight pay.
By my calculations this equates to a higher overall starting salary than that of New Fleet.
Seems like a better deal to me for flying only SH or am I missing something?

wiggy

7th Jul 2010, 11:51

...... "Socialist Worker, a rather nasty organisation who appear to have taken a role in this dispute". ..... "if balpa are dealing with them, I fell "(sic.) "sorry for their members."

I agree entirely with your sentiments, but I suspect you've got the wrong union :uhoh:

Ancient Observer

7th Jul 2010, 12:09

Wiggy,
yup. Mea culpa. What a daft error. Not even worth a Jet Blast comment, it was so bad. Thanks for pointing it out. I've changed it.

Diplome

7th Jul 2010, 12:09

Mariner9:

Interesting. The more I read regarding BASSA's continued performance the more I am pleased that BA has afforded non-member crew to make their own agreement with BA.

I believe there is high likelihood that BA has simply had enough of BASSA's unprofessionalism and are going to continue on and make them as irrelevant as possible which may be for the best for both BA and crew.

Redcap49:

Most individuals are quoting Mixed Fleet with the base and hourly but wasn't there also something about the ability for performance bonuses or am I simply not recalling the offer correctly?

Wiggy:

lol. Somehow the idea of Balpa members and its leadership cavorting with members of the Socialist Workers Union the way that the BASSA militants do seems impossible. Definitely a typo that made me smile.

The SSK

7th Jul 2010, 12:11

Mariner9 - or it could just be that as the company reverts to growth mode, the savings arising from a lower cost base will alos grow, in absolute terms.

Ancient Observer

7th Jul 2010, 12:15

Johno,
Yes, bassa and their "sympathisers" have obviously decided to put some effort in to that new spin, (aswell as putting effort in to re-writing history)

Redcap49

7th Jul 2010, 12:32

Diplome

Cant find anything other than basic salary plus hourly flight pay for New Fleet.There is a statement on the Mixed Fleet recruitment page which states that crew will be '' recognised and rewarded for the outstanding performance you demonstrate''.However,that doesn't necessarily mean financially.

Ancient Observer

7th Jul 2010, 12:42

Diplome, Wiggy,

At the risk of sounding a bit like an anorak, Chris Darke, who was the Gen Sec of Balpa from about 1992 did know some of the SW crowd, not through personal allegiance, but through his previous role at ASTMS (OK, later called MSF).
So Balpa are as capable as bassa at "being associated with" Socialist Worker.
They used to meet at a charming Westminster venue, which no longer exists, called the Victoria Club.

"Creative External Redeployment", anyone?

Diplome

7th Jul 2010, 12:55

Ancient Observer:

With all due respect, I don't expect to see groups of flight deck crew partying with the Socialist Worker crowd like those at Bedfont.

Both for reasons of personal selection and because its members understand just how damaging that is to public perceptions.

I've been giving some thought to your past comments regarding BA's difficulty with managers. Will be interesting, now that BA has shown strength regarding dealing with BASSA, if they continue with changing the mindset and performance of its managers.

I'm rather optomistic at the moment...not ecstatic, but optomistic.

Neptunus Rex

7th Jul 2010, 15:56

wascrew

7th Jul 2010, 16:59

neptunus

Things move on .......something the striking crew would do well to appreciate too

``Allowances paid in cash at HOTAC check-in``

It is cheaper (to BA) to have allowances paid and distributed by card anD dare i say it better for the crew too

LD12986

7th Jul 2010, 18:35

Having read 't'other thread,' why is the pay structure all so complicated? It must take a battalion of accounts staff to sort it all out each month. Why cannot they have:
Salary according to position and seniority
Overtime
Allowances paid in cash at HOTAC check-in
Any anomalies

Er...that's it. Seemed to work in my old company.

It's a hangover from the historical approach of throwing money at crew to make BASSA go away. I'm sure hundreds of thousands could be saved in administration costs by replacing the current system of box payments, destination payments, one down payments etc with a simple hourly rate. It would mean crew would have more consistent earnings every month. You could say it is a "win win". But it would mean that those in the know would no longer be able to play the system.

fincastle84

7th Jul 2010, 20:27

Is it my imagination or is this dispute just withering on the vine? Discussions on both this & the CC thread seem to be drifting without any direction. I guess that this means that Mr Walsh has won, just like the Spanish!:ok:

fincastle84

8th Jul 2010, 07:44

I totally agree. There is a hard core of CC, not all members of Bassa, who are totally self absorbed in protecting their allowances & outdated T&Cs.:ugh: I guess that this self absorbed navel gazing is a hangover from the many years of weak management at BA.
However, I still believe that the majority now realise that the game's up & they have to accept the latest offer & get on with their lives. I sincerely hope that I won't be disappointed.

