BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II [Archive] - Page 5

ChicoG

31st Jul 2010, 09:36

Well here's an analyst who isn't afraid to put his name to it, and hits the nail squarely on the head.

And it's not from the Grauniad or the Daily Mule, but the Torygraph.

You don't have to be Sir David Attenborough to spot the carnage at British Airways.

Another quarter, another roaring success for British Airways. It may have tested its passengers' faith with 23 strike days. But the Wildlife Trust can spot a winner when it sees one.

By Alistair Osborne, Business Editor
Published: 9:21PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The nation's flag-carrier is, once again, the proud recipient of the Biodiversity Benchmark award. Apparently it's for that staff favourite – the Harmondsworth Moor parkland at its Heathrow head office. But why stop there? Inside BA's Waterside HQ is a corporate ecosystem as fragile and varied as anything you'll find in the FTSE 100 – populated as it is with a crew-cut Irishman (Willie Walsh) at the top of the tree and, lower down, some termites from the wilder fringes of the Unite union, intent on a wrecking job.

You don't have to be Sir David Attenborough to spot the carnage either. The strikes cost BA £150m last quarter, the main reason the airline lurched to its seventh consecutive quarterly loss. No business can carry on like that. Just ask Darwin. Which is why sympathy for Unite's less-evolved wildlife is ebbing away.

Derek Simpson, the Twitter addict who doubles up as a union chief, was at it again on Friday. Ignoring the fact that the dispute is now about when striking crew get back their travel perks – aka 90pc-off flights to the Caribbean – Simpson tried to claim the losses could have been avoided for a £10m compromise. That's the difference, he said, between the savings Unite was prepared to offer and those BA wanted.

Maybe it's all that thinking in 140 characters but even Simpson must know he's talking baloney. His figure was never real. Unite offered temporary cost savings to ride out the recession. Walsh wants root-and-branch reform.

The strike threat remains but you sense that, bit by bit, the 12,000 crew are beginning to work it out for themselves. They may not all like the BA boss – but then kamikaze missions aren't that great either. As Walsh said on Friday, with capital harder to come by, businesses must reward investors with profits and dividends to attract the support they need to grow.

What's more, if the crew past through the mainly self-inflicted turbulence, they might spot they are working for a business finally going somewhere. Friday's numbers showed a surprisingly strong 13.5pc bounce in yields (revenues per seat) as business-class travellers returned – even if that only brings BA back to where it was two years ago. Costs were also lower than expected.

Moreover, BA is not dependent on cyclical recovery. Its £4.5bn all-share merger with Spain's Iberia offers the chance to rip a planned €400m (£330m) costs out of the two airlines – boosting profits. Probably more. On top, there is the strategic tie-up across the Atlantic with American Airlines, which finally has approval. Given BA has pursued that deal for 14 years, you have to think it's worth something. Rather than more trolley-rage, the crew should accept Walsh's latest offer and focus on making BA really fly – so adding a performance bonus to their pay. Who knows? They may even win an award for being less wild.

[email protected]

fincastle84

31st Jul 2010, 11:18

How do they survive?

My point exactly as they lose £££££ annually & are supported only by their parent company as an act of blind love. With the forthcoming public service cutbacks their main source of advertising revenue will be drastically reduced & hopefully it will disappear altogether, rather like Bassa.
Rather a good comparison, don't you agree?

JayPee28bpr

31st Jul 2010, 11:21

The interesting number that BA has, but we don't, is how many people BA knows are in the Union who tried to sign and accept the deal. BA has released a number for those it knows are not in the Union and accepted. On even the most optimistic assumptions for the Union, non-Union acceptance appears to be at least 65%.

The other interesting number is that of individual strikers. I can't see anything to support the Unite number, given its known membership database problems. I'll ask you another financial question in this respect. Whether you believe the BA number of 5,000 or the Unite one of 6,500 and rising, what do you think Unite should be doing to ensure that it is not actually being defrauded out of 1,500x£30xstrike days by people claiming strike pay who did not strike. That's £45k per person/day much of which, I would remind you, has been diverted from elsewhere in the Union to pay it. Do you think your duty of care to your own members places you under a duty to seek explanation from the leadership as to the discrepancy? And what will you do when you get the inevitable fob off? Remembering that some of the stike pay is being met from income derived from non-BA cabin crew members of Unite.

Ancient Observer

31st Jul 2010, 12:05

Litebulbs,
Frank Chapple and Eric Hammond will be turning in their graves. Not only being in the same room as the T & G, but being in the same Union.
Paul Gallagher would f & b a lot, and then have another drink. He'd talk to anyone who was buying, and anyone who knew anything about movies.
.
Chico
thankyou for restoring the proper spelling to the Grauniad.
That 3%..........
On the alleged 3% of subs that allegedly go direct to the bassa branch sec. - do we have confirmation of that, or is it just a rumour? The journos do not seem to have picked up on it yet, so maybe it's a rumour.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 12:14

My point exactly as they lose £££££ annually & are supported only by their parent company as an act of blind love. With the forthcoming public service cutbacks their main source of advertising revenue will be drastically reduced & hopefully it will disappear altogether, rather like Bassa.
Rather a good comparison, don't you agree?

God forbid they go, to be left with red tops and the and tory twaddle, so I do not think that we are in agreement.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 12:22

I don't think the strike pay will be like a soup kitchen handout. If people defraud, then action should be taken. As to the plan, who knows, but I did ask the man at the top of my sector (I was specifically asked to do so by some members), where the money was coming from and was told it was from branch funds, rather than an increase in subscription.

Obviously, the cost will have an affect on spend over the next year or so, but stikes and funding them, is an intregal part of union business, because it could be you next time.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 12:24

Agreed. You wait till the General Secretary Election gets into full swing. That will show how united Unite is.

leiard

31st Jul 2010, 12:25

We all know that Unite is not always accurate with its figures.
Unite claim on their website a membership of 2 million – the TUC has the Unite membership listed at 1,557,892 – only ½ million adrift – just a small membership database problem.
It would therefore seem quite reasonable to take any of their figures with a pinch of salt!
An interesting FT article (last year) - Exclusive: Unite “loses” 300,000 members | Westminster Blog | FT.com (http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/07/exclusive-unite-loses-300000-members/)

Diplome

31st Jul 2010, 12:48

leiard:

Very interesting article and one I hadn't come across yet. Thank you.

And since you inspired me to look around I also found this article which states that Unite's numbers may be even lower than those listed in your linked article.
Is Unite overstating its membership figures? – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100030108/is-unite-overstating-its-membership-figures/)

vanHorck

31st Jul 2010, 13:50

I hope the mods will continue to allow DH to post on the CC thread even though he is no longer an active CC member after his sacking......

:ok:

please mods? ;-)

GCI35

31st Jul 2010, 14:22

A few weeks ago on the other thread it was suggested that Pay Office would know the number of BASSA members having union membership dues deducted at source. It was payday yesterday, time for a recount methinks.

cavortingcheetah

31st Jul 2010, 16:28

'I hope the mods will continue to allow DH to post on the CC thread even though he is no longer an active CC member after his sacking......'

I disagree completely!
To allow an ex active crew member to continue to post or to start posting, no matter how discredited or otherwise their abilities to communicate rational thought, would be to set a precedent which could have serious consequences. The scenario of honorary posters rears its ugly head with the probable starting line for endless infantile and fallacious arguments among members of PPrune as to who might be more honorary than whom. If you are removed from the privilege of the House of Lords by the lose of your peerage, you may not speak from its benches. That is surely the law?

LD12986

31st Jul 2010, 16:39

Note the strike pay was increased from £30 to £45 per day. Duncan wanted £50 and Tony agreed to £45.

mrpony

31st Jul 2010, 17:02

Cavortingcheetah speaks with much wisdom. If they have been cast out of the tribe then they should seek pastures new upon which to spread their seed and manure.

Entaxei

31st Jul 2010, 17:27

Given the reasons why DH was sacked - (ignoring any weasel words about the use of the word 'Sacked') - and the potential for others to also be Sacked, Fired or Dismissed for similar or worse actions - I would suggest that the last thing needed by BA is for these individuals to continue to have the ability to drip their poisonous venom onto an official CC site and continue to have an influence on the operations and CC staff.

They should be removed from the official thread and if they wish, attempt to post here - if they can withstand the responses given (including expressions of mirth!!).

One thing that appears to be forgotten most of the time - these people are fighting to retain their control over a business operation that was netting somewhere in the region of £1.8m per annum - the're not playing softball!!

PPRuNe Pop

31st Jul 2010, 21:14

British Airways divides workers over pay and perks | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/30/britishairways-theairlineindustry)?

It may be of interest that 'DuggieFashion' has made a comment on the story - scroll to the end of the story.

Diplome

31st Jul 2010, 21:39

My heavens. I've just finished reading the latest message from Duncan Holley and BASSA.

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-80.html

Can these people ever be professional? I don't think I can read a message from BASSA in the future without the theme music from Benny Hill playing in my mind.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 21:48

Diplome, in the defence of the post...........................

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Diplome

31st Jul 2010, 22:21

Litebulb:

lol. I think I just got your post. :):):)

Snas

31st Jul 2010, 22:29

My heavens. I've just finished reading the latest message from Duncan Holley and BASSA.

Me too. I didnt think I could have a lower view of the BASSA reps, until know.

I've never seen such unprofessional :mad: clearly written by an equally unprofessional :mad: in all my working life.

My partner left the union back in Feb, I'm so very, very glad she did. This is supposed to be serious stuff concering a business and employees welbeing and that of their familes. BASSA think it is clearly a joke.

I'm at a complete loss..

johnoWhiskyX

31st Jul 2010, 22:39

Regardless that the latest item from BASSA was described as gallows humour. The whole article is a regurtitation of the BASSA official line. It wasn't funny, it just came across as desperate and sad.

I am at a loss at what the article was aiming to achieve or who it was aimed at.

Diplome

31st Jul 2010, 22:44

Snas:

It is interesting to me how BASSA members seem to be in denial regarding how these sort of messages reflect on them personally.

It only further degrades the opinion of passengers and the public regarding BASSA members and they aren't at a high point right now.

Its tantamount to wearing a shirt that says "I'm with Stupid"...but the arrow points up.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 22:55

west lakes

31st Jul 2010, 23:08

It's fair to say that other unions are having to tread carefully, very carefully, after some of the recent court rulings involving Unite. BASSA are not doing the union movement any favours at the moment!

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 23:28

It is easily fixed. Give works councils the same rights as unions. Just legislate the ICE regs to INE (negotiation rather than effective consultation), with legal obligations.

I would pay an increase in NI (proportionate to salary) to fund legal representation, as long as it was not a half baked deal. Get rid of SOSR and ETO, with legal support restricted to a fixed cost on both sides, with ACAS mediation a compulsory measure. This wine is good!

west lakes

31st Jul 2010, 23:33

It's probably fairer to say that unions need to maintain sensible relations with employers rather than thinking they are invunerable.

The saddest bit is that some BASSA members have taken one step too far (possibly as a result of never having seen any comebacks for union actions) and got into the realms of illegal acts.

Litebulbs

31st Jul 2010, 23:44

It's probably fairer to say that unions need to maintain sensible relations with employers rather than thinking they are invunerable.

Lets just say that particular union. I still stand by what I said a long time ago, BASSA have been an extemporary union. What fantastic T&C's they have achieved and maintained over the years. But they have been outdone here. In my opinion, Mr Walsh is out to bust BASSA, but it is the failing of the said union, not to at least protect existing members terms, even if the condition may have got a bit tougher. There was a pay rise in it some where, if the fight had been smarter.

Diplome

31st Jul 2010, 23:51

This wine is good

I've personally had a few pleasant evenings here with a glass of wine and lively conversation :ok:

west lakes

31st Jul 2010, 23:55

I've personally had a few pleasant evenings here with a glass of wine and lively conversation

True for all

ChicoG

1st Aug 2010, 05:14

As it stands in the UK, unions are vital. Employment law is just not, or is it not just? We are only a 100 years on from the Master and Servants act.

But why give the current Government reason to legislate? The 60's and 70's were like a kid with a new toy, but then Mrs T (mum) stepped in and sent us to bed. We just have not grown up and we are not as cute as Peter Pan, but we do seem to live in a fictional world at times.

Litebulbs, I'll bite.

Perhaps they should have exchanges with German and American unions, who seem to work much better with employers at times of difficulty.

Instead of going to visit the Thai motor industry unions and stopping off in whore bars for bit of fun.

BASSA, and by implication UNITE, have dragged the Union movement back to the 1970's, because you have socialist dinosaurs leading the latter and immature cretins leading the former.

Safety Concerns

1st Aug 2010, 07:40

Perhaps they should have exchanges with German and American unions, who seem to work much better with employers at times of difficulty.

Where's the basis for that statement? Northwest, United, both disasters from the workers/union perspective.

Germans strike too you know. What was it last time, train drivers I believe.

The root cause goes far deeper. Unions are democratic, leaders are elected. If you vote for someone then one should assume you support their policies. If however you are not interested and the union is only there for when you need them (me,me,me) then you get what you deserve should a radical bunch take over.

It is like anything including marriage; it takes 2 to tango or make something work. If members interact with their union this shouldn't happen.

But we also need to accept that BA isn't the first dispute of this type. Most of the others however found a compromise. Could it possibly be in this case that the rhetoric has gone on for too long and each leader is now unable to compromise?

If and I say if that is the case, then changes need to be made at the top as far as the negotiations are concerned.

@litebulbs works council nice idea but works councils will always have limitations until they become a union. There will always be a need at some point for complete independent intervention on an issue. It may work though if management would also move a little further away from the master/slave attitude.

Even then you need the mother organisation to campaign and lobby on the bigger issues. Imagine no BALPA and then having to bring all works councils together to fight for less working hours for pilots for example, very unlikely.

Litebulbs

1st Aug 2010, 08:06

I'll bite.

You are not biting, just discussing

Perhaps they should have exchanges with German and American unions, who seem to work much better with employers at times of difficulty.

Workers Uniting - the world's first global union (http://www.workersuniting.org/)

Instead of going to visit the Thai motor industry unions and stopping off in whore bars for bit of fun.

You probably will find that a cream tea is not that high up the list of most union members, but if you are in a position of power and will have the pap's following you around, then just go and sit where the right wing business men are eating. Oh, probably in the same bar, but at seat's out back?

BASSA, and by implication UNITE, have dragged the Union movement back to the 1970's, because you have socialist dinosaurs leading the latter and immature cretins leading the former.

And by BA's punitive actions, industrial relations have gone back to the mill house.

I suppose I have just bitten here!

Juan Tugoh

1st Aug 2010, 08:14

Unions face a problem these days, in that their raison d'etre is no longer self evident. In the early days of union power, it was plain what the union role was - fighting to protect the welfare of their members; ensuring that their members worked in a safe working environment and should they suffer a work related injury they were protected. This evolved over the years as the major battles were won and the union took on the role of fighting for a better standard of living.

