BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[jetset lady]

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.

Skylion,

This sort of rostering practice hapens at LGW too, despite us having less restrictions. We can report for a 2 day 6 sector trip and throughout that trip change aircraft and flight crew 3 times. Ironically, the flight crew we start with are often also on a similiar 2 day 6 and we'll bump into them again as we all check out at the end of the trip. Why don't they keep us together? It's never made much sense to me but then again, very little about BA's scheduling system makes sense! (Sore subject at the moment as trying to adjust from my run of late and deep night flights that finished at 0720 yesterday to the 0605 report for a 2 day 6 starting tomorrow...:uhoh:)

[Diplome]

jetset lady:

Interesting post.

Is there a perceived benefit to the way BA is rostering now? Something I'm not seeing?

Good luck on readjustment. It must make life interesting at times. :)

[Betty girl]

Skylion.
You are not correct in alot of what you say. As Jetset lady says the way cabin crew are rostered is alot do do with the fact that pilot rostering is done by a different department. Pilots use a different system of rostering, a bidline system, which in itself is very expensive and needs a high number of schedulers envolved but that is another matter. The two departments seem not to liase with each other as mentioned by Jetset lady. You would have to ask someone in schedualling why I would not want to guess the answer.

BA aircraft nightstop because it suits the schedual and because it would be impossible to park all the aircraft at LHR (as seen during the strike.) It has nothing to do with the way cabin crew are rostered or any agreements we have. Sometimes the union agreements are actually less restricting than the CAA scheme rules.

I really think it important for you to actually be sure of what you are saying and not make up stuff to suit the point you are trying to make.

You will loose any credibility you may have if you keep giving inacurate infomation out.

[Diplome]

You will loose any credibility you may have if you keep giving inacurate infomation out.


A tad harsh. It is possible to disagree, or exchange ideas, without getting too personal on this forum. We do it all the time.

When the discussions get a bit too...let's say "energetic" our Moderators have no problem reining the thread in.

We are customers, stockholders, etc., but not children and it is not beyond many of the participants capabilities to examine an issue and participate in reasoned exchanges.

As for this statement:

As Jetset lady says the way cabin crew are rostered is alot do do with the fact that pilot rostering is done by a different department.


That accurate observation was made by Skylion. Jetset lady quoted part of his post in her comments.

[Skylion]

Betty Girl: Whether you find what I have said to your liking or not I can assure you it is all accurate and should worry you as it is making BA uncompetitive from the costs, schedule/frequency(long haul to the Far East) and operational integrity point of view.On shorthaul for example, Easyjet, FlyBE and most , if not all, others roster the aircraft and both sets of crew together on the day although all 3 work different rosters and are just together for the day. The Easyjet normal crew pattern will be 4 sectors during the first part of the day for the first crew and a further 4 sectors by the aircraft for the second part of the with a new crew . Oh ,- and there won't be any early start or late finish payments either. On long haul there is no reason why BA should not operate westbound daylights ex Far East by introducing earlier departures eastbound to enable pre-midday departures on the return leg ex HKG, SIN in particular. They just choose not and not to increase frequencies, partly because of this service problem. As result CX are now 4 x daily on HKG and BA down from 3 to 2. A similar story exists in SIN where SQ now out perform BA on frequencies by operating daylights, ditto TG ex BKK. Sad but true.

[Betty girl]

Skylion.
At no time have I meant for you to get upset with my correction of what you have said. It is just that I notice that some of the reasoning behind what you suggest is not accurate.
I am not going to guess as to why BA roster cabin crew and pilots differntly and by different departments but for you to suggest that you know why and to type it out on a forum and have people congratulate you for informing them so well, is a touch anoying when it is obvious to many that you are just guessing.
I was just merely explaining that your assertion that it is cabin crew agreements that cause aircraft to nightstop was incorrect as too was your reasoning that the union insist on bunk rest when it is the CAA. I can assure you that the reason BA operate the current schedual out of Hongkong has nothing to do with cabin crew agreements. It is either for commercial reasons or because those are the only slots they are allowed.

I am a loyal BA cabin crew member who worked throughout the strike and I am happy for our agreements to be altered and updated. You only however have to go on to other threads written by pilots to see that even some of them are unhappy about totally being rostered to the max that the CAA schemes allow. There is a current thread in 'terms of endearment' by easyjet pilots with alot of them complaining about their rosters, which is an airline that you chose to quote as a good example of rostering.
As mentioned by Jetset lady at LGW where it is possible to roster pilots and cabin crew the same it is still not done. But even I as BA employee do not know the reason for that.

[jetset lady]

Diplome,

That's a really hard question and one you'll probably regret asking! I'll try to answer but this is only from my experience as crew, both in a charter airline that has operated a mixed flying programme for years and at BA, which has come to the party relatively recently. (I'm not included the earlier mixed fleet at LHR as they would have had different T&C's of which I know nothing about.) I also have no experience in flight ops or scheduling so there may be factors I know nothing about!

Is there a perceived benefit to the way BA is rostering now?

In my point of view, no. There may be initially as at LGW, they are certainly utilising the cabin crew to the max but it's all in a bit of a haphazard fashion. We jump around all over the place between earlies, lates and long haul. There's no rhythm, if that makes sense. We also jump around from aircraft to aircraft (bare in mind we are checked out on 3 types, with 7 variants. 737-400, A318, A319, A320, A321 and 777, 777 ER) We generally have 2 days off after long haul but can also do 6 days on short haul and only 1 day off on the end. The minimum days off in a month are 9, unless you take leave. Then the minimum days off will drop, depending on how many leave days you take. And finally, they also mix short haul and long haul in the same run. So like I say, in BA's eyes, it's great as we really are utilised to the full.

On the downside, we are tired. Very tired. And sickly too. The majority of crew are somewhere in the sickness policy process although I have managed to get out of it for now. We never get time to re-adjust. And because of the constant swapping around of flight and cabin crews, we rarely get to settle into a routine with a particular crew. I dread to think of the number of times that someone has asked me for the Captains name and I have had to shamefacedly reply, "Erm...Bob?...Fred?...George?...Chuck?...No, hang on I've got it. It's Susan!" That's awful but over a quick 2 day 6, that's the way it becomes. I know them but can't remember who's on what sector. And once we've figured out who the pilots are, we have to get to grips with what aircraft we're on. Over 7 sectors and 3 days, we can operate 737, 737, A319, 737, A319, A319, 777. It gets to the point that if another crew member asks for ice, you reply "No problem. It's over there...no it's not, it's down there...or up there...I don't know! :{ (We do make sure we know where the important stuff is on each flight. It's the little stuff that leave us scratching our heads!)

Luckily, as LGW is a small base and we obviously have all of the best pilots and cabin crew down here, it's not as bad as it could be! ;)

I think what I'm trying to explain with that long, weary and unintended whinge fest is that while this type of rostering may pay off in the short term, in the long term, I feel they are burning us out. In my previous airline, we were worked hard but in a more structured way that gave as a chance to adjust to each change of routine. Then again, they'd had many years of practice to get it right and we had a union that knew when to stand strong and when to give a bit back.

With BA, it feels like they haven't thought through how some of the scheduling agreements actually work in practice. Sadly, here we don't have the sort of mature representation that will sit with management and have a sensible, constructive discussion on what is and what isn't working, so as far as the management are concerned, everything is tickety boo. How long we can carry on like this, I don't know. :(

Does that make any sense?

[Diplome]

Jetset Lady:


That's a really hard question and one you'll probably regret asking!


Not at all. Certainly not when I have a member of Cabin Crew taking the time to truly explain to me what they are dealing with regarding rostering issues.


With BA, it feels like they haven't thought through how some of the scheduling agreements actually work in practice. Sadly, here we don't have the sort of mature representation that will sit with management and have a sensible, constructive discussion on what is and what isn't working....


An interesting statement. I know of a CEO that closes each of his staff meetings when they have made changes in procedure with the statement "It's done and on paper...but paper doesn't bleed, our employees do"..and I mean EVERY meeting that involves changes to conditions or procedures. He happens to have a great relationship with his unions and his workforce because he understands that companies must be willing to be flexible and adjust when what looked great at the meeting isn't transferring in the real world.

Hopefully, when these troubles are resolved and BA truly takes control of their future we will see more of this approach.

As for being Gatwick crew, you must realize you have many loyal BA customers who are huge fans of not only how you conduct yourselves, but how you conduct your flights. Gatwick is truly becoming the "Watch us spoil you" brand in BA.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond to my question. Your engagement is truly appreciated.

[Betty girl]

Jetset Lady.
Thank you also from me because that was a very good answer. Alot of people don't understand what the job entails and you have explained the rostering at LGW very well.
I seem to have managed to upset people for explaining why what they said was wrong or inaccurate and I apologise to anyone that was upset by my direct manner.

[TightSlot]

Thanks All - nicely handled

[Mocamps]

Jetset Lady,

Can I echo Diplome's comments and say that your contribution is much appreciated. Your post does at least give some idea of the hard work that you put in and I have to say that I could not imagine doing that sort of job long-term as you would surely burn out!

But please tell me, do you think that is the plan? I have heard it say that one of BA's biggest mistakes was in trying to make a career out of what is essentially a short-term job that people do in order to travel and enjoy the perks but ultimately leave and settle down. BA have created a career structure out of it, wrongly thinking that this would engender loyalty and that experienced staff would provide better service. What has happened instead is that people who should have really moved on have then found that they are unable to earn anything like the money they earn as Senior Cabin Crew in BA. They therefore stay on in a job that they find they increasingly do not enjoy and therefore become disillusioned and the whole plan backfires.

Do you think there is any truth in this? And if so, does the new fleet make more sense in the long run? And certainly for we passengers, as I think the general view is that the Gatwick crew are altogether more pleasant and are generally streets ahead of the Heathrow crew in terms of customer service

I personally would prefer not to fly with people like Miss M and Ava Hannah (but then I think they now seem to have retreated to BASSA HQ or LA or whatever!!)

Anyway, many thanks once again for representing your views so well.

[Diplome]

Betty girl:

Please don't feel as if you have "upset" anyone on this forum. Others will correct me if I'm misrepresenting the normal course of our exchanges here but we disagree from time to time, and will exchange links to information that we are basing our opinions on, learn from each other...but there is very little "upset" on this thread when it comes to discussing issues.

I might suggest that your statement..


I seem to have managed to upset people for explaining why what they said was wrong or inaccurate....


might be qualified with an "In my opinion".

I believe most of us appreciate your visits to our thread and I don't believe you have truly "upset" anyone. They just may have a different opinion. :)

..and thank you for working through the strikes and advocating a more progressive BA. Well done.

[jetset lady]

Thanks for the kind words regarding our base at LGW. We may be somewhat insignificant in the world of BA, (although I get the feeling that we've finally got ourselves noticed) and we certainly don't always get it right. I can think of numerous occasions when I have done or said something that still make me cringe! But the one thing you will find at LGW from top to bottom, left to right and throughout every department is a fierce sense of pride so to hear that the people that matter like flying with us is a huge boost!

Mocamp,

It's strange you should mention that. While watching my rubber ducks bobbing around in my pre bedtime bath, exactly the same thought crossed my mind. It'll be a shame if that is what they are intending, especially considering our already lower cost base. I think an airline needs a certain amount of "career" crew to pass on their experience and provide some stability and grounding to the ever enthusiastic, gap year Tiggers bouncing around the cabin! Good long term and short term crew compliment each other perfectly.

[Tigger4Me]

Tiggers bouncing around the cabin

Oh! How I wish, but not an option at the age of this Tigger. :{

Sorry for the interruption to normal service. Now back to the thread...

[Diplome]

ever enthusiastic, gap year Tiggers bouncing around the cabin!


That comment creates a rather wonderful visual.

One of the interesting results of this recent "process" is that Gatwick Cabin Crew have made themselves heard and they have declared themselves as owning the BA brand for quality service.

As SLF it is interesting that you have serious customers and corporate groups that are taking the time to truly look at the difference in service between the two centers, and Heathrow, who have rather (in my opinion) been rather pompous in their approach to Gatwick, et al., are finding themselves viewed as lacking.

I do agree..a mature Cabin Crew resource is essential for BA to draw on as they bring in new talent. However, it must be a driven leadership, with focus on the positive of what BA offers, and not what negative message has been issued by a rather disjointed leadership.

As a stockholder and client I can tell you that I agree wholeheartedly with BA's decision to segregate their Mixed Fleet from Heathrow crew...but I can also state that I would not have the same opinion regarding Gatwick.

Please understand that I'm fully aware that there are an amazing amount of motivated individuals at Heathrow, but it is going to take some time to solve the problem of the dark cloud they are dealing with...sad that so few can smear so many.

[PAXboy]

Diplome I certainly hope that BA recovers but time, experience and history are against them. When I read further in the thread today:
SkylionBA'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.Then you know it's serious! I was unaware of the no meals in the middle because I have avoided BA on 10hr+ sectors for 20 years. I did a couple of NYCs in WT and one to JNB in WT+ and they were reasonable.

But I gave up on BA after the Dirty Tricks effort. They did not need to do that and I only use them as last choice. Which is a pity because they are a good airline. Again, it gives me no pleasure to say these things - but BA is in their last phase.

[One Outsider]

I find it amazing that anyone would feel a need to explain or defend their working arrangements and relationship with their employer to a group who, for whatever reason, feels it is their business to know, question, comment and pass judgement on what is in fact none of their business.

[Shack37]

I find it amazing that anyone would feel a need to explain or defend their working arrangements and relationship with their employer to a group who, for whatever reason, feels it is their business to know, question, comment and pass judgement on what is in fact none of their business.


Considering that included amongst the posters on this thread are pax, CC professionals and shareholders/clients then, in my opinion, it is their business. Far from amazing it seems quite normal to me.

[wiggy]

Heritage Cabin Crew feel guilty that they have killed off the London-Melbourne route

I think it's a bit unfair to pin the " blame" for BA's Melbourne withdrawal on heritage Cabin Crew, they're being blamed for everyting else as it is.
BA's most recent withdrawal from many Antipodean destinations (e.g. AKL, BNE, PER, and latterly MEL) started well over a decade ago...in part to a combination of poor aircraft utilisation if the flight was a terminator (the aircraft ends up sitting on the ground at destination for 8 hours plus due to LHR slots) or poor load factors if instead of sitting on the ground the flight shuttled onwards...certainly < 100 pax on a SYD-MEL shuttle was not unusual, not good use of a 747.

BTW there are those who think BA only reinstated MEL as a terminator for a few years because of the origins of the BA CEO at the time :ok:

[Diplome]

Unite/BASSA will lobby BA shareholders today...though their use of the typical rhetoric will probably not help their pitch.

British Airways Union Asks Investors to Press Walsh for Deal - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-12/british-airways-union-asks-investors-to-press-walsh-for-deal.html)

Matthew Carr (sp.?), described as a retired BA cabin crew member, was just on Sky News and could have done a better job of representing the Cabin Crew's issues. Using the term "Little Willy" did not do much for his credibility.

[Mr Optimistic]

Considering what must be the total cost of a service to Australia and all that contributes to it, I find it rather hard to believe that cabin crew pay was the deal breaker.

[VC10andCounting]

For European airlines as a whole, on longhaul, cabin crew represents the biggest single cost category, after fuel. In the last two years it has overtaken sales/distribution/promotion costs, and maintenance & overhaul.

If you think it's easy to make money on Australian routes, think of the airlines who have abandoned the market - Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, Alitalia, Austrian, Olympic ...

[Betty girl]

Alot of people are just making stuff up on this forum to suit their own personal feelings.

First of all I will address the issue of the Melbourne service. This service was removed because of low loads when it was a part of a shuttle from Sydney or because of the bad utilisation of the aircraft, as mentioned by Wiggy, when it was a terminating flight direct from Singapore. Cabin crew costs pale into insugnificance compared to the costs of having an aircraft sit on the ground or fly with low loads. At certain times of the year the loads were ok but BA being a schedualled carrier has to fly and operate a year long schedual and unless a flight is full it cannot make a profit it has nothing to do with the crew costs.

BA does need to get it's crew costs down as well as get many of it's other costs down, but the example and reasoning that it is the cabin crew costs that caused this flight to be cancelled is completely incorrect.

The link up with Qantas as a full code share partner also played a part in the decision. Many of you may have noticed that British Airways flights to Austrailia are being operated out of Terminal 3 not Terminal 5 and this is also because of our strong link with Qantas and the need for both airlines to operate out of the same terminal.( I am not sure but I think I heard that this was at Qantas's request that we both depart from the same terminal at LHR.)

Now I will address the posts that suggest that BA does not operate flights from the Far East during the day because of the cabin crew union insisting on bunk rest longer than the legal requiremet.

This is yet again totally untrue and just made up information.

The maximum duty day of any one sector flight duty can vary between 11 hours to 14.3 hours long. The duty day starts 1 hour before the flight and ends at chocks. The length of the duty day depends on a number of factors and these are the rest taken before the flight and between the proceeding flight, the time of day of the departure and whether the crew is aclimatised to the time zone or not.

In order to extend a flight beyond the normal maximum duty day as above, and make it a long range flight, bunk rest is required for all the crew. The minimum bunk rest required is 3 hours. So as all Far East flights fall into the long range category, 3 hours is the minimum bunk rest legaly required and for some flights it could be 4 hours. The duty period is increased by one half of the total rest taken. So if three hours rest was taken then the duty day could be increased by 1 1/2 hours only and so 4 hours in the bunk extends the duty day by 2 hours only. So as you can see alot of bunk rest is required by the CAA to extend the flight duty day by just a small amount.

As 3 hours is the bare minimum for a shorter long range flight you can see how achieving this is hard for any airline. 3 hours rest plus 30 mins changeover, between one half of the crew with the other half, and then the second 3 hours rest equals 6 1/2 hours minimum removed from the time available for meal services to be completed.

Now take the time it takes to complete the initial bar and meal service on a flight. It takes approximately 3 hours from take off and until all the meal services are complete. The second smaller meal service takes 1 1/2 hours and it takes a further 1/2 an hour to prepare the cabin for landing. All this adds up to 11.30 hours of rest and service for a short long range flight. Even if BA wanted to do an extra meal service in the middle of the flight there would not be enough time. Or they could maybe put the second meal in the middle, between the two sets of cabin crew rests, but even on day flights many passengers may not want to be woken up or disturbed and then it would leave nothing to serve before landing. The other problem is that there is no space on board the aircraft for a third meal to be stored. The trolley space for even two meal services is very limited.
However BA do provide snacks throuout the flight available from the galley like pot noodles, crisps and buscuits etc.

Now I have gone into a lot of detail for you because I wanted some of you to understand the nature of long range flights and the legal requirement by the CAA for rest during the flight. BA do operate daylight flights to long range destinations and lack of catering space and the long time between meal services is a problem. But it is a problem for all airlines and not just BA.

An ex of mine worked as a pilot for THAI airways and as such I have flown on many of their flights and the bunk rest for their cabin crew is the same and the meal services are at the start and end of the flights just like BA's.