Tigger4Me

8th Jul 2010, 10:30

Willie Walsh had previously stated that in the event of further IA he would be operating 100% of his long haul routes. In a report from Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6660LQ20100707) yesterday he is now stating 100% of ALL services will operate. I don't know if this is sufficient enough for you to readvise your friends as you seemed reluctant to turn them away from BA in the first place.

manintheback

8th Jul 2010, 12:45

johnoWhiskyX

8th Jul 2010, 13:08

@manintheback

And why do you think BA are saying they have to reduce costs?

RTR

8th Jul 2010, 14:31

I think I may actually have some sympathy for BASSAs claim that BA management are the ones destroying the airline. Just brought a Biz class ticket to Toronto and they want...wait for it........another £120!!!!!

Just a normal everyday occurrence on nearly all airlines these days. Those not doing it will be doing so soon. Don't Virgin charge for a booked seat? I think you'll find they do.

fincastle84

8th Jul 2010, 15:07

Just brought a Biz class ticket to Toronto and they want...wait for it........another £120!!!!! to choose my seat at time of booking

That's fairly common practice these days. You need to be silver or gold to avoid the fee. Alternatively, why bother on such a short route. There'll be plenty of choice 24 hours before departure.

At least the way the strike is crumbling you can sleep safe in the knowledge that the flights will operate.:ok:

ExXB

8th Jul 2010, 15:32

I think this seat-pay was one of BA's less successful income generators in terms of customer service and generally narking off pax who aren't Gold, Silver or full fare, if other forums where this is widely discussed can be believed.

Agree. They also have much better ways off narking off their Gold and Silver Pax. They do it very well.

PAXboy

8th Jul 2010, 16:36

ExXBThey also have much better ways off narking off their Gold and Silver Pax.You get what you pay for and you have to credit BA, they give a better class of narking off - it's Upper Class narking. :}

slf22

8th Jul 2010, 16:47

I think I may actually have some sympathy for BASSAs claim that BA management are the ones destryoing the airline. Just brought a Biz class ticket to Toronto and they want...wait for it........another £120!!!!! to choose my seat at time of booking - who on earth came up with that figure to charge and for a customer who just paid several thousand for a ticket - utter madness.
Of course the other way of looking at is if BASSA hadn't been quite so intransigent BA's management might not have been looking to make money by charging passengers for services they previously provided free.

Also I'm sure that I heard this is quite a successful revenue stream for BA, they recently put the prices up.

Diplome

8th Jul 2010, 18:40

PAXboy:

You get what you pay for and you have to credit BA, they give a better class of narking off - it's Upper Class narking

THAT comment nearly caused a fine mixture of Vodka and Tonic to shower my keyboard. :)

There is a statement on the main CC board that gives me shivers as being too close to what Ms. Malone was advocating in a recent vote (which caused a reballoting). BA does not need or, I hope, want to play this game.

I think we will all get the BA offer because BA has no way of knowing if we are current members or not. They are leaving it up to us to sign if we left before 25th or not sign.

I am pretty sure that you could sign the BA contract if you were still in the union because it would only be your word against theirs about when you left.....

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-49.html

Abbey Road

8th Jul 2010, 20:37

BA loses money on the London-Sydney route.And that is based on?

8th Jul 2010, 21:11

BA stopped flying London to Melbourne. So our money now goes into the pockets of Qantas. We would prefer to pay our money to BA. BA loses money on the London-Sydney route. Hopefully with the Mixed Fleet it could well be economic for BA to expand its business, flying to Melbourne and other similar places

BA used to fly to Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane as well as Sydney.