Something went wrong with British Trade Unionism in the postwar era, they started to try to dictate to management who could work on what job and what equipment could be bought by management and how it would be operated. By the seventies we had the ridiculous situation where a union was dictating to the government. They had made British manufacturing uneconomic and uncompetitive, believing that somehow the competition from abroad could be ignored and that it was irrelevant.

The union reform acts of the 1980's were inevitable to curb this nonsense. The period of structural change within the UK employment market was unavoidable.

So, after a period of unparalleled growth, economic stability and relatively low unemployment during the 1990s and 2000's the youngsters who grew up in the era of union power, see an opportunity to grasp the reins of power again. UNITE fund the Labour Party heavily and use that financial muscle to attempt to bend policy to their will. We are seeing the re-emergence of the left wing union militants - Len McLusky et al.

Arthur Scargill was a passionate and effective union man when he was looking after the welfare of the miners, dealing with industrial injuries and their aftermath. He excelled in fighting for measures to ease the suffering of miners affected by illness due to the hazardous nature of mining. He was also the man who effectively destroyed the mining industry through his political naivety. He was good at doing what unions should be doing, he was a disaster in the political arena and effectively destroyed the NUM and union power for 25 years.

Given the background of all of this UNITE are now once again allowing themselves to pick the wrong fight. CC do not need their "welfare" protecting, they are not in a job that is potentially life threatening in the same way that ship yard workers did in the 1930's. Fighting to protect priviliged cheap travel perks of of a few relatively well paid employees is the wrong fight for a union and as such will never garner public support.

Safety Concerns

1st Aug 2010, 08:48

Juan, great post until the final sentence when you allowed your bias to creep in.

You know as well as I know that he strike wasn't and isn't about ST

Juan Tugoh

1st Aug 2010, 08:52

You know as well as I know that he strike wasn't and isn't about ST

Well, that is not entirely true, it certainly was not about ST at the start. It is now though, as this seems to be the issue that is preventing a resolution.

As to my bias, that has been clearly displayed through many posts - as has your own.

All the best

JT

pvmw

1st Aug 2010, 09:02

And by BA's punitive actions, industrial relations have gone back to the mill house.

Emotive,ridiculous nonsense. If you think that BA's attempts to get the crew working a little harder by removing one crew member equates to the Mill Workers of the 19th Century you need to get a reality check.

Its about on the same absurdity level as BASSA claiming they are equivalent to the fight for Iwo Jima.

Litebulbs

1st Aug 2010, 09:13

I suppose it is about as emotive and ridiculous as drawing comparison to the miners strikes, where people died.

Safety Concerns

1st Aug 2010, 09:24

out of interest Juan what is my bias?

Yours is clear, Bassa are wrong, BA are right.

pvmw

1st Aug 2010, 09:32

I suppose it is about as emotive and ridiculous as drawing comparison to the miners strikes, where people died.

Er,....... Yes! And the relevance to this dispute is???????

Litebulbs

1st Aug 2010, 09:36

But you are not compelled to make a comment about that, when posters contribute?

Juan Tugoh

1st Aug 2010, 09:38

Bias is an interesting word and is defined as:

a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

So by introducing this word you accuse me of prejudice, prejudice is defined as:

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

My opinion, has not been formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. It is based on all the above plus personal experience.

Your bias is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and stupid.

Safety Concerns

1st Aug 2010, 10:07

oh Juan really.

My posts have had one theme and one theme only. In my opinion Bassa are wrong but equally BA are wrong by removing ST.

I personally believe that BA would have won this and finished this earlier by not removing ST. But then again just look at the response to the ST comments and the trouser wetting by anti Bassa posters over it.

some posters here have admitted that removing ST is wrong by PM

Therefore if we have a difference in public and private opinions, one can only conclude that the ST issue has suffered from prejudice. Otherwise the opinions would be the same.

Your bias is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and stupid.

The old chestnut when someone doesn't agree with your own opinion.
Even an excellent post about unionism today you couldn't resist allowing your bias to creep in. Is it any wonder that pro Bassa supporters are reluctant to post.

button44

1st Aug 2010, 11:02

Why would BA allow strikers take seats on aircraft in order to join their friends on the picket line and drink pimms at Bedfont. They were warned they would lose ST and they sang that they didn't care....or rather more emotive words to that effect, so cause and effect. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

LD12986

1st Aug 2010, 11:13

Willie Walsh is adamant that staff travel is not the reason why no settlement has been reached. He thinks it is a side issue and the problem is BASSA not being willing to agree to permanent structural change.

mrpony

1st Aug 2010, 11:18

Hi there everyone.

It's been a few days I know - we've been too busy updating our membership database to cast our eyes up into the forumosphere. Before we could start that huge task there was the little matter of cleaning all the jam and spilled tea off the thing not to mention the bread crumbs and butter welded to its dog-eared pages. The database has served as our toaster stand at home for several months. Anyway after I was reminded that the database also existed in virtual form on our computer I stopped all that but then remembered that I had inadvertently wiped the computer's hard disk clean last week after a few sherbets. My waistline continues to expand! Never mind though as it had been stored on a floppy that I thoughtfully sellotaped to the fridge door at union HQ and a quick phone call later it was winging its way to me via messenger. Having reloaded the information I was gratified to note that as of the last update 99% of memberships at that time were valid. Since then nothing much has changed although there is a huge pile of inbox-related membership retraction administrative input work outstanding. If we ever find the time following BA's unfair decimation and plundering of our Union infrastructure. Wee Willie and his bunch of diddy henchmen will not win this war and if they do then we will make sure that all the people sitting on this side of the fence have a forlorn hope of Xmas strikes because that is far enough away to be truly meaningless. Remember we have fought for you all and never let the facts divert us from the one true path of Bassa righteousness. In that you can trust. Don't believe those saying that it can't be right that only 3500 have lost Staff Travel whilst over 7000 have applied for strike pay. BA will say and do anything to distort the figures and it is not for them to reason why or how or who did and didn't strike. It is up to us to tell them and everyone else what we think is right. I think you'll agree. We'll be back to you as soon as Lizanne has returned from her holidays. Off to feed the tomatoes now.

Dorkan

button44

1st Aug 2010, 11:52

Well isn't that jolly.....fiddling whilst Rome burns. I suppose it doesn't impact on Dorkans lifestyle so not to bother to be serious about it all! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Diplome

1st Aug 2010, 13:35

buttons44:

I believe that was sarcasm, not a true post from Mr. Holley.

Safety Concern:

Many individuals here that have no objection to, or actually support, the removal of Staff Travel from some members of Cabin Crew are no more biased than yourself.

Until such time as a legal authority says otherwise I expect the situation to stay much as it is at the moment.

You can personally believe that Staff Travel would have brought this issue to a close. I disagree, and the statements of Mr. Holley and others support my opinion.

Note that the return of staff travel was demanded as a "goodwill gesture" towards continuing negotiations. Agreement has been described as "close", but BASSA and Unite have both said they have issues remaining.

Strikes are serious business. I'm rather surprised that the militant members of Cabin Crew thought this was going to be some sort of painless procedure. Naive in the extreme.

Ancient Observer

1st Aug 2010, 13:44

I'm still puzzled by the dynamics around ST.

BA have offered to re-instate ST, but with "seniority" removed. The offer to re-instate ST has been rejected by the negotiating process that BA and the "junta from the bunker" use. So bassajunta have rejected ST.

The difference would appear to be seniority. Seniority is based on age. It starts with "service", but it grows as you get older, so it is based on age.

Now, Courts have to balance competing human rights. Which "human right" is more important -
1. to get rid of ageism,
2. to be able to strike without having non-contractural perks removed?

I have to declare an interest here - I'm over 50, and unemployed................so obviously, removing ageism is the most important.

Diplome

1st Aug 2010, 15:13

Ancient Observer:

An interesting perspective.

I happened to just re-read Unite's message to its members regarding the offer that was taken off the table when strikes were called.

There was quite a bit of commentary regarding seniority issues. I'm going to have to go back and take another look.

(..as an aside it was incredible to be reminded what was on the table and Unite/BASSA's commentary regarding each point.)

AlpineSkier

1st Aug 2010, 19:33

@ AO

Seniority is directly related to length of service not age, so it is the fact that you have served 30 years rather than are aged 50 that is the (sole ?) criterion.

This is therefore not ageism.

Diplome

1st Aug 2010, 21:54

The absolute "Seniority is the end all and be all" position of BASSA is simply outmoded and Mixed Fleet is specifically designed to cure that problem.

I recall quite well 20 years ago sitting across the table from counsel for the opposing side, asked for, and giving my position, and this gentleman saying "I've been doing this for 30 years and I'm not ready to listen to the likes of you".

My response was "I could care less if you have been doing it for 1 year, 5 years, or 500 years, if you've been doing it wrong you don't get a cookie for term of service".

Mixed Fleet, as a customer, is rather interesting. From a SLF point of view imagining a Fleet totally committed to its promotion and renumeration based upon customer satisfaction is a rather engaging ideal.

I'll be looking for the hats.

Colonel White

1st Aug 2010, 22:22

Seniority is directly related to length of service not age, so it is the fact that you have served 30 years rather than are aged 50 that is the (sole ?) criterion.

This is therefore not ageism.

Partially agree, however, a lawyer might argue that if BA offers increased benefits for those with more than say, 20 years service, this would imply that to achieve said benefits one would need to be over 37 and hence since it was not available to anyone younger, age was a factor.Probably do it on a no win no fee basis :)

Ancient Observer

1st Aug 2010, 22:23

Alpine,

Seniority starts when one is first employed. Thereafter, it increases with age. "Service" is an irrelevancy - seniority is based on age from th date that one joins.

Thus, it is ageism. It is probably unlawful

This has not been tested in the courts, yet. I hope that it will be tested very soon. It impacts rather a lot of things in BA...............

BA are also running the risk of having young, low paid crew in mixed fleet, and old, very highly paid crew on old contracts.

That is ageism. Not yet tested in the courts.

ChicoG

2nd Aug 2010, 05:52

Hang on a minute. You could be 40 and have 5 years service, or 35 and have 15 years service.

Tell me about ageism again?

On the subject of German and American unions, I'll just throw a couple of things in the pot. This rather sensible quote about the German union movement:

German labour unions have achieved agreements which help enhance training potential for employees, a move from which employers also benefit. These agreements have particular importance in view of restructuring and other changes within firms. The context of the debate is the argument that labour unions should be modernised, a concept which includes alliances between the unions and company managers, and increased responsibility by unions for how firms perform.

And as for America, well let's just say if BASSA ran the US motor industry, America would no longer have one.

I'd type more but busy day at work today (No union for me here!). Look forward to reading more later.

call100

2nd Aug 2010, 08:55

Before the formation of 'Unite' Amicus was at the forefront of partnership agreements in the UK. It was the reason that T&G were haemorrhaging members to Amicus. People moving away from the old style T&G were and still are stuck in.
Although the name Unite is there, Unification has not been entirely completed because of the power struggles at the top. If the T&G attitudes prevail then the majority of members will suffer and eventually leave. BASSA being a prime example of the old style of conflict.
When working in partnership strikes were almost non existent because both sides had good reason to negotiate properly. Companies with partnership agreements tended to have the edge for contracts and Terms and Conditions were very good. Harmony is good for everyone.
I know many 'Unite' Amicus members who are watching carefully and looking around for another Union to bring in should the T&G prevail.

KBPsen

2nd Aug 2010, 13:05

Seniority starts when one is first employed. Thereafter, it increases with age. "Service" is an irrelevancy - seniority is based on age from th date that one joins.

Thus, it is ageism.

Arguments such as 'Seniority increases with age it is therefore based on age' while tempting to make, are circular logic and I suspect made up to fit the occasion.

Litebulbs

2nd Aug 2010, 13:21

This underlines what Call100 has suggested -

welcome (http://www.les4gsnw.co.uk/Les_Bayliss/welcome.html)

Ancient Observer

2nd Aug 2010, 13:52

This isn't the place to debate ageism. All I'm pointing out is that there is a risk that the Courts will find all forms of Seniority to be unlawful.

Courts balance different "human rights". Is defeating ageism more or less important than some other claim.?

It has not yet been tested in the Courts.

I'll shut up about it now.

cavortingcheetah

2nd Aug 2010, 14:28

In the event of testing in court, expect to wait years for results. Judges are quite sensitive to the fact that there are always judges who are more senior and that such seniority, because it is based on the accumulation of knowledge, tends to be a bi-product of ageism..

slast

2nd Aug 2010, 14:31

"Courts could find all sorts of seniority unlawful"......... Generalisations about seniority systems can be fraught with problems but there is a point which needs to be recognised about why seniority systems became particularly important in airline flight operations.

In general (and certainly in most other businesses) it is better when selecting individuals e.g. for promotion, to base it on merit rather than seniority, but seniority is a valid determinant in the specific case of pilots. When looking at a number of current employees to select for a particular purpose, the organisation needs to eliminate the unsuitable (i.e. those without the necessary qualification to do the job), then select the MOST suitable from those that are. However for routine selections such as filling flying positions where the day to day work is dominated by standard procedures (SOPs), the desired outcome of each operation is the same (e.g. the flight is carried out to a planned schedule) and one individual should be able to be routinely substituted by another without affecting the outcome of the operation (e.g. when the actual individual to do a specific job can be nominated in a rostering process), it’s hard to find a basis for deciding which is the MOST suitable based on past outcome or successful performance.

This doesn’t apply to management type positions or small business units where the tasks are not generally standardised, but is more true for pilots than any other profession that I am aware of. This is because ALL members of the candidate group are required to demonstrate their ability to perform the core function, to the satisfaction of an independent authority (specifically, a check pilot acting on behalf of the CAA) every 6 months, and are removed from the pool if they fail to meet the required standard.

That means that selecting on merit at performing the function is very difficult - every candidate has demonstrated a consistently high level of skill and it's very hard to show that one has been more successful than another. Other than by personal bias and preferences of the manager making the selection (which is highly undesirable in modern businesses) the only remaining way to judge whether pilot A is likely to be better than pilot B at performing the required function is then that a more experienced pilot is likely to better than a less experienced one. More experience, especially experience relevant to that company is generally marked by length of service with that company – i.e. seniority. Hence airlines found they generally get best results when filling pilot vacancies by stating a qualification to be met (suitability) and then appointing the most senior suitable person – everyone can see and understand the basis of selection. Doesn’t necessarily apply to other aspects of employment though!

cym

2nd Aug 2010, 16:15

BA - Unite talks adjourned until next week without agreement

Wonder how this will go down with Duncan et al? Who decides when a strike ballot is called - Unite or BASSA? Am interested because it appears that Unite seem happy for things to drag on - during which time more new crew come online and the number of VCC also increase which in the end reduces further any impact should they decide to ballot

TopBunk

2nd Aug 2010, 17:50

cym

A quote from the other thread:

Just to let you know there has been a slight re-scheduling of meetings next week. On Monday morning Woodley and Walsh are meeting and in the afternoon Woodley wants to meet the Branch Committee at Holorn.