I feel like I have gone on alot but people seem to want to hear detail. It is obviously very anoying for me to see people write incorrect speculation as if it is fact and to rubbish BA cabin crew at the same time. BASSA are at fault for alot of things but crew rest on long range flights is not one nor is the schedual BA adopt nor is where BA fly to the fault of how much BA cabin crew are paid.

Thank you.

Now I hope I haven't upset anyone by explaining the facts and not just guessing the reasons for things. I know that alot of you have been upset by BASSA's industrial action and I too have been upset by this. As I said before I worked during the strike and wanted my union to negotiate not strike but it seems that this IA has caused people to try and blame crew for everything.

Some crew are paid well at the moment and BA are addressing this but I hope no one would want current crew, who have mortgages etc., to have their pay taken off them. Remember BA agreed to all our pay and conditions. Times have changed and the future costs are being addressed and I hope an agreement can be made.

[call100]

Alot of people are just making stuff up on this forum to suit their own personal feelings.

.
That's what happens when you get a lot of people with too much time on their hands and little else to occupy their lives......Forums eh??:rolleyes::)

[Python21]

From the Daily Telegraph website covering the BA AGM live

BA annual meeting live: striking cabin crew, air taxes, Iberia merger - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7887377/BA-annual-meeting-live-striking-cabin-crew-air-taxes-Iberia-merger.html)

11.25am ... Broughton gets the boot in

First up is Martin Broughton, the Chelsea supporting chairman who doubles up with a job at Liverpool FC. He wastes no time going in two-footed at Bassa - the militant wing of the Unite union that represents the cabin crew.

"They have misrepresented management to their members. They have misrepresented their members' views to management," he says. "The board's patience with Bassa has now been exhausted. "We will win the right to manage."

Walsh's round robin

Willie Walsh, the BA chief executive, picks up the theme, aruing that the airline has made the crew an offer that provides "a genuine opportunity to end this dispute".

IMHO this is good news and shows how the board is firmly behind Willie Walsh's actions

P21

[dollydaydream]

Great explanation there Betty - the only thing that upsets me is its QANTAS:p

[Diplome]

Python21:

Thank you for the link. The question and answer period was rather what I expected.

Never fun events when there is an industrial dispute. I agree that it does seem that the Board is still strongly backing Mr. Walsh which is good, in my opinion, for stockholders looking for the most productive result out of the BASSA situation.

[One Outsider]

I appreciate that betty girl and others are only trying to set the record straight, but you are in fact encouraging those who believe that with a ticket comes entitlement.

Theses 27+ pages have become the equivalent to a party line where people are gossiping about the private lives of celebrities that they believe they are entitled to know about because they once went to see a movie with them in.

Luckily it seems to be the same handful of people who don't seem to understand where the line goes.

[Betty girl]

Oh so sorry Dollydaydream. I will correct it now.
Spelling is not my best subject.
Many thanks.

[Betty girl]

One Outsider.

You are right but this forum is here and people, a few not all, are giving incorrect information out and even when they are corrected, by people that actually work for the airline, they continue.

I just wanted to explain things the way they really are because I am sure that alot of people that come on this thread actually might appreciate the facts not something made up and written as if it is fact. Not even an ' I think this might be the case' etc. is accoumpanied by some of these posts and then people say thank you to the posters for keeping them informed and explaining things to them, when infact alot of it is complete tosh.

As I said before I value all our customers and I don't mind that people have a view but what I would ask is that people make it clear if things are just an opinion or a view or maybe even ask someone, who might have more knowledge of the subject, if they feel it is true and pose their post as a question not as fact.

But having said all that I do think it is valuable to hear what outsiders to the industry think.

Many thanks

[Diplome]

I appreciate that betty girl and others are only trying to set the record straight, but you are in fact encouraging those who believe that with a ticket comes entitlement.


Patronizing, but an opinion you're entitled to.

I might suggest that as the strike is newsworthy it may be of interest for some individuals to discuss ongoing events.

As a stockholder and an individual who consults for two airlines in the States my curiosity is natural and it takes nothing to keep a window open from time to time to track progress.

This IA has the potential to have rather far reaching consequences and until such time as the Forum Moderators decide to eliminate passenger commentary I will continue participating.

[Betty girl]

Diplome,
If it makes you feel any better I usually find your posts very informative and interesting and I value your contribution.

Believe it or not I don't usually post on this particular thread. I did a month or so back when someone quoted what I had said, on another thread, out of context and more recently when I have seen incorreect information being said as if it were fact.

Most of the time I just have a look from time to time to see what people like you think.

[Desk Jockey]

First of all I will address the issue of the Melbourne service. This service was removed because of low loads when it was a part of a shuttle from Sydney or because of the bad utilisation of the aircraft, as mentioned by Wiggy, when it was a terminating flight direct from Singapore. Cabin crew costs pale into insugnificance compared to the costs of having an aircraft sit on the ground or fly with low loads. At certain times of the year the loads were ok but BA being a schedualled carrier has to fly and operate a year long schedual and unless a flight is full it cannot make a profit it has nothing to do with the crew costs.


Not true that a flight cannot make a profit unless it is full. I pick that up because the issue of posters making things up was raised. I'd hazard a guess that full flights don't always make a profit either. It's a lot more complex than that.

[jetset lady]

I appreciate that betty girl and others are only trying to set the record straight, but you are in fact encouraging those who believe that with a ticket comes entitlement.

I had intended to answer your original point this morning but at 0430, my fingers and eyes refused to co-ordinate with each other.

When our relationship with our employer starts to seriously disrupt those that have bought a ticket to fly with us, then I'm afraid it does become their business and they have every right to ask questions.



ever enthusiastic, gap year Tiggers bouncing around the cabin!

That comment creates a rather wonderful visual.

Diplome,

I am rather regretting that comment as in the cold light of day, I've realised what that makes me, the long termer! :{ :{ :{

http://i32.tinypic.com/2hn6x53.jpg

And I didn't look to dissimilar from that this morning....

[ExecClubPax]

Nice one Jetset Lady. I worked at Gatwick for the best part of 40 years and I can tell you after most night shifts I looked like that too. Good to see you still have a great sense of humour.

[Betty girl]

Desk jocky i think you are splitting hairs. I will clarify that for you. Unless it is full most of the time, or the airline is able to charge very high fairs because of lack of competition etc etc etc.
I think my post was detailed enough but there I have added that in for you.
Plus I completely forgot to mention the much higher fuel costs at the moment that affect many flights that were once profitable but now no longer are.

[Betty girl]

That's really clever Jetset lady. I feel like that sometimes too.

[jetset lady]

I worked at Gatwick for the best part of 40 years and I can tell you after most night shifts I looked like that too.

Whaddaya mean after? That was when I started! :(

(Sorry. No more thread drifts, I promise!)

[SamYeager]

@Betty girl Thank you for your detailed explanation of the requirements for CC on long haul. :ok:

[Shack37]

One Outsider said:
I appreciate that betty girl and others are only trying to set the record straight, but you are in fact encouraging those who believe that with a ticket comes entitlement
.

So, to use an extreme example, a customer pays several thousands of £s for a long haul flight, LHR to wherever. No entitlement?
With a ticket does come entitlement as defined by the Ts & Cs (a favourite Bassa theme)

[One Outsider]

When our relationship with our employer starts to seriously disrupt those that have bought a ticket to fly with us, then I'm afraid it does become their business and they have every right to ask questions.

If people have a problem with the product they have purchased they should take it up with the company via the relevant department. Their business is with the company not individuals or groups of employees.

The terms and conditions of employment is a matter between employer and employee only, it is nobody else's business. If anybody believe that the relationship between employer and employees affect the product offered, then either don't buy the product or address any grievances to the company. It is not ok to personalize it by singling out individuals or groups.

As I said, luckily it seems to be only the same handful of people who believes that purchasing a product from a company gives them certain rights and entitlements that extend beyond the product purchased, including the personal affairs of employees.

That is just not on.

[Diplome]

Whaddaya mean after? That was when I started!


Jetset Lady:

I've had a few of those myself. Never a good thing :)

Betty girl:

Thank you. As I stated earlier, I believe that most of the individuals that post here absolutely enjoy the exchange with staff....especially when questions arise.

I can assure you that there are many posters here who have a greater knowledge regarding this dispute, communications, court testimony, etc., than some Cabin Crew. Its been a fun and interesting mental exercise, though an unfortunate and serious undertaking for many.

[Diplome]

As I said, luckily it seems to be only the same handful of people who believes that purchasing a product from a company gives them certain rights and entitlements that extend beyond the product purchased, including the personal affairs of employees.



A small group here, granted, but you would have to be in denial or avoiding every newspaper article, travel forum, business forum, etc., to think that there isn't a quite sizeable number of individuals commenting on the BA/BASSA issue.

Both BA and BASSA have made specific requests for the public and/or stockholders support. That support isn't obtained without questions.

The fact that you have commented in both this thread and on the Cabin Crew thread reveals your own interest in the subject.

[Snas]

The terms and conditions of employment is a matter between employer and employee only, it is nobody else's business.


Err, until the employee stands in the street waving a banner about stating (often incorrectly) those T's & C's. or indeed screams at me from a passing bus, or takes out a full page advert in the paper, or produces a video with a poor CC member explaining her woes, or causes my annual holiday to be cancelled, or.....

I think privacy in this issue went a log time back....

[TightSlot]

Just so that we're all clear - This is an open thread, and for the reasons well-covered by Diplome, Snas and others, it is available to all for comment.

In so being, it serves a useful function for all sides in the dispute, and indeed, will do so in the aftermath.

BTW - Always wondered - what is a 'math' for an aftermath to come after?


:E

[PAXboy]

Desk JockeyNot true that a flight cannot make a profit unless it is full. I pick that up because the issue of posters making things up was raised. I'd hazard a guess that full flights don't always make a profit either. It's a lot more complex than that.Indeed it is, it also depends to a large degree if the financial instructions of the Board or CEO is for a route to make a profit across:
A year
A quarter
A month
The combined round trip
Every single rotation
etceteraSome routes may not break even all year but are sufficient to keep the route as a feeder or because the peak seasonal covers the shortfall of other seasons. Complicated it certainly is.

[Papillon]

Indeed so, Paxboy. And even then it can be more complex, because some routes that are largely point to point, almost pure corporate travel are known to generate significant profits even on 40% load factors if properly inventory managed, much to the surprise of operations who'd promptly can the service during disruption in favour of busier routes and then wonder why they got shouted at by Commercial...:=

[Betty girl]

PAXboy

Of course it is complicated. That is exactly why it is so unfair of people to completely blame BA cabin crew for all it's woes. Which is what has been going on on here alot recently.

We are aparently to blame for the service BA provide on it's long range flights!!!

We are aparently the reason why BA pulled out of Melbourne!!!!!

We seem to all have been condemed as the devil itself whether we went on strike or not.

I mentioned flights being full because that was relevant to the route that was being discussed Melbourne. It was cancelled as a result of the low loads partly.

Yes lots of flights can be shown to make a loss. Most of the Eurofleet network makes a loss on paper and this is because profit is worked out on kilometer flown. So therefore for someone flying from Amsterdam to Los Angeles the bulk of the ticket profit goes to the longhaul sector, but of course without the shorthaul sector feeding into longhaul, longhaul could not make that profit. So yes it is very complicated and not all black and white as some of you seem to think.

I am sorry if I seem a bit touchy but I do realise some of you are unhappy that some of my collegues went on strike but that does not make every thing wrong with the airline industry the fault of BA cabin crew.

Incidentaly as Easyjet was used as an example by one poster of perfect rostering. Easyjet cabin crew may not get early report payments ect. but they take home more that BA eurofleet main crew do.

[Papillon]

I mentioned flights being full because that was relevant to the route that was being discussed Melbourne. It was cancelled as a result of the low loads partly.

Double drops very rarely make commercial sense. They're usually done for prestige reasons more than anything, to expand a network. It isn't hard to work out why - effectively you're reducing the available inventory on the primary route for one thing, as well as the whole matter of utilisation and direct operating cost.

[Diplome]

Betty Girl:


We seem to all have been condemed as the devil itself whether we went on strike or not.



I would strongly disagree with this statement. Most posters here have repeatedly thanked the non-striking Cabin Crew and mosts post differentiate between the two.

You are entitled to your opinion but expect healthy debate when someone disagrees with a stance. So far the only thing I see you as having an issue with is statements made regarding rostering issues.

That's only one subject out of the many that have come up for discussion here.

[LD12986]

London-Australia is a difficult route to operate if your hub is at one end of the route, rather than at one of the stopovers enroute.

Cultural/historical links aside, it is telling that BA and Virgin are the only European airlines to operate to Australia.

I think if BA had the choice it would pull out of Australia altogether and transfer passengers to Qantas at BKK/SIN, but WW has said that BA needs to serve SYD if it is to be seen as a global airline.

Virgin launching adding HKG-SYD to its HKG route made no sense commercially and seemed to have been done for reasons of vanity more than anything else. They cannabilised their loads on LHR-HKG as a consequence.

[Litebulbs]

On the downside, we are tired. Very tired. And sickly too. The majority of crew are somewhere in the sickness policy process although I have managed to get out of it for now. We never get time to re-adjust.

I note that none of the interested parties made much comment on these words. I am sure maximising stock value is far more important to some, than the words contained above. I am sure more sweating of assets will increase dividend payouts.

[LD12986]

I note that none of the interested parties made much comment on these words. I am sure maximising stock value is far more important to some, than the words contained above. I am sure more sweating of assets will increase dividend payouts.

BA cabin crew's working hours in the air and duty hours are within the limits set by the EU.

If there are problems with the current rostering system at LGW, then that begs the question why their BASSA representatives have not raised it with management and offered constructive proposals to improve it.

Answers on a postcard...

And do you know how many times in the past ten years BA shareholders have actually received a dividend?

[R Knee]

You'm beain't from round ere then, but then you're probably a bit younger too.

aftermath:
a second crop or growth of grass in the same season,
after the first harvest or mowing

[15th century. < math 'mowing' < Old English mæþ]

[Papillon]

I note that none of the interested parties made much comment on these words. I am sure maximising stock value is far more important to some, than the words contained above. I am sure more sweating of assets will increase dividend payouts.

Try working for yourself, Litebulbs. No sick pay, no chance of a paid day off, nothing. If I'm confined to my bed, I get not a penny from anyone. I don't recall ever getting a shred of sympathy from anyone about that - my choice, my downside. Everyone chooses what they do, and there are good points and bad points. I can point to things like final salary pension schemes if you would like me to?

[Litebulbs]

I am sure BA would be receptive when the current plan, as it appears to get, at best, to the LGW model.

[Mariner9]

I note that none of the interested parties made much comment on these words. I am sure maximising stock value is far more important to some, than the words contained above.

The thrust of Jetset Lady's excellent post that you have selectively quoted Litebulbs was that current scheduling (presumably agreed/decided by BASSA) is a mess; it was far better in her previous airline where the union had co-operated with management to agree a sensible system.

I would imagine most contributors to this thread would wish that a similar relationship between BA & a sensible CC union existed.

[Litebulbs]

Everyone chooses what they do, and there are good points and bad points.

Working so much that it make you sick is just a bad point? I'm sure kids up chimneys is a cost effective job too?

[Diplome]

R Knee:

Well done :ok: (addendum: By the way, where did you find the source. I looked for it after the query but first search came up rather blank)

Mariner9:


was that current scheduling (presumably agreed/decided by BASSA) is a mess; it was far better in her previous airline where the union had co-operated with management to agree a sensible system.

I would imagine most contributors to this thread would wish that a similar relationship between BA & a sensible CC union existed.


Exactly...and "sensible" being the optimum.

Perhaps Cabin Crew will be address their representation after this dispute is behind them. It would be a great step forward for Cabin Crew and BA.

[Litebulbs]

The thrust of Jetset Lady's excellent post that you have selectively quoted Litebulbs

And most of you ignored. I am reasonably sure that the duty of care lays at the employers door.

[Litebulbs]

Mods,

Well done:ok:

[R Knee]

Fair comment butterfly, (569)

If the regulators (CAA etc.) deem it legal then it the shortfall may be the lifestyle of those complaining.

It is the responsibility of crew to ensure they make the best effort to maximise their rest period to comply. There are ample opportunities within those regulations to enjoy 'stopovers', and this has been and should remain a benefit of the job. However, it is also the crew's (including FO's) responsibility to inform the aircraft commander of any shortfall in their rest requirements and any captain must take this into consideration before allowing their participation as one of his crew, especially when deciding to operate into allowable extensions of duty hours. It cannot, nor should it ever, be used against that crew member in disciplinary proceedings for circumstances outside their personal control.

I see that Litebulbs, as a nonflying, nonBA (self confessed) employee of another airline (therefore quite legitimately entitled to post on both forums), ignores responses to his oneliners.... or will this provoke a thoughtful response? I enjoy his input and welcome further.

I see you're still online...

[Mr Optimistic]

you forgot to add the 4-1 drubbing England got against Germany: you all have much to answer for:)

[Litebulbs]

So you are implying that jetset lady has a lifestyle issue? What an absolutely great post it would have been, apart from the tiredness and sickness. Best posters learn to only supply examples that support the froth.

[R Knee]

and............

[Papillon]

Working so much that it make you sick is just a bad point? I'm sure kids up chimneys is a cost effective job too?

You're comparing the life of cabin crew to working up a chimney? You don't think you're being a teensy bit melodramatic here?

[Tiramisu]

Litebbulbs said,
I am reasonably sure that the duty of care lays at the employers door
That wasn't in question. As R Knee pointed out, it works both ways. It's your duty to declare that you are fit, well and rested when you sign in before every flight.

So you are implying that jetset lady has a lifestyle issue? What an absolutely great post it would have been, apart from the tiredness and sickness. Best posters learn to only supply examples that support the froth.

BA cabin crew are not unique and I'm sure they work just as hard on other airlines and are just as tired. The way I see it, if you can't cope, leave. Someone else will happily do your job, no point blaming BA again.

[Litebulbs]

Not a lot I can say to that.

[R Knee]

Thanks for the support Tiramasu and Pappi

It is always better if I'm posters fully read what is said in a post rather than picking their own limited selection.

The point is -


Crew should be aware they are ALLOWED to be tired &/or sick, but -

it is their legal responsibility to make the aircraft commander aware of any personal limitations as to their fitness to operate.

Is this not an important flight safety/CRM issue? You should not operate (or maintain) an aircraft when unfit for whatever reason. One's personal duty of care actually encompasses other crew members and passengers as any professional would understand.

[Tiramisu]

That's unlike you Litebulbs.;)
We value your thoughts and contribution as a UNITE REP.

R Knee,
What you posted is factually correct and BA are extremely supportive to crew who are unfit to fly or are on long term sick. I assure you the Duty of Care is there. Also if someone knowingly comes to work when they are are sick or tired, they are jeopardising the health and safety of customers and colleague alike.

[Diplome]

I don't believe Jetset lady was being unreasonable in her observations. We have all at times complained to individuals when experiencing a few days of "scramble".

