British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only) [Archive] - Page 4

Artificial Horizon

4th Jul 2010, 23:57

This has always been the problem with BASSA and its members. BASSA make totally unfounded and baseless statements and the majority of its members take them as gospel. It always used to amaze me that the crew I would talk to weren't going to actually research things for themselves before blindly following their union. I remember in the previous dispute a couple of years ago a certain young CC was very vocal about her intention to go on strike, when questioned she couldn't acutally tell me why she was going on strike (seems to be the same this time around) and when asked how she was going to live financially during a prolonged strike (she had been talking about never having any money) she said that a BASSA rep had told her not to worry as they would make sure that all strikers would still get paid their full salary during the strike!! The mind blowing fact was they she believed every word without question.

Ava in your case I find it unbelievable that when you were warned repeatedly by the company that your staff travel would be withdrawn you didn't even spend the time to pick up a phone or send an email to someone other than BASSA to check if the company could do this. Instead you 'gambled' this vital benefit on which you rely on a short missive from BASSA saying they could return the staff travel to you 'within' 5 minutes. That was dispite loads of people on this board warning potential strikers that BA was justified in withdrawing this 'benefit'. You have to take some responsibility yourself her for getting 'sucked' in by BASSA. The more outrageous fact is now you are willing to pursue yet more IA against the company to put right a wrong that you have only yourself and BASSA to blame for:ugh::{

Just a piece of advice (all bassa members), when you get people trying to point out that what BASSA says is factually not right, please don't always jump to the conclusion that we are trying to scaremonger because we somehow dislike CC and BASSA. It is actually quite the opposite, I have a few good friends who are crew and I don't want any of them to fall foul of the law or end up getting sacked due to them relying on BASSA's ill thought out and dangerous tactics. I once again ask all those BASSA members considering a strike vote this time around, please spend some time researching for yourself the power of BA to dismiss you for taking IA this time around if it is found that the strike ballot is illegal. Based on the fact that BASSA has already said it will be selective in who it send the ballot too and the fact that they are re-hashing some already tried reasons for the strike would sugest to me that BA could have this ruled an 'unlawful' continuation of Industrial Action beyond 12 weeks. Please don't take my word for it though go and ask someone outside of the industry. BA have acutally be very reasonable so far but I am afraid BASSA is now 'prodding the sleeping tiger' to the point that the next move may be a bit more agressive.:(

HiFlyer14

5th Jul 2010, 09:15

Ava

You have all but admitted that you have been completely misled and lied to by BASSA. Now that you have realised that, isn't it time to cut your losses? Staff travel is on offer - with reduced seniority. That is far better than not having it all. Striking again, as you seem to realise, is futile and will not get your staff travel back. If you are only striking to get staff travel back, then it begs the question - why did you ever go on strike in the first place?

It is because of these lies and because of the ruin that BASSA have inflicted on people, that we all need to do something about it. Do not throw good money after bad by striking again - I really feel you are putting your job in serious jeopardy if you do.

if a framework for the return of staff travel can be agreed, I know of many crew who are now considering BA's offer. Perhaps if your organisation was open and you were identifiable you would offer a rally point and safety for such people.

PC767

The Professional Cabin Crew Council does offer a "rally point" and "safety" for people. They are all chatting on our forum, talking excitedly about the new offer, saying how pleased they are to act independently from BASSA. There are also some who have left the Union since the offer was announced - and they are expressing feelings of freedom now. No-one has expressed that they are unhappy with the new offer.

You, however, are still tied to the Union. What do you think to the new offer? As you have already acted independently from BASSA and ignored their strike call, why don't you go the full hog, and realise, as many others have, the sense of liberation from not belonging to this archaic, outdated Union that are leading people to ruin?

tomkins

5th Jul 2010, 10:09

Bill Francis did say that New Fleet would offer market rate plus 10 %,however this does not seem to be the reality,when I asked him on the ess forum if it would be beneficial to transfer from LGW to New Fleet he gave a positive reply ,however I can't see many gatwick crew moving across as it means a pay cut in real terms unless one tries for the management position.
I would consider that the terms and conditions offered by Virgin are more interesting to new candidates than those proposed for new fleet -don't forget the free tickets and tax free downroute payments!!!

bhx01

5th Jul 2010, 10:45

have been a observer, without ever being a member. I would now like to put my pennies worth.My view has always been very neutral, up until now.As a member of a union who went into work during the first lot of strikes, as I felt I was doing the correct thing. In recent times I have come to the conclusion, that it is not all about cost savings, I do now believe there is a element of union busting.

NF what was originally supposed to start off as a small operation, it is now twice the size, SFG crew are toooo expensive to transfer. Have had the new proposal read by a family friend(works for a legal employment firm),who has told me that to a ordinary crew member it will come across ok, but jargon like assurances are not legally binding.

I now have the chance to correct my mistakes, in the up and coming ballot...

I do feel that I made the wrong choice, by going into work.My trips since the last strike have been a nightmare. On my LAX a few days ago, it was made clear on the aircraft by striking crew that I would not be welcome to join them for a drink, was not included in any of the conversations.

I understand how the strikers feel. I was asked the question would I accept a better deal if it was agreed by the union, to which I replied yes. It was at that moment that I knew that I had made a mistake...

I apologize for my spelling and grammar as English is my third language.

Hand Solo

5th Jul 2010, 11:08

A friend of mine who was Virgin cabin crew once told me there's no point having 7 free tickets if you can't afford to use them.

PC767

5th Jul 2010, 11:50

It was an aside so I cannot be bothered trailing through everything Francis has said about New/Mixed Fleet. At some point, he stated the intention of New Fleet was to better the best rate by 10%, thus giving it the edge financially. When questioned who he/BA thought were the best paid initially, other than the revolting BA crew, he stated Virgin Atlantic. So, to attract crew the offer was Virgin plus 10%. Or not as it transpires.

I've mentioned before that Mrs PC767 was temp crew for BA. She has remained in touch with other temps. It seems a few are now applying to Virgin, rather than be messed around by BA and join a divided IFCE.

Caribbean Boy, old bean, old boy, nothing lacking credibility in my post, I copied the details direct from Virgin. As for BA's benefits. Well, certainly for the cabin crew (of which I am), we don't recieve 7 ID100s ever. Virgin also recieve unlimited ID90s, indeed until we started using Zed fares, Virgin paid less to commute on our aircraft than we did.

BA pension scheme. Yes we have one, I'll be paying 13.5% to maintain mine. Whilst the trustees are working their socks off to maintain it, I'm not confident that when I retire in 20 years hence it will exist.

Educational sponsorship - only if required, and then it hasn't been offered for years, (at least to cabin crew). I'm paying for my own LLB.

The rest I cannot be bothered debating, other than the healthcare, which when I last checked offered a 10% discount from the standard rate. Fail to mention BA and ask for the best rate they can do and you'll pay less!

PC767

5th Jul 2010, 11:52

Hands solo.

Considering that Virgin pay more to new recruits than BA now do, what use will any of the benefits expressed by Caribbean Boy be.

617sqn

5th Jul 2010, 12:22

The Nursery discounts are not much use to cc either.

You have to live near to a participating nursery to start with.Then you have to book your child in for certain days and hours.That is fine for office based staff but with cc working different days and hours that is impossible.A lot of crew rely on friends and family to overcome that.
There are no nurseries open on Christmas Day,Easter etc when cc are working.

I don't mean to appear ungrateful.I have worked for BA for a long time,and long may that continue.I am very happy and have no axe to grind,but just pointing out that sometimes thing are not as good as they seem to an outsider.

Another point,if I may.Have just tried to use my free ticket for October half term.All the flights I am looking at are waitlist only and are looking full.

Wherever I end up I will have to pay full fare,like I am in August.
The general public are full of anger at our travel perks,but the reality is I haven't been able to use my for years.

4468

5th Jul 2010, 12:47

bhx01

I'm very sorry to hear about your treatment at the hands of the sect of the xxxxers.

If you have not previously struck, and are now considering doing so, I would seriously think again! Is it possible you are just responding to bullying? What do you think your sacrifice would achieve?

You were asked a question:
I was asked the question would I accept a better deal if it was agreed by the union, to which I replied yes. It was at that moment that I knew that I had made a mistake...

Let's deal in reality, not fantasy:

Of course, the actual answer is that you would have no choice in the matter. Whether you are in the union or not, so far you have been obliged to accept whatever BASSA have managed to 'negotiate'.

The reality is that everyone is now lumbered with a far worse outcome than if BASSA had simply not been involved.

The reality is also that there won't be any better deal!

The fantasy is that by voting yet again for strike, something will change. (For the better?)

Ever heard the saying "If you keep doing what you always did, you'll keep getting what you always got"?

4468

5th Jul 2010, 12:51

617sqn (Nice moniker!)

You guys really need to get your stories straight:

Either Staff Travel (or more precisely 'seniority') is useless, or it's absolutely vital.

Which will it be?? :rolleyes:

617sqn

5th Jul 2010, 13:07

Can't speak for others.
For me: It's nice to know I have staff travel.

Unfortunately,I only go away in school holidays,along with everyone else.
Therefore,even with a lot of seniority there will probably not be 4 spare seats on the popular routes.
I,therefore,book full fare tickets so I know I will not spend my hols at the airport.

I am grateful that I have staff travel as I have used it a few times in the past,and I am sure that I will in the future when the children are older and we are not tied to school hols.

If I were a commuter who had lost staff travel I would have a different story to tell.

bhx01

5th Jul 2010, 14:15

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 14:26

You have all but admitted that you have been completely misled and lied to by BASSA. Now that you have realised that, isn't it time to cut your losses? Staff travel is on offer - with reduced seniority. That is far better than not having it all. Striking again, as you seem to realise, is futile and will not get your staff travel back. If you are only striking to get staff travel back, then it begs the question - why did you ever go on strike in the first place?

Cut my losses? That's what I'm trying to achieve as I have said that I can't accept a proposal that doesn't include full reinstatement of staff travel. Commuting from JNB would be a nightmare and it was sometimes difficult enough getting on with 17 years seniority.

I went on strike because of the principle of imposition. We had a strong vote for industrial action. On the first day of the strike in March, I had one of the earliest report times and I was convinced that most cabin crew would actually stand by their vote, which would have meant that almost the whole of the company had been grounded. With the assurance from BASSA that I would get my staff travel back, I based my decision to strike on these two points.

It is because of these lies and because of the ruin that BASSA have inflicted on people, that we all need to do something about it. Do not throw good money after bad by striking again - I really feel you are putting your job in serious jeopardy if you do.

Either way, my job is on the line. If I were to accept the current proposal, I would most likely have to resign as I cannot commute with reduced seniority. I can't relocate to the UK either. If I weren't to accept the proposal, BA might dismiss me. It's a catch 22 situation.

Timothy Claypole

5th Jul 2010, 14:27

It sems the devil is in the detail once again PC767. You're happy to point out that Virgin pay £500 per year more on their basic (so after tax that'll be about £34 per month more) but you don't seem to have any figures for Virgins allowances. What do you think they make per month in allowances? It certainly isn't anything like BA pay you.

tomkins

5th Jul 2010, 14:42

TC
having spoken to virgin crew over the last 4 months specifically to get an idea of their conditions ,I can confirm that they get a tax free downroute payment that is slightly better than the taxable allowances that we at LGW receive for the same trip.

Betty girl

5th Jul 2010, 15:11

biteme,
Can you see that BA needed to do something because over the years our pay has risen and this is because of clever negotiation by the union( actually cc89 did most of the negotiating) to get box payments and overtime for us.

What we now needed was a union that realised that our pay is inflated compared to others in the now more competitive airline industry and negotiated to protect those of us who are currently crew but enabled the company to take on new entrants on a more realistic deal.

That is why the company offered to bring in the travel payment in order that we would then be able to work alongside the new entrants. There were a few things that would also have allowed this to happen, like for example fixed links on E/F, working a bit later on our last day etc.
BASSA had the chance and could have negotiated and stopped New Fleet but instead they have been totally obsessed with CSD's not working inflight and crew compliments.

They have missed the chance to negotiate a deal where BA had new crew joining us. Instead of negotiating and looking after it's members it has been strike calling and actually making it alot worse.

Now some have lost their staff travel and New Fleet is hear bigger than ever and it is BASSA's fault in my view. They should have been properly negotiating and asking us what we wanted instead of offering 2 year pay cuts and 767 longhaul work on E/F which none of us wanted. Everything that they offered the company was all about protecting the CSD job which nearly all of them are. They have let all of us down.