We will then meet as a committee on Tuesday to discuss what was said the previous day and decide timings of future meetings and ballots etc etc. Rgds Duncan

From that, it would appear that some annoucement should be expected tomorrow.

I would imagine this morning's meeting between Walsh and Woodley was brief, with Woodley asking Walsh if his position had changed and Walsh tellin him to foxtrot oscar back to BASSA and tell them to do their worst and prepare for annihilation.

I imagine that this afternoon's meeting with BASSA was similarly brief with Woodley telling BASSA to get their act together and take one for Unite as they are on a hiding to nothing.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall at todays meetings and again at tomorrows BASSA meeting when accusations will be flying left right and centre. Happy days.

cym

2nd Aug 2010, 18:05

Be an interesting day - will they start the beginning of their own end?

I do hope so as this situation needs to be brought to a conclusion - and my money in terms of the outcome most certainly isn't on BASSA

Chuchinchow

2nd Aug 2010, 21:53

Duggie Fashion is a latter-day Lord Haw Haw.

Discuss.

Sir Richard

2nd Aug 2010, 22:12

Nothing is new !:}

http://www.pprune.org/5718616-post1910.html

LD12986

2nd Aug 2010, 22:13

And just when you thought matters couldn't become any more absurd BASSA has issued an edict that cabin crew must not follow any instruction to close the window blinds at the end of each flight!

fred737

3rd Aug 2010, 04:13

Here it is:

Quote:
BASSA (http://www.bassa.co.uk/) > Latest News (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/WebPages/NewNewsFrontPage1.asp)
Closing Window Blinds At The End Of Your Flight (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/WebPages/ViewArticle.asp?intNewsArticleID=1087&strMore=&strCat=onticker&intCount=)

Aug 2nd, 2010 by admin

http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/NewsPictures/x.jpg It has been brought to our attention that crew are being asked to close all the window blinds at the end of each flight. This has not been agreed with BASSA and no safe working practice has been trialled. The normal practice when anything new is introduced is that the Health, Safety and Welfare committee would carry out a risk assessment to confirm that everything is safe.
Please note that no provision has been put in place for this extra duty and therefore you should not be carrying it out. If we do this it will become normal working practice and you will then become obliged to do it and then what next - pick up all the litter?
Please politely refuse if you are asked to do this at the end of your flight.

ChicoG

3rd Aug 2010, 04:46

Yep, they STILL think they run the airline.

Twerps.

PAXboy

3rd Aug 2010, 08:03

"Closing window blinds at the end of your flight"

That has to be a troll. In my experience, the blinds have to be OPEN. I sit to be corrected - on both points.

JuliaHayes

3rd Aug 2010, 08:04

"..............and then what next - pick up all the litter?"

That, sadly, tells you everything you need to know about how the mind of the BASSA rep works. Imagine being responsible for the cleanliness of your aircraft - but no! We are BA Cabin Crew! We don't do litter!

Muppets of the highest order. The "don't close the blinds because it's not in your job description" bit is bad enough, but to add the litter remark, when anyone with half a brain could see that it would make it to the wider world............well, words fail me.

BASSA members - if it wasn't clear before, it surely is now - you are being represented by fools.

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 08:26

This is about passenger and crew comfort.

Some pilots have expressed concern during the summer that the cabin temperature on the crew boarding is too high, sometimes in the mid to high 30s. The use of the APU to provide cooling air is limited to a short period prior to departure and often the engineers will not have switched the APU on - I'm not entirely sure but it is likely that once the APU is on the engineers must remain on the aircraft in case there is an APU fire. The yellow tubes that provide pre-conditioned air (PCA) will keep an aircraft cool but will not cool a hot aircraft.

There are some things that can be done to prevent the cabin temp from climbing too high on the ground - opening all air cooling vents, turning off the IFE and other non-essentially electrical equipment, turning off some of the recirculation fans and closing the window blinds.

Some captains have been asking crew to do these things after all the pax have disembarked but prior to leaving the aircraft to minimise the discomfort to their colleagues and our passengers for the next flight leg. It is typical of BASSA that they would rather order their members to disobey a legal order of the aircraft commander putting them in a legally difficult position.

This is a safety related issue - you are foolish to board passengers onto an aircraft if the cabin temp is above 30C, BASSA see it as some kind of imposition of a dictatorial management, something to be resisted. It is typical - the answer is no, what is the question. It is classic awkward squad stuff.

Safe working practice trial don't make me laugh, as has been pointed out already, in the sprint to the bunks the crew are quick enough to close the blinds - how unsafe can it be? This is just about being awkward for the sake of being awkward. It may represent secondary IA and put the crews jobs at risk - how stupid can BASSA get?

LD12986

3rd Aug 2010, 08:31

PAX Boy - As Juan states above, this is after pax have disembarked the aircraft to help keep it cool.

jimtherev

3rd Aug 2010, 08:38

I’m not allowed to post on the CC board, and rightly, but if I were, I’d probably post to each of DugMyselfEvenDeeper, AvaNotherone, MissMuppet and the rest – at least once:
‘If you’re hoping for another strike, what would you hope to achieve?
‘Do you think that you would (a) achieve it, or (b) finish up worse off?
‘Does the history of this dispute so far give you any clues?’
They wouldn’t know how to / choose not to answer, and it wouldn’t stop their comedy act, but at least it might serve to remind wavering CC what they’re into.

oggers

3rd Aug 2010, 08:47

If we do this it will become normal working practice and you will then become obliged to do it

Interesting choice of words.

JuliaHayes

3rd Aug 2010, 09:46

Holley, or one of his stooges, has a new login on the CC thread. Re the window blinds he asks ".....why wasn't it done 40 years ago?"

Irrelevant - you are being asked to do it now. Why do you have problem with it?

Hipennine

3rd Aug 2010, 10:28

This beggars belief.

Failing to comply with a legitimate management instruction is readily accepted by Employment Tribunals as grounds for Summary Dismissal (as long as a fair process is followed).

As has been pointed out, the "cabin crew" already pull down blinds in-flight, so it is reasonable for management to take the view that it is a legitimate part of the "cabin crew's" duty not requiring additional assessment, training or whatever. Management have a sound business reason for the blinds to be pulled down at the end of a flight, and included in the "cabin crew's" tasks (they are highly trained professionals after all).

A refusal to comply, whether polite or otherwise, is inviting dismissal. Would some poor unfortunate, following their union's advice, have grounds to sue BASSA/Unite after their dismissal was found to be fair by a Tribunal ?

PAXboy

3rd Aug 2010, 10:46

Thanks for the correction. The full explanation, kindly given by Juan Tugoh makes full sense. In any organisation that I have worked in, or heard of, across 30 years of my working life routinely add requests for a one-off, or change the daily schedule with a meeting and explanation.

I welcome more of this intransigence being made public. We can all think of examples in our daily working lives when we do something that is not in our job description.

etrang

3rd Aug 2010, 10:48

In my experience, the blinds have to be OPEN. I sit to be corrected - on both points.

The blinds have to be open for LANDING. This is talking about closing the blinds after the pax have left the aircraft.

Mariner9

3rd Aug 2010, 10:50

Perhaps the reason for this latest window-blind debacle is that BASSA can now include this as the primary reason for their next strike in the folorn hope (in my view) it will not therefore be classed as continuance of the same strike.

Quite how BASSA would spin this one to the media and expect any sympathy would be a challenge though!

notlangley

3rd Aug 2010, 10:50

Bassa are not being stupid - they are being clever._ This idea of not pulling the blinds down is as transparent as the cabin windows._ It is secretly provocative.

It is possible that the person who advocates this sullen sulkiness no longer works for BA._ He blames his sacking on all CC who were not 100% behind him being reinstated with acclaim._ He therefore has a grudge against all CC and has devised this clever scheme to cause trouble to all and everyone.

mrpony

3rd Aug 2010, 11:19

I live in a house full of people, electronic equipment and other stuff pouring out energy in the form of heat. The sun beating down adds considerably to the problem. I have found that it is quite possible to reduce the build up of heat just by using blinds and curtains thoughtfully and timeously thereby making the house far more comfortable. Upon researching this further imagine my surprise when I discovered that humans have been using SHADE to do this since time began.

Whatever will they think of next.

Snas

3rd Aug 2010, 11:24

Upon researching this further imagine my surprise when I discovered that humans have been using SHADE to do this since time began.

Beautiful - my day is complete :ok:

SwissRef

3rd Aug 2010, 11:38

Upon researching this further imagine my surprise when I discovered that humans have been using SHADE to do this since time began.

And then I looked around on a hot day and saw my cats, and dogs, and lots of other animals all doing the same thing.

It got me thinking - how did all those animals conduct the necessary trials, and H&S assessments before they used the shade to keep cool? Perhaps they went on strike, but God (the evil nasty one) bust their union and forced them to use the shade to keep cool? :E

On a more serious note - in my office we use the shades to cool the office in the heat of the day. We have AC units, but they struggle if we let the sun in. And given on my floor there are 150 people, all with 1 or 2 computers, each with 4 or 8 screens, plus photocopiers, large plasma screens, fridges, coffee machines etc. And we have control of the blinds - not in my job description to close them, and never done a H&S assessment on it, but I will close them if necessary, or if people further away from the controls ask.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 11:47

Safety Concerns:

You truly are working hard on your defense of BASSA's inane instruction and I feel for you, I really do. Its rather like reading messages from Katie Price's publicist extrolling her singing ability :)

I wasn't sure if BASSA could top the "hot towel" debacle but they have managed to do so in brilliant fashion. Its a simple instruction and it makes perfectly good sense. Only BASSA could manage to turn it into a call to arms.

If there is significant mocking of BASSA and its militant members over this message it will be due entirely to BASSA's actions. BA certainly had nothing to do with it.

Boxkite Montgolfier

3rd Aug 2010, 11:50

Safety Concerns

Your argument is vacuous and deliberately provocative. Your brain has clearly boiled thanks to no shade in Dubai. Your contributions have failed to add any authority or clarity to a manifestly poor Bassa case.

mrpony

3rd Aug 2010, 11:53

SC - I give up it is part of an evil plot by WW to make Bassa seem like a bunch of disruptive no-hopers living in a warp of 70's time.

Hotel Mode

3rd Aug 2010, 11:55

I am in Dubai. It is 44 degrees. The sun is beating down on an aluminium tube.
I have absolutely nil chance, (that is zero for you mrpony) of gaining any useful benefit by pulling all the blinds down. Even if a miracle occurred the only hope I have of getting that cabin temperature down below 30 is to switch on an air conditioning unit.

Can I ask what your qualification for this assertion is? From my experience it makes between 4-8 degrees difference to the temperature.

The air conditioning is left on for the turnround, it just doesnt stand a chance if its not given some help.

mrpony

3rd Aug 2010, 11:57

SC No, in your case you should put the radiators on because it wouldn't make that much difference, apparently.

oggers

3rd Aug 2010, 11:59

SC:

I question whether the blinds will make much difference. 30 instead of 32 or something.

Okay, so if 22deg is a comfortable target then, using your figures, the blinds will be 20% of the answer. :ok:

west lakes

3rd Aug 2010, 12:01

The normal practice when anything new is introduced is that the Health, Safety and Welfare committee would carry out a risk assessment to confirm that everything is safe.

And there in lies the problem

Legally the company should carry-out or already have a risk assesement.
It is up to the safety comitee to agree or disageee with that. In the event of a disagreement they shoul be prepared to offer an alternative.

(though after 20 years of filling in risk assesements and beng a safety rep. I can't for the life of me find any risk in that activity)

johnoWhiskyX

3rd Aug 2010, 12:01

In an attempt to answer Mr Safety Concerns.

A sealed aluminum tube without any insulation in the sun, blinds up or blinds down would make little difference.

However, a sealed alluminium tube with insulation makes a huge difference. For the sake of simplicity..imagine a thermos flask in the sun, the outside would get hot but this heat to a huge extent would not be transfered to the inside..ie inside stays cool. with me so far?

Now put windows into the thermos flask and the heat has a route into the thermos flask warming up the contents. putting a blind over the window creates a small area of insulation, the air between the blind and the glass acts as insulation..not as efficiently as double glazing or triple glazing ect..but it does work.
Now i have no doubt whatsoever that you knew this all along but decided to play dumb just to create an argument or hope someone may say something you could pick up on and crow with delight at their mistake. A pathetic and obvious ploy.

As for your scenario of nightime temperatures. if the stated temperature was the temperature inside the property then closing blinds/curtains whatever will not help..as it is insulating the property not allowing the hot air inside to escape. similar principle as a house i winter..close the curtains to reduce the amount of heat escaping.

Hipennine

3rd Aug 2010, 12:03

Amazingly, most of Southern Europe (and presumably the old inhabitants of desert areas like Dubai) learned eons ago, that in sunny climes pre-air conditioning, you keep an interior "comfortable" by opening windows and blinds at night, and closing the windows and blinds during the day. I believe that trad arabic designs actually have little or no window openings on the sunny side, the openings being confined to shady courtyards.

Also, traditional architecture in these places tends to be painted white (a bit like most aircraft fuselages) to reflect rather than absorp the heat of the sun. Your flashy modern edifice will have a design forgetting these previously learned realities.

In the aircraft context substitute air-con on for night time, and air-con off whilst on the ground for day time.

Snas

3rd Aug 2010, 12:05

Whilst it’s an amusing distraction I really don’t believe that you need to hold a degree in thermodynamics to know that pulling the shades down helps “a bit”. The precise unit measure to which “a bit” refers doesn’t really matter now does it.

What perhaps matters more is knowing that this is the sort of thing that’s occupying the minds at BASSA, it goes a way to explaining why my partners recorded delivery letters to them go unanswered and they continue to have her listed as a member despite her resigning same back in February.

How much else is going unaddressed whilst they ponder blinds V.2 I wonder?

BillS

3rd Aug 2010, 12:16

perhaps we have a scientist who posts here and can explain how many degrees difference pulling the blinds down will actually make
It is not just a matter of temperature difference. The important issue is thermal energy entering the cabin.
Cabins are designed to minimise conduction - they have to cope with greater than 80K temperature differential. Windows allow thermal radiation.

Insolation is typically in excess of 1000w/m² on the earth's surface (assuming 30° sun elevation) - up to double that on a sloping aircraft window. With an area of 0.1m² per window that can be over 10kw for 50 windows.

10kw is not an insubstantial amount of extra energy to remove (cool).

Closing the blinds will not reflect all the heat but a high proportion.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 12:44

And because the silliness must continue:

From Unite:

British Airways bulletins

July 2009 update

Unite, together with the GMB, has been in talks with British Airways about its plans to cut costs across the airline. These talks are critical and will determine the future size and shape of Britain's national carrier - and that means Unite members' jobs.