She made overservations where she thought improvements could be made and expressed that hope that eventually Cabin Crew would have representation that would actually be able to negotiate on their behalf. Nothing I see that is unreasonable on its face.

Many is the time when an individual will say "I'm exhausted, will I make it through this day" when in reality they are embelishing just a bit to make a point.

I find the fact that there are issues that could be improved to be reasonable...in a large organization there are always procedures that can be improved.

I'm optomistic changes will occur that will make progress possible.

[PAXboy]

Betty girlOf course it is complicated. That is exactly why it is so unfair of people to completely blame BA cabin crew for all it's woes. Which is what has been going on on here a lot recently.I agree. The situation now, as in the past is nothing to do with the unions but all to do with the mgmt.

In years gone by, many unions rightly enabled their members to be better paid than in previous generations. Then, as human beings do, they pushed rather further. Many companies and governments allowed them to push further. Then came the time when they had pushed too far and so the pendulum started to swing back. In some companies it still is.

But, repeating myself, the mgmt of BA that messed it all up are long gone, bonus' paid and out of reach. I hope that some of them are thinking, "Phew, I got away with it." and know that they made a mess of it.

For the record and nay newcomers to this forum, I have never worked in the airline biz and have never held any shares in any airline biz.

[Ancient Observer]

Betty Girl,

You posted earlier some "rules" that you said came from the (UK) CAA in its regulation of cabin crew working time, in relation to long haul routes.

I think you will find that those "rules" that you quoted are not UK CAA rules for Cabin Crew. Those "rules" sound more like BA's own rules for CC, and might be derived from their rules for folk at the pointed end.

The only rule for CC that the CAA regulate is the implementation of the (daft) EU rule about block flying time for CC which was introduced sometime in 04/05. (The UK did not want those rules, they were put in place by the EU when UKREP, which represents the UK in EU dirty deals and negotiation, did not know what it was agreeing to. BA/Virgin et al had the opportunity to help inform UKREP, but did nothing. Nothing new there, then.)

Now, it is entirely possible that I am wrong, and if so, I would be delighted to be educated.

If those rules are CAA rules, would either you, or one of your colleagues, point me in the direction where I might find those UK CAA rules. I've looked at the CAA website and despite an exhaustive search, I can't find them.

[Hotel Mode]

The only rule for CC that the CAA regulate is the implementation of the (daft) EU rule about block flying time for CC which was introduced sometime in 04/05.

Thats untrue. The CAA are the regulatory authority (partly subservient to EASA) in the UK, and its their regs that apply.

Try CAP371 - Avoidance of fatigue in aircrews, from which the BA scheme is derived.

CAP 371 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=22)

Some of Betty girls assertions arent quite correct (time after arrival doesnt count for example) but the essential thrust is. Far East - London cannot be done legally without the cabin crew all getting 3 hrs in the bunks. Under CAA rules however this need not be consecutive, so if BA wanted to have a middle meal service, under CAA regs it could be done by splitting the breaks.

[ChicoG]

One outsider said:

If people have a problem with the product they have purchased they should take it up with the company via the relevant department. Their business is with the company not individuals or groups of employees.

But this is a discussion forum, not BA's complaint help line.

The subject matter is Pax and SLF's thoughts and questions on the BA Strike. If you don't like certain people's thoughts or questions, you can skip them and move on.

But I'm afraid if a pattern emerges of a certain group of cabin crew working, say, during a certain time, exhibiting a cheerful and happy demeanor, that means cheerful and happy (and returning) customers.

On the other hand, a bunch of sour-faced, lazy, miserable, look-like-they've-been-there-too-long cabin crew working at another time can put passengers off flying BA.

As a passenger, these things are important to me. The strike appears to have helped identify which group is which.

Ergo, I'd rather be spending my money getting looked after by the former than the latter.

Ironically, it's usually only people from the latter group that complain that passengers don't know enough to comment or should have no business doing so. They probably throw away comment cards that are critical of their service.

The former are very happy to listen to praise or justifiable criticism and learn from it - although in fairness they probably rarely receive criticism. Unlike the latter, who act as if pax are a massive inconvenience to their jollies.

Those are my thoughts, on the PPrune Pax & SLF discussion forum on BA strike - thoughts and questions.

Ayethangyou.

[Shack37]

ChicoG

Exactly what I wanted to say but put much better.

:ok:

[Ancient Observer]

Hotel Mode,
thank you for that. I did look hard in the CAA web-site, found cap 371, but did not get as far as section c, annexe a, page 15, as my very faulty memory had associated cap 371 with those from the pointed end only.
thanks
AO

[bizdev]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with regard to the customer/passenger. Many on these threads have dismissed the CC role as an overpaid trolly dolly role that anyone working at Tesco's could do. But what about their 'worth'.

As a frequent flyer (silver) the CC are, for me, the main factor in determining whether I have an enjoyable or an unjoyable flight, (I use on-line check in and rarely use the IFE) - other than freezing cold red wine, but that's another story.

I think this is where WW faces his biggest challenge in bringing deserted pax back to BA - a happy CC worforce will be central to this.

bizdev

[ChicoG]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with regard to the customer/passenger. Many on these threads have dismissed the CC role as an overpaid trolly dolly role that anyone working at Tesco's could do. But what about their 'worth'.

There are two sides to that coin. Many on other forums (than PPrune) have paid scant regard to how their actions on and off the aircraft affect passengers, which affects future bookings, and thus their livelihood.

[Betty girl]

Thanks Hotel mode. Yes I think you are right it should be chocks not 30 mins after chocks, my mistake, I apologise for that but of course that makes no difference to the rest requirement on the Hong Kong flights.

And yes you are right it can be broken up (but you will notice that I did not say it had to be in one block).This is however not done because with the added extra changeover times from one half of the crew to the other this would actually take up more time when crew could not be used to do the services onboard.

As I explained a mid flight meal could be done in between the two sets of cabin crew breaks but as I said, even on a day flight alot of passengers prefer to sleep and don't want to be woken up halfway through the flight and as I also said, there is only enough catering space for two meals.

However I have heard of a Capetown day sector where the CSD did actually serve the second meal between the two cabin crew breaks because the first meal that had been served was a small snack and all the passengers were very hungry. That was of course a decision he took on the day, it was not the way BA had laid down that it be done.

My post was, though, in reply to a poster who was insisting that the crew rest was a union agreement and was the cause of no food mid flight. I was explaining that the breaks were a CAA requirement and taken in the middle of the flight because that is the way BA wants it, nothing to do with the union. So that is why I went into so much detail but even with all that detail people still choose to rubbish it.

Thanks though for confirming that cabin crew legaly require rest in flight as well as pilots. Many people just think of us as waiters and waitreses but of course as well as that we have to be rested enough to conduct an evacuation if required etc.etc.

Many thanks

[Betty girl]

Ancient Observer.

I can't help noticing that you said thank you to Hotel Mode for setting you straight but you never said sorry to me for telling me I was incorrect.

Just an observation.

[cavortingcheetah]

I have just removed this post below from the special slot where only those who work for airlines are allowed to post. I suppose it's not good just having my own airline because I'll just be told I don't work because I am the boss. Anyway, before any further ructions occur, here is an article from today's FT. Apparently this article is readable by subscription only?

For those who do not want to register.....

BA board faces volley of attacks at AGM
By Pilita Clark, Aerospace Correspondent

Published: July 13 2010 11:07 | Last updated: July 13 2010 20:54

Willie Walsh was jeered, heckled and booed over his handling of the British Airways cabin crew dispute at what could be the last annual meeting of the airline in its current form.

The BA chief executive, and at times the airline’s entire board, endured a volley of attacks by shareholders, many employees, at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster over the strikes that have cost lossmaking BA close to £150m since March.

“Nobody has the guts to question you,” one female flight attendant told Mr Walsh, adding “there’s nothing but fear and loathing” at BA’s headquarters near Heathrow.

A stony faced Mr Walsh, who noted some cabin crew had depicted him “as Hitler or as the Devil” during the walk-outs, said he made no apologies for telling them facts they may not wish to hear, prompting the flight attendant to retort icily: “I’m not a child Mr Walsh.”

It was the first time Mr Walsh had to confront his cabin crew employees publicly since they began voting for a series of stoppages late last year.

Although BA has had to cope with the losses and the bad publicity, it has already done what it set out to do.
While the row was originally sparked by what Unite said was the imposition of crew reductions on long-haul flights, it has since shifted to the staff travel benefits BA removed from striking workers this year and has said will only partially restore. The crew reductions are no longer central to the dispute.

Nevertheless, strikes are still on the agenda. Crew are now voting in a fresh ballot that could lead to further strikes in late summer, depending on the results, due on July 20.

BA has been backed by its largest shareholders and much of the City. Analysts generally look beyond the unrest to annual savings of some £160m BA says it will eventually make after cutting crew numbers on long- haul flights and recruiting cheaper new crew at its main base of Heathrow.

Airlines around the world have suffered industrial unrest as many struggle with large losses during the recession.

Perk concern
Cabin crew were not the only outspoken critics at BA’s annual meeting, writes Pilita Clark.

Some shareholders expressed dismay at the prospect of losing their own travel benefits and seeing future AGMs shift to Madrid if the airline’s merger with Spain’s Iberia goes ahead.

“Why the hell are we going to Madrid?” one investor asked BA board members. ”It’s clear where BA is and here we should stay. If you want to go and have your jollies over there, go, but leave us here!”

Under the terms of the proposed tie-up, future AGMs of the combined group and most board meetings would be in Madrid.

Another shareholder asked what would happen to the 10 per cent discount on publicly advertised fares, that BA shareholders can now claim, if the Iberia merger was completed as planned by the end of this year.

Martin Broughton, chairman, said shareholders would have a chance to vote on the merger later in the year, adding that BA was looking into broadcasting Madrid AGMs by video so UK investors could take part.

Shareholder travel benefits, which Iberia investors do not enjoy, would be up to the new board. “We will be seeking to continue a shareholder discount but I can’t give you any guarantees on it.”

Such feisty AGM scenes will not be repeated at next year’s meeting – at least, not in London – if BA’s attempt to merge with Iberia, the Spanish flag-carrier, is completed as planned by the end of this year.

The newly combined company, to be known as International Airlines Group, will be registered in Madrid and hold most of its board meetings and all shareholder meetings in the Spanish capital.

Mr Walsh will become IAG’s chief executive if the merger goes through, leaving Keith Williams, BA’s current finance director, to run a BA operating company and deal with any remnants of the bitterly fought cabin crew strike.

While many of the most critical speakers and hecklers at Tuesday’s AGM were airline cabin crew or in one case, a 777 pilot, others said they were ordinary shareholders who were, as one put it, “very saddened by the cabin crew situation”, which has seen 22 days of stoppages and thousands of cancelled flights since March.

“I just feel this situation has created long-term damage to the brand,” said one man who described himself as a “shareholder and Executive Club member”.

Another man was cheered as he accused the board of awarding generous bonuses to top managers even though BA has failed to pay a dividend after making record pre-tax losses of nearly £1bn over the past two years.

“You do seem to be feathering your own nests at the expense of the shareholders you are supposed to serve,’’ he said.

An at times exasperated BA chairman Martin Broughton defended the bonuses and said the BA board “stands firmly behind Willie and the management team”.

“The board’s patience with BASSA has now been exhausted,” Mr Broughton warned, referring to the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association, a division of Unite.

“Willie is often depicted by BASSA and Unite as adopting a confrontational approach to industrial relations,” he said, adding that Mr Walsh had successfully negotiated new work practises with 16 separate union bargaining groups across the business.

But it was Mr Walsh – who has himself not taken a bonus and worked for no salary for a month last year – who suffered the most strident attacks.

One speaker accused him of allowing BA staff who could not swim and were “unable to fasten their seat belts” to apply to be volunteer cabin crew as part of the airline’s strategy of flying through the strikes. Mr Walsh said only Civil Aviation Authority-approved volunteers had been allowed to work.

Another accused him of ignoring BASSA’s offer ahead of the strikes to make at least £52m in savings. Mr Walsh said BASSA made clear the offer was more a temporary “loan” that in no way matched the permanent structural changes BA needs.

Afterwards, he told reporters, “I really enjoyed it”, adding “it gave me the opportunity to address a lot of issues”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see BA cease to exist in its present form fairly soon and to be taken off shore entirely. WW's just got to sort out the pension fund and then, once the airline is in Madrid, he'll be able to staff it entirely using people from South and Central America, with the exception of Brasil of course, using the favoured nation status that Spain offers to its former overseas colonies which will allow him to circumvent EEC labour protection laws.

[jetset lady]

If the regulators (CAA etc.) deem it legal then it the shortfall may be the lifestyle of those complaining.

Hang on a second, R Knee. I wasn't complaining, although I did jokingly apologise for my whinge fest! I was asked if the rostering practices at LGW provide any benefits to the company. My answer was that in my opinion, whilst they may short term, long term could be a different matter. Now, this lifestyle thing you talk about. What's one of those then? ;)


It is the responsibility of crew to ensure they make the best effort to maximise their rest period to comply. There are ample opportunities within those regulations to enjoy 'stopovers', and this has been and should remain a benefit of the job. However, it is also the crew's (including FO's) responsibility to inform the aircraft commander of any shortfall in their rest requirements and any captain must take this into consideration before allowing their participation as one of his crew, especially when deciding to operate into allowable extensions of duty hours.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the crew to maximise the rest but that's not always as easy as it sounds. This is the week I am currently halfway through...

Fri - Report 1650 LGW-XXX-LGW
Sat - Clear LGW 0025 Report 2105 LGW-XXX-LGW
Sun - Clear LGW 0720
Mon - Day Off
Tues - Report 0605 LGW-XXX-LGW-XXX Clear 1310
Wed - Report 0520 XXX-LGW-XXX-LGW Clear 1315
Thu - Report 1355 LGW-XXX-LGW-XXX Clear 2225
Fri - Report 1510 XXX-LGW-XXX-LGW Clear 0045

(Tues and Thur were/are out station nightstops and I have taken out the destinations to try to protect my identity somewhat)

That roster is perfectly legal but I have gone from 2 deep night flights, had one day off and then straight onto early flights. And before this, I'd had 2 days off following 3 days of shorthaul and a bullet longhaul so a 6 day run and time zone change. Maximising your rest isn't easy when you're constantly jumping around like that.

That is the problem we have at LGW. The above is not an abnormal roster and yes, it can be sustained in the short term but long term, we are running into problems.

I don't actually blame the company, although I think more research could have been carried out at the start. As I said, my previous airline had had many years of practice to hone mixed fleet rosters. (Is hone a word? Sounds right but looks wrong and my brain won't come up with an alternative!) I suspect the messages we have been passing on to the union have not made it as far is the ears that matter, due to union leader's preoccupation with what is happening up at LHR. (The LGW reps have tried, to give them their due but have had no back up from the union.) That is why we need proper representation to talk with the company. But as Diplome said, right now BA have more important problems to deal with. Once things have settled, we will be able to talk to them and hopefully come up with some compromises.

The difficulty with making it clear to the Captain etc is that as said, it's all perfectly legal. There's nothing the flight crew can do unless we decide to go fatigued at which point the company will reply, "But it's legal!" And that goes for any airline, not just BA. I'm sure many flying crew from many airlines around the world have heard those words! Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right. Maybe the laws need looking at. And maybe all airlines need to be reminded that that maximum allowable hours are there for safety reasons, not as a target to be reached.....

However, for the record, I have never operated a flight if I have felt I will be putting crew and passengers at risk.

[Betty girl]

Hi JetSet Lady.

That is a hard roster. I do alot of two day six sectors as well at LHR but I try not to bid to do two in a row!!!! ( having said that I did two in a row last week and it nearly killed me!). God knows how you managed that after two night flights in a row. You poor thing!

We only have a few night flights at LHR and strangely some crew actually like doing them and actually bid for them!!!If I get one it is straight on the swap forum in the vain hope that someone might want to swop with me!

Do you have a bidding system at LGW like we do on Eurofleet?
Anyway if that is a normal roster I am not surprised that you are exausted.

[cavortingcheetah]

Jet set lady.

To Hone is indeed a word in the English language and it's a very useful one.
'Don't you even think of honing your seduction skills on me!' is a phrase you might want to memorise. Of course you might prefer to modify matters somewhat and invite the honing of all sorts of skills.
The word, which you used quite correctly, is a transitive verb and means: to sharpen or to whet. It is usually applied to razors, sickles or scythes but could equally well go with thighs.
I once did six weeks on the trot of earlies. Once you get that far down the line and this was before edition 4 of CAP 371, it then became an acclimatised roster pattern. Sunk I was and when I complained I was told that the Chief Pilot was the man who had written the then applicable CAP371 for the CAA.

[Betty girl]

Just so every one is aware the paragraph at the bottom of Cavortincheetah's post are his thoughts not thoes of the FT.

[jetset lady]

Betty girl,

That's a pretty average roster for us. Not the best certainly, but not unusual. I don't actually mind night flights but it's the mixing of earlies and lates that is hard! Add long haul into the pot and it all takes it's toll.

We do have the same Carmen system at LGW but I'm convinced that Carmen is in fact, an old bitter and twisted CSD that was retired for the safety of all on board. As far as I can tell, she operates the same method used for football match draws, picking balls out of the crew and destination machines. "No 15 - JSL, No 238 - Izmir. JSL will go to Izmir" ;)

'Don't you even think of honing your seduction skills on me!' is a phrase you might want to memorise.

If only I needed to! :{

But thank-you for confirming I had the correct word and I shall remember to check who wrote the rules before I complain in future!

In the meantime, I need to go and research this Iberia merger in more detail. I don't know enough about it but from the little I do know and looking through the report of the AGM, it scares me more than anything we have been through so far. When will BASSA realise that by not seeing the wood for the trees, they are merely hastening along the end of British Airways!

[cavortingcheetah]

Betty Girl

I think that is usually how one would interpret a lot of dashed lines at the end of an newspaper article which had been quoted as an inclusion. That usually suffices to signify the end of any quoted script. The words that follow on from there are obviously not connected with the article. And WW is mentioned in the third person so the wording could hardly have even been construed as being his own words.
I am really not surprised that letters from BA and perhaps BASSA have been misinterpreted or misconstrued if my simple offering can give rise to such misapprehension.

[Bucksbird]

Could someone please remind me when the result is due.

Thanks:ok:

[LD12986]

In the meantime, I need to go and research this Iberia merger in more detail. I don't know enough about it but from the little I do know and looking through the report of the AGM, it scares me more than anything we have been through so far. When will BASSA realise that by not seeing the wood for the trees, they are merely hastening along the end of British Airways

I don't think you have too much to worry about the Iberia merger. But yes, BASSA should be briefing its members on what is the one of the most significant deals in the history of the airline.

In order to keep their respective rights to routes, the two will remain as separately operated and managed businesses. As they already co-operate on routes to Spain, I can't see much in terms of switching routes and crews between the two airlines.