I find it hard to believe that you could now be thinking of striking and putting your staff travel at risk and your job. Or are you one of these people that votes for a strike but then does not do it. Maybe this time you will just vote for a strike but then come in and work like last time. That's almost worse than striking. You let us down by voting to strike and then you let the strikers down as well by working.

ranger07

5th Jul 2010, 15:42

4468 having spoken to a number of people that went into work, I would say about 40% of those are thinking of striking. I am afraid BA have lost the support of a few like me.BA said that new NF was in the pipe pline , it is now a fact, at double the original size. I now have a choice of carrying on going into work and sticking to my current fleet, as I do not fulfill the requirements of a SCM on new fleet or maybe fight BA's hidden agenda and get a better deal. As the one on the table gives no guarantees to my agreements.

I am glad that maybe I have come to my senses before its to late.. I for one do not hold any grudges against that those that went on strike and those that did not. As I may fall into both groups in the near future..

I get sick to the back teeth when I hear constantly..'no guarantees for this, no guarantees for that...'

Who has guarantees these days? Tell those that have lost their jobs, that have little income resulting in losing their house etc etc that you are 'concerned because there are no guarantees'.
YOU WILL STILL HAVE A JOB. You will pay your mortgage/bills/groceries..!! No wonder many of the public are infuriated with you, to say nothing of other staff that have not had a pay rise for years, have increased workload,and, like most in the country, or more to the point, worldwide, certainly have 'no guarantees'!!

Why not look at what you have got rather than to worry what you may or may not have in the future. That's the way the rest of us mere mortals live. Climb aboard the reality bus, you will be most welcome.

biteme

5th Jul 2010, 15:45

Betty girl,
Thank you for understanding me and having a attack at my personality.

What I chose to do about IA is no secret, I stand up for what I believe to be fair and am a man of my word.

Whatever way I vote I will stand by my decision.

For your information the average pay increase in the UK for CEOs in the last decade was 400%
For the average worker it has been around 13% for the same period.
Yes the reason for this is that good CEOs are hard to come by.
A board of directors measure how good CEO is by the company share price.

I am of a different opinion and don’t believe we are being taken in the best direction by our current leadership.
This is only my opinion and please feel free to express yourselves.
PS: Please try and be a little more respectful of others opinions politeness costs nothing.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 15:46

I am afraid bhx01 is not the only one that is starting to think the way he/she is!

I don't know - but I just am VERY worried now of Mixed Fleet - it is going to be very big in such a small space of time. They said 500 crew in 2 years initially now it is 1250 or whatever it is!

What routes will be starting Mixed Fleet? How often will these routes go? For all BASSA/UNITEs faults - which I have critisised them MANY times here I am sure they would have rathered discussed a matrix of routes. I know the guys at PCCC have been saying this is needed and maybe BASSA has missed oppurtunities - however BA don't seem to mention anything about matrixes of routes anymore in their proposals just ''a fair distribution of work between fleets.'' - What does that mean? What does ''fair'' look like according to BA?

Main Crew and PSRs have been alienated - many MC will not be able to apply for CSM as they need management experience. Future Talent is not an option for most as it means a paycut for a year whilst they are on the programme - and there is no guarantee of a CSM job after the 12 months! As for PSRs at LHR - well there is no point as it will be a huge paycut even if they did want the extra responsibility of managing a team. MC and PSRs at LGW may be better off though, and MC at LGW may be OK to do the Future Talent!

I know they say promotions on current fleets ''where oppurtunities exist'' - well if they want to shrink Eurofleet/Worldwide based on attrition and move the work to Mixed Fleet, PLUS less PSRs on aircraft where will these oppurtunities be? It is VERY demotivating!

It does also make you wonder, at the tactics of BA, I mean I know BASSA/UNITE have CERTAINLY not been perfect, but in many ways they do a lot of good! Ie. the terms we do enjoy. And I do value agreements that we work towards. I wouldn't want to work to scheme. Work more efficiently on Eurofleet YES of course!

But also I have heard stories of many people who came to work - who have had no thanks, (not that a thanks is expected) but without going into detail, haven't been given the benefit of a doubt or anything with various things! No leave being given etc etc

Maybe this IS all about union busting all along. Afterall, if we were about to go bust if changes weren't made... why is Mixed Fleet... a ''very gradual'' change being introduced over the years, so necessary why not some changes. And whilst BASSA has ignored many good offers - they were the ones that did introduce the ''intergrated'' approach last summer. A MUCH better way that should be introduced!

Will striking make any offers better - I am not sure and that's why I am so confused! But will this new offer safeguard our future? I am not sure about that either?

nurjio

5th Jul 2010, 15:56

There is a lot of straw clutching going on here.

BASSA's inability to negotiate, effectively, must not be allowed to be forgotten. BASSA has alienated itself to a degree where BA is just rolling on over a work force that has cut itself adrift through naive support of an anachronistic 'little' behemoth.

Point your finger anywhere other than Union leadership and you are fooling yourself.

Start researching again, and look no further than Sir Christopher Holland's report from last year.

nurj

biteme, you are realising the benefit of research and the meaning of FACTS, not emotion.

ranger07

5th Jul 2010, 16:03

If there was further IA I sincerely hope that the board will go nuclear. Is it right for a minority of staff to damage an Airline that the majority work dam hard for?

I feel that the continued training of vcc's is vital to ensure that the afforementioned can no longer hold a gun to our heads.
Thankfully the majority of cc are moderate and accept realities of life, and are very much appreciated, certainly from my point of view.

BASSA have done untold damage, simply because their meaning of negotiation is 'the answer's NO, what's the question?'

Roll on the day that BASSA Jurassic share the same fate as the tyrannosaurus rex.

Come on PCCC.....sell yourself like there's no tomorrow...for all our sakes. Thankyou

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 16:19

I am a moderate crew member.

I just think in some ways that the whole Mixed Fleet thing is oppurtunistic that will slow and maybe... just maybe end some current crews careers!

Oh there is no such thing as a career - well not as Cabin Crew anyway, we don't deserve houses etc as we are just waiters/waitresses in the sky according to some people!

I just wish WISH WISH that we could have Mixed Fleet crew flying ALONGSIDE us - like the current temps. They could have Scheme rest INBETWEEN trips but our rest on our trips. Of course reduced crew like we are working to now is fine of course we do need to be more efficient.

Any of BAs negotiating team please consider this :ok: HAHA! As I think even BASSA will agree to that!

biteme

5th Jul 2010, 16:19

Timothy Claypole

5th Jul 2010, 16:24

Humour me some more as I am interested on how you guys managed to offer to match the cost base BA could achieve at open skies. Would that not have caused sever changes to any future pilots pay and T&Cs.

The new terms would apply to all Open Skies operations, not necessarily LHR or LGW operations. BA have always asked that BA pilots be benchmarked against their competitors. BA pilots are competitive, coming within £1 cost per flying hour of Virgin pilots whlst contracted to flexibly fly the maximum legal flying hours per year. The same cannot be said of BAs cabin crew at LHR. You cannot compare terms and conditions between pilots and cabin crew as they are entirely different jobs in entirely different labour markets.

Timothy you obviously have not had the same information from IFCE management as I have, my in box has several E-mails from BA stating that the reason they were removing my staff travel was to recoup some of the financial damage caused by IA.

IFCE have written a lot of things lately that are incorrect. I mean really, how much would scrapping your staff travel save BA? A pittance, if anything.

So from your reply I take it that you think it is worth jeopardising a way forward for the sole reason of punishing the naughty crew who dared to stand up for what they believed in.

You seem an intelligent man so consider the moral hazard dimension. By allowing militant behaviour to go unpunished BA send a clear signal that if you kick up enough of a stink you'll be left alone. Thats exactly the kind of behaviour they are trying to break away from. And it's won't just be staff travel. Next you'll want the hostages released. Can you really see BASSA agreeing to any deal which doesn't include the reinstatement of Duncan Holley?

In my opinion that is not the actions of a man who wants to see an end to this dispute. What benefits can be gained by punishing the crew community for taking legal IA?

See the moral hazard comment above. Walsh will end this dispute his way, and you can accede to that either the easy way or the hard way. He doesn't need to sugar coat anything for you which is why he isn't doing it.

Will this solve BA problems?

Ultimately yes, or he wouldn't be doing it.

max motor

5th Jul 2010, 16:25

Interesting review of BA's service during the strike in today's Daily Mail:

Mail girl puts flights to Malaga to the test - and almost wished she'd stayed at home | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1291985/Mail-girl-puts-flights-Malaga-test--wished-shed-stayed-home.html)

For some reason the online version has an accompanying picture of a 747!

Max

Caribbean Boy

5th Jul 2010, 16:33

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle) wrote: I don't know - but I just am VERY worried now of Mixed Fleet - it is going to be very big in such a small space of time. They said 500 crew in 2 years initially now it is 1250 or whatever it is!This is the new reality: MF is the future and the writing is on the wall for WW and EF. If it's any consolation, cabin crew have several years to deal with the consequences of reduced flying on WW and EF. And within 15 years I reckon that those on existing contracts will be offered MF or VR.

Of course, Unite and BASSA should have been negotiating the conditions of MF instead of being obsessed with imposition, ST, VCC and disciplinaries.

ranger07

5th Jul 2010, 16:34

Ranger07
Are you suggesting that crew who took IA have not worked dam hard for this airline in the past?
Maybe you are right we should have got with the programme, taken whatever we were offered and reflected on how lucky we are to have jobs.
God why should we try and have a good standard of living when the money could go to a better cause.
I am sure the bonus culture management need more pay, the board must be running out of cash.
I do however feel for the shareholders due to the mismanagement of the company they are also suffering.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. I take you again back to 'negotiations', or lack of. Why why why did BASSA/UNITE not at least show you the previous offer (s)?? Why have they not been challenged? Because of the show of hands at the race course for 'no negotiations'?
Far from saying you should have taken anything on offer,by just 'talking' and 'discussing' what actually was on offer, it may not have got to this.

biteme

5th Jul 2010, 16:35

Thanks for the reply Timothy,

My moral dilemma is the lack of truth from my leadership team.

I have asked the question many times re: ST and they will not admit the real reason behind the removal.

I could take it if they admitted the truth, as you so succinctly put the real reason for its removal.

Juan Tugoh

5th Jul 2010, 16:38

If BASSA had been smart and negotiated 14 months ago, there would have been no New Fleet, you would have had an extra ticket and a share scheme.

The longer this goes on the worse it has got for CC - each offer from BA is a little worse than before. The longer it goes on the more the company can take away from you. BASSA made this about union busting by presenting the company with a gold plated gift horse of an opportunity to break the union. WW did not look that gift horse in the mouth and now we are where we are.

BASSA had the opportunity to do what other staff groups did - to offer genuine savings achievable by small productivity changes. By continuing to say no, no, no, no without thinking BASSA has created this problem and is delivering to its own members the apocalypse they so feared.

Perhaps now more of the cabin crew will start to realise that the longer this goes on the more BASSA is hurting their own members in a desperate attempt to stop things that have already passed them by. CSDs are working on the trolley and the world did not stop rotating. The only thing BASSA are actually achieving is brand damage - gifting business to our competitors with lower cost bases. That is hardly a recipe for a long term, well recompensed job is it? This dispute will end and when it does how much damage will have been done by this union in pathetic and futile attempts to turn back the tide?

A constant refrain from BASSA is everything would be alright if the evil that is WW was removed from the negotiating process, this however should really be turned on its head - the BASSA leadership should be excluded from any negotiation and everything would be be better. Perhaps it is time for Nigel Stott, Lizanne Malone, Marcel Devereaux, Duncan Holley, Mark Everett et al to be sidelined for some people who can rationally analyse where the negotiating so far has got them and why.

This current BASSA leadership has presided over the marginalisation of their union. It has been made largely irrelevant by its own actions and has already seen its membership decimated. If the membership cannot see this then they only have themselves to blame. Loss of staff travel is the least of the membership's worries - their union is pretty much an irrelevance now to BA. Well done. Time for a change, perhaps someone who is not a CSD would be a start.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 16:39

Well if that is the case Caribbean Boy, I can see what you are saying BUT I would think any other work group at BA would be VERY angry if they could SEE, ie. it was blatantly obvious their lifestyle and way of living would be gone to new people on ''cheap'' contracts.