Unite fully understands that the recession has hit aviation hard, and that BA is not immune from the economic downturn. But while we are striving to work constructively with the company on a way through these financially troubled times, we are clear that what must be agreed are short-term solutions to a short-term problem.

BA bulletins (http://www.unitetheunion.org/sectors/civil_air_transport/ba_bulletins.aspx)

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 12:46

SC makes valid observations as to the problem in Dubai and if the external temperature is in excess of 30C, but the problem that is trying to be addressed is the typical UK summer day at LHR. The problem is that an aircraft will come in from a longhaul flight and will be at a reasonable temperature. IF it remains on stand AND pre-conditioned air is put onto the aircraft immediately and remains on for the duration of the turnaround then the temp will rise a little, but it is essentially not a major issue. However, if the same aircraft is not immediately attached to the PCA which then stays on for the duration then the aircraft will start to heat up. It will heat up to well in excess of the ambient temp.

Closing the blinds, and turning off unnecessary electrical equipment such as the IFE etc will slow down this temperature rise. PCA and indeed the APU struggle on a summers day to cool an aircraft, but can cope at maintaining a temperature. However, BAA will not allow the APU to be run for protracted periods of time - even if it were allowed it would require an engineers prescence all the time it was running. The PCA often does not get attached or is not available on the stand in use or the aircraft will be moved to another stand prior to the next departure.

So while closing the blinds is not a cure for the sun heating up the aircraft, it can help to minimise the temperature rise, at no cost to the company. It produces no noise pollution and emits no CO2, it burns no expensive fuel. It is certainly not a panacea, but it is far better than doing nothing and then having to do more to reduce the temp in the cabin. If nothing else it makes the cabin temp less unpleasant for your colleagues when they board in preparation for the next service.

It is a perfectly reasonable order from an aircraft captain to his crew to close the blinds prior to disembarkation. It is perfectly reasonable for the company to take measures to reduce its costs by doing this. There is no risk in closing the blinds, if there were a risk then passengers would not be allowed to do this unsupervised. Refusal to do this could expose the crew to disciplinary action from the company, and over what? nothing of any import.

This has not been done as a deliberate act to provoke militants, although I do believe that BASSA are hypersensitive about everything at the moment and will, like a spurned partner, find it hard to look at anything the company do objectively.

Litebulbs

3rd Aug 2010, 12:51

I am with Safety Concerns here. Look at my handle. Every now and then I change those heat generating lighting sources. Guess what, they get very hot and there are lots of them in the cabin.

As to the shade and sloping windows, I am reasonably sure that you will struggle to see any sloping pax cabin windows and it does not go pitch black when you are in the shade. Now, in the morning and evening, you may get direct sunlight through the cabin windows, but other than that, you are in the shade of a big metal tube. You will see this in action, if you turn the cabin lighting off; the cabin takes on the appearance of shade. Maybe that is the solution, cabin lights off and blinds open, then everyone is happy?

As to whether it is antagonistic, I doubt it, unless you make it. There are fights and there is closing a dozen blinds each, no matter how pointless the exercise is.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 13:12

BillS:

I just spoke with hubby and his explanation as to why SC was in obvious error sounded much like yours, though I understand little of what either of you said. Engineers have their own language it seems.

His closing comment on the subject was that Safety Concerns seemed to be looking at it from a "small difference that won't matter" approach when ANY reduction above around 4 to 5% represents a serious benefit. Extrapolate those benefits across a fleet and it is a logical action.

He also mentioned the obvious points that Juan Tugoh observed, i.e., simple manual action, no design change required, etc., etc..

I do believe that we will be hearing a few individuals trying to justify BASSA's message (which has nothing to do with costs savings and everything to do with BASSA wanting control of the aircraft) with some rather interesting posts.

ChicoG

3rd Aug 2010, 13:56

As someone who's had the pleasure of sitting on the tarmac in Bahrain, Doha, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Muscat many a time while they offload and board transiting passengers, I must admit I don't have to ask the cabin crew to put the blind down for me if I'm sat on the sunny side of the aircraft. The sun is a lot hotter in this part of the world and it's an automatic response.

So if the airline requests it of their employees when aircraft are sat in the sun empty for a while, only the bitchiness and foot-stomping BASSA diehards would think it's anything that merits more than following a simple instruction given by your employer.

They really are making themselves look like a bunch of puerile brats.

I look forward to this one being reported by the Daily Mail and others as militant squealing. I also look forward to the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star trying to spin it as mine owners sending their employees down the shaft without a canary.

:yuk:

(Thinking of it, would there be anything wrong in the Captain asking passengers to do it as a courtesy before leaving the plane? I'd be perfectly happy doing it myself.

It isn't that difficult to someone with a modicum of education and common sense).

TopBunk

3rd Aug 2010, 14:04

They really are making themselves look like a bunch of puerile brats.

Totally agree, although they started many months ago with almost 100% success rate. In fact, it is about the only thing they have succeeded at.

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 14:15

Right back again. Lets get this sorted. I'll take Juan's comments because he is obviously an insider and apart from the odd bias here and there, his posts are normally factual.

This is about passenger and crew comfort. Some pilots have expressed concern during the summer that the cabin temperature on the crew boarding is too high, sometimes in the mid to high 30s. This is a safety related issue - you are foolish to board passengers onto an aircraft if the cabin temp is above 30C,

The technical answer to that is really quite simple.

a)lf this is genuinely a safety related, passenger and crew comfort issue, you have no choice, packs on. Blinds will assist a little but in most cases you have not got a chance in hell of getting it down to your "safety level"

And if it is a safety issue, why should crew risk their safety when there are packs on board to do exactly that job?

So is it a safety issue or isn't it?
And I remind you, blinds up or down at night makes no difference whatsoever.

Now if it isn't a safety issue but a cost cutting exercise then Captains should be aware of that and they should also be aware that the temp saving is minimal, pax wouldn't notice the difference, but cost savings are to be had.

But then again we are talking about saving the fuel required to run the apu. That is tax free aviation fuel which actually costs a few pence a litre. In reality we are squabbling over approximately 100-300 quid to keep a 747 cool during a turnaround.

Peanuts in comparison to ticket sales and a cool cabin that an appreciative customer may well take into account when making their next booking.

mrpony

3rd Aug 2010, 14:38

SC Yes I'm with you on that one. I only ever switch the heating on when I've opened the windows a little bit in my house. I know I could keep them closed but I don't mind burning fossil fuel unnecessarily and the missus pays the heating bills. So why bother?

BillS

3rd Aug 2010, 14:40

ANY reduction above around 4 to 5% represents a serious benefit.
In reality we are squabbling over approximately 100-300 quid to keep a 747 cool during a turnaround.

Peanuts in comparison to

How would 4-5% seem as a reduction in pay?
Even using SC's figures, how would "approximately 100-300 quid" per sector seem if removed from CC payments?
Peanuts?

Surely it must be obvious even to BASSA that closing a few blinds each is not an issue - if they have any desire to help BA reduce costs.
So why do they feel a need to make it an issue?

SwissRef

3rd Aug 2010, 14:44

Blinds will assist a little

If it assists a little, if it helps, and it reduces costs, then why not do it?

Look after the pennies, and the pounds will follow.

Litebulbs

3rd Aug 2010, 14:47

Welcome back Safety Concerns:ok:

I think the BASSA forum term is "bump" or I agree for those who have not been on it.

I came back from the States last month, where the policy on the airline was no APU air on the turn round. We were delayed due to weather (big banging clouds and no sun, so the dilemma of window blind for cooling vs view was a non issue), and it was very hot for all 400 of us. It is probably going to take a medical incident for this no air con policy to be reversed, or some gold card holders having a hissy fit.

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 14:48

Perhaps I should have said it is a health related issue. The health of our passengers specifically, but to a lesser extent that of our crews as well. As SC said, if required due to extreme heat, i.e. >30C for pax boarding, it will have to be APU on and Packs running at max, but if we can avoid the necessity of this, then surely we should do it.

It is ironic that a union should be attempting to block a measure that may make the working environment of it's members less unpleasant. A forward thinking union would be encouraging it's members to do this sort of thing - it costs nothing and makes their members lives less unpleasant. I think BASSA is being a little oversensitive here, though that is perhaps understandable, but it does not reflect well upon their reps that they cannot rise above the emotion and promote this as a good idea.

This is aimed at being a preventative measure and as I explained in a previous post is not really going to do a great deal in the Gulf in the middle of summer. It will make a difference on a sunny 25C day at LHR and a great deal of other places around the roue network. Acting to prevent the temperature rising and avoiding the requirement to unnecessarily cool an aircraft is just good sense. Making this an SOP will not make a difference on many turn rounds but on many others it will, sometimes at the end of a long sector it is easier to just do these things rather than make a judgement call which others may disagree with.

If as SC suggests this is only a matter of 100-300 quid to cool an aircraft, lets just look at that for a moment. Lets make a few conservative assumptions. BA have 50 747s some of which are in engineering lets say 40 are flying the line. Lets further assume that this is only an issue for 4 months of the year and that there is only 1 turn around per aircraft per day. So the cost involved is 40x120x100 at the lower end or x300 at the higher end. So that is between £480,000 and £1,440,000 per year to be saved - Just on the jumbo fleet alone. We now often shut down engines while taxying in which saves just a few minutes of fuel burn but it all adds up over many sectors and many aircraft. Now that is not a great deal of money in airline terms but it is a significant saving to be gained at no cost to anyone. It is also a carbon efficient way of doing business, which in modern times is important.

I can understand BASSA being prickly over any initiative from the company at the moment but this one does border on the silly.

Welcome back SC, I may not agree with everything you say but you bring a welcome contrary view and argue your point well.

Lotpax

3rd Aug 2010, 14:51

I have been lurking on this thread for a while and have not commented as the BA strike is of little consquence to me.

Having read the latest 'window blindgate' development, I do wonder if some posters are being a little harsh, although the BASSA message does not really read very well in style.

1) If employees allow management to add extra tasks to the day, minutes can sometimes add up into hours over the working week - to impose this on an ad hoc basis without some form of consultation does not seem fair to me - if it is good practice, it should be codified formally

2) Can an aircraft captain instruct cabin crew to perform a task that is not in their industrial agreement, when the aircraft is at the gate and the pax have got off?

Sadly, in the unpleasant environment of an industrial dispute sensible cooperation is not going to be as easy to find as otherwise.

So whilst BASSA may have made some questionable moves in the past, I do have some sympathy for this message, although the safety angle is pretty pathetic.

I see this as being somewhat different from the 'hot towel' issue, as that was a formal BA initiative.

Skylion

3rd Aug 2010, 14:54

The real issue here is nothing to do with the merits of blinds down or up.
It is about the need for new, fully flexible open contracts similar to those worked by most of the rest of humanity which say the company has bought "x" amount of your time and that for an agreed remuneration you will come to work, do whatever is reasonably required of you well, expeditiously and cheerfully and at the end of the day go home feeling you've done a good day's work. The BASSA view, similar to old heavy industry unions, is that every aspect of what people do should be subject to union control, remain described in minute detail so that anything new or outside it is "not agreed". It is what strangled many other British companies and industries (and the people working in them) while ironically the unions which presided over this live on, even if in merged form. The idea of pride in your work, in your company or your workplace viewed is seen as alien and in some way undesirable. Individual's enthisiasm and initiative is also trodden underfoot. Happy employees do not make good fodder for traditional unions who see anything not specifically pre-agreed is seen as "new work" and a horrific imposition and the basis for their beloved ongoing aggravation and trench warfare.
A lot of people in BA, including many cabin crew, want a new future and are happy to change to have the best chance of securing one (bearing in mind that nothing us guaranteed in the 21st century ). They do not want the heavy hand of BASSA or anyone else on their shoulder saying "Don't do that, don't even pick up that bit of litter or we will give you a hard time".It's time for BA's staff to stand up and tell BASSA/Unite to get off their backs and let them enjoy their jobs without the constant background noise of misery.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 15:14

Skylion:

Interesting post though I feel compelled to state that BASSA is truly giving the word "Union" a poorer image. Many Unions are good organizations that work in partnership with management to provide the best possible structure for their members while maintaining a workplace that can accomodate change and profitability.

BASSA seems to simply be divorced from any thought regarding the well-being of BA, co-workers and their customers.

Regarding Lotpax statement:

If employees allow management to add extra tasks to the day, minutes can sometimes add up into hours over the working week - to impose this on an ad hoc basis without some form of consultation does not seem fair to me - if it is good practice, it should be codified formally

This, to me, seems to be on the line of "next they will have us cleaning the cabins". There is no evidence that BA is abusing the tasks they have requested of Cabin Crew. BASSA's constant threat of "this will lead to...." means that increased service and profitability can't even start.

Directives such as the one issued by BASSA re the blind issue only make individuals like myself look more foreward to flying with Mixed Fleet, where service actually becomes a priority.

Lotpax

3rd Aug 2010, 15:23

This, to me, seems to be on the line of "next they will have us cleaning the cabins"Do you think it would be reasonable for the crews to clean up the cabin, per Wizz?

It seems reasonable to me for a trade union to try and avoid 'scope creep' in a job description.

It is about the need for new, fully flexible open contracts similar to those worked by most of the rest of humanity which say the company has bought "x" amount of your time and that for an agreed remuneration you will come to work, do whatever is reasonably required of you well, expeditiously and cheerfully and at the end of the day go home feeling you've done a good day's work.

In this instance, it seems the company has bought 'x' amount and is wishing to make it 'x+5 minutes.

If the industrial landscape was settled and peaceful, maybe the employees would happily give the 5 minutes, but it isn't, is it?

Before anyone thinks I am backing BASSA, I am not, but British Airways is not exactly the most attractive choice of air carrier at the moment, is it?

Maybe time they resolved this long running dispute (however they do it) and get back to focusing on making a profit.

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 15:23

The big difference between shutting down engines during taxi and saving on the APU is that there is no negative affect whatsoever from shutting down an engine, everything still works as advertised.

The APU issue is a health issue and a pax comfort issue. You need to determine where the limits are because as litebulbs says, one court case due to pax collapsing in an overheated cabin will cost lots of bucks.

In addition a hot cabin is uncomfortable and frustrating for pax and also increase the human ability to sweat and so smell. Coming back from Dubai one time the pax next to me said "never again. If this airline wants to scrimp on my comfort in this heat by not putting the air conditioning on, I'll take my business elsewhere".

So despite your calculated savings Juan, the hidden cost may be far more.

Just to put some additional perspective on this.

Two cabin air conditioning packs will be installed on each Boeing 787, providing enough air conditioning power to cool more than 50 homes. The packs are part of the aircraft's environmental control system.