Overall it is a positive move for the business to help it grow and be profitable. As is anti-trust immunity for AA, BA and Iberia on transatlantic routes.

There will be a lot more codeshares, but this will be so each airline has the marketing clout/profile of the other to help drive traffic into each other's networks.

I would think the first target will savings by sharing "back-office" functions such as IT, procurement etc.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Bucksbird

20th July.

cavortingcheetah

I was told that the Chief Pilot was the man who had written the then applicable CAP371 for the CAA.

You will then be surprised to know that Douglas Bader had a hand in too while he was working for Shell!

[cavortingcheetah]

PPRune Pop

How good to hear your voice again! Hope you and yours are well and thriving!
I am totally surprised to hear that Bader was involved. In fact and coincidence I have just been reading a badly type written report of one of his missions which has just been released under some secrecy act. I think he says he had a pot at a Dornier which will give you a clue as to the ID of the now deceased Chief Pilot of whom I spoke earlier.
Keep well.
cc.

[west lakes]

Drifting back to the subject, I'm very reliably informedc that there have been a number of confirmed sabotage attempts by some cabin crew, I assume in failed attemps to delay flights.
So the BASSA comments regarding disclipary action mentioned in the CC thread are, shall we say, rather underplaying the truth.
(this is not including at least on criminal action that is in progress either)

[pcat160]

I have been lurking on these threads for the last six months but have not posted, During and immediately after the last strike period I flew two long haul segments in F and two 4 hour segments in CE. While I found the service on these segments quite good, if somewhat robotic, this has not always been the case in recent years. If anything I think “inconsistent” best describes BA cabin service. As a result of my experiences and the comments on these threads I believe the best long term outcome of the current vote is for Bassa to reject the offer and subsequently vote too have another strike. Assuming Bassa then commence a strike BA’s hand will be forced and I believe they will have to take the gloves off and terminate strikers. Short of replacing the employees that have exhibited the behavior we have seen in the last year I do not see how BA can run a competitive operation.

[ChicoG]

From another AGM report:

There were two factions: shareholders (silver-haired, beige-clad, respectful), and shareholder employees (younger, disgruntled and heckling). At times it seemed as if war would break out between the two, letting chief executive Willie Walsh off the hook. But he received his fair share of brickbats as he slugged it out for nearly three hours.

Another interesting take on it here:

Verbal slugfest at British Airways AGM - interactive investor (http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/articledisplay.jsp?article_id=10104852&section=Markets)


What happened to the votes at the end of the meeting, or was that just last year?

[Ancient Observer]

Betty Girl,

Yup, sorry about that. You were right about CAP 371 applying and I was wrong.
I had no deliberate intention to mislead, I simply believed, wrongly, that it only applied to those at the pointy end.

Aplogies

AO

[beamender99]

What happened to the votes at the end of the meeting, or was that just last year?All shareholders at the AGM ( this year and previous years) vote with an hand held gizmo.

The results, we are told , will be published on the BA website
British Airways - Investor Relations - Private Shareholders Home (http://www.bashareholders.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69499&p=IROL-shareholders)
details
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTM2OTB8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlP TM=&t=1

[Betty girl]

Thanks Ancient Observer.

[Diplome]

BA/Iberia merger receives EU approval:

BA moves step closer to transatlantic deal with American Airlines and Iberia | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/14/british-airways-closer-deal-american-airlines-iberia)

British Airways' three-way alliance cleared for takeoff | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1294778/British-Airways-way-alliance-cleared-takeoff.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

There are, at this moment, no major hurdles viewed in getting U.S. approval though I wonder what effect this will have on BA based Cabin Crew, etc.?

I've still much more reading to do regarding the merger before I'm going to feel well-informed though most analysts seem to view it as a very good thing for BA.

[The SSK]

If you want to know how badly BA needs this merger, consider Air France/KLM/Alitalia and the Lufthansa Group (Swiss, Austrian, Brussels Airlines, bmi – and effective control of SAS and others through Star). Iberia could jump into either of those camps and BA would then be completely isolated and marginalised.

I personally have been told by very senior people at BA haw amazed they were at the success of AF/KL, having been very sceptical about how two such different corporate cultures could be brought together.

I just wonder whether a BA a couple of years down the line, with its cost base sorted and decent profits coming in, would not have been a rather more senior partner in the merged entity.

[PAXboy]

The SSK is right. If I was a BA shareholder, what would have worried me is why it took BA so long to find ANYONE that would do business with them and WHY?

Given that the natural AA link-up is not going to be allowed in any form that either will want (at this stage) then they had to go somewhere. However, their failure to link with one of the other world class carriers dies, in my view, relegate BA to the second tier of global carriers.

Why could they not find anyone to sign with them?

Too bossy?
Too dictatorial?
Too arrogant?
Too indebted (pensions and unions)?
???

[Diplome]

PAXboy:

The EU has approved the BA alliance with American Airlines.

American, BA Score Big For The Oneworld Alliance - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/eu-oks-british-airwaysamerican-airlines-alliance-marketnewsvideo.html)

I'm not too worried regarding what has or not happened in the past. BA is obviously attempting to take firm control of their airline and deal with many difficult issues.

Of interest to me is what effect this will have on the future.

For purposes of this thread I'm going to have to do some exploring and learn more regarding benefits, performance, costs, etc., of AA and Iberia's Cabin Crew.

[The SSK]

BA almost merged with KLM and Sabena in 1990, and came very close with KLM in 2000. The first probably failed due to regulatory hurdles which had largely been removed by 2000. The second failed due to inability to agree on the respective shares of the resultant cake. BA's pension burden probably played a part in this.

Diplome, I suspect that this two-way merger (forget AA for the time being, that's just a commercial agreement) will have very little efffect on crew costs and conditions for the foreseeable future. All the early benefits will be in head-office and support functions. Even after six years I suspect there has been very little convergence amongst AF and KLM cabin crews (although I stand to be corrected by a couple of prominent Prooners).

[PAXboy]

Derek Simpson is on the panel for BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Any Questions?, 16/07/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t0k7f) tonight in the UK but available to listen in real time on line for those overseas. Then there is BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Any Answers?, 17/07/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t0wf3) on Saturday and you can join in on that.

[LD12986]

I personally have been told by very senior people at BA haw amazed they were at the success of AF/KL, having been very sceptical about how two such different corporate cultures could be brought together.

Indeed. BA has admitted that prior to the AF/KL deal they had focused on what mergers can achieve in terms of cost saving and what impressed them about AF/KL was what was achieved in terms of revenue synergies and that is where most of the benefit in the Iberia deal will come from - driving traffic and revenue into each other's networks and co-ordinating schedules and routes.

It was a pity that BA did not merge with KL as it would have given it a second hub nearby and maintained BA's presence in the regions. In truth, BA now means very little to a lot of UK pax outside of London and the South East.

[PAXboy]

DiplomeThe EU has approved the BA alliance with American Airlines.Thanks, I didn't realise the reduced agreement had gone through - but it's not the killer alliance they needed.
I'm not too worried regarding what has or not happened in the past. BA is obviously attempting to take firm control of their airline and deal with many difficult issues.

Of interest to me is what effect this will have on the future. Y-e-e-e-s, to a point but it is all that has happened in the past that will force the future. Throughout the pax discussions in PPRuNE since I have been participating, many folks (I shall not attempt a %) have thought that BA is past it's prime. During this dispute so much has come to light that shows just how much the previous generations of mgmt and unions have laid traps for the future (wittingly or otherwise).

I agree that the mgmt are now grasping the nettle but I suspect that it is too little, too late. I do not enjoy saying these things - but I speak as I see and think.

[pj67coll]

I have posted here in my capacity as SLF about our upcoming trip to Britain on BA. So for what it's worth I figured I'd report back after the experience.

No international travel for me since 2000 so no recent experiences to compare this with but these are my thoughts.

BA288 PHX to LHR 06/16/10, if I remember correctly.
The crew seemed positive and I have to say I had no complaints about the service. IFE worked fine and I enjoyed the selections. Spent a lot of time listening to some classical music and a radio station program about the adventures of Josef Haydn's head post mortem. Watched an epsiode of "Top Gear" about taking vehicles across South America. Both my wife and I enjoyed both meals and there were numerous refreshment runs between dinner and breakfast. The flight was smooth as glass all the way.

The only thing that marred it for us was a truly awful landing at Heathrow where for a few seconds I was quite certain we were going to crash. We were over the threshold floating down onto the runway when the plane rolled so severely to the left I could see nothing but grass out of the window. The pilot was obviously battling to get it level again and we touched down hard on the left landing gear and took some seconds for the right to hit the concrete which it did with significant force. Plane then lurched sharply to the right so much so that I was pressed hard against my wifes seat. She was sitting to my left.

I suspect some new 747 crew were being given practice at landing the type as I was surprised to see five flight crew board the plane in Phoenix and we were informed by the Captain that there were several extra pilots on board just after takeoff. The flight up till the last moments of landing had been incredibly smooth. It was as if the AP had had control right up till then and suddenly was disengaged and the pilot caught totally unawares.

Whatever the situation there didn't seem to be much in the way of wind at Heathrow when we arrived to account for it and there was certainly no applause for the pilot on this occasion.

The return flight BA289 LHR to PHX on July 04th was far bumpier though not too much to be uncomfortable. The service was still good by and large with both the meals and IFE being of good quality. Or at least the satisfied both my wife and I.

I say by and large about the service as there was one flight attendent who seemed to be one of the strikers. At least thats what I gathered from the snippets of conversation I heard between him and the other FA'.s. He did his job just fine and no complaints about that but I you'd been following the issues around the strike on PRUNE as I had it was obvious that he had issues with the company. As I said while it didn't impact his service to passengers I thought it was somewhat unprofessional to go on about such issues while on the job. But then again I only realised that is what he was doing because of what I learned on this forum. Not sure it would have been of concern to any other passengers.

The landing at Phoenix though was actually worse than the one in London because of all the low level maneuvering in the last ten minutes or so as the plane flew in a wide arc out east of the city over the Superstition mountains. I assume the plane was under some form of manual control at that point. There was so much change in speed, attitude and even altitude in the final minutes I actually thought I was going to throw up which as never happened to me before in a passenger jet.

As to wether or not I'd fly BA again. Don't know. Apart from two problematic landings, (which can happend anywhere anytime I suppose) the service was good. We had chosen BA as they had the only direct flight between Phoenix and London but for both of us 10 hours in an economy seat is proably too much. We may well end up trying a different airline in future if only to be able to compare.

- Peter.

[JEM60]

Hi.PJ67.
I'm only an ex-ppl, but I would suggest that your 'awful landing' at Heathrow was simply the result of a nasty crosswind. If this is the case, it is very common practice [even in a 747] to land with the aircraft well banked into the wind, therefore resulting in your view of the grass etc.,
This prevents the aircraft drifting off the centreline, and is absolutely no cause for alarm, and is perfectly normal given the prevailing conditions. I

I can, of course, understand your concern, which, without meaning to be patronising, is simply due to your inexperience.
I have travelled frequently with nearly all trans-atlantic carriers, and always go BA if possible. Happy future landings.:)

[ChicoG]

From the other thread:

Another BASSA representative has been sacked from BA - this time it's Mark Everard!

I believe this is the 'www.pccc.co.uk' pornographer.

Good riddance.

[Desk Jockey]

The only thing that marred it for us was a truly awful landing at Heathrow where for a few seconds I was quite certain we were going to crash. We were over the threshold floating down onto the runway when the plane rolled so severely to the left I could see nothing but grass out of the window. The pilot was obviously battling to get it level again and we touched down hard on the left landing gear and took some seconds for the right to hit the concrete which it did with significant force. Plane then lurched sharply to the right so much so that I was pressed hard against my wifes seat. She was sitting to my left.

I suspect some new 747 crew were being given practice at landing the type as I was surprised to see five flight crew board the plane in Phoenix and we were informed by the Captain that there were several extra pilots on board just after takeoff. The flight up till the last moments of landing had been incredibly smooth. It was as if the AP had had control right up till then and suddenly was disengaged and the pilot caught totally unawares.



Probably volunteer flight crew!:eek:
(It was pretty windy over the last couple of days, pilots not prone to being caught unawares unless the engines stop without warning, then it takes them a few seconds to get to grips with it. I don't think you really need to worry.):ok:

[Boxkite Montgolfier]

JEM60

May I suggest you 'consolidate' a little more as a PPL.! Your explanation of crosswind landings in heavy jets is pure bxxxxx.
Approaches and landings in a crosswind are conducted with judicious application of drift compensation not bank. The drift is kicked off in the flare by rudder hopefully to ensure the main wheels touch in line with the runway centre line. Any bank in these circumstances is dangerous and likely to cause engine pod or impact damage.

[Diplome]

ChicoG:

Haven't found a verifying source yet but I do agree. If Mark Everard has been dismissed I will view it as a positive.

I wonder how long before we hear cries of "Unfair" from the BASSA faithful. lol.

That pornographic website registered to Mr. Everard was one of the more outrageous actions by BASSA in this dispute.

[PAXboy]

pj67coll, you do not mention in which cabin you were sitting and service expectation is directly related.

As to the landing at LHR, the field is well known for eddies of wind around the big buildings and an upset of the kind you experienced is not unknown and can indeed happen anywhere at any time. The reverse that I have experience is an approach where the aircraft is rather 'jittery' but when within a few seconds of touchdown - suddenly everything smooths out and all is gentle. That is the luck of the draw and has less to do with automatic landing equipment and/or the flight crew than may be imagined.

[vanHorck]

Duggie

Just in case you read this (Duggie posts on the CC BA thread)

Times change.
This means the content and position of a given job changes.
The position of CC is changing.
There are many people who have to make their own sandwiches on jobs a lot more complicated than yours, there is nothing wrong with making your own sandwiches....
Good CC who think of their guests first will always find a good job.


Live with the changes

Go play politburo somewhere else. Trolling is boring.

[GCI35]

A CSD friend of mine heard of Mark Everard's dismissal on arrival back at LHR today. You're quite right on your assumption, she's up in arms about his 'unfair' sacking he being one of the nicer reps! Unfortunately I was unaware at the time that he was behind the pornographic website. She will be advised accordingly

[west lakes]

I note that there is no mention of the on-going police investigation by BASSA!

[GCI35]

MissM and Ava Hannah seem to have resigned from the other thread, so welcome Dougie Fashion to enlighten us all on the practices of the men behind the door and benefits of being a BASSA member! At least he's not based in JNB.

[vanHorck]

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?

[slf22]

I'm sure there are other offences however iirc he did link BA to that porn website in the meta data.

[johnoWhiskyX]

Could Mr E have been dismissed for bringing the company into disrepute?

Or if he was stupid enough to actually host the pornographic images on his own site/server (especially if it is located in the UK) that could have criminal proceedings brought into play?

[etrang]

pj67coll, you do not mention in which cabin you were sitting and service expectation is directly related.

Paxboy, he clearly says that he was sitting in an economy seat. I think it's reasonable to assume that it was in the economy cabin.

We had chosen BA as they had the only direct flight between Phoenix and London but for both of us 10 hours in an economy seat is proably too much.

[TightSlot]

This thread is concerned with the Cabin Crew strike at BA and not with the perceived skills of pilots at BA.

The wonderful thing about your perceptions is that they are your own, and personal and cannot be argued with. That said, it is wise to consider carefully before posting. The 'analysis' above of the two landings is subjective and based on faulty assumptions, a shortage of knowledge and a failure to understand what knowledge exists. The only indisputable fact is that the writer was alarmed.

Some research on posts in this, and other forums on PPRuNe will reveal the accepted position that a seat in the cabin and a degree of previous experience of flying as a passenger are not the appropriate criteria for judging the quality of a landing - or indeed any technical aspect of a flight.

[Sonorguy]

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?


As someone who deals with a lot of disciplinaries, you can sack anyone for anything at any time quite legally. The issue however is whether a tribunal would feel the dismissal was unfair (note NOT unlawful).

So in ME's case BA can dismiss for whatever reason they choose.

[johnoWhiskyX]

Regarding Mr E and a comment about posting porn, ie, it is not illegal to do so.

I would take a look at The Obscene Publications Act 1959.
I would very much doubt expert witness' are available as to its literary, artistic or scientific merits.

Just because its there and readily accessible does not mean it is not illegal. That's the problem with the tinterweb, what is legal in one country ir likely highly illegal in another country where it is viewed.

[ChicoG]

The way BASSA described his actions were those of "offending a few of his fellow employees" or suchlike.

I would suggest that posting pornographic images with the deliberate intention of demeaning the PCCC, which clearly identified itself as being the website of responsible BA cabin crew, can at least be considered disgusting, rather than being "offensive".

And in doing so, I would argue that he is surely bringing the company's name into disrepute, which I assume is in breach of his contract.

No sympathy whatsoever. In fact I think he's a five star, fur-lined, ocean going idiot.

[ChicoG]

Further, on the AGM votes, every single vote was over 90% in favour, including 99.73% voting to approve the report and the accounts.

I'm sure if they'd done one of loudmouthed, uncouth heckling, BASSA would have won hands down.

[JEM60]

MONTGOLFIER.Of course. Too used to seeing C17s and C5's in heavy crosswinds in this neck of the woods. Wing down is very common . Didn't think re low wings.:)

[Litebulbs]

As someone who deals with a lot of disciplinaries, you can sack anyone for anything at any time quite legally.

I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wrong.

[Snas]

Litebulbs, you are correctly picking him up on the use of the word legally, poor choice of words on his part. The message is however correct, in that an employer can sack however they like, just like a thief can steal from whom ever he likes, a price may need to be paid for both actions however, or not!

In the case of Mr Everard however and as someone who also has to (unfortunately) deal with a lot of disciplinary processes this would have been an easy one. The facts that we are aware of alone (there could well be other transgressions) would have certainly been enough. This chap linked both himself and his employer (and less importantly in my view the PCCC) to a web site presenting pornography. His continued employment was certainly in jeopardy from that point in.

As a Union rep yourself I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider his actions as being wise or productive to say the least. Indeed I’m surprised that a professional union hadn’t sacked him as a representative themselves long before BA were required to take action.

[Winch-control]

Apologies, still don't know how to link posts...

In recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and many before that), when a General's strategy has failed he is replaced with someone who has new ideas. You do not continue with a failed policy, waste more materials or expend more lives, because a leader is unable to admit personal failure. All Walsh can do now is prepare for war once again with his VCC foot soldiers pressed into action under the propaganda banner of "Backing BA". It is a strategy bogged down in another Somme like era.


I find this highly offensive to our troops, ground and air, that are serving in the Afghan and Iraq theatres. Not to mention all those that fell at the Somme!

BA CC are not in the same class as the basic soldier on the ground or Airman in the air in any theatre.

[Diplome]

Winch-control:

It's just more of the "same old same old" rhetoric that we have seen from the more militant members of BASSA used to deflect the fact that their arguments are rather empty of facts and very high in hyperbole.

I note that many members of the CC thread are trying to reason with this individual and will give them kudos for their efforts however its an exercise in futility.