I can see what you are saying re: we have time to find a new job, but do you think people are just going to roll over and accept it? Like me who is in my 20s? OK I can train to do something else, but I do enjoy my job. I nor anyone else can be guaranteed any job but this is just blatant taking away the jobs for bonuses and shares! Not because BA desperately need a new fleet to survive (they have survived for years and profited for years with us expensive crew!)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not advocating a strike or anything, but I am just saying - do you think people are going to just accept this?
Why can't we have an intergrated approach - it would still save money as more new crew come in in the same way... it wouldn't save quite as much but would still save plenty?

biteme

5th Jul 2010, 16:50

Ranger07

They did show the offers I have copies on my PC.

They were not offers that the membership wanted.

We are in a very difficult situation at the moment and as I have stated I feel that we have problems in both camps.

This could be resolved but it will take some backing down from BASSA and WW.

Lets hope that sense is seen and the mess can be resolved.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that CC are by the nature of our job an emotional bunch.

The leadership team have failed to recognise this and treated us with contempt for the past few years.

In my opinion sadly this is the driving force behind the dispute.

I have worked in many departments in BA and understand the character traits that different roles attract.

I think the reason the flight crew community struggle to understand where the CC are on this dispute is you guys have a more methodological out look to life.

Left and right brain as WW put it....

blue____

5th Jul 2010, 16:59

Nice article indeed... and as Tiramisu said before, all flights during the strike where like VIP flights, crewed by people who work for BA, not BASSA and people who love their job and realise that changes have to be made...

Old good strike days...when entering the crc was a great experience, greeted by smiling faces... and now???

sour faced militants, that boast about how successful their strike was!!!! Can you believe it???

And now they cannot even remember what their strike was about...

ok...Imposition... What could ba have done if all talks were fruitless??? Of course they would impose so we can survive...

then New fleet... How many times has BF said that new fleet is a proposal? And it could have easily been removed from the agenda, should we find a suitable solution?

Now staff travel! Well, you have been warned!

Who are the real bullies? Isn't it bassa, that decide and impose an idea, and then, their brainless members follow it, without thinking, without judging, just follow blindly and start digging their own grave?

Shouldn't a union first listen to what their members have to say, and then take action, not decide what they want to do and then ask members to follow???

What is this? We are ALL bassa, tags, bassa lanyards etc? Guess what guys? No we are NOT ALL bassa!!!! And yes we do too have "I am backing BA lanyards" but we are not wearing them, because we do not want to provoke... What do you Bullies achieve with your silly bassa lanyards??? Annoying passengers, winding staff up and faced with dismissal?

Why don't you realise that you have destroyed our reputation beyond repair???

The sooner you go on a strike, the sooner you will get sacked...

I know that the post will be deleted and I will be banned, but enough is enough.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 17:04

Yes the atmosphere during the strike was very nice... people who wanted to be there.

But I am sad and really upset at the fact that people are bitter towards one and other, some not speaking to each other, blanking each other etc etc.... and that is normal people that normally we would have got along with.

I find it so sad, when will work get to normal again?? :{

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 17:10

I just wish WISH WISH that we could have Mixed Fleet crew flying ALONGSIDE us - like the current temps. They could have Scheme rest INBETWEEN trips but our rest on our trips. Of course reduced crew like we are working to now is fine of course we do need to be more efficient.

Why can't we have an intergrated approach - it would still save money as more new crew come in in the same way... it wouldn't save quite as much but would still save plenty?

Keith Williams is not against the idea of an integrated new fleet with EF and WW fleets. The problem is that management would find it more difficult to get rid of us existing crew. If it's a separate fleet, they can transfer destinations and aircraft until EF and WW fleets have nothing left. When this happens, they can place us in the redeployment plan.

Timothy Claypole

5th Jul 2010, 17:18

I think it was made pretty clear early on that mixing mixed-fleet and existing contracts on the same aircraft does not work. Mixed fleet is all about efficiency, existing fleets are all about inefficiency. Mixing the two negates the savings. I doubt that has escaped KW.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 17:19

Ava Hannah - well if that is true then it shows they want rid of us contract crew - which is unfair? Would others agree?

Caribbean Boy

5th Jul 2010, 17:24

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle) wrote: I can see what you are saying re: we have time to find a new job, but do you think people are just going to roll over and accept it? Like me who is in my 20s? OK I can train to do something else, but I do enjoy my job. I nor anyone else can be guaranteed any job but this is just blatant taking away the jobs for bonuses and shares! Not because BA desperately need a new fleet to survive (they have survived for years and profited for years with us expensive crew!)You have to accept reality of MF, the best you can do is to deal with it. And remember that BA cabin crew are unbelievably lucky to have a job for the foreseeable future as another reality is the unemployment suffered by those who worked for Flyglobespan, Zoom, Oasis, Maxjet, Eos Airlines, SilverJet, Aer Lingus, British Midland and others.

On profitability: BA has almost always struggled to achieve a 10% profit margin. And the market has changed for the worse, here are some examples:
The UK's biggest people carrier did not exist before 1995.
Europe's biggest people carrier nearly went under in 1991 and had carried only 2.25m pax by 1995
LHR has been opened up, allowing DL, CO and AF to operate flights in direct competition with BA across the Atlantic
Gulf carriers, especially Emirates, Qatar and Etihad, have expanded hugelyFurthermore, BA is losing money on the key kangaroo route, and needs cabin crew costs (31% higher than QF's) to be brought down.

The current cost savings and MF will enable BA to compete and grow the network. The consequences of failing to compete are none to pleasant to contemplate.

blue____

5th Jul 2010, 17:27

I think that what BA really wants, is that THEY will be the ones who run the airline, or at least IFCE, and NOT BASSA...

and if this involves getting rid of some crew (that ask for it with their actions) then so be it...

Simple!

Betty girl

5th Jul 2010, 17:34

Max motor,
Thanks for highlighting that artical which shows what alot of us are like, and not just on strike days!! however during the strike there was a concentration of crew like Julie which was really great.

Biteme,
I am sorry if I offended you with my post but it was not meant to. I just wanted you to see how I felt about BASSA.

Sidebustle,
I really think it is going to take a long time for New Fleet to grow bigger than us. The initial growth comes from people who are waiting for part time and some crew that may move over. The route network has been printed and it is the same one as in the way forward proposal. The union is going to be consulted about other future routes that move over. It is antisipated that it will take 10 years before New Fleet has 40% of crew.

I really think you are worrying too much. Bassa have already made the mess and anything else they do will just make it worse not better.

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 17:37

Nice article indeed... and as Tiramisu said before, all flights during the strike where like VIP flights, crewed by people who work for BA, not BASSA and people who love their job and realise that changes have to be made...

It doesn't make sense. Remember that approximately 80% voted in favour of industrial action? There are different figures on how many crew actually went on strike. Some say three thousand, some say five thousand. It's obvious not everyone who voted for industrial action did strike. Many did cross the picket line. What category do they belong do? Do they work for BA or BASSA? Do they love or hate their job? Going on strike doesn't indicate if you have passion or not over your job. It indicates that there's something wrong. I did go on strike but I also love my job.

ok...Imposition... What could ba have done if all talks were fruitless??? Of course they would impose so we can survive...

Are you referring to what WW said last year? BA have never been in fight for survival. He only said this to send a message to all of us cabin crew including our unions.

then New fleet... How many times has BF said that new fleet is a proposal? And it could have easily been removed from the agenda, should we find a suitable solution?

Management has been planning a new fleet for many years. They were planning PC behind closed doors for over two years and all of the sudden a secret document appeared. What was their intention? It caused nothing but worry to our community. Why would they give up their plan after so much planning?

Now staff travel! Well, you have been warned!

We know we were warned repeatedly but I don't agree that you should be punished for going on strike.

What is this? We are ALL bassa, tags, bassa lanyards etc? Guess what guys? No we are NOT ALL bassa!!!! And yes we do too have "I am backing BA lanyards" but we are not wearing them, because we do not want to provoke... What do you Bullies achieve with your silly bassa lanyards??? Annoying passengers, winding staff up and faced with dismissal?

I don't wear the BASSA lanyard but why should there be a different set of rules? I think it has been mentioned previously but our pilots are allowed to wear their BALPA lanyard. That's a good example of different rules for different people.

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 17:42

I really think it is going to take a long time for New Fleet to grow bigger than us. The initial growth comes from people who are waiting for part time and some crew that may move over. The route network has been printed and it is the same one as in the way forward proposal. The union is going to be consulted about other future routes that move over.

Management wants to 'discuss' route and aircraft transfers with the union. It is not the same as negotiate, which is worrying. Management could simply meet the union over a couple of minutes, give instructions on what destinations are being transferred and then they have, in their opinion, discussed with the union.

It is antisipated that it will take 10 years before New Fleet has 40% of crew.

It's not a reliable anticipation. Management has simply looked at their statistics from previous years and multiplied it with 10.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 17:44

But surely Cabin Crew costs could be reduced without getting rid of us in the next few years!?!

Bettys girls, maybe you are right, maybe I am worrying too much. It is just I am in my 20s, I enjoy my job, would like to progress, but don't want to stay to find in 15 years I have to take a huge paycut and go on Mixed Fleet or leave - I know noone knows what will happen but for us to practically agree to that now is abit weird.

Like I say I supported BA and didn't strike - BAs offer is reasonable in many areas and I am not too sure on striking being a good or futile thing BUT I am starting to wonder how this new proposal will affect my career and many others - particularly those of us who have over 20 years left who are probably in the most uncertain position.

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 17:50

Like I say I supported BA and didn't strike - BAs offer is reasonable in many areas and I am not too sure on striking being a good or futile thing BUT I am starting to wonder how this new proposal will affect my career and many others - particularly those of us who have over 20 years left who are probably in the most uncertain position.

The offer is fair but it needs clarification on certain points.

If you are after a career in BA, you will be disappointed because of Mixed Fleet. Both EF and WW fleets will only become smaller, not larger. I don't think there will be too many promotion opportunities in the future. Should an opportunity arise, many crew, especially those on WW who were recruited in 1997, will apply as they have been waiting a long time for promotions.

Betty girl

5th Jul 2010, 17:54

I really think that crew are being scared by people who have not even read the new offer.

It quite simply does not make sense for BF to employ people on New Fleet while leaving us with no work. That would eat up all the savings he gets from NEw Fleet. Why pay people not to work. It just does not make sense.

BA is going to make hugh savings with New Fleet and it will gradualy get bigger as we gradually retire and leave. He does not want us to work on new fleet. He is happy to make his big savings with New Fleet as we get smaller. It will take years.

Having said that he will probably come back and ask for more efficiency savings from us at some time in the future but we all know that there are savings that could have been offered now by our union and we might have not been in this mess.

Striking will just cause him to sack some crew and that will only make New Fleet bigger.

There are lots of things that I dont like. Like Willie Walsh, the low pay being offered on New Fleet and the way BASSA have handled this whole issue and made it worse. But BA, with the help of BASSA, have just laid a golden egg eg. New Fleet and they will not give it up now that it has been laid. We just now need the union to stop scwabling about staff travel and get on and look after all our interests and work with the company.

It is too late now, thanks to our useless union, they are pushing ahead with New Fleet and there is no stopping it now.

Caribbean Boy

5th Jul 2010, 17:57

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle), who says that BA will get rid of you in the next few years? Hasn't BA said exactly the opposite?

You have plenty of time to sort out your job and career. This is a luxury enjoyed by few outside BA.

biteme

5th Jul 2010, 17:59

Betty girl,

I suggest you go back and read your post, you accused me of several things.
None of them very flattering, I thank you again.

The way you posted tells me why you may think the way you do.

I feel that you do not understand what we are fighting for and have taken the easy route.

Now if that is what you chose to do I have no problem, you don’t back the union so you should go to work and accept what ever deal BA offer.

Go over to MF you will probably enjoy challenge.

People seem to struggle with accepting the fact the WW is out to break the union, 100 academics have stated this and many articles in the press have seen through this fiasco.

We may have to accept a deal that is not what we would have ultimately desired.

I do not believe that we have ever had an offer that has been possible to accept.

The latest offer is nothing short of an insult, This is an attempt to divide the crew community even more and ultimately de-unionise the company.

People cry on here for PCCC, it is a staff association run by the management how do you think that would benefit the workforce?

blue____

5th Jul 2010, 18:00

If my post does not make sense to someone here, they should read it again. if still does not make sense, I suggest they go to another forum that other posts may make more sense to such people. (bassa, as well as crew forum)

I have tried to read more than once certain posts by one author that do not make any sense at all.

Just to remind Ava hannah, where does this 80% come from?