Hamilton Sundstrand's cabin air conditioning packs are the first ever to be electrically driven. Typical cabin air conditioning packs use outside or "bleed" air that enters through the engines to produce the required cooling, but new technologies have enabled 787 engineers at Hamilton Sundstrand to pressurize outside air within the cabin air conditioning pack, reducing overall energy usage while contributing to the aircraft's all-electric design.

Now do you really consider that placing the blinds down has any relevant effect against an air conditioning unit capable of cooling 50 homes?

Its bows and arrows against nuclear weapons.

wiggy

3rd Aug 2010, 15:33

1) If employees allow management to add extra tasks to the day, minutes can sometimes add up into hours over the working week - to impose this on an ad hoc basis without some form of consultation does not seem fair to me - if it is good practice, it should be codified formally

I agree up to a point but crew have thirty minutes clearance time built into their rosters for post flight duties such as this I don't see why this should be a big issue.

On the other side of the flight deck door over the years we have regularly seen extra and/or different tasks added to our list of things to do, from minor stuff such as radio/datalink loadsheets, datalink ATC clearances, GPS approaches, Satphones, Enhanced GPWS.....All of these changes have meant at least some "homework" for us and have effected our working day. Now maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't expect my Union to be intimately involved in trialling and agreeing all those changes.

Lotpax

3rd Aug 2010, 15:37

I agree up to a point but crew have thirty minutes clearance time built into their rosters for post flight duties such as this I don't see why this should be a big issue.

The question then should be, I guess, is the 30 mins enough to cover pulling the blinds down, as well as the other tasks. If it is, then I'm less impressed with the union message and thank you for sharing this information.

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 15:41

Well Mr Pony, the point is we don't actually know the real reason why Bassa won't play ball.

It may be stupidity but it may also have a valid reason. The airline I mentioned in a previous post I should add wasn't BA.

But the fact remains if it is then a genuine health issue you can only have one valid procedure, packs on above a certain temp. Blinds won't get the desired result every time, packs will.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 15:42

Lotpax: No, and they haven't been asked to.

Safety Concern: You are letting your pro-union stance cloud the logic of this directive. BA has not declared this to be an "cure all and only tool used for cabin temperature". Its to be used in conjunction with other methods.

I've been on flights, and my husband has also, where we were asked to close blinds upon leaving. There is no reason why this request can't be made on a regular basis with a quick walkthrough by Cabin Crew afterwards to close the few that may remain open.

But...that would be an adult approach. Something that seems to be beyond BASSA at the moment.

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 15:49

well diplome I don't know whats behind the Bassa stance. some others here have already mentioned it, you can be flexible to a point.

However if you are not careful that inch becomes a country mile. Its not about Bassa, I have travelled enough times from hot places and suffered because of a stupid company policy about saving money.

My 747 ticket cost 400 quid. Lets say 320 pax. My max cost from the ticket to run the apu is less than 1 pound. The normal average cost will be significantly less. Just run the apu, keep everyone cool and happy.

The airline risks losing more than it gains.

JayPee28bpr

3rd Aug 2010, 15:50

Wouldn't it be better just to ask ECoHR to opine on the matter when considering reinstatement of the fundamental human right to cheap tickets to Barbados? Aren't the two issues inextricably linked?

Haymaker

3rd Aug 2010, 15:51

Discussion of blinds, air conditioning etc. is all very interesting, but may be going off at a tangent from the main issue, which is 'Who runs the airline - BASSA or BA?'

Fundamentally, it doesn't really matter why BA want to close the blinds. If they just thought it looked nicer, crew should still do it or face disciplinary action. It's a simple operational instruction, it's virtually no work and the H&S point is a joke.

The only significance of the reason for the instruction is if it moves into the area of passenger safety, in which case dissenting crew might additionally face criminal charges.

Having said all that, part of me would like to see someone try it on, if only to observe the outcome. A dispute on something like this could be a final tipping point for BA (assuming of course that it has not already been reached).

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 15:51

SC you are right when you say that there is a hidden cost in not providing a comfortable environment for pax boarding. It is something that I find deeply irritating to get on board an aeroplane and find the cabin temp in the high 30s and nothing being done to rectify the issue. These are not either/or decisions - it can all be done for the benefit of our colleagues and customers and at the same time saving a few bob. Wasting energy is going to become an ever more important issue as this century progresses, doing nothing because we have a machine that can do it while expending lots of energy simply won't cut it any more. There is an equivalence in that line of argument with saying why buy new aircraft these VC10's can still do the job - they just burn lots more fuel.

In the gulf etc then obviously either PCA and or APU is required and there is no question as to this. The real issue, as I keep stating is the temperate zones where it may well be possible to achieve this by simple measures which allow the allow the cabin to STAY cooler on turn rounds. It is not a matter of cooling the cabin, simple physics will show that shutting a blind will not cool anything. These are all preventative measures. Even in warmer climes where it is essential that APU/PCA is used if the starting temp is 37C rather than 39C it means less energy will be used to cool the cabin and this will represent a saving to company - maybe not a lot but certainly worth chasing, it is a no cost saving.

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 15:52

So you don't consider that the quarter of a billion pounds fine for price fixing may have something to do with BA's predicament?

@Juan, its a non issue for the future

Two cabin air conditioning packs will be installed on each Boeing 787, providing enough air conditioning power to cool more than 50 homes. The packs are part of the aircraft's environmental control system.

Hamilton Sundstrand's cabin air conditioning packs are the first ever to be electrically driven. Typical cabin air conditioning packs use outside or "bleed" air that enters through the engines to produce the required cooling, but new technologies have enabled 787 engineers at Hamilton Sundstrand to pressurize outside air within the cabin air conditioning pack, reducing overall energy usage while contributing to the aircraft's all-electric design.

These are run on normal electricity, they require no air which means they require no apu or engine.

As I said, blinds against packs capable of cooling 50 homes. Bows and arrows against nukes

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 15:54

That is not relevant, even if that case had not fallen apart, it changes nothing. We are where we are and waste for waste sake is just bad business.

Hipennine

3rd Aug 2010, 16:01

"It has been brought to our attention that crew are being asked to close all the window blinds at the end of each flight. This has not been agreed with BASSA and no safe working practice has been trialled. The normal practice when anything new is introduced is that the Health, Safety and Welfare committee would carry out a risk assessment to confirm that everything is safe.
Please note that no provision has been put in place for this extra duty and therefore you should not be carrying it out. If we do this it will become normal working practice and you will then become obliged to do it and then what next - pick up all the litter?
Please politely refuse if you are asked to do this at the end of your flight"

Alternatively: "It has been brought to our attention that crew are being asked to close all the window blinds at the end of each flight. So far, the Union has not been consulted over this, so we are unsure if this is official company policy. We are seeking clarification from management on this, because we believe that not all crews have sufficient time to undertake this additional task. However, we would advise that until this has been resolved, you may be subject to disciplinary action up to or including dismissal if you fail to carry out such an instruction"

Dawdler

3rd Aug 2010, 16:06

I agree with JT and perhaps it should be noted that BA are actually following at least one other airline in getting CC to carry out this task (see other thread).

Incidentally I have never quite understood why the cabin lights have to be dimmed when landing at night.

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 16:20

Incidentally I have never quite understood why the cabin lights have to be dimmed when landing at night.

That is a simple half-way house measure to help your eyes adjust from bright to dim light. The theory is that should a landing accident or incident occur and you have to evacuate the aeroplane you will have a better chance of survival as your eyes will already be part adapted to the dark.

LD12986

3rd Aug 2010, 16:45

The science behind the effectiveness of lowering the blinds is irrelevant and a complete misnomer.

When the company issues a perfectly reasonable and lawful instruction to its staff it is not for BASSA to take it upon itself to tell cabin crew to just disregard the company's instructions, citing spurious health and safety grounds.

3rd Aug 2010, 17:14

Just run the apu, keep everyone cool and happy

If only it was that easy. Most airports won't let you start the APU until 20mins before departure and insist that it is shut down 5mins after arrival

As for closing blinds we have been doing it for years where necessary, and as somebody suggested asking pax to do it before leaving the a/c.

What a load of hot air over nothing !!!!

Safety Concerns

3rd Aug 2010, 17:44

Most airports...where? Never been a rule at any airport I worked at.
But anyway I agree this has drifted off, lets bring this back.

So the company on Monday ask for CC to perform a simple "extra" task. How do we know that by Friday CC won't be clearing up, performing boarding checks at the gate and and and.

Where does one draw the line or do we allow t&c's to go backwards by stealth?

In fact all your office staff, why can't you clean up the office before you go and I don't need to employ a cleaner. Where does it end? Where does it start?

LD12986

3rd Aug 2010, 18:04

The vast majority of employees do not have the luxury of renegotiating their T&Cs every time there is the slightest change to their workload. BA is a business, not a staff employment club.

If it is reasonable and within their job description then there's no reason why they shouldn't do it. Cabin crew won't be asked to perform duties outside the cabin, not least because they don't have the training to do so.

A2QFI

3rd Aug 2010, 18:10

Fascinating to read, in the CC only forum, that DH thinks that his "Loyal Union Members" have been harshly dealt with by WW. Says it all really - their true purpose in life should be to be "Loyal BA Employees"!

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 18:11

Safety Concerns:

Your post is EXACTLY why BA passengers are looking forward to Mixed Fleet, why Mixed Fleet is necessary and why it is also necessary that Mixed Fleet be kept separate from the influence of the hard-line BASSA members.

An example. My hubby reserved a local establishment for the England/U.S. World Cup game. He didn't host the bar but he did host the food and several large screen televisions were brought in for the event. There were even tables and televisions outside under canopies.

It was a simply wonderful event. Heavily attended, wonderful exchange between the Company and community, a definite plus. One of his employees came up to me and said "We've never had anything like this, it's simply brilliant.".

If my husband used your and BASSA's logic the event would never have happened because his first thought would be "If I do this, then what will they expect next...I'm starting down a dangerous path.".

Thank goodness he, and the three unions that participate in success with him, have a different approach.

Juan Tugoh

3rd Aug 2010, 18:11

This is direct from the London Heathrow Aerodrome Book and shows the regulations regarding APU usage.

3.4.3 Auxiliary Power Units (APU)
procedures
3.4.3.1 APU must be shut down at the earliest
opportunity on arrival on stand.
3.4.3.2 APU must not be used as a substitute
where FEGP is adequately provided
and serviceable.
3.4.3.3 3. APUs are not permitted
to be used between 2330 and 0600
(local) on:
Cargo Area Stands 601-609
and 611-616;
Stands 401-403, 429-432
and 463, except in an emergency.
3.4.3.4 No APU is to be left running
unless either a qualifi ed person
is in attendance or the APU has
both an auto-shut down and an
auto-extinguishing facility.

It is fairly common to find APU restrictions, engineers may have different restrictions, but for crews on everyday operations it can be quite restrictive.

3rd Aug 2010, 18:20

Most airports...where? Never been a rule at any airport I worked at.

Well at most of the airports I have visited worldwide (i/c large transport a/c) there are now restrictions, sometimes severe, on APU use.

STS

3rd Aug 2010, 18:29

I'm baffled. Not for the first time with this whole dispute, but this ranks up there as a milestone in the silly season.

I quite often fly out of LGW to a rather nice - but often very warm - destination in Eastern Europe. I'm also used to hearing, on boarding the aircraft, that there'll be a possible 2 hour ATC delay. Often turns out to be 20 minutes, but anyway. The blinds are always pulled down when this happens - I assume because it's the middle of the afternoon, bloomin' hot, and the sun is beating down on the aircraft and if you're sat there for up to two hours then the APU isn't really an option. I consequently assume that the crew have no issues with doing the same on return to LGW, should it be a hot day there? So if this diktat has been imposed on LGW crew for as long as I can remember - why another big song and dance re: the LHR crew and where were BASSA when someone decided at Gatwick that this was to be working practice? And if it's not declared policy, then a big thanks to all crew who have the common sense to try and make things more pleasant for passengers.

Believe me I get the duty hours+ sneaking on the 5 mins extra argument as I've been there with an airline doing that to me, but this really is just coming across as trying to just be difficult for the sake of it. I just cannot grasp that every tiny alteration to working practices must be subjected to such scrutiny on every occasion. An effective union should be there to protect employees when there is a genuine concern - minor alterations to working practices just don't fall within this category. They just don't. Whatever happened to sound judgement and the ability to distinguish when there is a real need to go into bat for members? It's remarkable to me that window blinds are even up for debate, and yet New Fleet/Mixed Fleet was a big fat no to negotiation. Does anybody here seriously believe that the pages we're spending on discussion APU policies at airports was even in BASSA's mind when they brought this up? This is just a good old fashioned "let's be as difficult as we can be if we can't strike" tactic.

As a BA ff, I'm sticking with LGW and LCY whenever I can. I've finally had enough of this nonsense and the crew from those two bases have consistently delivered fantastic service - LHR is just too bogged down in this industrial dispute for me to chance spending my money on the possibility of crewmembers wanting to be difficult or play silly buggers.

Lotpax

3rd Aug 2010, 18:40

This is just a good old fashioned "let's be as difficult as we can be if we can't strike" tactic.

I accept Wiggy's input, but have to ask why would you expect it to be any other way after a dispute that has being going on for nearly 9 months?

The management has played hard ball with staff travel, the union is playing hard ball back and the whole performance is doing ther airline harm.

Haymaker

3rd Aug 2010, 18:46

I am glad to see you are coming back to the central issue. I agree that any extra task can be the thin end of the wedge, and it is the duty of any responsible union to keep an eye on this.

And yes - the tricky bit is where to draw the line. It's basically a judgement call, and I suggest a large helping of common sense is the most helpful tool in this, together with a good look at the wider issues.

If you are just playing devil's advocate, fair enough. But if you are really agonising over this decision, a quick re-read of the hundreds (thousands?) of posts on these forums may be of assistance. Also, BASSA's insistence on a H&S committee review of the dangeous task of lowering a blind may give you a clue about who is acting in good faith here.

STS

3rd Aug 2010, 18:55

but have to ask why would you expect it to be any other way after a dispute that has being going on for nearly 9 months?

Because that strategy has not worked so far, so what evidence is there that this is going to help resolve matters now? In what way will any of this convince WW to settle this dispute on BASSA's terms? It won't. They know that. This is tantamount to a v-sign.

This isn't playing hardball. That would have been to sit down and thrash out a damn good deal re: Mixed Fleet. That would have been playing hardball. It's easy to be petty.

OSAGYEFO2

3rd Aug 2010, 18:56

I have followed these threads for some months and thought that BASSA had lost the plot. However on mature reflection it becomes clear that they did not have a plot merely a series of convulsive twitches each one causing annother shot in the foot.

Is it any wonder then that they hobble from farce to disaster.

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 19:07

Lotpax:

I accept Wiggy's input, but have to ask why would you expect it to be any other way after a dispute that has being going on for nearly 9 months?

The management has played hard ball with staff travel, the union is playing hard ball back and the whole performance is doing ther airline harm.