Duggie Fashion is just another, in a long line of "new posters" on the Cabin Crew thread, there to repeat memorized lines and knee-jerk responses.

It would be nice if all of the references to BALPA could be eliminated as it just muddies the waters and has no more relevance to Cabin Crew and BASSA than the actions taken by the AFL-CIO.

BASSA and their supporters should debate regarding their issues rather than try to deflect from substantive responses by squealing "BALPA" at every opportunity.

[JayPee28bpr]

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?


He apparently included BA-related keywords in the search parameters, such that searching for BA would lead to the porn site. Also, whilst PCCC may not be a BA entity, it clearly belongs to BA staff. Therefore his actions caused offence and injury to BA employees.

Also worth keeping in mind that there does not have to be any direct link between the employer and its employee in the specifics of any disrepute allegation. There is at least one decided case where an employer sacked workers for their behaviour completely independent of their work relationships. The case in question involved a number of Post Office workers who were caught on camera engaged in football hooliganism at the 2004 Euro Championships. They were sacked and their dismissals were upheld as fair.

[Litebulbs]

As a Union rep yourself I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider his actions as being wise or productive to say the least. Indeed I’m surprised that a professional union hadn’t sacked him as a representative themselves long before BA were required to take action.

I agree it was not an action covered in glory, for which he has paid a heavy price. In my opinion too heavy, because I am sure in different circumstances he would still be employed.

However, in the current climate at the world's favourite, I imagine that if any cabin crew employee crosses that imaginary line (that is always moving) and especially a union rep, then the full force of the disciplinary process will be actioned. So why give the employer reason?

[pvmw]

I agree it was not an action covered in glory, for which he has paid a heavy price. In my opinion too heavy, because I am sure in different circumstances he would still be employed.

That's where we will disagree, and it demonstrates how far removed from reality BASSAWorld is. Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later.

Behavior like that is not, and should not, be tolerated. The only depressing thing is that he will now be parachuted into a cosy BASSA sinecure where he can continue to sponge of the people who pay union subs.

[Snas]

So why give the employer reason?

You make a good point.
I don’t know anything about Mr Everards abilities as a representative but I’m forced to conclude based on what I do know that he can’t be that shrewd to have thought that his web site was a good idea – this does have to ask questions regarding the control of the reps also, was this a unilateral decision on his part or was it a sanctioned action by BASSA command and control?

I bloody hope not but don’t imagine that I’ll ever know.

No doubt that he feels foolish now and probably regrets his actions. As do most people that transgress in all walks of life. The best of us learn from it and try move on I guess. I hope he does.

Ignoring BA I have to suggest that the crew are better off without this representative as he has to possess questionable judgement at best, and this is the issue that causes me concern about unions behaviour on occasions, especially BASSA.

He is now being presented as some sort of martyr, unions should defend those in need and deserving of defence of course, but they should not defend those not deserving and should do so for the benefit of all the crew.

In my professional career I have been an employer of thousands, literally. I have in that role had to unfortunately dismiss probably hundreds over the years. I can describe all such dismissals, regardless of their specific details, with a single sentence “protecting the employment of those that behave appropriately, for those that don’t jeopardise the employment and prosperity of all”.

Alas I suspect Mr Everards disciplinary falls into that category. Just another sad chapter in this wholly sad dispute that has been so badly managed.

If as some suggest, Mr Walsh is an evil megalomaniac hell bent on reducing the T’s&C’s of all staff in all departments to Dickensian levels then BASSA’s management of the IA has only served to facilitate and accelerate same.

Fortunately I don’t believe he is, personally. Time will tell I guess.

[Litebulbs]

That's where we will disagree, and it demonstrates how far removed from reality BASSAWorld is. Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later.

That is why you have unions and collective strength; unless you have already played the trump card at the start of the game.

[Diplome]

pmvw:


Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later


I must wholeheartedly agree. The attempts by some to excuse or minimize the actions of some of these individuals who have been dismissed (and there have been few dismissals) shows a great disconnect from the reality of business.

Mr. Everard created a pornographic website for the sole and singular purpose of disparaging BA Cabin Crew and BA itself.

A few months ago my husband's IT department came to him with a troubling report that one of his senior individuals had bypassed their filter (rather simply but creatively done I must say) and had been viewing pornography from his business owned computer. He was gone in two days. Done.

With leadership comes responsibility, not only to those you work for, but those you lead. BASSA treats their responsibility as some sort of silly child's game..Refuse to report for duty, texting during confidential negotiations, porn sites, inaccurate representations, etc., etc..

....and people still make excuses for them.

As for this comment:

That is why you have unions and collective strength; unless you have already played the trump card at the start of the game.


No, Unions are for protecting workers and staff against REAL wrongs, for negotiating for the best possible position that allows both the workforce and the business to survive and thrive.

The Unions that my husband negotiates with would not have defended or excused a pornographic website set up to defame their co-workers and not one of his Reps would have participated in such conduct.

Not all Unions behave like BASSA.

[Sonorguy]

I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wron

Apologies, I should have added the caveat of unless it's for reasons of race/colour/sexuality etc that are covered by separate legislation and which you can't sack for. However it would have to be proved that this were the case and it wasn't just for the fact that the staff member was completely useless.

Unfair dismissal is just that, it's unfair. There are no legal consequences for the employer other than to pay recompense as determined by an ET if found against the employer (or settle pre-tribunal which is what tends to happen more often). They don't get their job back. Our legal advisers are clear that in theory, whilst being unethical, we could if needed get rid of someone by firing them though we'd probably be tribunalled for it, but it isn't against the law, it just may be seen as unfair by a tribunal. There's really no such thing as common law when it comes down to it.

Whilst this does happen it clearly isn't anywhere you'd want to go unless there was a really big problem and it hasn't happened since I've been with the company.

Anyway, I digress, back to the thread!

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5816109) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5816109&noquote=1)

[JayPee28bpr]

Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later


Very true. And perhaps worth adding why this is the case. The main reason why employers are so anti-porn is that somewhere around 90% of all malicious computer code/viruses etc is imported into commercial applications via porn-related access (either sites or links carried in emails). Staff sensitivity, and the potential costs therefrom, is actually less of the issue, though can have significant adverse reputational impact if not handled sensitively.

The use of porn, and the known impact it can have as noted above, is what moves this case from being "a bit silly" to "gross misconduct/bringing BA into disrepute". If all he'd done was put together a spoof site without the porn, I doubt he'd have been sacked.

I doubt BA are complaining though. They've now got rid of 2 senior reps, apparently 4 more are on "gross misconduct" disciplinaries, which means they are certainly in danger of dismissal, leaving just 3 senior reps. I'll bet that any of those on long term sick will soon be leaving too. In that case, BA will have achieved what Unite has been unwilling or unable to do, namely rein in its dysfunctional branch leadership.

I find it informative that "BASSA Admin" extrapolates the loss of such people with the demise of the Union. There are quotes elsewhere about "if this goes on then there will be no Union left" or some such wording, the clear implication being that the senior reps are the Union. In fact, even with a degree of leakage, BASSA still appears to have almost 10,000 members in BA, and will continue to exist in some form as and when most or all of the senior reps have been removed. The challenge for the 10,000, as well as for Unite I would suggest, is to find new reps who actually see Union representation as a bottom up process, ie research the members' views, collate, develop a consensual position for presentation to management, report back etc. The current crop see it as top down, with the membership there simply to provide "muscle" on behalf of the leadership. Not a very modern approach to representation I would suggest.

[MIDLGW]

Litebulbs,
are you saying that unions are there to protect employees that don't behave in a professional manner, deliberately tries to ruin the reputation of their employer, thieving, bullying and/or a variety of other behaviours?

[call100]

Very true. And perhaps worth adding why this is the case. The main reason why employers are so anti-porn is that somewhere around 90% of all malicious computer code/viruses etc is imported into commercial applications via porn-related access (either sites or links carried in emails). Staff sensitivity, and the potential costs therefrom, is actually less of the issue, though can have significant adverse reputational impact if not handled sensitively.

The use of porn, and the known impact it can have as noted above, is what moves this case from being "a bit silly" to "gross misconduct/bringing BA into disrepute". If all he'd done was put together a spoof site without the porn, I doubt he'd have been sacked.

I doubt BA are complaining though. They've now got rid of 2 senior reps, apparently 4 more are on "gross misconduct" disciplinaries, which means they are certainly in danger of dismissal, leaving just 3 senior reps. I'll bet that any of those on long term sick will soon be leaving too. In that case, BA will have achieved what Unite has been unwilling or unable to do, namely rein in its dysfunctional branch leadership.

I find it informative that "BASSA Admin" extrapolates the loss of such people with the demise of the Union. There are quotes elsewhere about "if this goes on then there will be no Union left" or some such wording, the clear implication being that the senior reps are the Union. In fact, even with a degree of leakage, BASSA still appears to have almost 10,000 members in BA, and will continue to exist in some form as and when most or all of the senior reps have been removed. The challenge for the 10,000, as well as for Unite I would suggest, is to find new reps who actually see Union representation as a bottom up process, ie research the members' views, collate, develop a consensual position for presentation to management, report back etc. The current crop see it as top down, with the membership there simply to provide "muscle" on behalf of the leadership. Not a very modern approach to representation I would suggest.
This is in fact how most reps work. There is far too much generalising by the unknowing on this thread. There are many companies out there, especially in Engineering, that are still existing because of close cooperation between union and employer.
Unite has become a vast Union representing millions across thousands of companies in hundreds of sectors. In the dark days ahead many are going to be glad they are around.
The BA situation has been largely manufactured by both sides as a test of strength. So much testosterone about that it had little chance of being settled amicably with a win win result.
Many reps looking on know that it could have been sorted long ago.......I've said it before and I'll say it again, both sides should grow up and have genuine talks....

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs,
are you saying that unions are there to protect employees that don't behave in a professional manner, deliberately tries to ruin the reputation of their employer, thieving, bullying and/or a variety of other behaviours?

I did not say that at all. However, employees do get dismissed unfairly, but as has been pointed out in a few comments after yours, the employer is under no obligation to accept a reinstatement order. They would have to compensate however.

This is when a union would act, by possibly balloting for industrial action, where the cost of the action would be disproportionate to the cost of the dismissal and a business decision would be made. There would be no guarantees that a business would back down however. Then the individual members would base whether they would be prepared to loose money in support of the action, based on the evidence of the case in question.

This is different to what has happened at BA and the industrial action that has taken place, in my opinion. The business decision is that the short term cost is worth the long term saving.

[Ancient Observer]

3 points,
Dismissals
Diplome and snas are correct about dismissals. Like snas, I've held that sort of accountability. As an individual, I don't "enjoy" firing folk, but when you've got to, you just do it. ( it is commonly known as jfdi). BA appear far more tolerant of bad behaviour than other private sector Co.s. They should have behaved this way years ago - for example when dealing (or not in BA's case) with BA CC absence levels.
TU co-operation.
Unite and its constituent parts are perfectly capable of co-operating with employers. Go ask the majors in the Pharms sector, who have "lost" thousands of jobs represented by Unite in the last 3 years. Yup, thousands. All with complete TU co-operation.

The next strike - if there is one.

I have a vested interest here - I'm flying l/h with BA in late September. Would the strikers please ensure that they are on strike in late September? I have no desire to be on the same plane as the bassamentalists. Thank you.

[MCOflyer]

Ancient Observer

I agree with you completely. I am booked ATL-EDI on 11 August.

[Lou Scannon]

Sorry, but I need the BASSA "leaders" to be on strike when I fly BA at the end of August.

Come to think of it: that's probably wishful thinking. They seem to have avoided any such risk in the past and left it to the BASSA rabbits to take the action and the can.

[Colonel White]

The BA situation has been largely manufactured by both sides as a test of strength. So much testosterone about that it had little chance of being settled amicably with a win win result.

Sorry to have to disagree with you on this one. Unite represent over half the BA workforce. Oddly enough the only unionised group of workers who have failed to reach an agreement with BA management over headcount reductions andcost cutting have been cabin crew. GMB and Unite members covering the ground staff have been able to come to arrangements. BALPA have, Heavens Unite actually circumvented the BASSA and Amicus folk when they struck the deal on the pension proposals last year. That says to me that whilst it is a battle of wills, it is about who manages the cabin crew community, the union or BA management. The union people have been so used to BA management backing down that they can't work out what to do when the company says 'no'. This disoute ws never going to have a win/win conclusion because the union side couldn't agree amongst themselves what they wanted and gave a flat refusal to any suggestions. Negotiation requires dialogue, something BASSA seem incapable of.

[call100]

Sorry to have to disagree with you on this one. Unite represent over half the BA workforce. Oddly enough the only unionised group of workers who have failed to reach an agreement with BA management over headcount reductions andcost cutting have been cabin crew. GMB and Unite members covering the ground staff have been able to come to arrangements. BALPA have, Heavens Unite actually circumvented the BASSA and Amicus folk when they struck the deal on the pension proposals last year. That says to me that whilst it is a battle of wills, it is about who manages the cabin crew community, the union or BA management. The union people have been so used to BA management backing down that they can't work out what to do when the company says 'no'. This disoute ws never going to have a win/win conclusion because the union side couldn't agree amongst themselves what they wanted and gave a flat refusal to any suggestions. Negotiation requires dialogue, something BASSA seem incapable of.
We will have to agree to disagree on your point...Both sides have behaved badly at the negotiating table. Once it moved from the negotiating table to the front pages of the daily rags it was doomed. The discussions became polarised with nothing on common ground to move with. Both sides have been incapable of dialogue. I do not consider BA's statements to be akin to dialogue any more than the statements of BASSA.

[Litebulbs]

Great post.

One question to the guests and investors of BA. What is more offensive, scab or bassamentalist? I ask the question because, just say, an employee said BAmentalist on facebook. Would that be bringing the company's into disrepute and therefore seen as a gross misconduct issue worthy of dismissal?

[Hotel Mode]

Litebulbs: not so much the devils advocate, more his entire legal team! :ok:

I don't believe BA would dismiss anyone for such a remark. A verbal warning maybe. The dismissed have all done far far worse that that. Bringing your employer into disrepute isn't exactly the same offence as bringing someone elses union into disrepute. BASSA could expel a member who used that terminology couldn't they?

[ChicoG]

Many reps looking on know that it could have been sorted long ago.......I've said it before and I'll say it again, both sides should grow up and have genuine talks....

I think BA have made every effort to engage in meaningful discussions, but they could not sit around and wait for BASSA to "grow up" as you put it. They were haemorrhaging cash and needed to make cost cuts.

If BASSA had played ball to start with, the current situation would not exist.

They want to return things to the way they were. BA do not want to, and they are correct.

The only people that need to group up here are the BASSA reps that have lead their staff so poorly.

If, as you say, there are reps who feel this could have been sorted out a long time ago, they should communicate that fact to their fellow members and try and oust the idiots that have made so many pathetic mistakes in their desperate attempts at clinging on to power (and, lest we forget, their share of the members' subscriptions).

[JayPee28bpr]

What is more offensive, scab or bassamentalist?


I think you're missing the point. Nobody in the investment community cares. The point of making an investment is primarily to make money. Any activity by the company has to be viewed simply in terms of whether it adds to sustainable (ie long term) profitability. Name calling amongst the staff is irrelevant. It isn't going to have a material impact on profits long term. Those that insist on doing it will get managed out of the business one way or another eventually, though if it really is just one person calling someone a scab and another calling someone a BASSAmentalist, I suspect most outsiders would just tell both to grow up.

In terms of the current dispute, the real issue from an investment perspective is, and always has been, is BA a good enough long term risk to warrant financing their fleet renewal needs? What has been lost in all the minutiae of the last 12 months is that there is more to BA than the cabin crew bubble. BA has an old, gas guzzling fleet which, with oil now at $75-ish and rising, versus sub-$30 and steady a few years ago, is now a very painful problem that needs addressing. However, nobody is going to finance resolving that problem if BA has more expensive and less flexible crew (flight and cabin) than its competitors. Investors want comfort that sufficient cash flow will be derived in order to pay them back. Cutting flight operating costs via reductions in cabin crew staff numbers and more flexible use thereof is key to delivering better cash flow.

What your fellow reps in Unite/BASSA simply fail to comprehend is that there are many other stakeholders in BA's business who all believe they have a legitimate claim on the business. BA does not exist to meet the needs of just its staff. Staff are a key stakeholder (or holders if you want to break down by function). They are not the reason the business exists though. At some point the bulk of BASSA's members will realise this fact. Unfortunately it appears many will have unnecessarily paid a considerable price to be taught this lesson.

[fincastle84]

67% of those who voted have rejected the pay offer but it looks as though the turn out was extremely low. 3,419 in favour of rejection, 1686 against. Hardly massive support for a strike ballot! I thought that they had nearly 10,000 members.

What now?

[Ruthanne]

Hopefully, 100% flight operation in any potential strike action as quoted by Mr Walsh recently, I took him at his word, and booked LH flights in October, please let him be right, couldnt stand the will we fly or won't we fly again!!

[Diplome]

As reported on the Cabin Crew thread:

3449 voted no to reject the offer
1686 voted to accept

circa 12600 cabin crew in total


Lots of different messages can be read into those results. Interesting.

[notlangley]

BBC says 3419 voted no
BBC says 11,000 of cabin crew are members of Unite

[Swissflyer]

Not being a labour lawyer, my assumption is that given only about 5200 of 12000 known CC are accounted for in the Unite vote, the remainder, or at least a majority of the remainder will have accepted the offer made to them as self-declared non-unionised employees by BA.

If this is the case, then surely they are contracted under the new terms and conditions and unlikely to support any strike action. Or... in this shifting sandbox, am I missing something?

[Jarvy]

So bassa spin will say 67% rejected the offer so will go ahead with strike ballot.

[Diplome]

Jarvy:

I'm not so sure that Unite will immediately go for a strike vote.

Those numbers (their weakest so far) will not sustain an effective industrial action. Observing BA's growing ability to increase operations during each of the previous IA's and their expectation to fly 100% of their long haul operation during any subsequent action I am not so sure that Unite is going to be anxious to ballot.

BASSA of course could very well be an example of "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread".

[ExecClubPax]

As of today, BASSA's declared membership was 9757. So the vote suggests 65% of its members either voted for the offer or tacitly accepted it by abstaining.

Given there is something like 12000+ cabin crew, some 3000 of so were free to take BA's offer on an individual basis. Whereas I doubt BA will declare the numbers of non union crew accepting the offer, it's apparent some 9342 cabin crew are on the other end of the balance leaving only 3419 in BASSA's corner.

It says something for a Union that so many of its own members have failed to support it. I guess those who abstained can truthfully say to their militant colleagues "I didn't vote for the offer".

Oh, I've just seen the post from BASSA's duty apologist on the crew forum. It appears the reason for the low turnout was because members got their ballot papers to late to submit them. Oh, so that's another BASSA admin fiasco then.

[ninja-lewis]

I understand that BA couldn't be seen to be inducing union members to leave the union hence telling crew that only non-members were eligible. But could a union member sign and accept the offer anyway? In other words do BA only need to be seen to not to be offering an inducement or can union members not accept it at all (possibly because they've handed that responsibility to the union on their behalf)?