How many crew are in ba?
of those, how many are in bassa?
of those how many did vote?
of those, how many voted for ia?

and regarding this ballot, ask your reps, to tell you how many are still in bassa? How many will vote yes this time???

after you make your deductions, then you will realise that you are the minority. Not that i am bothered about numbers. I was in the crc every single day and we were all crew. No dogs, cats, children (for Christ's sake) and other people, that were not crew at all. (not to mention those who after their flight, changed into civvies and went to bedfont)

Yes, pilots may wear balpa lanyards, but who sees them? They do not provoke anyone. A pilot can go to work unshaved or he can remove his tie in the flight deck. We cannot. We have to wear our uniform according to standards. And I have not seen any pilot with crew bag decorated like christmas tree, full of balpa tags and "vote yes" stickers, even during their disagreement reg open skies.

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 18:01

Fume Event, At least try to be civil! It is people like you that do UNITE/BASSA no good! Even if they have valid points (which I now think they do!) people are turned off because of the attitude of some people who support BASSA.

Ava Hannah, thanks for being civil! And I agree with you - that clarification is needed. Well actually, if I am fully honest I would like UNITE to pursue the intergrated approach once again. Whether that would fall on deaf ears remains to be seen but I think it would secure all of our futures. However cabin crew costs will still reduce and reduce more and more for the future with new recruits but will boost the awful morale we have now, and maybe improve current IR, and also ensure people can have a career. And not become demorilised, and demotivated!

I AM re-evaluating my position and stance on this as I have to think long and hard, maybe I made a mistake Fume Event, but this isn't science FE, it is very diffucult for people! And I still respect peoples decisions, opinions. I like to get the facts and WIIFM about things and base my decision on that. If you disagree with someone, explain why you disagree and if you want us to strike - explain why? What are the benefits. Also if you don't think a strike is good - explain why. But don't bully and harass, that is what the problem is at the moment at IFCE emotions are high and too many people are intimidating people for their decisions!

TightSlot

5th Jul 2010, 18:58

Fume Event is now history - Many thanks to those of you who chose not to rise to the bait, but to report the posts instead.

Pat on the back guys - that's the mature way to respond, and doesn't it feel better? On behalf of all the mods - well done!

essessdeedee

5th Jul 2010, 19:29

The latest offer is nothing short of an insult,

At what point will the bassa members who took IA recognise that each offer from BA will continue to reduce in value?

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 19:30

How many crew are in ba?
of those, how many are in bassa?
of those how many did vote?
of those, how many voted for ia?

I don't know the exact figure but I think BA have around 12,000 cabin crew. Earlier this year, over 10,000 were in BASSA and an additional 1,000 were part of Amicus (CC89). Somewhere around 79% returned their vote and almost 81% voted for industrial action.

and regarding this ballot, ask your reps, to tell you how many are still in bassa? How many will vote yes this time???

In BASSA? Around 9700 members. Nobody can say how many will vote yes.

after you make your deductions, then you will realise that you are the minority. Not that i am bothered about numbers. I was in the crc every single day and we were all crew. No dogs, cats, children (for Christ's sake) and other people, that were not crew at all. (not to mention those who after their flight, changed into civvies and went to bedfont)

How do you know that everyone present in the CRC during the strike was crew? Because they wore wings on their jacket? VCC have been given wings.

Yes, pilots may wear balpa lanyards, but who sees them? They do not provoke anyone. A pilot can go to work unshaved or he can remove his tie in the flight deck. We cannot. We have to wear our uniform according to standards. And I have not seen any pilot with crew bag decorated like christmas tree, full of balpa tags and "vote yes" stickers, even during their disagreement reg open skies.

We are supposed to be a team and there should be same rule regarding lanyards. Either you should be allowed to wear your union's lanyard or not. This rule should be the same for every employee group in this company, regardless whether working at Waterside or at a call centre in the US.

Ava Hannah

5th Jul 2010, 19:38

It quite simply does not make sense for BF to employ people on New Fleet while leaving us with no work. That would eat up all the savings he gets from NEw Fleet. Why pay people not to work. It just does not make sense.

It does not make sense but please think of the redeployment plan. BA have stated that no crew has been placed in this plan before, which should obviously be some sort of reassurance. Mixed Fleet will grow quickly and as I have said, their figures which refers that it is going to take at least 10 years before it has 40% crew are based on statistics. All they have done is looked at some numbers and multiplied it by 10.

BA is going to make hugh savings with New Fleet and it will gradualy get bigger as we gradually retire and leave. He does not want us to work on new fleet. He is happy to make his big savings with New Fleet as we get smaller. It will take years.

They don't want us on Mixed Fleet nor any other fleet in the company. We are according to management both too expensive and inefficient. LGW SF, which is the cheapest fleet in the company, is obviously too expensive as well.

Initially, BA said they would recruit only a couple of hundreds crew to Mixed Fleet. They have now changed this number to 1,250. Why? It might take a couple of years but please don't believe them when they say that in 10 years this fleet will only represent 40% of all crew. It will take less than that.

kwateow

5th Jul 2010, 19:52

Lambs to the slaughter..

BASSA knows the outcome.

Where's the mystery anymore?

ChicoG

5th Jul 2010, 20:00

I do not believe that we have ever had an offer that has been possible to accept.

What was so bad about the very first one?

Sporran

5th Jul 2010, 20:11

Ava,

Surely it must be obvious to you that MF has come in, as a larger fleet initially, because so many cabin crew have cost the company a lot of money. The savings from MF will recoup the cost of the strike many times over.

There was never any chance that existing cabin crew and new cabin crew would work together on the new fleet. The whole point is to operate cabin crew costs at a similar level to our competitors and also in a much more efficient manner.

I hope that cabin crew see sense and vote to accept the latest offer. If not I am sure the measures used this time will be drastic. With so many additional vcc, those who have not been on strike AND those who have at last been given an opportunity to have their say - who will actually need the strikers.

I feel that the reason that bassa are havng to even let you guys have a say is part of a plan from Untie to cut lose from the loony fringe of bassa hq!!

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 20:33

To be fair sporran,

New crew COULD fly with us - infact BA even had it in a couple of their proposals and were willing to look at it!

BASSA did make a mistake in fighting crew complements when they had the oppurtunity to get rid of Mixed Fleet - BUT why can't BA continue with this option.

Plus BA say we would have to work to scheme if they worked alongside us - before it was just work abit more efficient.

Is this diliberate so that BA can say ''well crew don't want an intergrated approach'' so they can push Mixed Fleet...

It's all about compromise. BA needed to make cost savings which are being made with the crew complements. I am sure there are other ways in the future money can be saved without halting our careers in the future and building a seperate new Mixed Fleet - I am sure a happy medium could be found!

Caribbean Boy

5th Jul 2010, 20:49

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle),

BASSA was always hostile to NF, so offered no alternative. As a result, BA has imposed Mixed Fleet with conditions which have not been negotiated.

the flying nunn

5th Jul 2010, 22:38

It does also make you wonder, at the tactics of BA, I mean I know BASSA/UNITE have CERTAINLY not been perfect, but in many ways they do a lot of good! Ie. the terms we do enjoy. And I do value agreements that we work towards.

Side Bustle, the majority of the agreements we work to were not negotiated by BASSA, they refused to negotiate!!

Prime example... the world wide agreement

I see you say that you are inclined to change your point of view because new fleet is going to start. BASSA had the chance to negotiate the entrance of new crew onto our fleets. Their response? No negotiation!

I went to work and during the second wave I met people that had changed their minds and come in. On my last trip (during the strike) I met two crew that had been together at Bedfont, I also met a girl who showed us a nasty text message she got from a friend because she worked during the first wave. Can you imagine what it was like when we met up in the bar only for her to see her friend walk in with the other crew. Priceless!

Duggie Fashion

5th Jul 2010, 22:42

BASSA were correct about the threat of New Fleet when they published the BA proposal under the guise of Operation Columbus.

Everything they said (BASSA) has come true.

Negotiation or not, New Fleet aka Mixed Fleet, was always going to happen.

the flying nunn

5th Jul 2010, 23:00

So Douggie if everything BASSA said has come true then why didn't they do something about negotiating a good deal for those of us on the current fleets? It would have made so much more sense than refusing to negotiate.

Colonel White

5th Jul 2010, 23:16

Does it occur to cabin crew tah there are some 30,000 other staff at BA, large numbers of whom have not had a pay award for over 18 months and who are unlikely to see one for at least another 6 months. So to hear cabin crew, who have refused to shoulder their share of cost reductions to date, being offered a two year deal with guaranteed increases plus top up guarantees on moonthly payments and then know that some crew think this a lousy deal, well, to decribe it as galling is a bit of an understatement. Yes, crew don't get paid a fortune, but you knew that when you took the job. If it pays that badly, get out and do something that pays better. I hear enough tales of crew with degrees and post grad qualifications. The union literature is awash with the detail of so-and-so who was a trained nurse or a doctor or a teacher before becoming cabin crew. With qualifications like that there should be no shortage of openings.

The brutal truth is that BA needs to reduce its costs if it is to be profitable. The two largest cost areas are fuel, which we have a modicum of control over by hedging and staff. Cabin crew represent close to 25% of staff. It will come as no surprise that they probably constitute the largest single block of staff costs. Now the company can footle with reducing the number of secretarial and admin staff, but that won't make major inroads on the staff costs. Nope, it's a penalty you pay for being the largest group, you become a very fat target. Look on the bright side. Nobody has talked about outsourcing your department yet. Talk to the call centres or some of the admin folk. Look at what has been shifted to lower cost base areas like India -we have a fair amount of work being done there. New Fleet may sound a grim prospect, but it's a damn sight better than what some areas face. There won't be a better deal than that on offer, because the longer this goes on, the less money there is in the piggy bank. Oh sure BA has pots of cash in loan guarantees. BA has to repay that money somehow. We haven't made a profit and the rainy day fund is drying up. One thing I promise. I will back this company to the hilt in the face of any industrial ation by cabin crew. I will do your job, if by doing so I make sure mine and the 30,000 other staff don't lose theirs. New Fleet expanding fast ? Of course. The suggestion that Unite might call a further walkout means that BA has to do somethng to protect the route network. There is a limit to how many head office and ground staff who can be puled off their day job to keep this place running. I'll wager that a further strike will only hasten the increase in New Fleet size. Instead of taking several years to reach 40% I think it will accelerate to several months. and will be targetting more than 40%. I could be wrong - want to take that gamble ?

SlideBustle

5th Jul 2010, 23:30

Colonel White,

I find your comments abit unfair.

Us mere Cabin Crew are not moaning at no pay rise or whatever. This offer gives us pay rises and incremental rises etc which is very good and noone is complaining about that.

What people who read this thread and outsiders reading about the dispute need to understand is whether people are for or against the strike, this MIXED FLEET - is a threat to our jobs! BA is offering us pay rises for the next few years, but bringing in new crew on low pay and conditions - the worry is in a few years time BA could easily transfer our good earning routes which mean we earn less (as a large part of our salary is so variable - depending on our trips)

We do have assurances - but what people want is more watertight agreements to ensure that they CANNOT transfer all the high earning routes like that.

Also this redeployment agreement people go on about, having read up on it abit more, why are they introducing it??? It means that because the job descriptions on Mixed Fleet (especially for CSM) are different that they could in the future say our fleets are redundant take Mixed Fleet or leave.

For some people the salary on Mixed Fleet would mean a 40% pay reduction - some may say the salary is fair and we are overpaid - well they can say that from their ivory towers. We shouldn't have to apologise for being well paid!!! Everyone should be, and shouldn't have that cut, to fund bonuses of managers.

Now I haven't had a personality change, am not Jekkl and Hide, as I used to think BAs proposal was reasonable - and I STILL think some parts of it are... but I think some parts of it are a huge blow to those of us who want a career at BA - especially us in our 20s or 30s who joined pre-Mixed Fleet... as the threat of having to move to Mixed Fleet on MUCH lower pay or leave in a few years is reality - and many Main Crew are practically excluded the oppurtunity of promotion on Mixed Fleet unless they work for £2.40 an hour for a year... also I don't really like the thought of working as crew without good union protection!

This Mixed Fleet was only supposed to be 500 crew - why now 1250... that may mean the whole 10 years to get 40% thing will change too.

Maybe I am wrong... just see it from our point of view!

4468

6th Jul 2010, 00:08

Slidebustle

I sympathise with your doubts. Are you asking these questions of BF, or BA???

BF's email is easily available.

If not, why not?

midman

6th Jul 2010, 02:53

Us mere Cabin Crew are not moaning at no pay rise or whatever. This offer gives us pay rises and incremental rises etc which is very good and noone is complaining about that.