This approach is why BASSA is on the extreme weak end of the dispute, and they simply refuse to learn lessons.

"What would I expect after 9 months?".

Let's be serious here. If after 9 months I was on the receiving end of an absolutely failed strike, an entity that was now more empowered to make future strikes irrelevant, with a City that has increased their backing of my employer, tens of thousands of co-workers that are determined that I not win, and a U.K. public that pretty much loathes me, I might say..."I need to present a more serious side to counteract all of this negative impression.".

But no, BASSA stays true to its reputation and issues a message asking for a safety review over CLOSING BLINDS!

Is there someone in the background of BASSA determined to make them look like a bad Panto?

Swissflyer

3rd Aug 2010, 19:08

If the CC "are BA" as they claim, then it is time for BA to be "changed". In all my years I have never witnessed a situation such as the putting the blinds down, hot towels in WT Plus nonsense (for what it is worth, it is not guaranteed in Club World) . Get real BASSA. Your behaviour has demonstrated you can not lead, manage or compromise.. so what is your purpose?

Bring on New Fleet.. advertise what flights will be operated by them and I am certain the market will support them with their custom.

MCOflyer

3rd Aug 2010, 19:17

Like the above poster I have been following this thread and the CC only thread as well. I fly out of what would be considered a very warm climate here at MCO. My airline of choice is Delta and when I get on the plane all the shades are down and the aircraft is on ground air as well as ground power. Are these not available at the wonderful Middle Eastern airports I hear so much about? The APU is shut down as soon as ground power and air are connected and this is normally before the door has been opened.

This whole issue of pulling down the shades being escalated to union involvement shows there are great cultural differences between the UK and the US.

west lakes

3rd Aug 2010, 19:21

It's not a cultual difference it just shows that BASSA are preparede to subjugate H & S laws to their own IR ends.
If they ain't happy perhaps they should involve the HSE. (who would probably laugh them out of the room)

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 19:23

Swissflyer:

Isn't it a rather sad result of this dispute that many frequent flyers are now rather adamant that they would prefer NOT to travel with BASSA strikers.

Hopefully BA will provide some code to its patrons so that we will know what flights are Mixed Fleet so that we can book with ease.

Though, if I understand representations correctly, we will be able to recognize them at various sites from their hats. A very good branding from BA to its passengers. :ok:

MCOflyer

3rd Aug 2010, 19:30

Diplome

I am flying on BA for the first time next week in Club World. If you are interested I will be happy to share my opinions on your airline when I return. I am a very seasoned traveler and will be very interested to see how I am treated.

Haymaker

3rd Aug 2010, 19:59

The hat idea is brilliant. Tell us more. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Is it the same as the rumour I heard (OK, maybe started) that anyone wearing a BASSA lanyard will have to wear a comedy hat - or crash helmet whilst engaged in hazardous blind-pulling operations? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

call100

3rd Aug 2010, 19:59

Apart from the rather stupidly worded statement from BASSA I have no idea why it's a problem. However, It seems to be a problem of some significance as it's filled four or five pages of the forum.:rolleyes:
In the scheme of this dispute it hardly warrants such prominence. I would think that the problem is a minor one in comparison to all the other troubles for BA.
Outside of this BA (and this forum) there seems to be little concern or opinion one way or the other about the dispute. BASSA have no support in the greater TU movement.

R Knee

3rd Aug 2010, 19:59

Not a place you think of as hot what with all that snow etc. yet...

Zurich early to mid afternoon in summer 30 degrees was not unusual and

they certainly used to ban the use of APU (noise reduction) as briefed earlier on this thread - 20 mins before departure - close to the time passengers (SLF) arrived.

I knew a captain who used to regularly close blinds, assisting the crew on turnaround (also used to wet the tea on occasion), on the sunward side and also ensure all the normal air vents were and open pointed all in the same direction. It just about kept the cabin at a similar temperature to that of arrival.

Once the SLF had embarked their body heat and the, now open to sunlight, windows ensured a significant increase in temperature.

I've been there, seen it, experienced it - blinds help even if in only a small way.

R.

Justanopinion

3rd Aug 2010, 20:02

All

I have a solution for the 'pulling down the blind problem' once the aircraft is in its parking slot, post flight.

er hem

Ladies and Gentleman this is your Captain speaking

'Would you be so kind as to pull down the blind of your window before disembarking, - i really do appreciate your assistance in this matter and wish you a safe onward journey' Thank you for flying with BA etc etc

Just a thought......

call100

3rd Aug 2010, 20:03

Most airports...where? Never been a rule at any airport I worked at.

SC suggest you read a few more AOI's. For years at my place of employ it's been 30 mins prior to departure.
If there has been a delay the Captain may ask for permission to run the APU for passenger comfort. This is usually granted.

R Knee

3rd Aug 2010, 20:04

R Knee

3rd Aug 2010, 20:14

Juan T- That is a simple half-way house measure to help your eyes adjust from bright to dim light. The theory is that should a landing accident or incident occur and you have to evacuate the aeroplane you will have a better chance of survival as your eyes will already be part adapted to the dark.

Agree - only if you allow at least 20 minutes will your eyes (the rods or cones I forget which) fully adjust, red lighting was supposed to assist adapting. This does not take into account the individual overhead spotlight however.

I do agree however it's better than nothing.

R Knee

3rd Aug 2010, 20:25

It is a good and common sense arrangement to properly prepare the aircraft for embarking passengers and crew.
As said a lot of UK airports are woefully unprepared for high temperatures and have little or no ground air conditioning.
It is a matter of common decency not a matter of Bassa!

About the same preparation as they have for snow and ice clearance.

leiard

3rd Aug 2010, 20:26

BASSA Flight BSA101 to Nowhere
After take-off:
This is your captain speaking “We welcome you on board this BASSA flight, please check your T&C in the pocket in front of you, this will explain your obligations to the cabin crew for their safety and comfort, especially during their rest periods”
After landing:
This is your captain speaking “We thank you for not making too many demands on our cabin crew, please, before you leave the plane can you lower the blinds it might be too dangerous for the cabin crew to do so and if you find any litter can you collect this and deposit this in the nearest bin in the airport lounge.
We thank you for flying BASSA Airways – we look forward to you helping our cabin crew again in the near future – strike action permitting”

R Knee

3rd Aug 2010, 20:37

No one thinks for a moment here, that perhaps it is Walsh who has the personal vendetta? Surely an appraisal of his performanceso far, could also be described as "militant". His actions have all the hallmarks of union busting.
I can understand that there are a lot of people here who must be disappointed that BASSA have not rushed into a third ballot as quickly as they would like.
If intelligence is being questioned, then you must ask why Walsh allowed 800 cabin crew to take severance just before the first ballot. Not a very 'intelligent' thing to do in hindsight. To seek an injunction over the notification, or lack of it, of 11 spoiled ballot papers, was also not very intelligent when on appeal BA lost. In fact the whole position of BA seeking injunctions is questionable, as it has not solved anything, but simply run the disopute on for longer than necessary. Hiding behind High Court judges is perhaps not the most intelligent thing to do

Duncan Holley has said many times that the action to defeat imposition would be a "marathon". You would need to be a patient.

Here they come again!

800 cabin crew on high wages and pension commitments - not that poor a move.

3rd Aug 2010, 21:05

SC - The big difference between shutting down engines during taxi and saving on the APU is that there is no negative affect whatsoever from shutting down an engine, everything still works as advertised.

Wrong! Prove it.

Sorry R Knee and your point is???

Many 2 engine airplanes taxi in on one engine and 4 engine airplanes on 3.
All works well. Plenty of redundancy in the systems. Standard procedures for saving fuel.
APU restrictions on the ground are usually environmental. IF the ground facilities are good then ground air and ground electrics will be used where possible.

BillS

3rd Aug 2010, 21:18

After 90 years of operation another "national" airline (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38541834/ns/business-us_business/)
has proposed salary cuts of 41 percent and 39 percent for pilots and flight attendants, respectively, and a 40 percent staff reduction to keep the company afloat
as it files for bankruptcy protection.
Perhaps some BASSA reps might find something to do there.

edit:
Perhaps this (http://www.mexicana.com/cs/Satellite?Level=1&pagename=MexicanaG5_US_EN/Page/PrincipalPageComposition_US_EN&assetId=1143494208252&URLTemplate=/cs/Satellite?pagename=MexicanaG5/MexContainer_C/LandingBank_News&idContainer=1243462914943&ChannelID=1201111972289&siteID=1143494205438&IdNews=1280334492607) is their long term plan:
stockholders have offered to sell CMA to its unions for the token sum of $1 peso, proving them convinced of the vital role these labor organizations will play in the future of the company. As the only entities capable of turning the situation around, CMA’s management have stated that it would be willing to transfer control of the airline to its unions.

Colonel White

3rd Aug 2010, 22:05

You omitted the last part of the press release which said that the Mexicana pilot's union had rejected both scenarios. Who does that remind you of ?

Shame in some respects as Mexicana joined oneworld around 18 months ago. Doesn't help the overall oneworld brand when this sort of thing happens.

JackMcHammocklashing

3rd Aug 2010, 22:05

I hope to $EITY you are not CC

Jack McH

JackMcHammocklashing

3rd Aug 2010, 22:14

So you have never completed a proper apprentiship then?

The first initial rule is to keep your workspace clean and tidy
Sweep up after you and leave it as you found it

So NOT fully trained then, just enough to do the job, this worries me
I thought cabin crew were fully trained before flying, as in professional crew

Not as in professional tradesmen qualified apprentiship compared to
tradesmen who can manage the job?

Often referred to as chancers

Jack McH

Diplome

3rd Aug 2010, 22:28

What is interesting, time and time again, regarding this dispute, is that BASSA advocates will deflect issues, doing everything they can to not discuss their objections.

This is not about pilots, not about other airline's practices, it's about BA and the militant faction of BASSA.

Your customers have read (and this is a SLF forum) about your fear of blinds, we are already aware of the burden a simple hot towel service represents to your group.

Seriously, at what point do you present yourself as an advocate for your customers? I'm not speaking of the "We are the face of BA" rhetoric. The face means little to your flying public if the "face" is constantly frowning and complaining about who they work for.

Your customers have no wish for contact with you. Rather than reassurances you give us "Pulling down blinds is too dangerous!".

Gatwick and LCY are gaining advocates due to their customer centric focus.

Heathrow is gaining a reputation as an aging dinorsaur, no mobility and definitely no connection with co-existing organisms.

Who the heck are you paying for your representation?

JackMcHammocklashing

3rd Aug 2010, 22:37

Had difficulty working out the change for a £169 FINEPIX CAMERA when £180 tendered

No it is not £8

(Inumerate or a thief?)

A young lady CC advised it was indeed £11

The laugh was until I came on here, I usually said "KEEP THE CHANGE" Knowing it was quite a bit

(Due to me usually flying on economy airlines and appreciating the service and aware of CC low wage)

Jack McH

MCOflyer

4th Aug 2010, 00:12

Next week is my first ride on BA. Hopefully I will not be taken care of by anyone with a lanyard. I'm in CW and have high expectations as I did when I booked this ride several months ago.

I have, out of necessity, been following the 2 threads on PPrune to see if my trip would actually go. Looks now that it will be no problem except for changing planes in LHR.

pcat160

4th Aug 2010, 01:41

If BASSA/Unite call for a strike who would actually strike. It is patently obvious that a new strike will not succeeded. While a strike will be financially painful to BA and thereby please Duncan it will do nothing for striking Cabin Crew. 3500 Cabin Crew who have lost Staff Travel may strike on the basis that they may recoup Staff Travel as a result. They will not and BA will be able to continue to serve most if not all destinations. I am intrigued by the number of part time Cabin Crew there are. Maybe there is a motivation for them to strike. Regardless of the number of members BASSA still has how many will strike?

jethrobee

4th Aug 2010, 01:44

I am flying home from North America on the weekend, i'm now worried if it is safe on the BA plane to close the blinds, there must be some safety issue if the cabin crew need a health and safety check before doing it......

jethrobee

4th Aug 2010, 01:46

on another note, and I am in no way having a go at a person I dont know, but how is it that the cabin crew can be properly represented by someone who now doesnt work for the airline.

Surely the union rules would prohibit someone who is now no longer allowed unfettered access to airline premises and therefore would be unable to represent the members???

cavortingcheetah

4th Aug 2010, 05:20

I am not really familiar with the mental processes that go on inside the head of people who select sexually bestial names as their internet pen names. Life has been kind to me and I have managed to avoid the company of those who find animal sex or group infidelity amusing. It does not surprise me that there might, among the representatives of the anti BA brigade, as in any other of course, be one or two of these strange mentalists. It does surprise me however that apparently, or so I am led to believe by reading and rumour, one or more of these creatures of humankind is able to post in a thread reserved specifically and only for acting cabin crew. That gives recognition to an entitlement which is denied to others whose service and experience in the airline industry would be perhaps be more intelligent and constructive, less biased and just possibly altogether more interesting.

MCOflyer

4th Aug 2010, 05:29

Cavortingcheetah

Nice post and very much on point. It seems the posters on the other thread are polarized to one end of the dispute or the other. There are others of us that have been in similar situations that may share wisdom gained the hard way. But then again, would either side listen?

cavortingcheetah

4th Aug 2010, 06:23

I was just wondering in a truly altruistically sympathetic way if the BA height requirements for cabin crew discriminated against some of the cabin crew in a manner which could affect health and safety with regard to the window blinds, closing of? Perhaps as a result of any BA maximum height restriction some cabin crew might find themselves bracchium disadvantaged?
This disability could pose serious problems for crew having to lean across rows of seats to close blinds. This could be a task for which, with their short little arms, they are ill equipped to complete. Perhaps that is the philanthropic rationale behind the recent BASSA kerfuffle?

RTR

4th Aug 2010, 06:57

Its all very fishy to me. Red herrings everywhere!

There is strong feeling running against Holley and his vendetta and it gets stronger every day. A vendetta that is vicious while remaining just within bounds. I personally have no doubts at all that he sees the cabin crew as his flock of lambs who follow him where he likes to take them. It is so easy to detect. His brazen ignorance and arrogance is that of a 70's brainwashed union leader. Holley now USES BASSA for his own ends now that he cannot represent its members.

As Diplome wrote:
This is not about pilots, not about other airline's practices, it's about BA and the militant faction of BASSA.

Absolutely right. For one thing, the pilots and the rest of the huge workforce of BA have done their deals with BA via Unite and are happy enough but mad as hell with BASSA and Holley in particular. The solution to this problem of Holley hanging on to BASSA is reachable. Holley represents no-one but himself. He justifies himself by his little oft times silly 'announcements' to keep the lambs behind him while thousands more want him out.

If enough people tell BASSA they have no confidence in their secretary, Malone and the other militants, I believe that they have to call a meeting to have the miscreants removed.

Just don't follow Duncan Holley!