[ExecClubPax]

As I understand it, crew wishing to accept BA's latest offer had to provide a certificate to the effect they were not union members at the date the offer was declared. As BA have played this whole thing with a straight bat, I'm convinced they would not want to be seen enciting union members to accept the offer outside the collective bargaining unit.

Now, I have little doubt some will have done so and perhaps been a little economic with the accualite. Even so, their certificate will enable the company to keep its hands clean if they did.

[Tigger4Me]

A Sky News reporter outside Unite HQ says she has spoken to a senior official of the union. When asked why so few had voted they stated that, those that didn't vote were not affected by the staff travel dispute so stepped aside to let their colleagues express their opinion. So the spin goes on.

[fincastle84]

According to Tony Woodley 85% of CC have voted no to the BA offer. I've always suspected that he isn't the brightest but he has now confirmed that he is totally stupid!

Moving on, as Mr Walsh obviously isn't going to change his mind as to what is on offer, then presumably there will be yet another ballot for IA. Will the Bassa lemmings finally realise that the game is over or is that just wishful thinking?

[JuliaHayes]

It's interesting how people can put slants on votes like this. If the vote was No - 3,449, Accept - 1,686, Abstain - 4,622 (based on a quoted membership of 9,757 from above) then possibilities are:

"Only 17% of members voted to accept"
"83% of members did not accept the offer"
"65% of members did not vote to reject the offer"
"Only 35% of members voted against the offer"
"67% of votes cast were to reject the offer"
"Only 33% of votes were to accept the offer"

Pick whatever suits your agenda and run with it :ok:

FWIW (and I have no brief for BASSA whatsoever) I've very little time for abstentions and am generally of the view that if you abstain then you are implicitly accepting the decision of those who bother to vote.

This ballot says to me that 67% of those with an opinion they can be bothered to register don't accept the offer. Quite why they don't, and quite why nearly half of the membership of a union branch involved in an acrimonious dispute can't be bothered to vote are both beyond me.

Own goal from the abstainers IMHO.

[ChicoG]

Regarding the branch secretary, why didn't he just go on strike? Then he would have had all the time in the world to fulfill his union duties AND show his support for his "comrades".

What's that I hear you say?

:O

[call100]

I think BA have made every effort to engage in meaningful discussions, but they could not sit around and wait for BASSA to "grow up" as you put it. They were haemorrhaging cash and needed to make cost cuts.

If BASSA had played ball to start with, the current situation would not exist.

They want to return things to the way they were. BA do not want to, and they are correct.

The only people that need to group up here are the BASSA reps that have lead their staff so poorly.

If, as you say, there are reps who feel this could have been sorted out a long time ago, they should communicate that fact to their fellow members and try and oust the idiots that have made so many pathetic mistakes in their desperate attempts at clinging on to power (and, lest we forget, their share of the members' subscriptions).
As I said many reps...I did not say many BASSA reps. As we are not directly involved with the dispute we cannot influence it. That said, I can assure you that many have let their feelings be known.
If BA had played ball the dispute would not have happened, easy statements to make. Your one sided view is just as appalling as BASSA's.
Both sides had some very valid points. Had two different sets of people been around the table the dispute would not have escalated.
You will never accept this as your attitude is entrenched as those you condemn. You will never understand the moderate argument any more than a BASSA rep. Equally you will never accept that BA have not been the shining light you think they are. Which is why I said we should agree to disagree....

[PAXboy]

In this report: BBC News - BA cabin crew reject latest pay offer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10695976)

Tony Woodley: "This is now a wake-up call for Willie Walsh"
May I politely suggest to Mr Woodley that Mr Walsh woke up some time ago ... :hmm:

The Union still seems to be of the view that it is only WW that is against them, yet the Board of mgmt have hired him and declared their support. All the other working groups have renegotiated. I ran out of words several 'astonisheds' and 'gobsmackeds' ago. Luckily, I am not going to be using BA for the rest of this year.

[leiard]

Is there any way of finding out what is the true (audited) membership figure for BASSA?
We hear that 12500+ were sent ballot papers – BASSA’s site state they have 9750+ members, one presumes the other 2750 were AMICUS members.

Duggie Fashion on the other thread “This was merely a consultative ballot and the reason for the low return was probably due to many people not receiving or returning their ballot papers in time.
I live in Germany and only received my ballot 5 days ago.”

Surely the idea of any ballot is that all members can participate!
3419 voted no to reject the offer
1686 voted to accept
12600 cabin crew in total – 7459 did not vote.

I find it very strange that in a dispute such as this so many people would abstain from voting – your jobs are on the line – I cannot believe you would not cast your vote.
How many cabin crew do not belong to the union – add that to the total who voted to accept.

[Hartington]

Can't see this has been reported here: Racism claim opens new front in BA dispute | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/18/britishairways-theairlineindustry) another variant British Airways (LON:BAY) Ballot Out Today (http://www.emoneydaily.com/british-airways-lonbay-ballot-out-today/6981182)

To summarise "CrewDefense" have filed a discrimination suit because they've had to give up living in Scotland, USA etc and move nearer to Heathrow.

[pcat160]

Of the 3419 that voted to reject the offer how many will be willing to go on strike? The question is not how many will vote to strike but how many will actually be willing to strike. 50% ? Add to the normal loss of pay striking this time may result in the loss of your employment.

[Neptunus Rex]

On that other forum, the current Bassa troll is claiming the "support of 100 academics," railing about Union busting.
Academics? Many young folk espouse Socialist ideals, then, as life experience grows, become more practical. The cloistered academic, with no real experience of life outside academe, does not mature in quite the same way.
One wonders how many of these Dons with unsaleable degrees will soon be be forced out into the real world for the first time in their lives?

[Dawdler]

Duggie:
“This was merely a consultative ballot and the reason for the low return was probably due to many people not receiving or returning their ballot papers in time.
I live in Germany and only received my ballot 5 days ago.”Strange that: He gives his location as UK. I wonder if this is another of the many inaccuracies in his posts.

What I find touching here is that somehow the pilots, engineers and other groundstaff who are cheering Willie on, seem to think that they will be immune from his attentions later on? If he beats the cabin crew, the rest of you will simply roll over and get it where the sun don't shine.compared with:......
Other departments settled because they were offered a much sweeter deal than cabin crew. Have you got new employees coming in on new contracts with much lower pay and inverior T&C's? No I didn't think so.Didn't the offer made in June LAST YEAR match that of other departments? including a share offer? If it was good enough to be a "much sweeter" offer to the other departments, how come Bassa rejected it without even consulting their members?

[JayPee28bpr]

What would be interesting to know is how many people signed and returned the individual offers that BA sent to all cabin crew. Only BA knows the answer to this, and I suspect they're not going to share with the rest of us. However, given the large number of non-voters in the Union ballot, I'd have a small bet that large numbers of actual Union members have accepted the deal as individuals, signed the "I wasn't in the Union, honest" declaration, and sent back to BA. If this is the case, then why would they bother voting in the Union ballot? Indeed, if they did they'd be at greater risk of losing the deal if Unite could show they'd done this when they're really subject to the collective agreement. I guess the accuracy of my theory will become apparent if and when Unite ballots for more strikes.

[Colonel White]

It could be that the poor response was due to the number of cabin crew who were
a) on leave
b) live overseas and did not recieve their ballot papers in sufficient time to be able to return them in the time available
c) did not return their votes in sufficient time to make the deadline.

or the fact that they were incapable of putting an x in a box :E
I'm not sure who was charged with sending out the ballot papers, the union or the body charged with counting the results. One thing that is certain is that Unite sent out more ballot papers than they have members.

[JackMcHammocklashing]

Once again I post this annomaly

I left the Union when I changed from engineer to clerk About ten years ago

It was TGWU, then I belive Amicus, which changed to Unite

The last BA IA I was asked to renew my fees ?

Last week I wa again asked to renew my fees

Now for ten years I have not had a peep out of them, Yet now they are asking for money
They must be needing mugs cash I think

At the moment I am stuck between a rock and a hard place
My employer HMRC is going beyond the pale, with T&C constructive dismissals to meet reduced staffing levels
The Union are beyond the pale with their demands in the current climate

I am in the Union because I am seriously afraid of dismissal, when absent through illness (rule abscent more than twice a year either one day or five each time or OR absent more than ten working days at once)

Or UNION wanting more than any normal person would request in current climes

I do vote, but it is lost amongst the abstainers 3000 yes IA 2500 no IA 20000 did not bother

Then you have the ones who do not join the Union pay nothing but get all the benefits others have forfeited income for

Sheesh what a world

I have only done three Long distance (to me! Dubai) return BA flights this year ECONOMY and the best was on a strike day, even after the aprehension of not getting to my destination on time

All were good, just the strike day, was more pleasant, staff doing that little bit extra than tea coffee You For COFFEE

Jack McH

[ChicoG]

Call100:

Had two different sets of people been around the table the dispute would not have escalated.

Had ONE different set of people been one side of the table, the dispute would not have escalated.

Bear in mind the crux of this was the issue of working one down, something Gatwick have managed to do without any problem.

This dispute is a result of (a) BA having to make cost cuts, which IMHO they tried to do without pay cuts, compulsory redundancies, etc. and (b) the LHR BASSA reps who basically had no intention of giving an inch.

But yes, we should agree to disagree.

[pvmw]

JMacHL said:-
Then you have the ones who do not join the Union pay nothing but get all the benefits others have forfeited income for

Or you could consider an alternative interpretation – that the non-union members lost out on a good offer that was wrecked because of the intransigence of a union to which they do not belong.

[johnoWhiskyX]

Regarding the very high numbers of none voters for the very important consultative ballot on the offer.

If i was a BASSA member who did not believe in the stance being taken, it is concievable that I may have signed the individual offer sent to my from BA (stating i was not a union member) And when the ballot papers arrived simply threw them away, allowing me to hand on heart say i did not vote (true) because i had resigned form the union <pick a date>.

When questioned regarding continued payments to the union i would look astonished and outraged." I never noticed, im gonna ring them immediately and put a flea in their ear". If questioned regarding the apparent lack of communication indicating a desire to remove myself from the union. I would firmly explain the phone call, email, letter of such and such date was sufficient and if they couldn't find it or didn't act on it, well, it sort of reinforces my reasons for leaving such a shambolic union. Of course if not questioned I would find it prudent to "discover my continued membership" and inform the union toot sweet .

Now who would BA believe? the person wanting to sign a new contract and work for them or the rabble intent on damaging the company?
Oh and I would be joining PCCC if for nothing else to be kept upto date on whats happening.

[JuliaHayes]

Dear Duncan / Duggie

I'm travelling LHR - SIN on 22 August. Please call a strike for that date so that I can travel with CC who actually want to be there.

Cheers!

Julia :ok:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Brand new to this thread but I have read the other thread from the very start and as someone on the outside of this dispute I am rather disheartened with what I read.

It would seem that the BA CC fall into 3 distinct groups, BASSA hardliners, BASSA sheep and the BASSA timid. I know that is an gross over simplification of a very complex situation but sat on the outside it's what appears to be the case.

Based on the latest figures it would seem the BASSA timid are, and probably always have been, in the majority so for the life of me I cannot understand why those at the helm of the PCCC are not jumping up and down identifying themselves. This would give all those BASSA timid and other non union CC members a beacon to head for and send a real message to the minority of hardliners that there is a real alternative.

No offence was intended for the use of the word timid and I apologise in advance but I could not really think of another suitable descriptor

[johnoWhiskyX]

I would disagree with your classifications, mine would be;

CC BASSA hardliners..yes (will do whatever they want regardless of consequence)
CC BASSA sheep..yes (will do whatever BASSA tells them)
CC BASSA timid..yes ( too scared to do anything)
CC BASSA Realist...yes (definately in the minority)
CC Realist.. Backing BA

But your comments regarding PCCC are spot on imo.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

johno,

I have spent over 20 years flying as crew and the one thing I do know is that pax expect those in charge of them to be able to stand up and confidently take the lead when things go wrong.

From what I have read, and again this may well be seen as a sweeping generalisation there are vast numbers of BA CC who are frightened fartless of even going to work during a strike and upsetting their friends, hence the taxi's, travel out of uniform, escorts in and out of buildings etc etc policies. CC who sit in their rooms down route for fear of causing offence, who are frightened to own up to other crew members about the fact they do not support the strike and the list goes on.

Imagine how this must read for the travelling public.

I have read some very emotive posts from those at the head of the PCCC and I am in agreement with what they stand for. But I am of the opinion that they should have put their heads above the parapet quite some time ago to show the BASSA hardliners that the fight is really on and to re establish the confidence of the travelling public that they are being cared for by capable people and not shrinking violets.

[Snas]

When questioned regarding continued payments to the union i would look astonished and outraged." I never noticed, im gonna ring them immediately and put a flea in their ear". If questioned regarding the apparent lack of communication indicating a desire to remove myself from the union. I would firmly explain the phone call, email, letter of such and such date was sufficient and if they couldn't find it or didn't act on it, well, it sort of reinforces my reasons for leaving such a shambolic union. Of course if not questioned I would find it prudent to "discover my continued membership" and inform the union toot sweet .



....and that would probably work, for my household now has copies of recorded delivery letters requesting that the union confirm membership exit back in Feb and despite that and several phone calls the only communications recieved from the union is usually ballots..!

The membership administration is a total mess, it has to be.

[77]

100 Academics

On that other forum, the current Bassa troll is claiming the "support of 100 academics," railing about Union busting.
Academics? Many young folk espouse Socialist ideals, then, as life experience grows, become more practical. The cloistered academic, with no real experience of life outside academe, does not mature in quite the same way.
One wonders how many of these Dons with unsaleable degrees will soon be be forced out into the real world for the first time in their lives?

The 100 Academic support letter appeared in the Guardian.
I seem to remember that at the time someone analysed the background of the "academics" and all were left wing and/or ex trade union or sponsored by trade unions.
A flawed cross section ???

BASSA spin again.....

[Mariner9]

I've been away for a week, but it seems not much has changed :rolleyes:

The latest BASSA incarnation on the main thread spouts the same old nonsense such as this strike is all the fault of Willie & the Pilots etc, while ignoring factual posts that expose the flaws in their arguments.

Meanwhile, it seems that about half of the cabin crew members in BASSA seemingly don't have an opinion on the most important decision they have yet to make in their career.

One wonders what Unite will make of the results. Surely they will advise BASSA of the folly of further IA given the very real risk of dismissal for their members and the virtual certainty that further IA will be ineffective in any event. But will BASSA listen to reason? I very much doubt it. :ugh:

[Ancient Observer]

I find it interesting that a number of posters have commented on here that they have long haul flights booked with BA, and so far, all have expressed the wish to fly on a strike day.

Does anyone who has a long haul BA flight booked want to fly on a non-stiking day? If yes, would you explain why?

PS - JSL, GG et al - note that my next l/h is with BA...........

[slast]

After lurking on this thread and the other one from the beginning, here’s my two-pennyworth, based on 35 years in BA, most of it with a BALPA position and part of the time with a management hat, though nearly all on the technical side.

BA’s CC always seemed to be the worst managed bit of the airline, and what’s happening now looks like the last act in a drama that started 50 years ago. Back in the 60s and 70s CC had a lot of ex-liner stewards in senior positions and the advent of the 747 provided the opportunity to push for increased status: “there are now so many cabin crew needed they have to have a full-time manager on board”. The position of Cabin Service DIRECTOR was created with this in mind, analogous to the Cruise Director on a large liner who is responsible for all the in-board entertainment, catering, entertainment etc. for thousands of people for weeks at a time. Such a person might even have an “office” under the stairs, but certainly wouldn't personally serve meals! CC management even tried to get this position of “Cabin Captain” recognised as second-in-command of the aircraft. Needless to say this created a reaction from flight ops and BALPA. It was firmly rebuffed but the trend was started whereby CC unions and management colluded to overstate the role of CC especially CSDs.

Many CC managers also seemed to love to micro-manage everyone below them, so like scheduling systems which give most crew little control over their own lives. The sickness rate in CC is well known to be grossly inflated by “social sickness”, which is simply individual CC taking back control of when they work and more importantly when they don’t. This causes instability and inflates the headcount with standbys, When standby is incorporated in lines of rostered flying, if the standby is used it can cause further instability by knocking out later trips. So you need more standby crew….

That same system was used for pilots in the 60s and early 70s, and the sickness rate improvement and overall satisfaction when a bidding system was introduced was remarkable. When CC strikes were called in the past and massive disruption resulted, it was nearly all due to “sickness” not striking. During one such period of unrest I made this point to a senior CC manager, who just said most CC weren’t “mature enough” to be trusted with a preferential bidding system. Of course the senior union reps and their supporters were happy with the existing system too, as they found ways to make things satisfactory for themselves, and over the years the CSD position in particular accrued significant benefits way above the reality of the responsibility involved.

Adding to this internal empire-building conspiracy between management and union reps was of course the increasing emphasis on the central importance of CC as the employees with the maximum exposure to passengers. While true up to a point, for some, in their own minds, it meant that they above all others ARE the airline. The most militant CC seem to be people who have largely been brought up in that culture of over-inflated self-esteem.

Meanwhile, newer generations of CC recruits have different ideas about what their role can and should be in the cut-throat economics of the 21st century. But they have been treated like badly-brought up children, often praised but given no responsibility. Confused by a continuous stream of half-truths from their “leaders” who mostly have a different agenda entirely, they don’t know what to think and so don’t even vote in potentially career-changing ballots.

They are not helped by the fact that many of the more militant ones seem not to be even fully devoted to the career they profess to be defending. I would question the right of a 50% worker’s vote to strike carrying equal weight with that of a full-time worker – after all they have a 50% less chance of being required to follow through by refusing to report on a strike day, and have less to lose than a full-timer if things go wrong (as they have in the current situation). As for using deliberate disruption of long-planned and hard earned trips of passengers as a weapon to re-institute the ability to get to the head of the queue while commuting to a part-time job from another continent using a non-contractual “perk” – words fail me!

The end result seems to be that BA has finally determined to get a grasp on the nettle that it needs to uproot. It grew largely a result of its own actions many years ago. It cannot afford to, and will not let it re-root. Hopefully a new and less inward-looking CC management team can find more truly representative union people to deal with in future. For BASSA, it looks like the game is over.

[TruBlu123]

I broadly support your post. Although from a different background to yours I shared roughly the same time with the "firm" One of your comments did strike a chord with me. Namely that part time CC whether 75%, 50% or lately on 30% rosters have the same weighting as full time staff when it comes to balloting. Many of these folk are frankly "hobby jobbers" with little commitment in my opinion to the fortunes of the airline going forward. Is it really democratic that part-time staff should have such sway in a ballot? Does any one out there no what proportion of the 12,000+ headcount are genuinely full time? After all a disproptionate ratio of part-timers is also a cost to the company. Think of the additional mandatory training, uniforms, admin etc... Employment legislation probably accounts for some of this but has BA been too generous in allowing CC to switch to reduced hours contracts?