But no-one is crediting BA for offering it either. No other group has been given such an increase in pay. Most of us have had a significant pay cut.
this MIXED FLEET - is a threat to our jobs! BA is offering us pay rises for the next few years, but bringing in new crew on low pay and conditions - the worry is in a few years time BA could easily transfer our good earning routes which mean we earn less (as a large part of our salary is so variable - depending on our trips)
But the same was said about the post 97 contracts - Bassa refused to negotiate and went on strike because they said that BA would starve the old contract cabin crew of work and they'd be forced to leave. But it never happened!! Old and new worked together and each took home what their contracts stipulated.
Bassa cried wolf, just as they are doing now.
We do have assurances - but what people want is more watertight agreements to ensure that they CANNOT transfer all the high earning routes like that.
We keep hearing that cabin crew want 'guarantees' or 'watertight assurances'. But once again I ask, What do you mean by this? What form of stipulation would you want that would satisfy your requirement for an assurance? I genuinely don't understand that part of the argument.

I have seen on CF that some say they want the MTP/Guaranteed minimum payment for allowances guaranteed in their basic - and then in the same post they say they want to be rewarded for working so hard on long trips, and to be paid accordingly. Cabin crew need to decide what they want and communicate it to Bassa. Bassa then need to communicate that to BA.
In other words, Engage!
Also this redeployment agreement people go on about, having read up on it abit more, why are they introducing it??? It means that because the job descriptions on Mixed Fleet (especially for CSM) are different that they could in the future say our fleets are redundant take Mixed Fleet or leave.
As I understand it, the redeployment agreement was changed because the old one placed too much of a potential financial burden on the company, at a time when we needed to show the city we were reducing the burden of our costly industrial agreements. The new agreement isn't just for cabin crew, it's for the rest of the company too. Can you show me any company that has a better redeployment arrangement than this one?
some people the salary on Mixed Fleet would mean a 40% pay reduction - some may say the salary is fair and we are overpaid - well they can say that from their ivory towers. We shouldn't have to apologise for being well paid!!! Everyone should be, and shouldn't have that cut, to fund bonuses of managers.
I haven't met anyone who seriously thinks there should be a wholesale slashing of what cabin crew get paid. Mixed fleet will be introduced on their terms, and older cabin crew will get their pay rises but will have to contribute to departmental savings by being more efficient. (see the latest offer)

And the savings aren't there to produce bonuses for managers - they are there to improve profitability and create dividends for shareholders (our ultimate employers). Like it or lump it, they are the reason we have a job.

many Main Crew are practically excluded the oppurtunity of promotion on Mixed Fleet unless they work for £2.40 an hour for a year Good point, that's an area that Bassa could engage in negotiating a better deal.
This Mixed Fleet was only supposed to be 500 crew - why now 1250... that may mean the whole 10 years to get 40% thing will change too. Because the money this IA is costing BA has to be found elsewhere? The sooner Bassa re-engage, the slower Mixed fleet will grow.
Maybe I am wrong... just see it from our point of view! Ditto for me!

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 07:49

The PCCC, Fri May 21st.

London Regional News | London Tonight - ITV Local (http://www.itv.com/london/british-airways-strike04776/)

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 11:38

Hand Solo,

Ill ask again as my last post has been removed.

Re post 810. Is it true that the 'BB3', those pilots who commented on facebook about the calibre of club passengers and male cabin crew, are back at work with no further action.

Where have you heard/read this?

I hope it is either not true, or if true then some of the lesser cabin crew disciplines are being reconsidered.

Juan Tugoh

6th Jul 2010, 12:55

I have no idea whether or not the 3 pilots are back at work, I am sure that they will have been dealt with by the same disciplinary process as the cabin crew that were suspended for facebook related idiocy.

If they have been found to have in a fashion that broke the B&H rules than the punishment will have been identical to those CC guilty of similar actions. Each case will be judged on its individual merits and each staff member will be dealt with accordingly.

Do not make the mistake that all the breaches of the code were of the same degree or magnitude. Just because all the comments were on facebook does not make them the same crime. To suggest so is, at best naive, at worst an at designed to do nothing but stir up emotions.

All the crew involved have been through a union approved disciplinary action where they were represented and advised by their union reps. Disciplinaries being the one thing that BA are de-rostering union reps for.

bhx01

6th Jul 2010, 13:05

If the pilots are not dismissed, again it proves to me that I have made a mistake by backing BA. This will prove that BA are trying to erode the cabin crew union. Thanx to those crew who have sent me a message regards to my first post, we are not alone.I think many have woken up to BA's true proposals, we were nearly fooled into thinking that what we were doing was supporting BA, but in fact we were just destroying ourselves.

I just hope that the crew who went on strike will will forgive me for my mistakes. I have come to the conclusion that BA just want to screw anyone and everyone whether you went into work or not, the pilots, well just in it for themselves, UNITE have made terrible mistakes, but they still have our best interest at hart..

I can not believe the people we have become over this dispute. As someone who would not strike, I am now preparing myself to do that, other departments interfering with each other, friendships made and lost, the list goes on.. It is me who has to look in the mirror every day and see if I made the correct choice or not, at the moment I do not believe that I did..

blue____

6th Jul 2010, 13:15

There are some people here that definately do not see the big real picture...

If some of you want to be forgiven, as you consider coming to work a mistake, then go to bassa forum and crew forum. There is absolutely noone here to forgive you for such a thing.

So instead of polluting this thread, go and write somewhere else, where rubbish and applogolies as such, are widely accepted.

Well done for seeing ba's true colours... you would of course see them more brightly, if you remove your bassa sunglasses.

Bassa's power and propaganda, are gone...and hopefully this tumor, and all the cells that are part of it, will be soon surgically removed. Once and for all.

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 13:21

Absolutely your choice, as long as you are aware of the consequences of course.

Not sure why you need to make the statements you do though.

just hope that the crew who went on strike will will forgive me for my mistakes.

seems an odd thing to state to me!

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 13:30

Juan.

Thank you for your reply, albeit somewhat patronising and propoganda. However, the question was for Hand Solo who posted that the three pilots were back on line, in a slightly contentious post which has since disappeared.

But on that issue, the FaceBook posts written by the three and transcribed in the national press were insultive to both crew and passengers. Without any doubt they brought the name of BA into disrepute.

Now I have already advocated that not all the cabin crew suspendees are innocent and suggested that they should be dealt with appropriately, however some of the suspendees are for writing comments as innocent as 'OMG' on FaceBook.

Where is the equity in punishment between members of the so called 'one team.' Indeed there have been other dubious decisions made by BA recently which do little to enforce the 'one team' mantra.

bhx01

6th Jul 2010, 13:38

I belong to cabin crew 89 not bassa. I have always believed that bassa are to militant for me and cabin crew 89 are more level headed.. What worries me is that a branch like cabin crew 89 who have always been very pro BA, are now so against BA. Things must be dire, for cabin crew 89 to do such a turn.

As for which forum I should post, I thought we lived in a democracy. I guess this forum is not much better than any other, as if you do not agree with the majority or change your mind, you are no longer welcome..

I guess I will be seen as a Judas from both sides. Comments directed at me will enable other members in my position to see how sallow some of us have become.

I respect whatever choice crew make, I just hope the rest can as well..

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 13:47

I guess this forum is not much better than any other, as if you do not agree with the majority or change your mind, you are no longer welcome..

All views welcome that invoke debate, as long as they have substance, IMHO!

Juan Tugoh

6th Jul 2010, 14:30

Where is the equity in punishment between members of the so called 'one team.'

Without knowing the exact details of the "offences" of each individual and the resolution of each disciplinary action there can be no assessment as to whether or not there has been any equity in punishment. To ask whether or not the BB3 have been returned to work - meaning you don't know the outcome of those disciplinary hearings - and in your next posting trying to suggest that there has been a miscarriage of justice or that somehow due process has not happened seems a bit of a stretch to me.

But if you want to work yourself and others up into some kind of Daily Mailesque anger carry on.

Re-Heat

6th Jul 2010, 14:38

If you are after a career in BA, you will be disappointed because of Mixed Fleet.
I think that misses the point. I think the intention is to use SCCMs as some form of roving staffmembers, who have oversight not only of cabin operations but also links with ground operations etc.

Given the recruitment appears to be seeking those in leadership positions within the business, I would expect the "ground days" or future part-time flying roles to be integrated with part-time ground roles so that those leading the cabin service are wholly integrated with the complete service offering.

Innovative for sure.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 15:09

Juan.

Stop, and read the post.

It was written because Hand Solo wrote a post suggesting that the 'BB3' had got off scot free. I wanted clarification from Hand Solo, but you picked up the baton with mere rhetoric.

The 'judgement' element was written to hopefully justify the post to the mods on account of my first question being removed, as has Hand Solo's original post (albeit by himself or the mods).

Let me re-write the questions, A) have the BB3 been allowed to return to work with no further action as suggested in a now deleted post. B) Where is the equity in that decision when cabin crew remain supended for lesser crimes, ie writting 'OMG' in relation to a list of pilots names?

Frankly I don't give a gnats fart about the Daily Mailesque frenzie you suggest I'm after, just some clarification in the first instance.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 15:14

Re Heat.

I wonder how many of our many cabin crew managers are applying for the role of CSM on Mixed Fleet, as it appears there may be duplication of their role and a cull on their numbers.

the flying nunn

6th Jul 2010, 15:21

bhx01

When we are faced with important decisions in our lives it is important to get all of the facts before we take the plunge and decide what to do. I think the outcome of the next strike ballot will be very interesting if there is one. I think that at last people are starting to wake up to the fact that they need to do the research and decide for themselves rather than ticking the box that they are told to tick. It seems that even Unite have decided that we should have a say based on the truth, that is why we are being given a lot of information with the ballot papers and a "free vote" on the deal. I'm sorry but it isn't going to get any better.

Please don't go on strike for me!!

Juan Tugoh

6th Jul 2010, 16:14

PC767

I know that you asked a question of Hand Solo, I chose to answer that with the more general point that the "BB3" would have gone through the same disciplinary process as the CC involved in Facebook offences. It is the nature of a bulletin board that this happens, the thread moves on.

You then asked a question as to where equity was in the treatment of members of one team. That implies that there has been some inequity in the treatment of some employees but provide no evidence that there has been any. In fact you leap from asking if the BB3 are back at work to asking the question about equity of treatment.

Let me re-write the questions, A) have the BB3 been allowed to return to work with no further action as suggested in a now deleted post. B) Where is the equity in that decision when cabin crew remain supended for lesser crimes, ie writting 'OMG' in relation to a list of pilots names?

Even this fails to point out that question B is contingent on the answer to question A being Yes.

Finally you try to insult me with:

but you picked up the baton with mere rhetoric.

Before you do that again I suggest a quick look at a dictionary, rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

If you feel that my postings are too effective and that somehow undermines your poor grasp of communication, I apologise. However, i suggest you are a little more careful with your language, after all we can only respond to what we see on the page, not what is in your head.

Now can we move on please?

Hampshire Hostie

6th Jul 2010, 16:48

Midman, you say
'As I understand it, the redeployment agreement was changed because the old one placed too much of a potential financial burden on the company, at a time when we needed to show the city we were reducing the burden of our costly industrial agreements. The new agreement isn't just for cabin crew, it's for the rest of the company too. Can you show me any company that has a better redeployment arrangement than this one?'

In his latest webchat Bill Francis was asked the following:-

1. What changes does he intend to make?
2. What would be the new time limit for Careerlink?
[3. Would the new policy prevent cabin crew from transferring to Mixed Fleet (or any other department) taking their current basic pay and terms & conditions with them as is currently the case?
4. Would any changes affect all BA employees?
5. If any changes required employees to sign a new contract which reduced their basic pay would this consequently reduce their pension accrual (build up rate) and also affect their pay for pension purposes thereby reducing their final salary pension if in NAPS?
Here’s his answer
'the redeployment agreement is one of our corporate policies that affects all employees in BA. In the offer it confirms that discussions need to continue at the BA Forum and EPC and come to a conclusion within a month. They started back in June'09.

Until that time I think it would be inappropriate to comment, to give them the best chance of progress'.

I don't feel reassured at all by that answer!