Lotpax

4th Aug 2010, 06:59

Diplome

With the very greatest of respect, you sound like a PR for BA.

I don't care what happens to BA or BASSA, but I do recognise a nasty industrial dispute, where both parties get themselves locked into fixed positions and there is no good will left to ease the way back to normla relations.

This ongoing state (which must be damaging the brand) does no credit to management or union.

BUIt I say again, it is of no impact to me, so I don't care too much about the outcome.

RTR

4th Aug 2010, 07:01

Why bother to post then? Oh! By the way, I suggest you read a few of Diplome's other posts - you might get a surprise.

TightSlot

4th Aug 2010, 07:41

If you are aware of a user posting on the CC thread who is not serving airline staff then please PM me with proof (repeat, proof) and I will ensure that an immediate ban is applied.

...That gives recognition to an entitlement which is denied to others whose service and experience in the airline industry would be perhaps be more intelligent and constructive, less biased and just possibly altogether more interesting.

Interesting to you, possibly, as you pirouette polysyllabically at the imagined centre of attraction, but to few others actually involved in the dispute. Grow up.

KBPsen

4th Aug 2010, 08:33

Lotpax, welcome to the world of the group, or mob if you like. Woe to those that do not conform.

All the elements that make up the dynamics of group psychology are here.

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 08:40

Yes but slowly and surely balance is beginning to creep in here. It's been my main point, I am absolutely against what Bassa are doing but equally against lynch mob mentality. Unfortunately exactly that has been prevalent probably even more so on the other thread.

The fact is management haven't behaved impeccably either. I am also astounded how much support a company has that openly admitted it was involved in illegal activities which cost the company a quarter of a billion pounds in fines.

So who does have the moral high ground, management or Bassa exercising their legal right to challenge?

Mariner9

4th Aug 2010, 08:57

The BA illegal* activities SC didn't affect me personally SC. Whereas BASSA's activities have.

Accordingly, I recognise that I and perhaps most SLF on here have a natural bias. Union supporters also have a bias. Thus the debate continues.

Would you prefer that this thread is only posted on by SLF who have never actually flown BA, are not Union members or Management of any company, and thus are strictly neutral?

If you found such a person who was sufficiently disinterested to be strictly neutral, do you think they would have enough interest in this dispute to post here?

*Though whether its correct to them illegal is dubious at best given that the criminal case collapsed and the fines have not yet been paid.

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 09:07

its not about being neutral mariner its about not being savaged because you didn't agree that all Bassa members should be hung drawn and quartered and what a horrible bunch of company killing fools they are.

BA activities remain illegal regardless of the collapse of the case as BA themselves admitted they did it. To be clear on the size of the fine, all CC could have been given a 2,000 pound a year pay rise, each year for the next 10 years.

Who is actually costing the company money and why haven't management been vilified for their behaviour?

Diplome

4th Aug 2010, 09:10

SafetyConcern:

With all due respect the issue of price-fixing has nothing to do with this dispute.

Again, I don't believe you will find a member of this forum who does not believe that BASSA has a "right" to strike. However, BA, its employees and the flying public have a right to disagree with BASSA's actions and to support BA in its battle against this rather disagreeable group of individuals intent on inflicting as much damage as possible on the airline.

Moral high ground has nothing to do with it...though it is hardly owned by BASSA in this instance.

Lotpax:

Your insinuation that I may be BA PR carries as much weight as SafetyConcerns accusation on another thread that someone who was expressing a differing view was a "management stooge".

http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/377481-unionisation-discussions.html

More than happy to engage in a debate regarding issues and I don't care if you're a Union rep., etc.. Facts are facts.

RTR: I agree regarding Mr. Holley's communications. They are starting to read like the "fill" you see in a young student's report as he tries desperately to reach the 500 word minimum required by his instructor. Lots of words, very little substance.

LD12986

4th Aug 2010, 09:12

What a complete non-sequitor. So the undoubted mistakes of previous BA managers give BASSA a licence to behave the way it has? What utter drivel.

No-one is going to defend BA's involvement in price fixing and those who were responsible have paid a very high price for it. Their careers have been destroyed. The losses from fines were taken in previous years and had no bearing on the losses of the past couple of years. In fact, the company has not yet paid the UK fine, and is seeking to get it withdrawn after the collapse of the criminal trial.

Who holds BASSA accountable for the needless £150m of damage they've inflicted on BA?

Perhaps the reason for an apparent lack of "balance" in discussion is BASSA have never actually stated their case. All we can say fir certain is they have a pathological obsession with Willie Walsh.

mrpony

4th Aug 2010, 09:13

Funny old mob this. A few dozen people having a, sometimes lively, debate.
When you say 'woe' what do you mean?
Nobody has to conform apart from to some basic rules of the forum.
You can say, virtually, whatever you want.

Here's what I say:

BASSA are lying about the membership numbers. They will find themselves in court within two years as a consequence. If a ballot was held now on strike action the number voting 'for' would be less than 5000, probably nearer to 3000 - in both cases a majority of actual members but also a minority of cabin crew.
It is all over bar the shouting.

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 09:22

The point is with the price fixing situation is that you all remained silent. The sum involved is just as valid as the claimed sums involved with Bassa so by default can cause the same amount of damage.

Diplome please look at your quotes:

More than happy to engage in a debate regarding issues and I don't care if you're a Union rep., etc.. Facts are facts.

Yet where's the fact in your next quote

support BA in its battle against this rather disagreeable group of individuals intent on inflicting as much damage as possible on the airline

That is your take on the situation, it isn't fact.

However LD I may agree with

Perhaps the reason for an apparent lack of "balance" in discussion is BASSA have never actually stated their case.

Then comes Mr Pony

Nobody has to conform apart from to some basic rules of the forum.
You can say, virtually, whatever you want.

If only that were true. I am banned from the other thread because some snitch has claimed I am not airline staff. Now who would make such a claim, a Bassa supporter?

But enough of all this. Balanced discussion is what I seek and not opinions dressed up as facts Diplome.

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 09:25

BASSA are lying about the membership numbers. They will find themselves in court within two years as a consequence. If a ballot was held now on strike action the number voting 'for' would be less than 5000, probably nearer to 3000 - in both cases a majority of actual members but also a minority of cabin crew. It is all over bar the shouting.

Mr pony we agree apart from the lying. I think its incompetence.

Diplome

4th Aug 2010, 09:27

"snitch"?? Come now. If you are an employee of an airline it is rather easy to communicate with the Moderators here to gain access.

If I posted on the Cabin Crew thread I would rightly be removed. It has nothing to do with our opinions and everything to do with the rather simple rules of the forum.

Mr pony we agree apart from the lying. I think its incompetence.
....and this is an opinion. You will post them from time to time, I will, as will others. It does not take away the facts that are also sprinkled through our posts. ;)

ChicoG

4th Aug 2010, 09:32

SC,

So that we can lay the much worn out (by BASSA) "price-fixing fine" issue, the fines imposed (which I believe have yet to be paid) were supposedly for what is in effect illegal profiteering, yes? Ergo the money paid out is probably comparable to (or who knows, even less than?) the amount of illegal profit made.

So this isn't money that's just been thrown away. Just money that in effect has been given back.

Move along now, there's nothing further to discuss here (and nor is there any point in dragging up fuel hedging, as that's not related to this dispute either, despite Duncan Thickett's pathetic attempts at making it so).

:}

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 09:41

Diplome you are missing the point again. I am airline and I don't feel the need to prove it because of the unsupported claims of a snitch. I would rather not post.

You should be concerned that some individual goes to such lengths. Rather sad really when you think about it.

But lets draw a line under all this and get back to "balanced debate".

What do we think will happen next?

Mariner9

4th Aug 2010, 09:54

What do we think will happen next?

A neutral factual view might be that given the low ballot turnout BASSA would never get a majority (of the entire CC) vote in favour of IA.

Another neutral factual view might be that it will be difficult for BASSA to come up with a reason for further IA unconnected with the previous dispute, thus putting strikers at risk.

My biased view is that BASSA will likely attempt to ballot for further IA, given that their leadership is intent on inflicting damage on BA regardless of the cost to their members and they are likely to get ~3000 votes in favour of action and an unknown number (probably lower than 3K due to declining membership)voting against.

Diplome

4th Aug 2010, 10:00

mrpony:

Your posts regarding membership numbers are intruiging. I know that BASSA has lost members since this issue started but are you aware of a site that has the complete numbers for membership represented and voting results.

I'm actually hoping to not have to go and hunt them out on the CC thread myself :)

safety concerns:

Rather sad really when you think about it.

I know. Tears are falling on my keyboard as I type this.

Safety Concerns

4th Aug 2010, 10:20

How about this scenario. A deal will be done. Bassa are in trouble now with the numbers and Willie knows it but he isn't prepared to actually finish them off.

So he drags this out to make them sweat and then a compromise is found to avoid any further strikes.

Would Bassa survive in the aftermath of such a scenario?
Would Unite be damaged by this?

Tigger4Me

4th Aug 2010, 10:20

I have been away for a few days and am now playing catch up with the thread with a comment in the blinds issue.

During that time away I was privileged to fly the Air France A380 LHR/CDG and return. On the return the Captain informed us that the take off weight was 370 tons and that there were 500 pax on board. The CC sat opposite me said that there were 17 CC. During the 40 minute flight every pax was served with a drink and snack. Now I wonder what BASSAs comment would have been had they been requested to to the same. :oh: The CC that I spoke to did say that they were not happy with doing the service but that it kept her in a job. Despite the reluctance all the crew that I witnessed were very pleasant.

Quote from SafetyConcerns:

"In fact all your office staff, why can't you clean up the office before you go and I don't need to employ a cleaner. Where does it end? Where does it start?"

For your information I work in an office and we do clear up at the end of the day leaving the cleaner to mop the floor and polish the windows. Quite normal in the real world I believe and the cost saving probably helps keep me in a job too.

cym

4th Aug 2010, 10:30

I thinks its clear that evan BASSA dont have a clue how many members they currently have! There is a lot of talk in the other place of crew have have resigned from BASSA from some considerable time being issued with papers for the recent consultative ballot.

I think this is one of the reasons that they are putting off further ballots at this time as they are very open to another legal challange as to its validity

mrpony

4th Aug 2010, 10:35

All I know is what I've either guessed or been told.

If there are 7000 ( or 6500, whatever) strike pay claims to Unite why are only 3500 being deprived of ST? It does not add up. Simple. Have BA mistakenly not removed ST from thousands of strikers? No. Safety Concerns thinks that numbers are wrong due to incompetence. I think it is pure skullduggery.

If there were approx. 10000 members at the time of the last ballot, why did only approx. 50% vote? It was BA's final offer on a matter of fundamental interest and importance to BASSA's members. BASSA were enthusiastic and voluble in urging its members to vote against but only 35% of members did so? Er, I simply don't believe it. Why belong to a Union and not vote on a matter like this? 10 maybe 20% I could explain to myself but not 50%.

You will see that the number of voters against is roughly equal to the number of cc with ST removed - 3500 or thereabouts. That makes sense doesn't it?

mrpony

4th Aug 2010, 10:57

Yes they are in a fix but not through lack of knowledge.

With approx. 3500 militants ( read ST has been removed ) who would vote for IA the only way a majority could be claimed was if the membership dropped to below 7000, and an authoritative yes vote would need numbers to drop way below 50% of cc population. Yes, a real fix.

cym

4th Aug 2010, 11:11

Totally agree BASSA are in real trouble - and guess what BA know how many subcriptions they are deducting from staff salaries!

My feeling is that if they do attempt to carry out a ballot for IA, BA will just let it happen and then go for an injunction making both BASSA and Unite look like fools (again).

They have had 7 months to get their act together on this front and still dont have a clue. Well worth paying your subs for if your still a member

Haymaker

4th Aug 2010, 11:23

This is obviously a key issue at this stage in this dispute, and several posters have pointed out blatant inconsistencies in some of the numbers bandied about. Some have even suggested that BASSA themselves don't have a clue.

I am prepared to accept that their admin is in complete chaos, but I would have thought that they have a pretty good handle on how much money is going into their bank account each month, particularly if the allegations of commission payments are true. So, they should know how many members they have, even if they don't know who they are.

Therefore, if there is any overstatement on their part, it seems to me it would be more likely to be due to porkies than ignorance.

Juan Tugoh

4th Aug 2010, 11:26

I think this is more about spin and presentation than anything else. You have to remember who the BASSA updates are for - their own membership.

BASSA are locked in what they believe is a life and death struggle with BA and that Willie is set upon destroying them. They have run a series of lack lustre strikes that have not achieved their goal of forcing the company to cave in to their demands. They see that the strike has cost their members money and staff travel benefits and that they are no further forward in their aims. This is now a "marathon" - well that maybe true and if it is BASSA must ensure that the support that they have remains solid.

These missives are aimed at the XXXXers, they are an attempt to keep them onside. They are moral boosters designed to make XXXXers feel like they were part of a mass movement, that 7000 out of 9500 members of BASSA took strike action. If they were to let slip that there was only 3500 members who had the courage to risk their jobs and ST despite many more voting for strike action, they run the risk that what support there is will start to crumble. DH is writing for an ever reducing core of stalwarts - he has to keep them onside or it is all over, and the defining event of DH's career will have been the emasculation of BASSA, he will have overseen the demise of his own union. This is something he and BASSA has to avoid at all costs - hence the purple prose.

There is also, I suspect, an element of incompetence as well. BASSA has a track record of inefficient book keeping and poor data base maintenance.

LD12986

4th Aug 2010, 11:31

To be honest, I don't know how this is going to be concluded. There are many things that have been predicted, but haven't happened:

a) Unite hasn't cut BASSA lose
b) BA hasn't "gone nuclear" and imposed an entirely new contract on crew
c) BASSA hasn't imploded (or at least we cannot say it has for definite)
d) The strikes did not collapse (BA may have been able to run the majority of services, but there was still a sizeable minority that went on strike)

As evidenced the numbers of crew voting no to the latest proposal, there is still a sizeable minority holding out, whether through personal determination or loyalty to BASSA.

There are so many unknowns at the moment (how many non union members accepted the offer, how many crew are still in BASSA etc).

Assuming BASSA manages to retain collective bargaining rights, if BA wants to put through contractual changes, it has to do that with BASSA and regardless of support for further strikes, I can't see BASSA conceding defeat and reaching agreement.

johnoWhiskyX

4th Aug 2010, 11:55

From Safety Concerns

"So he drags this out to make them sweat and then a compromise is found to avoid any further strikes.

Would Bassa survive in the aftermath of such a scenario?
Would Unite be damaged by this?"

I think the pivotal word in there is compromise. BA have offered compromise with regards ST, BASSA say its unacceptable. BASSA cannot in my opinion survive this dispute, it has entrenched it position to such a depth it cannot move. It has so far caused damage not only to BA but more importantly its members and any reversal of its position would quite rightly see injured members shouting for answers as to why this happened and what recompense they can seek against their union.