They were all popular routes, but costs do matter. Hopefully if they get the costs right then BA can start expanding again and employ more cabin crew not less.
Long term job security should be important but not to BASSA.

drew3325

9th Jul 2010, 12:29

An interesting response to a question posted to BF today - alas I cannot post on the other forum as am not Cabin Crew myself but the partner of one such Main Crew Member. The question was asked in relation to the Variable pay top up payment and BF has confirmed that the allowances (such as B2B etc) will continue to be paid as they are now but if these allowances to not amount to £6616 (main crew) for the year Nov 1 2010 - Oct 31 2011 then a top up payment to this amount will be paid. Earnings above the quoted figure are yours to keep. The rumours and scare mongering off all allowances disappearing seems to have been just that (think that goes back to the MTP which was on the previous offer which was withdrawn.

Having calculated the last years allowances earnt my partner for one would receive a top up payment of nearly £1000. (pehraps thats due to dire rostas!!!)

So what have you got to lose by not accepting the offer. I guess it needed someone to ask the question to clarify it from the "horses mouth" so to speak rather than listening to the "twaddle" on Galley FM and other sources. My partner for one was one who had believed they would have been worse off/lost out on the allowances.

Anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this new Variable Top Up Pay and allowances feel free to ask - am more than happy to paste in the full response from BF

Snas

9th Jul 2010, 12:48

Anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this new Variable Top Up Pay and allowances feel free to ask - am more than happy to paste in the full response from BF

I'm not happy with the clause that will remove the top up payment in the event of any future strike. The next one may well be fully justified after all.

The principle of such a penalty just doesnt sit well with me, it wont always be the current management team in place after all.

Litebulbs

9th Jul 2010, 13:42

JayPee28bpr

9th Jul 2010, 13:46

I'm not happy with the clause that will remove the top up payment in the event of any future strike. The next one may well be fully justified after all.

The principle of such a penalty just doesnt sit well with me, it wont always be the current management team in place after all.

I appreciate your point, but would ask whether it's worth rejecting the offer over one point of (theoretical) principle. If you have no immediate intention of going on strike, then the point at issue is pretty much irrelevant at the moment. If you scroll back a bit you'll find a link to a Bloomberg article I posted which basically says BA staff have a roughly 0% chance of winning anything by indulging in further industrial action.

My view on this is that the logical, rather than emotional, response to adopt is:

1. Accept the agreement, warts and all.

2. Find some representatives who are, well, more representative of staff to replace the ones you currently have. The main problem right now is that it's obvious how little (ie zero) respect current representatives command with BA's management.

3. Determine with those new reps what you would most like to change in the agreement.

4. Wait till BA's financial circumstances improve, which they will sometime! At that point BA will be more revenue-focussed and not so cost-focussed as now. There will come a time when they want staff to agree to something, at which point you can say "we'll agree to X but we want Y". Assuming you have colleagues who share your view on the linking of strike action and removal of top up payments, that can be the "Y" you ask for.

From the outside looking in, the best (least bad?) course of action right now is undoubtedly to accept the deal on offer and not try to negotiate it any further.

Skylion

10th Jul 2010, 18:42

It is unlikely that BA will resume MEL services as the result of its joint services agreement with Qantas has been that its brand identity has been practically wiped out in Australia and substantially diminished in South East Asia.
BA is now being seriously outplayed by Qantas and Asian carriers between its remaining Far East points and London as these offer higher frequencies and a much wider spread of services through the day including eastbound daylight services. BA's cabin crew rest agreements make it very difficult to offer these as their inabiliy to serve meals other than at the beginning and end of flights mean along period of relative famine in the cabin, something orientals in particular find it difficult to live with.A by-product of this is higher costs through lower aircraft utilisation as the eastbound aircaft have long layovers so that they can operate back overnight.This is another factor in their higher cost levels than their competitors on eastern services which goes some way to explaining their apparent lack of enthusiasm for developing business in this fast growing but often low yield area.

PAXboy

11th Jul 2010, 22:47

Thanks for that VERY informative background Skylion. As I have said before (too many times) the die is long cast and BA is at the end of it's natural life span. It has lost market share which would take years and high cost to recover. They have neither in hand.

I say this with no delight but simply as I see it. BA will not be in the form that it is now within five years. IRRESPECTIVE of the outcome of this dispute, because the mistakes were made 10 and 20 years ago.

In this regard, the problem is very similar to the financial crisis that finally blew up in 2008. It was started 20 years earlier and it was stonkingly obvious that it was going to happen. By the time it did blow up - those who created it were all safely retired and on the golf course. The ones who were fiddling at the time of the blow out - were small fry and just the children of the ones who made the problem. Sure, they were doing stupid things - but only because that's how it had always been in the 5/10/20 years they had been in the financial business.