Hand Solo

6th Jul 2010, 17:06

PC767 - I said they weren't being sacked, that's all. You have added your own interpretation to my comments. Making insulting comments towards unnamed passengers on Facebook is stupid, as is making generally offensive comments towards cabin crew, but by no means are those actions comparable to disseminating the names of specific individuals for the sole purpose of intimidating them. Nor should management be swayed by a deliberately orchestrated campaign of mock offence by the militant brotherhood, hot on the heels of the deliberate leaking of the offending posts to the Daily Mirror by BASSA. That behaviour was no better than footballers hounding the ref waving an imaginary card in the air, and BA were right to ignore it.

bhx01 - I do not believe for one moment you have 'backed BA' and are now regretting your actions. The tone and content of your posts are identical to the BASSA missives your leaders write, heavy on misguided trust in BA and shame at your behaviour, with a dig at the pilots to boot. I'll grant you your a sophisticated phoney, but a phoney nonetheless.

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 17:27

bhx01 - I do not believe for one moment you have 'backed BA' and are now regretting your actions. The tone and content of your posts are identical to the BASSA missives your leaders write, heavy on misguided trust in BA and shame at your behaviour, with a dig at the pilots to boot. I'll grant you your a sophisticated phoney, but a phoney nonetheless.

Thankyou Hand Solo, I was just about to post a similar interpretation.
Very D.H/BASSA like approach to woo albeit in a more moderate manner.

The Blu Riband

6th Jul 2010, 18:43

Very D.H/BASSA like approach

He should spend his time looking for work rather than stirring up his ex-colleagues.

Is he still being paid by Bassa?

Is he entitled to continue to represent BA cabin crew?

bhx01

6th Jul 2010, 18:53

If you read my posts again, I actually have a dig at everyone,not one individual or group. maybe I should have stayed silent and watch both groups congratulate themselves on how well they have done. I am not the false one but the ones who do not know what they are voting for, whether it be a yes or a no.

I do feel that if you post something that is not on the straight and narrow you get called a phoney. Like many others, the longer the dispute goes on the more questions crew may ask, some may be pro some against..

My quotes are no way as bad as , CREWFORUM and BALPA forums as I have access to the above and have been observing them.

Is there a innocent party involved, I don't think so hence my quote about the pilots BA and the union. They are in it for themselves. But who serves me the best, hard to say.Most likely the union after all they are crew like me. Never mind what anyone thinks I have been truthful to myself when I went into work and If I decide to strike..

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 19:48

Blimey!

Juan, a touch sensitive over the matter I would say. I'm fully aware of the OED meaning of rhetoric. I wasn't trying to insult you at all. With that I'll happily move on.

Hand, thank you for the clarification I sought. Your origin post has gone, perhaps because its tone was somewhat superfluous.

BHX01, When faced with the reality of real people opening their hearts and telling it how they see it, and how it affects them, it seems the hardliners on this site have no answer other than to claim, 'you must be DH'. As fast as you are questioning your belief in BA management, I'm questioning the adage that the rest of BA wants to look after itself and push the cost onto cabin crew. Well bloody well done everyone else, whilst the heat stays on the cabin crew, the rest can breathe easy that more will not be required of them. Yet.

This, despite what Walsh & Co claim, has so clearly become a union busting exercise. Everybody from acedemics to the hardliners on here can see that. The problem is, by striking BASSA play straight into the turned poachers trap.

Newyorker001

6th Jul 2010, 20:31

Im sorry but how many times do the crew have to be told... WE HAVE ALL MADE OUR COST SAVINGS !!! Come to any other department for a day and they will be able to tell you what life was like 1,2 or 5 years ago and its a very different enviromet. Dont you just get thats why everyone else in the company is so hacked off with the... we are poor cabin crew, stop picking on us, its always us the company picks on.. Everyone I know has finally had it with BASSA and its sheep. Slowly following behind bleeting away... Not taking any notice of what has been going on around them for the past few years.

Im sorry yes this post will come across as nasty or however you want to take it, but Im fed up with the mentality of me me me ... oh and what about me. Wake up smell the coffee and look around and see what is happening not just within BA. Ask anyone nicely within BA, go on even venture into Waterside and you find departments that yes were run years ago like the civil service. Now they are modern and manageged very well. Its a changing world, if you dont like it move on.

I will happily stand up and make sure that a small minority of staff do not bring this company down. Staff who are stuck in some time warp and see thier job as a lifestyle choice rather than somewhere where you come to work do the best you can on every shift and even possibly be slightly flexible.

Ive said it before and the above probably shows that I now have little time or patience for crew who are now still of the opinion that WW is out to get them. He is not, he could not care to him its not personal. Unlike BASSA who at every point have tried to make it as personal as possible. He is a CEO we needed 10 years ago rather than someone who would not stand up to BASSA and let the rot set in.

BASSA have had ample time and warnings to sort this out. they have misled and lied to thier membership. Anyone who can believe some of the things that have been said by BASSA reps is completely mad. We used to have a CC BASSA memmber live with us, it was constant the amount of bull**** she was fed about WW, Waterside,Pilots, Other departments and she swallowed the lot. It used to wind me up so much, that a bright,friendly,intelligent lady would believe half of what was being said to her. She was excellent at her Job, but mention the word BASSA and just watch the lady explode into a series of lies and resentment towards BA. WHY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone thinks that Keith williams is more liberal than WW, please dont hold your breath. He will be brought in to carry on the Job WW has done. As unltimately WW will still be his boss.

BASSA and its followers have a lot to answer for. As Ive said before If I was having to make the kind of decision that the crew have just made, I would not be getting my information from a Union that has been proven to blatantly Lie when it wants.

Can crew actually make thier minds up what this dispute os about !! As now its about staff travel. Oh sorry the fact that the offer is a lot worse than you were offered a while ago seems to have been forgotten..

As far as I can see there needs to be a change in the way some crew view thier role. Its a job, not the lifestlye choice that it was 20 years ago. Grow up and join the real world like the rest of us in BA

Spanner in the works

6th Jul 2010, 20:31

the rest can breathe easy that more will not be required of them. Yet

But you haven't given ANYTHING - yet.
Don't try and pin this as a battle for all BA. We've had our cuts. People, no pay rises, no bonus (a lot of us get bonuses in lieu of OT so our hourly rates have gone down cos the workload has also gone up), restructuring two or three times.
And more....

Caribbean Boy

6th Jul 2010, 20:48

PC767 (http://www.pprune.org/members/205141-pc767) wrote: This, despite what Walsh & Co claim, has so clearly become a union busting exercise. Everybody from acedemics to the hardliners on here can see that.Why should a union-buster have spent so much time negotiating with Unite. Even Unite has said that they have been in "deep negotiations" with BA.

ranger07

6th Jul 2010, 20:52

Well bloody well done everyone else, whilst the heat stays on the cabin crew, the rest can breathe easy that more will not be required of them.

I'm all 'typed out' on this...over and over again!!!

Please see the above posts from newyorker001 and spannerintheworks.

To summarise...we have done our bit..and continue to do so...we have done our bit over the past few years...and will continue to do so in the future.

Now...it's your turn, the difference being, you have guarantees..we do not!

Spanner in the works

6th Jul 2010, 21:24

I think I'm gonna pack it in too.

Round and round we go.

We want "guarantees".
- None of the rest of us have guarantees. Never have, never will

I don't trust Mgt
- What have they done that they said they wouldn't? (and don't try and spin "Project Columbus" as the terms of NF were nowhere near current proposed levels IF the union had negotiated on the original offers)

The company are not in the poo. WW earns huge money.
- Check the annual results.
- Compared to you and me, yes he does. Compared to other CEOs, no he doesn't.

You'll be next.
- We were first. Lots of times. Been there, seen it, done it and bought the lanyard.

Previously quoted I'm sure:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

What do you actually want?

LD12986

6th Jul 2010, 21:36

On the claim of union busting, WW has made it clear that BA needs unions to be able to negotiate changes with the workforce. If you look at WW's track record at BA (rather than digging up old quotes from years ago - who hasn't said things in the past they would be embarrassed by now?) lots has been achieved through negotiations with the unions behind closed doors without all hell breaking loose.

BASSA is the sole exception. What WW has made it clear that Unite needs to change how BASSA operates.

With Mixed Fleet on the horizon, what CC desperately need is intelligent leadership that works with the company rather than the current mantra of "the company is the enemy" and "everybody is against us".

Colonel White

6th Jul 2010, 21:37

Slidebustle, you said
We do have assurances - but what people want is more watertight agreements to ensure that they CANNOT transfer all the high earning routes like that.

Also this redeployment agreement people go on about, having read up on it abit more, why are they introducing it??? It means that because the job descriptions on Mixed Fleet (especially for CSM) are different that they could in the future say our fleets are redundant take Mixed Fleet or leave.

So let me get this straight. If the world economy changed and let's say that as destinations go Japan became as popular as the proverbial fart in an elevator. You would take BA to task if they then dropped NRT as a route ? Or they decided that NRT was so unprofitable that they only way they could make it viable was by using crew on a lower salary, maybe LGW or NF. The world is not static. Can you not see that in fact BA are being extremely honest with yo by saying that they cannot give watertight assurances, because they don't have the ability to foretell the future to that degree. They want to make promises they have a decent chance of keeping. The only certainties are death and taxes.

As far as different JD and roles go, have a chat with some ground crew who are A7 and did not take APPG. Ask them how secure they feel in their roles. you might also chat to some APPG folk who moved from A7 and find out what their experience is.

Without wishing to be blunt, anyone who says they can guarantee your job is secure and will not change over the next 5 years is either a fool or a liar. I've been with BA for over 20 years. The role I do now is light years away from what I started doing and I'm still in the same department. The view I take is that change is inevitable, you can expend huge amounts of energy attempting to resist it, the wiser line is to accept it and see it as an opportunity to shape your own destiny.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 21:40

Caribbean Boy,

Hook, line and sinker. He's going through the motions, it is carefully and cleverly orchestrated. Over 2 years ago we learnt, via a dubious leak, of New Fleet in the name of Op Colombus. This must have been sometime in the planning stages, indeed it came out not long after BA made its record 10% profit margin, suggesting that whilst the going was good Walsh & Co were looking to fundamentally change the structure of IFCE, (or whatever we were called then.)

Of course it was denied many times by the then head of IFCE, (or whatever...), Simon Tallin Smith. He suggested ideas were always being discussed but rarely put into action.

And here we are today, Op Colombus = Mixed Fleet, and initially bigger than the company hoped for. Do I blame BASSA as well, (because all replys will state this was all BASSA and only BASSAs fault), yes I do. They were incapable of spotting the game plan, and kept tripping into traps. I told them, though I am insignificant so not listened to, and voted no to strike action.

I often remind my colleagues, who have been whipped into a frenzie, that you do not become CEO of a company such as BA by being stupid and taking chances.

Other departments have taken a hit, but nothing like the type of hit Walsh has in mind for me. So the game is, he demands he want 200%, the unions naturally decline and offer 50%, he retorts with 150%, they suggest 100% and at some stage they meet in the middle and a compromise is accepted which benefits both sides. However Walsh went from 200% to 250% with punishment if challenged.

And being a clever man he always had the answer that made him sound reasonable, he always positioned himself to look like the reasonable party. He is bloody good. What do we have, well when Unite argue for me on TV I cringe. Woodley & Co do not look out of place debating the finer points of being a steel worker or docker, but I'm part of middle England.

Caribbean Boy, from my position it is all transparent, in the future, when the dust has settled, it will be transparent. By then of course Walsh will have altered the style of industrial relations. Many blame BASSA for going backwards but I'd suggest they only responded (unfortunately) to the regression of Walsh's style. Its started already, disgruntled railworks and BT staff have had Walsh style tactics thrush upon their ballots. And of course there is the issue of punishing workers for taking up their legal rights.

This has to have an impact on any workers future with regards to industrial action. And also for management tactics. BA cabin crew will not win, the best deal may now be on the table, I'll look at the small print when it arrives, but our loss will set a precedent. Until of course the EU brings UK legislation into compatability. Until then I hope you never face any more demands from the top corridor.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 21:45

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 21:48

Col White,

Your role may be light years away from how it was 20 years ago, but have your earnings been decimated to where they were 20 years ago? Thats what crew are concerned about.

Dick Spanner

6th Jul 2010, 21:56

Well said newyorker001.
But if anyone thinks that Keith williams is more liberal than WW, please dont hold your breath. He will be brought in to carry on the Job WW has done.
KW is a bean counter, he will potentially be much worse then WW, a pilot, someone who has an idea how an airline operates, better the devil you know I feel.

LD12986

6th Jul 2010, 22:09

Is that why BA require unionised crew to resign from their union before accepting the current deal.