[Octopussy2]

I have seen plenty of references to BA being able to fly 100% of longhaul flights during the next strike (if there is one). Does anyone know about shorthaul? We are booked LHR to Bordeaux on August 14th (long-awaited family holiday, all the usual stuff) - does anyone fancy my chances of getting there if it falls on a strike day?:confused:

[Ancient Observer]

slast
thank you for that posting. I know that typing can be a pain - it was a long post. It was both informative and helpful
thank you

[Hotel Mode]

I have seen plenty of references to BA being able to fly 100% of longhaul flights during the next strike (if there is one). Does anyone know about shorthaul? We are booked LHR to Bordeaux on August 14th (long-awaited family holiday, all the usual stuff) - does anyone fancy my chances of getting there if it falls on a strike day?

Its completely impossible for it to be a strike day. September at the earliest.

[Mocamps]

Hi Octopussy,

I have now traveled short-haul 3 times on strike days - twice to Newcastle and once to Geneva. On all occasions I got there with no problems!! I did have to retain flexibility as there were definitely quite a few cancellations but BA allow you to change your flights if they happen to fall on strike days so you just change to a flight that IS running. The plus was that some people had obviously not traveled so the airport was a bit quieter and the staff were excellent (I assume that these are the ones who are keen to promote the company rather than destroy it!!) so the onboard service was great though the flights were pretty full!! Hope that reassures you,. I think it is important that we regular customers don't desert BA and allow BASSA and people like the guy now posting absolute rubbish on the other forum (Duggie) to even vaguely think that they have managed to put us off!!

[vee-tail-1]

slast You have summed up the situation perfectly. I spent 25 years flying as an Engineer Officer on B707s & B747s and observed the CC empire evolve as you describe. IMO the BASSA hardliners and all the CSDs should go, and the CC empire needs to be brought into the rest of BA. I believe WW has the balls to do it and the sooner the better for all of us, pax and ex crew.

[JackMcHammocklashing]

Yes pay us a visit just to get a heads up, of what is out here in the real world

There are almost 3 Million unemployed

Companies can pick and choose like never before

If you wear the leppers badge ex BA CREW, not much chance, other airlines would not touch you with a barge pole (not that you would wish to work for poorer conditions off course)

So what does it leave

Well you can not take the desperate for cash to pay the mortgage route of crop picking as employers prefer the hard working willing to accept min wage immigrant workers

So that is out

Even bar work, employers would take ex barstaff as already aquainted with the life rather than new staff to the trade

OK desperation go to CONTACT CENTRE AS PHONE ADVISOR Sorry no

Although you just have to answer the phone and read scripts from a screen
there are so many out of work UNI GRADS 2.1 Who prefer it to shift work flipping burgers, that the usual pick of office staff are bottom of the heap

Ah HOSPITALITY manager, sorry there are dozens already looking for employment, the employer will take the ex Cruise Director to the CCD
From an airline (err lets make a decission here both inteligent but one manages twelve crew the other 2000 damn its hard)

Menial jobs, they will not take get up and go inteligent types because
Well they will get up and go (If they find something else BIG IF)

We all want the best in life, and to defend it, but in the present climes
CC you need to take a long hard look, and be thankful for what you have or even a reduction in it

"For exercise" "For exercise" "For exercise"
Next time you are off, Just pop into a JOB CENTRE and peruse what is on offer,, that is if you can stand the smell, the crush, and the desperate for work
HEY you will go back to BA and offer to work for free food only

The big benefits, live good for nothing, is only for people that have NEVER Worked
The ex worker has to suffer Two years of hardship and be down to NOTHING (including the loss of the home) before any reasonable help will appear

I am an erk in an office, now my peers are all UNI 2.1 GRADS, since 2008
It used to be two bit secretarys


I do not know WHY I posted this heads up because I much prefer the flights on strike days, and the airline would be better off without the militants

I posted it because I do not wish to see my fellow man in destitution:sad:

Jack McH

[Entaxei]

In the past few posts, there have been calls for the founders of the PCCC to stand up and put their heads up above the parapets, lead from the front and provide an example to the rest of the CC.

In a situation, where from comments made, we are given to understand that there are possible criminal prosecutions and dismissals for intimidation, threats of damage to property, threats to individuals, families and children, threatening behaviour at strike meetings, and the type of intimidating behaviour as seen by the mob intrusion at the ACAS meeting, would you prospective leaders care to take on the position of being the nominated individuals at the forefront of the nascent PCCC organisation. This will allow those involved to continue to work, without for example worrying about their families, especially if on L/H for a 4 day trip, never mind working relationships within a crew including militants/strikers.

It is all very well using the military dictum of leading from the front, when you have a totally secured base to operate from, full security, organisation and backup, but these things take time to put into being, and until then everything gained to date can be easily destroyed. If you read back on the posting on both threads, the thing that crops up regularly is a troll or construct popping up with a demand to know who are the names behind the PCCC, to date nobody has provided any details and when you don't know who the enemy are, you can't try to destroy them - which I would guess has and is causing a lot of frustration in BASSA - long may it last!! :E

[Litebulbs]

Yes pay us a visit just to get a heads up, of what is out here in the real world

Some do, then the pack hunt starts if they post an opinion against the thread bias. Then they are reported and a thread ban is requested.

Folks

We can't ban Duggie Fashion (as several of you have requested) simply because his/her views are in opposition to the consensus on this thread, or because those views are expressed in an immature and irritating manner.

The way to deal with this is either to ignore, or to rebut with facts. The odds are that you will never change this persons' mind - it's probably best not to try: However, in posting facts rather than outrage, you may help convince others. Not everybody who reads this thread contributes, many just lurk.

This thread would be a dull place if everybody who argues against the consensus was driven away - maybe you can learn from it?

Balanced? (2 paragraphs)

[harrypic]

This is their opportunity....BASSA in disarray and hugely disillusioned at the turnout - half their members or so, didnt vote.

Maybe those half that didnt vote are looking for something to replace Bassa, but can't find it yet as PCCC is invisible to them, so abstain?

DH's memos contain some interesting pschology - his memos read like memo's to children.....right now there are 5000 children who are disullutioned by their father figure, but have no-one to replace him, so they abstain in the ballot as they don't know what else to do.....they are yours for the taking....

So, Hiflyer and the rest of the PCCC, you have a unique window of opportunity to give those children a new figurehead and gain the 5000 or so members you need to be recognised.

Get out from hiding - launch and grab those members - the time is now...

If you delay those 5000 will just abstain again in an IA ballot and secure their own fates...and you'll never get the % of members you need for recognition....

[Landroger]

Some do, then the pack hunt starts if they post an opinion against the thread bias. Then they are reported and a thread ban is requested.

That is a bit disingenuous Litebulbs and, from what an outsider can gather, not the least bit like the BASSA and Crew Forums which apparently ban with ferocious speed and regularity.

To be honest, it has taken me a long time to get the hang of moderation on this forum - so different from my 'home' forum - but I have to say FlapsForty in particular has done and is doing a bang up job in a hostile environment. I don't think Watersidewonker, Fume Event, Ava (the Brit in Saffa) have been banned, even though some of their posts have been vanished. Some of mine have. :confused:They could, if they chose and were all different people, still come back to offer their point of view. But they don't. :rolleyes:

The problem is and always has been, all the way through the whole eighteen months of forumeering, those like the above do not care to refute arguments put to them by those on this forum. When confronted by verifiable evidence counter to their party line, the reaction is almost always silence or a snappy, but pointless or even incomprehensible one liner. I think I can say with reasonable confidence, I have never seen a carefully constructed, incontestably argued (and properly spelled :ugh:) outline of the BASSA case and its reasons for reacting so violently to a situation common to all BA employees.

Over the span of this matter, I have noticed how the tenor has changed in response to BASSA actions and proclamations. First, a genuine desire to correct the naff thinking and baseless spin. Then astonishment and confusion at the onset of strikes, followed shortly by growing irritation with BASSA's attitude and now, outright anger at BASSA's very real threat to thirty odd thousand non CC BA staff. And still the cabin crew militants appear to be completely incapable of understanding how others feel about them and the extent of the folly to which they have been led. :ugh: :ugh:

ROger.

[PAXboy]

I would like to thank slast VERY much indeed for the historical background. Another poster made reference to the importance of looking forward, and one must, but if you do not know the past, then you cannot improve on it.

It all makes sense of course, we know that the Captain was treated as was the Captain of an ocean liner with an absolute authority that was almost unassailable. That lesson was learnt and now it's called CRM.

It strikes me that, one of the reasons the management of CC got so slack is that, it was CC promoted to manage CC and the inevitable favouritism. Of course, there was then the income to be able to overlook the problems. Now the problems have outgrown all proportion and have to be fixed.

As I have said before, it's not nice and some people will lose out but, if realistic discussion had taken place from the outset? It could have been phased in. But human beings are hard wired to grab everything NOW and let go NEVER. Well, 'never' is just turning off the active and about to taxi up to the gate ... :ooh:

[13Alpha]

I'm about to book our annual trip to Hong Kong. I've been there five times now and flown with BA three times, Qantas once and Cathay once (last year). As a BA silver card holder ordinarily BA would be my default choice. But here's the text of the email I just sent to my wife's family:


OK let's go for a departure on xx/yy/zz then, means the three of us can travel together, hopefully you can come too XXXXX.

I have a BA silver card too but I've more or less given up on them due to their service with a scowl / strikes / their air miles aren't worth much. So I'd prefer to go on Cathay unless it's wildly more expensive. (Cathay also do daytime flights on the way back which is less tiring and you get an extra night in HK)


Striking cabin crew: all over Britain, and BA's destinations worldwide, people are sending similar emails and avoiding booking with your airline, threatening its future and with it your jobs and those of thousands of your colleagues.

Regardless of what your union says, this is the reality. Do you care ?

In 20 years will you proudly be telling your children that you helped destroy an airline ?

13Alpha

[JackMcHammocklashing]

I have not seen a pack hunt on the SLF forum, just on other side

SLF are only wanting to know what BASSA strike wishing staff want to gain
When in the present employment situation out there is desperate, it seems a bad time to rock the boat

As I said in my last post
If staff wanting to strike visit a Job Centre on their next off days, it may focus their mind set

Myself as a SLF in all honesty I only do about three return leisure flights a year only recently using BA and to be honest apart from the leather seats and extra inch Easy Jet were far superiour (as an economy pax)

All the Easy Jet staff were bi lingual (Polish and English) YOUNG and eager to please Never stopped for the whole of the flight All of them boss too

Served meals, then drinks, then DF, then tried to flog scratch cards. then Charity envelopes, issued out daily newspapers, start again with the meals, drinks, DF's
The leather seats on BA are much easier to wipe clean after accidents

It may come as a shock working non stop shoveling coal for six hours like staff in other employment, but the alternative is no employment at all

I can see why BA CC want to keep what they have who would not, but if cuts are not made then there will be no BA so no staff required

The present state of UK economy, means that if you find yourself unemployed then for at least five years you will be destitute
Home gone, and usually this breaks up the family

Arfur Scag tried the bassa technique, how many miners do you know now?
As for the leaders :-)
LORD John Prescot of Hull, a workers leader who would spit on the house of Lords
Head bowed in Ermin taking the queens shilling free grub for life

The working class can kiss my a$$ I have the foremans job at last :)

Jack McH

[red wren]

I too am SLF who in the past always travelled with BA. But now I will not risk ruining my hard earned holiday because a few greedy senior cc seem to care about nobody but themselves. I have booked with a rival airline and even if BA survive this farce it will be a very long time before I will be confident enough to use them again. Another thing that puts me off is the idea that my safety in an emergency is in the hands of someone who flew long haul to work!

[pcat160]

How will the issue of who is and who is not a member of the union ( Unite ) be resolved? Based on posting on this board many CC who have resigned from Unite are still receiving ballots to vote as if they are members. How many CC are there and how many are members of Unite? Does anybody actually know the answer the question?

[Neptunus Rex]

From Duncan's diatribe on that other forum:
The whole trade union movement is watching our situation with baited breath.From a dictionary:
USAGE The spelling baited breath instead of bated breath is a common mistake that, in addition to perpetuating a cliché, evokes a distasteful image. A distasteful image indeed.

[TightSlot]

...it has taken me a long time to get the hang of moderation on this forum - so different from my 'home' forum - but I have to say FlapsForty in particular has done and is doing a bang up job in a hostile environment. I don't think Watersidewonker, Fume Event, Ava (the Brit in Saffa) have been banned, even though some of their posts have been vanished. Some of mine have. They could, if they chose and were all different people, still come back to offer their point of view. But they don't.

I also mod the CC forum and 'that' thread - None of the above names were permanently banned (apart from the odd day here and there) - They simply chose not to post further. In several cases, they (and others) delete their own posts - to other users this appears to be as a result of mod activity when fact it isn't.

This thread/forum has deliberately been given greater tolerance and latitude in the strictness of moderation than the CC thread, after agreement with all of the CC Forum mods - partly in recognition of the posting restrictions on the CC thread. FYI - this thread is read by a large number of people, including CC than you may be aware of.

[call100]

Who in the TU movement do they think is waiting with bated breath? 99% of union members have troubles of their own and really couldn't care less about the BASSA/BA fiasco.

[bizdev]

A week or so ago, I was watching my local news on TV when a story came on about Southampton Football Club. Being a brummie 'blue nose' fan I was only mildly interested but I perked up when a Southampton Football Club 'historian' was interviewed. As I was reading my newspaper at the time I did not see the chaps name but I am almost 100% sure it was DH.

Maybe a new career beckons?

Posted this on the other thread before realising I was not allowed - so posting it here as well. p.s. mods - I did work for BA for 17 years

[RTR]

"Poor Duncan"

Poor sap more like! The penny appears to have dropped. It would seem that he and his chosen few have brow beaten successive CEO's at BA and got away with murder. Now he has come up against a CEO who knows what he is about and sacked him because he excused himself from work while 'the firm' wanted him flying - must have been in his contract! Then he cries wolf and the law bites his bum.

A salutory lesson for his mates and BASSA. Their teeth are being pulled one by one and with such a lousy result how can Unite support them - and him? This latest ballot may well be the end of BASSA. How PCCC takes their place is a matter of some urgency I would have thought. WW I feel will welcome the change

Good luck to all the CC. You are best out of BASSA and since Holley is still taking his ridiculous rake-off from their subs, LM too I shouldn't wonder. Perhaps it is now time to resign and cut DH and others from their income from your subs.

[notlangley]

I am a customer of BA._ I have never worked for any airline._ I own a few shares in BA but not enough to warp my judgement._ We are seeing history being made._ Some years ago the current industrial relations laws were altered by those who sat in the House of Commons and discussed this, presumably in committee._ The result of their efforts are the current laws._ The elected members of Parliament had as their guide the history and record of industrial disputes._ But it would not help their discussions that there would be conflicting histories and mismatched records of each of the past industrial disputes._ The MPs then framed the present laws.

This BA/Unite conflict has tested the limits._ It has probably tested the limits much more robustly than any of those MPs could have envisaged._ Several actions in this conflict have been controversial._ There are those who will say that this conflict demonstrates that the laws are biased against Unions, others will say the laws are biased in favour of Unions, others will say the laws are ok._ Nevertheless, history has been made and this historical episode is not over._ How terrible for those individuals who have had their finances or self-esteem bruised.

From an understanding of how industrial action can be allowed to happen in a democratic society - and what bounds and controls are fair or unfair, this conflict will go down in history as a text-book example.

[Neptunus Rex]

Dear Tight Slot,
I use the soubriquet "that other forum" as an allusion. In The House of Commons, The House of Lords is always referred to as "that other place." Seems apt, somehow.

I also think that the PPRuNe Mods do a great job, under sometimes very trying conditions. Hat doffed (showing my balding pate!)

[Octopussy2]

Hotel Mode and Mocamps

Many thanks for your replies, much appreciated.

[Ancient Observer]

One of the lines allegedly written by the bassa branch sec is as follows....

" We simply cannot have BA dictating to us how and when our important union work should be done."

Wow!!
Clearly this individual has never worked in the real world. I've worked in heavy industry, fmcg, the service sector (transportation) and in Aviation. In all of those companies, (bar one) there was heavy unionisation. In every company, a representative had to obtain permission from the company to leave their place of work to do "union business". No means "NO".

The union members pay their money to be represented by Full Time Officials, employed by the Union. They are called in when the local rep.can't deal with an issue. In my experience, it has never been the job of an employee/rep. to decide not to work, but to do Union business.

If the expressed view of this branch sec. is the view of the bassa reps, then I hate to think what they'll do when they start working for a company in the real world.
If the BA managers in the past have allowed/condoned/encouraged this behaviour, then shame on them.

[Ancient Observer]

A number of posts here and in/on that other place have referred to the branch sec of bassa personally receiving 3% of all payments made by BA CC to their TU.

Can anyone verify this, or is it just rumour?

[Snas]

Does UK employment law allow a company to ask for an official audit (or conduct it themselves with their employees) to assure themselves that a union is certified (has 50%+1) to represent the group?


it does....

CAC - Schedule A1 (Part I) (http://www.cac.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2333)

or

Statutory derecognition of a trade union - derecognition ballots | Flexible Support for Business Wales (http://fs4b.wales.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1084264955&site=230)

I know it's Wales, but the law is the same and the Welsh web page is easier to find things in...!

[Neptunus Rex]

From that other forum, it transpires the Duncan is the part-time historian for Southampton Football Club. Strangely enough, it seems that there is no love lost between DH and the Chairman of the Club, Rupert Lowe. The quote below is taken from an open letter written By DH to Southampton FC in 2006:
I think Rupert Lowe to be a first class bully and I also regard him as an autocratic egotist. Furthermore I think his destructive presence is very harmful to the future well being of our club.
There seems to be a common thread here of locking horns with authority. Was DH bullied at school? I think we should be told.

[Diplome]

Some do, then the pack hunt starts if they post an opinion against the thread bias. Then they are reported and a thread ban is requested.



Any individual can request a thread ban, much as I can request to be a natural blonde. A request matters little if it is unreasonable.

I don't believe any reasonable individual can have too much objection to the moderation of this site. Many of us, myself included, have been sent to the corner at one time or another to rethink our approach. However, my observation is that great patience is taken by the moderators to apply an even hand and obvious effort is made to stay engaged with this forum so that SLF can continue to exchange ideas, information and observations. Without appropriate moderation I doubt the forum decorum would stay at a level that many of us would wish to continue to engage in.

Yes, it is unfortunate that we have to bring our own cocktails and sometimes I do wish they would serve some nice warm appetizers (and I'm not even going to bring up the rather hurtful dismissal of my suggested strike questions. While I will admit that after two VT's I will find some things amusing when in the morning I may go "What was I thinking?", but it still hurt :sad: and I'm seeking counseling to provide me with the ability to move on.)

All in all I think that rather than take this forum for granted we should rather be saying "Thank you" to the moderators from time to time.