Mankind is not so clever as to make lots of new mistakes - they just make the same mistake in different ways.
Game over.

Diplome

11th Jul 2010, 23:39

PAXboy: With all due respect I believe your post arrives to a conclusion that may be based more on personal opinion rather than market driven actions.

It has lost market share which would take years and high cost to recover. They have neither in hand.

BA's loss of market share is significant, but directly attributable to, for the most part, having within its ranks a small extreme and militant part of its Cabin Crew work force. BA is close, and only has to be in a position to declare victory over this disruptive cancer to be able to reassure the flying public that there flights are no longer endangered by the actions of this militant group and they can regain the trust of the flying public.

Game over.

Hardly that simple. There is a reason why BA has retained the advocacy of it's investors. Its because, due to BA's rather impressive actions, and its taking advantage of BASSA's mistakes in this episode, its not so much "Game over"..with the start of Mixed Fleet, etc., its rather more "Game On".

Diplome

12th Jul 2010, 09:51

Notlangley:

During the Malone et al., v BA action where BASSA attempted to restrain BA from implementing the one-down staffing changes there was testimony by BASSA members that seemed to leave the judge a tad stunned.

BASSA's sense of entitlement regarding having a say in the day to day business operations of the airline was incredible. Even more so when you consider that we are speaking of individuals such as Duncan Holley and Liz Malone. Hardly business executive material.

Betty girl

12th Jul 2010, 10:08

Skylion.
I think you will find that the rest requied on long range flights is set by the CAA and not something insisted upon by the union.

It may well be that other airlines flying under the flags of other countries may work to different agreements but I am sure that most have a similar system. On long flights there is a legal requirement to have a certain amount of bunk rest, depending on the flight length, in order that the flight can legally be that long.

I think it is great that you all take an interest in BA and it's crew but I find the level of mis-imformation very high. Sometimes it seems like people just think something and then type it out as if it is fact, not really having enough detailed knowledge of the subject to do so.

Diplome

12th Jul 2010, 10:22

I think it is great that you all take an interest in BA and it's crew but I find the level of mis-imformation very high. Sometimes it seems like people just think something and then type it out as if it is fact, not really having enough detailed knowledge of the subject to do so.

I believe the same comment could be made for BOTH threads.

PAXboy

12th Jul 2010, 10:48

DiplomePAXboy: With all due respect I believe your post arrives to a conclusion that may be based more on personal opinion rather than market driven actions.Which is why I said that I have held this view for a long time and the overall destiny of BA has very little to do with this particular dispute. Certainly, their failure to manage their own staff is a key facet of their downfall but by no means the only.

I do not think that the satisfactory resolution of this dispute (which I anticipate soon) will make any long term difference to their prospects. Yes, it will be 'Game On' for a while but companies rise and fall very slowly. I repeat that I do not say the above with any delight and do not work in the airline biz. I have worked in many varied fields of commerce and govt over the last 33 years (in multiple countries and for multinationals) and I am simply applying what I have seen everywhere else to BA. Perhaps they will buck the rest of the world and be the one that climbs back on top.

Betty girl

12th Jul 2010, 11:30

Diplome,
You are quite right. Many people that post on the cabin crew forum, work on the ground for BA or another airline or fly for another airline etc. or may just want to put a particular slant on things and as such incorrect information often gets posted on there too. I think it is a fault within all people in general, whether they fly or not, to post on forums with infomation they think is right even though they don't actually know it to be.

That's probably why this forum is called Professional Pilots Rumour Networks, because alot of what we read is just rumour. I do however try myself to make a distinction between what I know to be correct information and what I have heard as a rumour. Just having read the last couple of pages on this particular thread gave me the impression that people write things as fact when they actually don't know that to be true.

I certainly did not want to stop you making any comments because I do think it is very valuable to hear all of your points of view and I do hope that when all of this IA is over you are all brave enough to continue to fly with BA again. I value all our regular passengers and being on Eurofleet I often carry regular passengers over and over again and know some of you very well.

Thanks.

Diplome

12th Jul 2010, 12:00

PAXboy:

Ancient Observer has also posted concerns regarding BA's lack of leadership within its management ranks and also maintains that without changes in this area BA solving of its BASSA problem will have little effect in the long run.