The latest offer on the table is only available for crew members to accept on an individual basis if they were not members of the union at the time the offer was made. This was made clear in the message from Bill Francis. Otherwise the company could be deemed to be offering an inducement to leave the union, which could result in a legal challenge.

Is that why crew who are considering the latest deal are being told that if they undertake industrial action ever again they would lose parts of the agreement, thus rendering union membership totally ineffective. A bit like the PCCC.

The company has always made clear that the cost of any IA would be recovered from the offending department, hence why each offer is worse than the previous one.

The company has made this clear all along, pity too many people had their fingers in their ears at the time, and decided it was worth betting the farm on imposition of changes to crewing levels. The days when the company could afford to just absorb a £150m hit are long gone.

You (through your representatives) decided to pick this fight. You gave them the mandate to do so. Now you are paying for it. The work of other departments in contributing savings (£300m+ in the last financial year) should not be undone you and your colleagues.

Welcome to the real world.

Newyorker001

6th Jul 2010, 22:13

PC767

If WW is so bad and wants to break the union, why has he been able to negotiate with other departments that also represented by unite ?

midman

6th Jul 2010, 22:14

Here’s his (Bill Francis' answer
'the redeployment agreement is one of our corporate policies that affects all employees in BA. In the offer it confirms that discussions need to continue at the BA Forum and EPC and come to a conclusion within a month. They started back in June'09.

Until that time I think it would be inappropriate to comment, to give them the best chance of progress'.

I don't feel reassured at all by that answer!
You may not feel reassured by that answer, but it's the same answer that the rest of us got when we questioned the new redeployment agreement.. The company have had to reassess their commitments in the agreements with employee groups, and in order to demonstrate to the markets that the cost base is manageable, they have reduced the redeployment agreement to 52 weeks. (Remember they have a contractual limit of only three months notice for the vast majority of us)

Bassa try to spin that as a direct attack on cabin crew and as further justification for IA. Clever opportunism, I grant you, but no more closer to reality than any Bassa fiction we've seen in recent months.

Hotel Mode

6th Jul 2010, 22:17

So the game is, he demands he want 200%, the unions naturally decline and offer 50%, he retorts with 150%, they suggest 100% and at some stage they meet in the middle and a compromise is accepted which benefits both sides. However Walsh went from 200% to 250% with punishment if challenged.

It was made clear to all the departments that the amount was not for negotiation only the means of delivery. ALL other depts made their savings or significant progress in negotiations by 30th June 2009. Except one.

This was because all other depts understood what was meant when BA said the amount was not up for negotiation. Except one.

Every department negotiated the most painless way to meet the cuts by the deadline so that BA didn't do what they promised and imposed their method. Except one.

They also understood what was meant when all departments were told they would have a revised figure if the deadline wasn't met. Except one.

Finally they understood what was meant when they were told that any costs of industrial action would be added to departmental savings. Except one.

So one year on and they still don't get it.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 22:20

NewYorker,

You miss the point, the concern of crew is that 2-3 years down the line redeployment will start a year long process of taking their salary back, perhaps not 20 years, but substantially backwards. My point to Col White was, despite the changes in his job over 20 years, has his pay declined to a point almost 20 years previous. I'd safely say no. Is there a real chance this could happen whilst he stays in his current role, or anyone else for that matter. I'd say no.

LD....,

So if you wholeheartedly support Walsh's concept that the first deal offered will always be the best, and should you choose to challenge him, he'll definately make subsequent deals worse, where does that leave you when Walsh, or his successor, comes back and asks you for a new deal, worse than your current deal. Do you just role over and accept without question.

midman

6th Jul 2010, 22:22

LD12986.

Is that why BA require unionised crew to resign from their union before accepting the current deal.

Is that why crew who are considering the latest deal are being told that if they undertake industrial action ever again they would lose parts of the agreement, thus rendering union membership totally ineffective. A bit like the PCCC.
As already mentioned, BA don't require cabin crew to resign from their union before accepting the deal. That's only open to those already outside the union.

(And guess what's coming next?!)

The only thing lost by undertaking IA in the future would be the allowances top-up, but that's already pooh-poohed by most on CF, so no loss there then?

Caribbean Boy

6th Jul 2010, 22:26

So, PC767:

If WW had not negotiated with Unite, you would have screamed union-busting.

But WW has negotiated with Unite, yet you say he is union-busting.

This stuff about Project Columbus and NF being union-busting is rubbish. Anyone who gets recruited to Mixed Fleet can remain in Unite or join Unite. MF is about getting badly-needed cost reductions and operational flexibility in IFCE. You can't blame WW for BASSA's failure to negotiate on MF.

Hotel Mode

6th Jul 2010, 22:27

The only thing lost by undertaking IA in the future would be the allowances top-up, but that's already pooh-poohed by most on CF, so no loss there then?

A point not much understood over there. Further industrial action means no more promise to maintain the current allowance level. So then it really will be goodbye Tokyo hello Mumbai.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 22:31

Hotel mode.

Your post tells me that negotiating is not a prerequisite for you either. Good luck.

The problem in IFCE was that the amount we were to save kept changing and when BASSA put ideas on the table, (whether they were any good or not), they were reject because the savings required had just changed.

I've said it before and will again. This is all part of the game plan. Op Colombus was always on the cards, and to break the union Walsh needed a strike. I await to see the outcome of the next ballot because I worry that the 'ayes' will be less than before, thus Walsh will start to see the crumbling of the union. Worn out cabin crew will come back to work, we are told they are already.

Bingo, Op Colombus and a severely bashed and weakened union.

I suppose it is a bit like my old career, the PC bit. When we went to a fight or disturbance we always aimed to take down the biggest first in the belief that the others would quieten down when we did so.

Newyorker001

6th Jul 2010, 22:35

Sorry, ask anyone in ba what they think thier role in a years time may entail and you will get a lot of different answers. Im sure a lot of them will say they have no idea.

See the recent posts and every other department has made the change, BASSA refused to negotiate and now you are as you say stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Im tired of the what if, what if.. Were only doing this to save the rest of BA. WW is overpaid.. If you are so unsure and dont trust your employer that much. Theres the door, shut it on your way out.

In my very short time at BA (compared to most) I dont think Ive seen them deliberatly try and screw anyone over. Actually Ive found them to be reasonable, honest, open and pretty reliable at paying my wages!

For to long the company has refused to tackle the problem, now they have, it was always going to hurt a little. But short term pain long term gain.

Newyorker001

6th Jul 2010, 22:42

PC 767, yes your right sometimes you do start a fire deliberatly.. to ge rid of the dead wood.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 22:43

Depends on what you call negotiation. Just turning up and making unreasonable statements isn't. And that goes for both sides. You can have as many meetings as you want but if you've already decided before you enter the room how firm you stand it will be pointless.

Going through the motions, playing the part. And the later stating, we tried.

Whether Walsh has negotiated or not, this exercise was transparently about union busting.

One more point, I can blame BA for Mixed Fleet. At one stage BASSA agreed to Mixed Fleet unopposed. So the company took it off the table, and then when matters were not progressing, not only threw it back on the table but started recruitment. How do you negotiate something the company states will not be happening anymore. No negotiation needed. Perhaps that was the plot. Walsh wanted Mixed Fleet in its entirety, unadulterated, and by not having it at negotiations he ensured it couldn't be altered in any way.

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 22:50

NewYorker,

There is no evidence that only BASSA refused to negotiate, other than hearsay and assumption.

You'll also find your arguments about Walsh being overpaid and cabin crew gallantly saving the company hold zero water with me. I've never advocated either position.

And still you miss the point about roles and 20 years.

SlideBustle

6th Jul 2010, 22:57

No I admit there are no guarantees in a job or ''career''.

However - what crew are worried about is will BA DELIBERATELY take NRT, HKG, GVA, ZRH, BRU and similar good earning routes in the future???

Look, a 6 hour GVA there and back that has a turnaround in GVA at 1800 earns between £60-£70 in allowances.
Mixed Fleet would earn £14.40!
Some routes are not mnuch different in allowances particularly on shorthaul or the India/African/and some US routes.

If Mixed Fleet is all about cost savings - what would be the point in creating a new fleet to save money WHEN the routes that transfer across earn similar or are not much less.

WW even recently said himself in an interview about SYD not being profitable enough! And Mixed Fleet will help with this. Why? Because of the allowances of crew. Or so I have read, will have to try and find it again!

So, whilst say in your example Colonel White, NRT was dropped as a route - there is nothing that could be done about that! But basically we would not have a problem with that because they are not taking our work to be given to ''cheaper crew''. I can see where you are coming from, though!

It's just easy for people to come on here and say ''what are crew worried about'' blah blah, but it's more than a crew member less on flights! This Mixed Fleet is a lot more than other departments have been asked for - it does pose a threat.

Plus, Mixed Fleet is very poor pay. Nothing we can really do - it is what they want to pay - but I am sorry, it is a culture in society today - a race to the bottom! Working it out it would be less than friends working for airlines like EasyJet - please remember that a studio flat in London is often around the £800 mark. A study on the BBC has actually recently stated that wages in the UK are not enough and minimum wage should be more... isn't it a good thing we are well paid and shouldn't we be the benchmark? BA are not going to go bust - if they were wouldn't they need an immediate saving of money not one that will save money over years... also the share bonuses etc for the top could be less (I am not a socialist btw!)

Maybe if BASSA/UNITE had negotiated better in the past BA wouldn't need to introduce Mixed Fleet - BUT having said that, in some ways it is good we have a strong union, maybe other people who say ''we are so lucky'' should just remember why maybe?

I know I have stated BA has been reasonable in the past - and for a lot of the part they have, but I don't know if the bigger picture is more evident to see... I can see your point of view and I do accept there is no guarantees, but I don't want to be signing or accepting an offer that willingly is akin to signing our careers away!

Newyorker001

6th Jul 2010, 22:59

What is it with the word plot... Ive lost it, bassa have never had it.. WW has more of them than Wimpey homes! When I think I stated that WW is Kaiser Soze in a previous post, I think you have taken this to seriously.

BA are a shrinking company that is losing a fortune every day, now if the rest of the company can agree. OK were in at the deep end here, how can we get out of it and work on that solution. While one small minority sit in the deep end splashing about and shouting, while the rest of us try and talk to them, showing how we are all working together to help everyone out. How long do you give it before the minority, destroy what the majority want. Or do you leave the minority in the deepend shouting and splashing, while the rest of us move on.

midman

6th Jul 2010, 22:59

NewYorker,

There is no evidence that only BASSA refused to negotiate, other than hearsay and assumption.

Apart from the judgement made by Justice Holland.....in a Court of law

Hotel Mode

6th Jul 2010, 23:10

The problem in IFCE was that the amount we were to save kept changing and when BASSA put ideas on the table, (whether they were any good or not), they were reject because the savings required had just changed.

It did not change prior to the June 30th 2009 deadline.

It changed afterwards just as BA said it would. Complaining that BA did what they say they would isn't really on.

Once again all other departments did what was asked of them when they were asked to do it. Why are IFCE special?

PC767

6th Jul 2010, 23:19

Midman, Holland J did not state that BASSA had refused to negotiate per se, and it certainly wasn't his judgement.

Hotel mode, from Feb to May the value required changed from £82m to £140m

SlideBustle

6th Jul 2010, 23:19

Does anyone have a timeline of all the;

-negotiations
-offoers
-proposals
-cost savings targets
-strops and 'I'm not listening to them'

events in this dispute... so we can then say who exactly is wrong... As I hear different things ie.... BASSA offered good cost savings that were £10m apart from BA but were agreeable by crew so a good compromise but you know what.... there is just so much in the air that it's confusing!

Hotel Mode

7th Jul 2010, 01:21

Hotel mode, from Feb to May the value required changed from £82m to £140m

I'm afraid you misunderstand the numbers.

82 mil was the annual saving per financial year.

140 was the total saving over the 2 year business plan.

The business plan (based on financial year) had to be delivered by 30th June. Ie 3 months into financial year. So only 21 months to go. Total savings over 21 months = 143 million.

It seems you've been believing BASSA spin. The annual savings did not change.

MIDLGW

7th Jul 2010, 01:50

Dear Slidebustle,

It seems to me that you've been working with a lot of strikers lately, and by the looks of it, you've been given a hard time whilst at work. It's really hard when you're being told constantly that "you were wrong to strike, look how much bassa offered, you can't believe anything Walsh and Francis say", etc etc, to not doubt yourself and your (previous) beliefs. I'm not blaming you at all, but please really think this through before you make any rash decisions. I hope you can conclude that you were right in the first place (not striking), but only you can make that decision.