If they ever tire of the extra time it takes to oversee this forum along with their other duties and simply close the thread I'm not aware of one other place I could go that would provide the sort of right-middle-left views, information and lively exchange that is received here.

So, Moderators..."Thank you"

[etrang]

I think Rupert Lowe to be a first class bully and I also regard him as an autocratic egotist. Furthermore I think his destructive presence is very harmful to the future well being of our club.

I wonder what has happened to Southampton FC since then.

[slast]

thank you paxboy.....
I wonder if any of the other readers of this thread who agree and are qualified would care to copy some of it into the "other thread" - much as I would like to, I can't comment there myself, not being a current employee now.......

[GCI35]

A bit off thread but a tenuous link: Rupert Lowe was voted off the board a few years back, altho' I cant see DH's contribution being anything to do with the Chairman's removal.

[Snas]

Baggers, Non-Union members didnt vote as such, they simply signed in acceptance of the terms being offered. As I understand it (happy to be corrected) for them, thats that, job done.

Certainly my partner hopes thats the case, she's had more than enough and just wants to go to work and do a decent job, the sooner BASSA allow her the better, is her view.

[BillS]

Edit:
Originally in response to a post that has now been deleted.
Both quotes, by a striker, originate from here. (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-66.html#post5824016)

Willie is bugging the room phones at the Aurora!!

(That's my favorite.)
How about:
Duncan is a wally. I mean, have you read his updates?

[fincastle84]

Here we go again, Unite will ballot the CC for yet more Industrial Action. I imagine that BA's legal team are rubbing there hands together in anticipation of yet more legal action!

[Teessider53]

Can any of you sensible cc help me.
We are booked on a long haul flight on 3rd Sept. but have a connecting flight on the morning from Newcastle. Whilst I would feel comfortable enough once in Heathrow does anyone know what would happen if this was a strike day and I was stuck in Newcastle airport (or what previously happened) on the friday morning.
Can I also take this opportunity to thank the cc and vcc who attempted to keep the service going as normally as possible.I think the majority of passengers are grateful for your efforts. I wish you luck and hope that the neanderthal thinking of the minority of your colleagues will soon be a thing of the past.I am an ex union rep (retired NHS) and cannot for the life of me understand what they are thinking of in these hard times when many people are facing the loss of their job and there are many greater injustices to contend with.

Good luck for the future and long live BA
:D

[Capot]

she's had more than enough and just wants to go to work and do a decent job, the sooner BASSA allow her the better, is her view.

Good for her. Why doesn't she go back to work and do a decent job, then?

Has BASSA got her locked up?

[Mocamps]

Teesider,

From what I could see when travelling on previous strike days to/from Newcastle, they kept the early and late flights and it was the middle ones that suffered. As soon as the schedule was announced, you could swap onto the flights that were planned to operate without penalty. And in my experience, those flights operated perfectly (better than usual actually!!) If you really wanted to play safe, you could swap to the day before and nightstop perhaps?
Though from what I understand, WW says that there will be even more shorthaul flights if they are mad enough to strike again. Are they?? Who knows?? I cannot understand their thinking at all!! I would really take heart from the fact that there now seems to be only the 'duty' BASSA poster on the other forum whereas in the early days there were some who were more obviously just cabin crew who did not know which way to turn. I think most of those have decided and have turned away from BASSA judging by the lack of BASSA sympathisers expressing views now.
Good luck! And try not to worry about it. I'm also going on holiday in September and am still planning to fly BA because I don't want to let these few wreck the lives of so many!! I have great admiration for the VCC who have stepped in and kept the company going.::D

[Snas]

Good for her. Why doesn't she go back to work and do a decent job, then?

Has BASSA got her locked up?


Interesting tone, but ok, meaning can get lost in text so I'll respond by asking if you believe that normal service has been the experience since Christmas? For anyone, PAX, CC, VCC, Management?

I'll give you a silly example if you like: How about the debate she has with some crew each flight when she is spotted reaching for the hot towles..!

..or how about the atmosphere when she requests that crew dont sit in the gally filling in forms claiming strike pay during a flight, or the grilling that follows being spotted taking refreshments to flight crew, I could go on with more serious examples, I really could.

Regardless of who you believe is at fault all is not usual at work and hasnt been for some time. Some will state it's down to BA's management I know, she holds the view that it's BASSA, you have your own position I'm sure - which view is correct is the subject of this forum debate is it not.

[Neptunus Rex]

That other thread is so much 'same old, same old.'
Would someone in the know please start a new thread when something actually happens? Probably on or after 1st August.
Possible title: "'The Bill' - BA vs BASSA."

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/flaguk.gif

[Capot]

Snas..

I follow; I read your post as BASSA not allowing her to go back to work, rather than BASSA (or rather those acting in its name) not allowing her to do a decent job when she is at work.

So, apologies and I understand.

[notlangley]

At the same time that Trade Union history is being made in the UK. the future is being manufactured in the US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGqrsjILo4

[ExXB]

Teesider,
I would not trust BA to protect your short-haul connection. During the last strike BA cancelled our connecting flight out of Heathrow and, despite promises in the media to reroute us on other airlines, other flights, other ... , they didn't. We were given an option of returning a day earlier or a refund. So we agreed to travel the day earlier, a non-strike day. They then cancelled the day earlier connecting flight out of Heathrow, and told us we could 'stand-by' for a later flight that day. No guarantees, no compensation, nothing. After sweating for 24 hours or so, not knowing if we could get home, we did.

Expect the worst. (and I'm ex-gold, currently silver, and soon to be blue). You can't trust these bar-stewards.

[JackMcHammocklashing]

From the other place
Colonel White posts what I have posted for a long time

"THERE REALLY IS NO WORK OUT THERE"

SNIP

COLONEL WHITE

Came across the following article which may be of interest to those cabin crew thinking of taking further industrial action

'Pier Walker, 45, has been unemployed for over a year after a long and successful career working for British Airways in its first class cabin crew. Pier says: “I would like a job in customer services. Initially I was quite selective in what I applied for, but now I’m so desperate that I’m looking in any sector. On average I’m making two job applications a day but I have only been able to secure one interview for a permanent role and that has taken months to arrange. I have received no job offers to date.”'

Full article here =>Online Recruitment - Today?s jobseeker: over-qualified and undervalued (http://www.onrec.com/news/todays_jobseeker_over-qualified_and_unde)

Article is dated 23/7/10, so very recent. Does make you think about the value of hanging on to your job as opposed to throwing it away defending BASSA's principles


HOT WINGS REPLIES
Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's Qualified"
"
END SNIP

I obviously can not reply on the other place
If you can, then tell HotWings and the rest of them

Because there are thousands of the above fully qualified in the profession already unemployed looking for the work
They are not going to take someone who has a knowledge of the job when there are people who have done the job waiting for another one to pop up

What used to be school girl leavers doing office work for peanuts, have been replaced by UNI Gradutates doing office work for peanuts

OTHER AIRLINES have staff turnover, because they are UNI Graduates gap yearing and earning a lot more than burger flipping

LOSE YOUR JOB and you are destitute for at least five years, until your home and family have gone, all your savings, and by then your knowledge of the job is five years out of date and NO CHANCE

My employment, I now have ex proud well off men (and Ladies) with the BMW big house inc £90k they are now on £120 per fortnight Job Seekers Allowance for six months, then nothing until all the above have GONE then £120 a fortnight Income support, this has been for over eighteen months now
You can not keep a big house, nice car, and model wife on that, They ALL go

2010 is not the year to risk losing what you have

Jack McHammocklashing

[BAAlltheway]

I might be wrong, but i think the "why doesnt he get a job as a paramedic, midwife etc" comment was a touch of sarcasm from the poster, rather than serious question, based on the long thread conversations where we hear about all the hundreds of highly qualified BA CC who are lawyers, doctors, teachers, dentists, midwives, who decided to give it up and be CC instead.

(Not that i doubt that there are indeed some former professionals amongst the crew...)

[JackMcHammocklashing]

Yeah thanks for the heads up

My post still stands

If you lose your employment now you are ruined

Regards Jack McH

[pw82506]

Looks like DH has time on his hand and has wheeled out one of his female personas for an Anonymous article in todays Guardian.

He has a nice little dig at the Pilots and generally tries to stir up trouble - again

Quote
"And it's not just the passengers you have to look out for. I once saw a fist-fight break out when two of the cabin crew discovered they were sleeping with the same captain. The straight crew probably have the best job of all – they work with all the female staff, rather than being confined to the cockpit, so they get off with more girls than anyone else. It can be a great social life – wild parties in hotels; skinny-dipping, smoking dope and getting drunk. There have been moments where I've thought, thank God the passengers can't see us now, like the time I was sitting by a swimming pool in Cyprus at 5am, drinking martinis and watching our drunken flight captain flirting with a girl, and thinking, "He's got to fly a plane in less than four hours' time." Still, he was flying Airbus, which means they hardly have to do a thing – the computer almost lands it for them."

Maybe he is playing Miss M or Ava in this one. I wonder how he gets into character?

But typical how the CC job is implied to be more dificult than Pilots, who "hardly have to do a thing".

How can a national newspaper print such utter tosh - well it is the Guardian I suppose

[Entaxei]

A few posts have mentioned militant CC wearing BASSA lanyards while on duty. Are additional items of this nature, allowed to be worn with/on their uniform, (bearing in mind all the previous fuss about a member of the checkin staff wearing a crucifix), as it appears on the surface that the wearing of this lanyard is possibly being used to cause dissension/possible intimidation amongst crews. It can't give too good an impression to passengers who are aware of the BA/BASSA problems.

Or is this a molehill looking to be a mountain? :confused:

[Pohutu]

Not sure how BA could let something like that stand unchallenged

Possibly because, despite the implication in pw82506's post, the article in question isn't about BA. It is a magazine article about the life of cabin crew which doesn't mention any airline by name at all. It includes anecdotes about LoCo airlines, and I suspect is a composite written from accounts from many different cabin crew.

[pb3]

@baggersup
It's a whole other category to allege staff were using drugs and a captain was abusing the alcohol policy, inferring he was an unsafe pilot as a result. That's actionable.

I'm sure the paper will be receiving a phone call from BA's lawyers forthwith.

Not sure how BA could let something like that stand unchallenged in a major daily. Hope the paper's publishers have very deep pockets.



I believe the article in question is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/24/cabin-crew-insider-tells-all)

Note that nowhere within this article is British Airways, or indeed the name of any Airline mentioned.

It is a touch unfortunate however that BA is the subject of all of the articles in the Related section. This might lead some readers to conclude that British Airways was the target of the article.

I would have thought the related articles are selected by some type of algorithm rather than by a human?

[Cherwell]

You are right. People need to know when they’ve got it good and to put their livelihood at risk at a time when there are no viable alternatives is a folly.
But we still hear of executive excesses (e.g. M&S) and management using the economic situation to exploit the workforce (e.g. unpaid internships). I’m afraid the Victorian mill owner instinct for exploitation is never far away! Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment. An eternal struggle in which the balance of power shifts with the prevailing economic and political environment.

[Snas]

Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment.

I completely agree but would suggest that in the case of BASSA/Unite and BA CC they have acted in such a fashion as to have jeopardised the continued employment of many and indeed already concluded the employment of a few.

[Colonel White]

With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical victorian mill owner and modern management. To kick off with, the mill owners were in the main deeply religious men with a strong work ethic who were not responsible to shareholders and who invariably did not have a senior management team running the enterprise. Any profits from the mill went into the owner's pocket, thus he had a vested interest in operating at the lowest cost threshold.

Contrast this with the management teams of companies like BA, where although the senior execs do get bonuses, they invariably come in the form of share options. The profits don't go into their pockets, they are shared by all the shareholders (assuming the company pays a dividend). It is utter tosh to suggest that the management team of any company is exploiting the current economic situation to undermine its staff. In any organisation employee costs invariably figure as one of if not the highest cost items. So in a time when revenues are down, the logical area to tackle is cost reduction and employee PPI costs are a prime target.

Unions are in a difficult position. They should be aware of the economic realities but it runs counter to their position. They know that cutbacks are required, but the notion of losing a few in order to protect the many is opposed to the idea of protection for all.

As far as executive pay goes, yes, the amount that Stuart Rose gets as part time chairman of M&S does seem ridiculous, but then so is the amount that football clubs pay for players. At least Stuart Rose has been able to help M&S make a profit. And on the subject of pay, why does nobody shout about the package that TU leaders enjoy ?

[notlangley]

With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical Victorian mill owner and modern management.

With respect there are modern day examples such as IKEA, Nike & Wal-Mart

BBC News | EUROPE | IKEA accused of exploiting child workers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/41968.stm)

Nike admits to mistakes over child labour - Americas, World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nike-admits-to-mistakes-over-child-labour-631975.html)

Wal-Mart settles child labor cases - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6958916/rssuserland)

[PAXboy]

JackMcHammocklashing
COLONEL WHITE "THERE REALLY IS NO WORK OUT THERE"HOT WINGS REPLIES
Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's QualifiedBecause he's 45 years old. This country is soooo age-ist that I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.
Yes - he could do lots of jobs
Yes - he would work hard and not take 'sickies'
Yes - he would be better than the youngsters due to life experience
Yes - he would probably work for lower money than he is used to
BUT - he's 45.The 20 somethings that make many hiring decisions these days do not hire people that are old enough to be their parent. End of story. I watched this happening from when I was 31 and working in the City of London. When I was in my mid-40s? End of career. My brother hit the same age-bump. IF you can stay in the same company, then you are OK but DON'T try and change your line of work over the age of 40. Which is why it is particularly terrible for those who have no choice.

I am now self employed and doing a rewarding job but at less than 50% of what I used to earn.

Welcome to Britain.

[pcat160]

I know this question has been asked ad infinitum, however I can not help myself.
Without question another strike will;
1. Inflict additional financial pain on BA, and
2. Inflict additional pain on strikers.
Is this in the interest of anybody, particularly striking Cabin Crew?
Does anybody believe that additional strikes will hasten the return of Staff Travel or cause BA to reemploy Duncan?
I do not expect the usual BASSA Noms de Plume to provide a succinct answer, but possibly some of the nonaligned Cabin Crew could express their thoughts as to why additional strikes are appropriate.

[PAXboy]

pcat160 You are asking such sensible questions but, unfortunately, 1970s Unions do not read questions the way that you ask them!

Any organisation/group of people gets bogged down with "We've always done it this way" and that is why:
Companies start to fail and get bought up
Governments fall apart and lose elections
Laws made 200 years ago are no longer applicable and must be remade
Churches start infighting and then have a schism
People who have been married for 25 years and appear to be happy get a divorce.
Employment practices that were great 50 years ago are not great nowWhat we are seeing is just the normal and natural progression of society. In order for things to move forward, something has to be broken and die. It is not nice for those caught up in it, but it will be better afterwards. It's a branch of Darwin's theory.

[Colonel White]

Pcat - you asked
What can be accomplished with another strike?

As you point out, there is nothing to gain by more strike action. The trouble is that the union went about this entirely the wrong way. The strike card is the last resort. You can only play it once and when you do, you have to have exhausted all other possible avenues. Unite played it way to soon. A sensible union approach would have been to negotiate, put any management offers to the membership and if they get rejected the union then has a mandate to either continue negotiating at a tougher level, or to ask whether members are prepared to action short of strikes. A work to rule can be very effective as it not only protects members incomes, it also makes life hard on the company. Ratcheting up the pressure bit by bit gives you a next level to go to should you need it.
Unite went straight from A to Z in one bound. This can work if you are damned certain that a walkout will grind the business to an earth shuddering halt. Trouble is that Unite had no way of guaranteeing that.

The problem Unite now face is that there are only two courses of action open. One is to admit defeat and sign the deal, any deal and try and put some kind of positive spin on it. This is why the Unite leadership have made such noises about the BA offer being rejected by two thirds of members and only 15% supporting the offer. The alternative is to find a suitable new cause for strike action and pray that a) they can get greater support from members this time around and b) BA is not able to field enough VCC, non-striking crew and others to cover the operation. In reality the second option is now a non-starter. BA have volunteers in place and have made it plain that the New Fleet issue will not impact current crew - it was spelled out in the offer they put forward that the union membership turned down. If Unite go for a further strike ballot, they face the prospect of damaging their position not only within cabin crew, but also within BA generally. A failure to 'win' this dispute will also have knock on effects on their position nationally. I suspect that the Unite leadership will endeavour to quietly settle this.

[Mr Optimistic]

what is 'Mixed Fleet' and why is it regarded with fear ?

[MIDLGW]

Mr Optimistic,

Seriously? Have you been hiding somewhere? :p

Mixed Fleet is the new name for New Fleet. Crew on current LHR fleets feel threatened that MF will get all the "good" routes leaving them with no income. Never mind the fact that BA has offered the top up payment :rolleyes:

[Mr Optimistic]

:ouch:Thanks, but in terms of the crew how does it differ - not actually seen it spelt out anywhere - why can't the lucrative routes be reassigned without generating a new 'fleet', whatever that may really be.

[LD12986]

New Fleet will work on short-haul and long-haul and will have radically different working practices to the current LHR fleets. They will basically work to the CAA guidelines and that's it. No payments for working one-down. No restrictive disruption agreement. No seniority. And so it goes on. Pay and promotion will be linked to performance.

To get the full efficiency from the new T&Cs for crew, they have to work separately from the existing fleets.

New Fleet is a threat, partly because the current routes are divided between "money" (HKG, SIN, NRT etc) and "charity" trips (India, Africa). The former destinations pay absurdly high allowances. On the latter, some crew think they are doing the company and pax a favour by turning up to work.

If CC were paid an hourly rate for the work they did, New Fleet wouldn't be such a threat. This was actually proposed by the company a couple of years ago, but BASSA wouldn't entertain the idea.

Personally, I don't think that New Fleet will be mean that current crew will be starved of work.

What it will mean is that the days when BASSA was able to call the shots at LHR and dictate the operation are over. Over time, the current LHR fleets will have to accept gradual changes to working practices, because their inefficiency will be laid bare when New Fleet is up and running.

[MIDLGW]

I'll try to narrow it down for you, Mr Optimistic.

"Old" Fleet (both long and short haul) have a complex and expensive allowance system. New fleet (MF) has hourly pay (like LGW) on top of basic, so much simpler structure.

Last year, MF was offered to come off the table, but union decided it wasn't good enough and called strike. Due to financial impact, MF was brought back in.

Current crew at LHR are paid varying allowances for varying destinations. Long range such as Narita and Singapore attract great allowances, as does the Swiss destinations on Short haul. The current crew are convinced they'll be left with low earning destinations (Africa and India) whilst MF take over Long Range routes. BA have offered a "top up" payment for current LHR crew, to ensure they won't lose out, regardless of routes "lost" to MF. The figures are based on financial year of 09/10.

MF cannot fly with current crew as union will not allow it (they didn't allow it anyway, who knows, they might have changed their minds now).

Militants refuse to read, hear and/or believe anything BA says.

Hope this brings you up to speed on a few things ;):p