Having been inspired by comments here and having my curiosity aroused I've done some searching regarding how BA arrived at this juncture and must agree that the leftover culture of being a state owned company still permeates certain areas and must be resolved.

However, I am encouraged at some of the actions being taken by BA management at the moment and am cautiously hopeful that the Board is looking to assert itself and drag this company into the 21st century.

One small step that I believe will have substantial downline positives is BA's insistence that Mixed Fleet will operate separately from present crew with no mingling.

Having mismanaged their relationship with BASSA for so long it seems that BA finally realize that the only solution is to finally take steps to marginalize the negative influence of BASSA's more militant members on their workforce.

Ancient Observer

12th Jul 2010, 12:51

Emptiness, despair, anger - a customer perspective

I was due to fly to holiday yesterday on a "package" holiday to Rome. It was not with BA.
The flight was cancelled with no reason given, while we were in the departure lounge, (the desk in the departures lounge thought it was due to lack of crew, but no "formal" reason was given).

I had forgotten the emotions involved when one's carefully planned and much looked-forward to holidays are brutally cancelled at no notice. The emptiness, despair and anger were all very strong. (I could go on and on about the emotions). Much stronger than I had remembered.

The BA CC who are still supporting this strike appear to have no concern whatsoever for their customers. They wanted strikes over Christmas, they went out on strike over the UK school holidays, and now they want another strike.

I'm just one family person. Will the potential strikers ever think of the many thousands of families and other people that they are seeking to disadvantage with their incredibly inward looking calls for strikes?............especially when they don't appear to even know what they are striking about, other than asking some very highly paid supervisors to push a trolley?

Some of the strikers say that they do care about their customers, and are striking for better service levels.

I am now completely clear in my mind that that is total and utter codswallop.

I think I've been relatively neutral in this dispute. I've blamed BA as much as CC. No longer. Whilst BA managers created the history that bassa could "run" the airline, all of that must now stop. bassa will end up with the same fate as the NGA. (I'll leave out the history lesson about the NGA)

Diplome

12th Jul 2010, 13:17

Ancient Observer:

I'm sorry your holiday was spoiled. How odd that no explanation was given.

I will happily admit that I dismissed all the early "We're striking for our customers" and "Its about maintaining service levels" rhetoric very early on after learning of the infamous "War of the Hot Towels".

Service cannot improve until BASSA is marginalized. They will fight any and all improvements unless there is a "trade" which, as they demanded in the hot towels case, amounts to millions of dollars in costs for the company.

Hope you and your spouse are okay and that you find a solution/alternative to this disruption.

ChicoG

12th Jul 2010, 13:35

During the Malone et al., v BA action where BASSA attempted to restrain BA from implementing the one-down staffing changes there was testimony by BASSA members that seemed to leave the judge a tad stunned.

BASSA's sense of entitlement regarding having a say in the day to day business operations of the airline was incredible. Even more so when you consider that we are speaking of individuals such as Duncan Holley and Liz Malone. Hardly business executive material.

The judge's eye-rolling comment on BASSA calling Nigel Stott in to criticise the removal of a crew member stood out for me: "For health reasons, Mr Stott has not participated in a flight subjected to the new regime".

Then they wondered why they lost!

:ouch:

Skylion

12th Jul 2010, 14:44

Thankyou Betty Girl but I do in fact know BA and what goes on rather well.
BA's cabin crew rest periods are generally way above CAA requirements and are configured in such a way- ie occupying all but the first couple and last of hours of long haul flights,- that mid flight meals are not possible,notably in World Traveller.Too often "To Fly to Rest" seems to be the guiding principle, and what I say about the resultant difficulties with 12 hour plus daylight flights are as I describe.
Another nonsense you will be familiar with on short haul is the refusal to treat a transit through Heathrow just like any other aiport and to require minimum layover times there which make it impossible to roster short haul aircraft, pilots and cabin crew to operate through it and stay together through the day's work. All 3 are rostered separately which results in massive disruption and cancellations once bad weather or whatever interrupts the schedules.The earlier in the day the problem occurs the greater the damage. The extended cabin crew LHR transist also mean that 4 sector days become impossible, thus generating more night stops=more crew=higher costs. One result is that other than as a feeder to long haul BA can not make money on nearly all of short haul despite the massive investment in aircraft etc it requires and would be well shot of it."Go" was probably the answer, failing which franchises which provided a BA branded operation at no cost to BA.