I heard mention of BASSA using the word marathon for this dispute. To me this points to a unrealistic view of the real world. Union members cannot go on strike indefinately, cannot pay for full fare tickets to commute to work. The longer the dispute goes on the less relevant any threat of IA will be. Unite will not be harmed, it will still be there as a union representing other branches at BA.

I don't know if it would be legal, but if i was BA i would be "leaking" that the same offer as has just been sent out will be available again to anyone not in the union. That way it gives those still in the union a chance to vote with their feet. Either leave the union and take the offer, or stay and support an increasingly marginalised minority and suffer the consequences. BA cannot let this drag on.

Snas

4th Aug 2010, 12:06

I don't know if it would be legal, but if i was BA i would be "leaking" that the same offer as has just been sent out will be available again to anyone not in the union.

Such an action would be totally illegal.

oggers

4th Aug 2010, 12:06

savaged because you didn't agree that all Bassa members should be hung drawn and quartered and what a horrible bunch of company killing fools they are.

Hmm. From what I can see other posters here are tackling your points in good faith and the above statement is not justified by anything I've read.

You say you 'are airline'. It is welcome, in this 'non-airline' forum to get the occasional insight from the coal face. But what you are bringing, as possibly the most active contributor of late, is not so much insight, as subjective opinions, backed up by a certain obstinacy that invites response. So, I don't think the persecution message or the premise behind it are justified.

mrpony

4th Aug 2010, 13:32

read this for a laugh. Holley's quote is foretelling the future
BA cabin crew accuse T&G union boss of 'selling out' over strike - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ba-cabin-crew-accuse-tampg-union-boss-of-selling-out-over-strike-435153.html)

Bassa needs you the membership to be behind it and not fragmenting amongst a torrent of personal abuse. We have enough enemies out there without fighting each other.

johnoWhiskyX

4th Aug 2010, 14:14

@Snas.

Thought as much:ouch:. If there are any moderate BASSA members left in the union, and I assume there must be some ( the votes for accepting the offer numbers) I can only imagine the quandary they must be in regarding continued union membership.

Snas

4th Aug 2010, 14:47

JohnoWhiskey

You are correct, my own partner thought long and hard about leaving, the process commencing with the 12 days announcement, she had abstained from that ballot.

She held membership to allow her to cast a no vote in the re-ballot that followed and then left, I know many members retained membership specifically so that they could vote against further IA and are still members – the result of this being that they were unable to accept the offer as mailed out by Mr Francis a week or so back. This is unfortunate, not BA’s fault as such as they are legally prevented from attempting to encourage employees to leave (or switch) a union.

My partner’s situation (I’ll be brief as I have been banging on about it enough recently) was that she left in Feb but has been fighting to get the union to acknowledge same ever since, she doesn’t seem to be alone in this regard.

The acceptance of the offer however was basically a self declaration that you were not a union member on the date, which she was able to honestly make.

I’m left to wonder how many wanted to sign but were unable to or indeed how many were unable to but signed anyway?

For my part BASSA is a bad union, end of. She's better off out. The very idea that any of the fools that I have come to know so well since Christmas should ever have to represent her at any form of hearing would fill me with dread.

johnoWhiskyX

4th Aug 2010, 14:58

I have to say that my own inclination would be to jump ship as soon as possible. While the worry and uncertainty of being without a union would undoubtedly cause me a few sleepless nights..the worry at what path the union were going to lead me down would be the greater fear.

Does the PCCC offer support to CC in such a situation or even able to assuage any fears of "being on your tod"?

Lotpax

4th Aug 2010, 15:00

Diplome

You have stated several times in the thread that you do not work for BA and I have no reason to doubt you.

What I said is that you sound like a PR for BA.

Therefore no insinuation that you work for BA.

Neptunus Rex

4th Aug 2010, 17:00

From that other thread:
I suspect BASSAs [i]piece de resistance[i/] will be getting so many former members onto new contracts which stipulate Unite as the negotiating body that BASSA can be derecognised by BA. BASSA will be consigned to the history books forever, with Duncan and his cohort of dismissed reps left gnashing their teeth and wondering who to blame next.When BASSA does finally implode, it will be most interesting to see whether Holley and Everard are parachuted into cosy jobs with Unite, or if they become collateral damage.

PAXboy

4th Aug 2010, 17:07

Litebulbs

4th Aug 2010, 18:32

Who is this public support we talk of and what is his carrier of choice now?

oggers

4th Aug 2010, 18:39

...that is the number of strikers WW has now given as definitive, according to the other thread.

Not the wistful 7000 being put about the media by Holley and Simpson :rolleyes:

A large minority but still sub-critical.

mrpony

4th Aug 2010, 20:31

Yes that seems realistic. Why only 3500 reject ba offer I don't know. What the Bassa do they do now!

LD12986

4th Aug 2010, 20:37

These are the numbers:

13,420 - the number of cabin crew employed
11,691 - the number of cabin crew balloted by Unite
7,482 - the number of cabin crew who voted to strike
4,923 - the number of cabin crew who went on strike (March through June)
667 - the number of cabin crew who went on strike but also worked

So 64% of Unite members voted to strike, and 42% of Unite members actually went on strike.

It is a minority, but it is still a sizable minority.

vanHorck

4th Aug 2010, 20:46

56% of all CC voted for strike
37% of all CC went on strike

These are stunningly high numbers, make no mistake about it.

WW did well keeping the fleet flying, but more than 1 in 3 of all BA CC staff went on strike, this will take years to restore. Perhaps WW was being hindered by BA's lousy HR past.

Let s hope BASSA dies quickly it will help the healing process not having DH stirring the pot....

cym

4th Aug 2010, 20:46

and bare in mind that BASSA membership has reduced significantly over recent months.

Given their lack of numeric skills even their own website shows a leaking membership it so reality must be somewhat more depressing for them

I am most certainly not anti union but in its present form BASSA is a throwback to the 1970's. Maybe time for Unite to insist they start building the branch up form the grass roots up, that may help usefull negotiations going foward and let Duncan focus on his toms!

LD12986

4th Aug 2010, 20:53

These are stunningly high numbers, make no mistake about it.

WW did well keeping the fleet flying, but more than 1 in 3 of all BA CC staff went on strike, this will take years to restore. Perhaps WW was being hindered by BA's lousy HR past.

Agreed. In more ways than one, in this dispute, BA is paying the price for previous managerial failures. The company may never get over this.

cym

4th Aug 2010, 21:00

The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one - well done Willie - keep up the focus on this area

BillS

4th Aug 2010, 21:01

Anyone know why only 3500 lost staff travel if 4900 went on strike?
Have BA "not processed" those that returned to work?

LD12986

4th Aug 2010, 21:02

Anyone know why only 3500 lost staff travel if 4900 went on strike?
Have BA "not processed" those that returned to work?

I don't think there was ever any formal confirmation of the number that lost staff travel. 3,500 was, I think, always a guestimate.

cym

4th Aug 2010, 21:14

so what do these numbers do for BASSA?

Duggie - where are you?

call100

4th Aug 2010, 22:05

In Germany, the Unions have long had a policy of 'jumping around a bit' but everyone knows that they will come to a good, workmanlike agreement. Consequently, the Unions are still respected by both sides AND still a force to be reckoned with.

The British Unions have, I suggest, always made such a big thing of taking control and taking over the whip, that they were likely to have overshot from the outset. Whilst British Unions had a great deal to overcome and certainly were needed to redress the balance - they have lost the battle. NOT because of govt action but because they have lost public support. I think that the public would still support a strike by nurses but never by well paid cabin crew. Also, let's not re-hash how well or badly paid they are, they have a job with privileges. That is enough!
Not quite right.You are forgetting that Union members are the public, it would be folly to think otherwise.
Also, the 'Public' in the sense you refer will always whine and moan when the strike affects them but support it when it doesn't.
Working in the Travel industry, whether it be Pilots, CC, Engineers, Airport staff etc. you will never get support. Striking and hoping for it is stupid. The press will kill you for spoiling holidays or stifling business. No one will give a toss what the reason for strike is.
This is the very reason why strike action should always be a last resort and fought over something that would make huge differences for the striker or their families.
The members must believe and be on board. It is the job of the local reps to inform the FTO's of the mood locally and the support for the action. This includes views of non Union staff.
I don't think any of that applies to the BASSA dispute.

PAXboy

5th Aug 2010, 02:12

LitebulbsWho is this public support we talk of and what is his carrier of choice now?As I posed the point, may I suggest that - for the most part, they no longer have a carrier of choice. Their choice is the cheapest. For short haul that is certainly the case. I suggest that because I hear people going to airports further away to get a lower fare, not always considering the extra time and costs of getting to the other airport, when the destination is the same!

I'm sure that regular travellers do have their favourites and BA still have many fans but they are facing the usual competition on all fronts. Short haul by specialists and other legacy carriers; ICT packages and the new independent traveller who eschews all packages; Long haul has discount carriers too and the recession has taken another swipe at all levels. When folks will go from EDI to JFK vis CDG (as per another current thread) and they could also go via AMS or DUB or KEF - just for starters - then any carrier is going to struggle, not just one like BA with their particular problems.

So, mostly, folks will take price first and everything else second.

Lotpax

5th Aug 2010, 04:34

So, mostly, folks will take price first and everything else second.

Especially in tourist class cabins, where the product and service have little to differentiate the carrier.

MCOflyer

5th Aug 2010, 04:49

Lotpax

You are so right. Coach is coach no matter which airline you choose to fly. The only differentiation between airlines are in the business and first class products. Pax flying in economy have but a basic expectation of service. If they get fed and a soda they are happy. The expectations in J or F are what separate the children from the players.

Seldomfitforpurpose

5th Aug 2010, 07:11

MCO,

Coach is coach could not be further from the truth when comparing BA or Virgin with AA or US Airways.

We have used all four in the last 12 months and I can assure they are absolutely worlds apart, so much so we are using BA again this year for our holiday to Denver and will continue to do so whenever possible as the value for money, comfort level and the service they provide far exceed many other carriers for not that much more money.

JEM60

5th Aug 2010, 07:54

SFP
Couldn't agree more. Used all of them, BA for me.

Stoic

5th Aug 2010, 08:55

And here is a take on shorthaul choice: YouTube - ‪FASCINATING AIDA - Cheap Flights‬&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc) :)

Ancient Observer

5th Aug 2010, 10:17

I do hope that those numbers give non-striking crew some greater sense of support when they next board a plane as crew.

Just over 1/3 of crew actually went on strike, two thirds did not go on strike - no matter what individuals might say when on board, and excluding lgw and lcy, less than half of the lhr crew went on strike, more than half of lhr crew worked normally all the time.

Isn't it Unite's duty now, given that the other Unite branches are completely against this strike, to act for the majority of BA CC and BA Unite members??

The tiny minority in this cult continue to threaten the prosperity of Unite's members who work for BA. Shouldn't Unite now formally abandon the junta that run it?

Litebulbs

5th Aug 2010, 10:34

5000 is not a tiny minority.

Mariner9

5th Aug 2010, 10:42

Agreed Litebulbs, and given that those 5000 would likely support the current BASSA leadership and represent over half of the total 9554 members BASSA claim on their website, it would seem that change in BASSA leadership will not come anytime soon.

This dispute has a long way to run yet.

Litebulbs

5th Aug 2010, 10:50

There is too much of the above. I wonder how difficult it would be to look at last years proposals, prior to the imposition? New contracts, rather than new fleet, I think it was. Then just compromise on the industrial agreements; well an unbalanced compromise, due to BA's commitment to recoup the cost of IA.

Everything has to be explored.

PAXboy

5th Aug 2010, 11:14

JEM60Couldn't agree more. Used all of them, BA for me. Sure - for regular travellers! If folks use long haul once a year or once every three? If they buy a package, are they going to find out in advance who the carrier is and have that as a make/break? I suggest not.

A number of the web sites that collate fares and show you them in price order do not tell you who the carrier is. So, in coach, there may be differences but money will rule for many, many pax.

On the wider front, 'brand loyalty' is something that is not so important to younger generations. Sure, they might have loyalty to 'showy' brands of clothes but to airlines? Nah, it's a badge of pride to pay as little as possible and have horror stories to relate of what you endured.

Ancient Observer

5th Aug 2010, 11:14

Litbulbs - I meant 5000 as a % of Unite's membership in BA.
That is a tiny minority.

vanHorck

5th Aug 2010, 11:35

The way forward must surely be:

Bassa' current leadership to change in full, the current leadership accepting to take the blame for the current debacle in full

Bassa's new leadership to stop nonsense about wanting to being involved in any way in the management of BA and concentrating on negotiating reasonable rewards for new staff whilst maintaining WITHIN REASON the current rewards of current staff taking into account the state of the industry and it s changing needs

BA management to further improve it s open and honest modern style management and so slowly regain the confidence of all staff

(this in no way implies the company is not allowed to change it s opinion on issues affecting staff as and when the industry health state dictates)

ChicoG

5th Aug 2010, 12:43

Will never happen. BASSA can't spin that as a "victory".

deltahotel

5th Aug 2010, 13:56

Can only speak for myself, but when deciding (early this year) on my carrier of choice to Oz in oct for daughter's wedding I specifically deselected BA due industry uncertainty.

Normally as a frequent SH, rare LH user, it's not all about cost. I compare carriers based on: departure/destination airfields (distance to drive this end, that end; car parking; ease of access), time of travel both ways, cost.

Neptunus Rex

5th Aug 2010, 14:21

ChicoG

Absolutely correct. The current BASSA leadership will not let go until they take a torpedo below the waterline.

"Stand by Mr Fincastle - fire one!"

"Aye aye Sir - fire one - torpedo running. Impact at P plus 45."

Once a year

5th Aug 2010, 14:27

When will cabin crew join the real world and have their performace assessed and be paid accordingly?
Surely the idea of a fixed rate for the job however well or badly done is very 19th century?
Courage Willie! Make them join the world the rest of us are (or were) in,

Snas

5th Aug 2010, 15:16

I think this is a bit of a tangent for the thread, but heck here is my ore sticking in for what it’s worth.

For me, especially on SH, it’s about the airport. My disappointment that Coventry were ceasing the regular Spanish flights I had to take was huge. It was park, walk in, wave to security, board aircraft, and job done.

Compared to the completely hellish experience and hurry up and wait mentality of LHR and others where every single aspect of boarding is made as difficult and inefficient as possible this was bliss.

As for service on LH, BA can be the best AND the worst, there is no consistency whatsoever. Knowing a bit about the behind the scenes stuff in my view it’s all down to the attitude of the CSD during briefing. Get a stinker and the crew become equally so, get a good one and the example rubs off accordingly.

So, that in mind if I want good service I would pay to fly with an airline that I can be close to certain will provide it, equally if I’m thinking about cost I’ll go cheap knowing that I’ll be ignored all the way there. BA is a lucky dip.