PC767,

You seem to not believe what people here tell you. Fair enough, to a certain degree, as we cannot know everyone on here, and whether they're telling the truth. May I recommend you read the December court judgement again. It has a very good run-down of meetings (or lack of).

As others have pointed out, the savings figures only changed after the deadline of June last year. Because very few changes (big ones I mean) have been done in our department (ifce) through the years, this "hit" will hurt more than other departments who have made changes on a more regular basis.

In general,
for BA to be able to grow, we need to cut costs. We've cut so many routes it's quite scary. The only way we can compete with other airlines, is to control costs. Not just from CC, but all departments. Mixed fleet isn't just about low salaries (in my opinion), but also about flexibility. One only needs to look at what's happened at LGW in the last 4-5 years, to see what the big plan has been.

SlideBustle

7th Jul 2010, 02:25

MIDLGW,

More recently I have worked with more strikers - yes I would say I have... Most haven't given me a hard time necessarily, (some have though - well not so much a hard time but been cold and frosty which is bad enough!) but I have listened to the points of views of these crew.

I think what makes it harder for me is about half of my friends/people I know went to work, some believe BA are in the right, BASSA/UNITE are in the wrong. Some went into work but don't necessarily agree with BA or BASSA/UNITE. About half striked! And you know what - I respect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID - as they haven't done anything despicable. And no matter what decision I decide on in the future - I will respect strikers/non-strikers alike, because I think it is such a difficult decision no matter what you decide! Further, this whole dispute has become such a muddle that it is hard to put your finger on who is right or wrong. Sometimes I find myself agreeing with what BA are saying and their proposals, but then also with BASSA/UNITE but I know both sides have done wrong too - BA pay my wages though... but the pay I earn is helped by BASSA/UNITE - arghh! That's how I am so confused!

I know BA needs to make changes, but I also value my terms and pay. BA HAVE said they will protected. They are words that can be broken as BASSA say - but the question is will BA break this like they did crew complements? Or is it all BASSA scaremongering - as we are all aware they love that! They (apparently) have done it all the time there has been a dispute. But I am suspicious of these ''assurances''...

I suppose the good thing is - time is on my side and I can read EVERYTHING from both sides and make an informed decision! And I do value the forums (all 4 - this, Crewforum, BASSA and PCCC) for gaining these views... I have been in meetings in CRC and to be honest, Bill Francis does seem honest, and a fair sort of guy, but obviously as someone after a career - it is just a worry about it all that's all!

Plus, obviously the other confusing thing is some people who went into work are thinking of striking (or so some people on other forums say!!) but on the other hand - some strikers went back to work or may work next time!! ARGHHHH!!

Thanks though - and don't worry I will carefully make my own decision after looking at both sides! And will continue with this forum!

Let's hope we get a good agreement soon anyway!

Anyway best get to bed! HAHA!

Juan Odeboyse

7th Jul 2010, 03:20

NY001 you state that the rest of the company have agreed to recent changes....have they really?

Do you know any tug drivers, ramp workers or 'A' grade staff?

ranger07

7th Jul 2010, 06:03

I just banged my keyboard out of sheer frustration.

I'm one of the afforementioned examples and can categorically state that we have had a tough time over the past few years and continue to do so.

Juan, is this just about winding people up or are you just being very, very selective in the posts that you read?

PC767

7th Jul 2010, 07:07

Hotel Mode.

I didn't take my figures from BASSA.

I took my figures from Sir Christopher Holland J as cited in Malone & Others v British Airways PLC [2010] EWHC 302 (QB).

'i) 24th February – At a National Sectional Panel (“NSP”) meeting Mr Francis told the Union that in the then financial circumstances BA looked to save £82m as against the cost of cabin crew.

iv) May – Following release of the figures for the first quarter (see para 12 above) the required costs saving was increased to £140m.'

Did the learned Judge fall for BASSA's spin as well?

MIDLGW.

I have read the case.

Betty girl

7th Jul 2010, 09:28

SlideBustle,
That was a good post and shows how confussed alot of crew are.

I personaly find that on eurofleet where I work more crew are thinking the offer is ok. I find that the only crew unhappy are the ones that want staff travel back.

I am choosing to believe BF when he says that no one will be forced on to the New Fleet. I am also choosng to believe him when he says that route transfers will be done in agreement with Unite.

I have just got a letter through the post from the union saying things like:-

'What stands in the way of you being part of New Fleet?' and

'We cannot do it for you nor can your collegues who showed their bravery last time. You have a decision to make. Join them on the next strike dates or put your trust in Mr. Walsh and accept this as an offer to end conflict.

The whole letter is basically a call to strike and filled with emotional blackmail like :-
'It is simply not right that thousands of cabin crew endured the hardship of weeks of lost earnings and the loss of staff travel for them and their families, while others appeared to carry on working, apparently oblivious to the issues that we all face'

Well thousands did do this but they did it because of BASSA's inability to talk to the company and because BASSA told them to. People that went to work did so because they did not agree with striking and wanted their union to negotiate not strike.

Please be sure to understand that BASSA will not get a better deal because they are unable to negotiate. This is all about returning staff travel now. You can be sure that if the return of staff travel was in this agreement they would accept it.

Please don't vote against this offer because the next step will be a call to strike. I don't want people like you and PC767 to put your jobs at risk for nothing.

BASSA are playing into Walsh's hands. If a strike happens again it is just Christmas early for Willie Walsh. He gets to get rid of more crew with the help of the courts and VCC's and will make Mixed Fleet even bigger faster. Just one example of BASSA's previous record is the current long range agreement, that was negotiated by CC89 and BASSA were against that back then but I don't think you will find any crew that are unhappy about that agreement.

Please do read it like you said you would and remember BASSA are already rallying us all to strike and that is yet again before they know how their members feel about this offer. They use emotional blackmail to make people vote the way they want them too. Please don't be fooled. At first this was all about CSD's not wanting to work and now it is all about staff travel. They have never negotiated for the vast majority of crew in good faith.

beesflyer

7th Jul 2010, 09:40

Juan. In answer to your question about Ramp workers, tug drivers. As one myself, I can assure you that the ramp has made major savings. About 34Million down on last year, not bad for a section with just over 2,000 staff. Huge changes to working practices, numbers of staff per job, loss off overtime ( even less when CC are on strike !! Thanks ). Even more changes to come in October. Yep, I think I can say that we have done our bit.

52049er

7th Jul 2010, 10:03

It's really, really not a good idea to try and argue that other areas of BA haven't had their share of pain. All it does is emphasise how far from the real BA world you are.

Why do you think gate staff, loaders, TRM's and ground crew sometimes give you a less than fulsome welcome at the aircraft? Because most of them have had their teams reduced by 20,30 or even 40% while they watch you strike over a change to working practices that haven't even changed the number of crew on the meal service on WW, just moved a senior crew member onto a trolley.

Meeting VCC hasn't just been a pleasure because of their dedication, it's been an eye-opener as to just how hard the axe has come down at Waterside and T5 already. Teams of 16 reduced to 9 (no extra money, no less work). Gate staff working to rosters that are changed beyond all recognition. It puts my personal contribution into the shade.

I'd recommend a bit of humility when referring to our ground colleagues.

Caribbean Boy

7th Jul 2010, 10:07

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle) wrote: I know BA needs to make changes, but I also value my terms and pay. BA HAVE said they will protected. They are words that can be broken as BASSA say - but the question is will BA break this like they did crew complements? Or is it all BASSA scaremongering - as we are all aware they love that! They (apparently) have done it all the time there has been a dispute. But I am suspicious of these ''assurances''...Let's look at pay. Do you expect to get your basic pay? Of course, because it is contractual. Similarly, the variable top up pay will be paid because it will be contractual. These are guaranteed payments. BASSA is lying if it says otherwise.

Let's look at cabin crew complements. BA imposed reductions in November 2009 on the basis that crew complements are not contractual. Unite disagreed and backed Malone, Stott and Devereux in a court case against BA. The judgement by Judge Sir Christopher Holland went against the plaintiffs:

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html)

The key part of the judgement is here:
What I am reading is what it is: a negotiated fleet collective agreement apt to cover planning for and deployment of 11,500 employees; it is not the stuff of 11,500 individual contracts. It is thus my judgment that there was no material incorporation into Miss Malone's contract and hence there was no breach post 16 November 2009.

the flying nunn

7th Jul 2010, 10:18

PC767

I am at abit of a loss to understand your take on things. You have told us that you voted against striking and went to work yet you seem to be determined to follow the BASSA line all the way but stopping just short of standing with them on the picket line. You also tell us that you are active on the other forums with a different perspective to the one you push on here. Can I ask, do you actually have a position on the situation that we find ourselves in?

nurjio

7th Jul 2010, 10:27

The link to the judgement is worth a gander, folks. Para 42, final sentence, reads:

My bold

...The continuing and presently prospective problem is money, finding the wherewithal to fund an airline of this nature and one would imagine that the only real prospect for alleviation of the impact upon cabin crew is by negotiation that truly reflects and balances the demands upon, and the commitment of the employee with the unavoidable realities of the current pressures upon management....

Given that the 'dispute' is now about Staff Travel, ie, imposition has been accepted,.... "the impact upon crew that truly refelects and balances the demands upon"...., has been sorted, right?

midman

7th Jul 2010, 10:45

Midman, Holland J did not state that BASSA had refused to negotiate per se, and it certainly wasn't his judgement.

Well, he described the "ACAS fiasco" and the breakdown in negotiations and that he couldn't describe the imposition as unreasonable. All in his judgement.

Juan Odeboyse

7th Jul 2010, 11:00

Betty Girl - why do you still belong to a Union if their viewpoints are not the same as yours?
Have you tried to say the above to a rep....if so what was the reply?
BTW - are you happy with the redeployment programme, no future IA allowed and assurances - not guarantees in this 'latest' proposal?
Be aware that what YOU now think is a better offer is only down to your colleagues standing firm against the bully walsh.

Flap62

7th Jul 2010, 11:12

Be aware that what YOU now think is a better offer is only down to your colleagues standing firm against the bully walsh

Well done to all the brave heros, who by invoking the spirit of Iwo Jima, Tiananmen square and the Tolpuddle martyrs (have I missed anyone?) have managed to hold out for a deal that is significantly worse than was on the table last July, has lost them hundreds or thousands in lost wages and cost the company hundreds of millions.

Keep standing firm against the "bully Walsh" and with your current success rate you'll end up paying to come to work!

ranger07

7th Jul 2010, 11:20

As you are online now, perhaps you could respond to the posts that answer your questions re other departments 'doing their 'bit'..(well, 'lots' actually)'

also

Be aware that what YOU now think is a better offer is only down to your colleagues standing firm against the bully walsh.

Why do you view Mr Walsh as a bully? Thanks

Betty girl

7th Jul 2010, 11:46

Juan,

The offer has not been improved but just changed to make the travel payment a guarantee of minimum and not a replacement.

The changes have been made because of crew like me talking to BF and also emailing our concerns about the original Travel Payment.

All this could have been done by the unions but they decided to call a strike. New Fleet plans started in earnest the week that industrial action was announced. My manager was seconded to a 'special project' the following week. This has turned out to be Mixed Fleet.

The union has not gained anything at all. It has just lost you your staff travel for nothing. It could have negotiated and got a deal to have new crew on our fleet but it was too busy getting upset about CSD's having to do a bit of work on a flight for a change.

Of course I have emailed all my thoughts to the union but they are not interested in what their members actually want. They are too busy getting upset about crew changes ( that most crew were not upset about) and calling strikes.

So are you saying that if I don't agree with the union I cannot be a member! That's not very democratic is it. They take my money. To be honest the union must be loosing so much money because so many crew have left it. I have only remained in the union so I can vote NO to a strike.

ranger07

7th Jul 2010, 11:49

As pointed out on the other forum (thanks guys)

From Reuters

(Reuters) - British Airways will be able to guarantee all of its flights should there be any new strike action, the company's Chief Executive Willie Walsh said in an interview on Wednesday.
"If in case of a strike 100 percent of flights will, as we believe, be guaranteed, British (Airways) will not only not lose money it will end up saving," Walsh told Il Sole 24 Ore.
The days when the trade unions could ground airway companies were gone, he said.
Walsh said flight personnel costs had been cut by 45 percent. "In terms of annual savings the benefit to the company is 65 million pounds per year. For now," Walsh said.

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

And, the last paragraph from a Bloomberg report-

“If BA continues to recruit more people on different terms they’re going to have more options for being able to cover any future industrial action,” said Marshall-James’s Cook, who doesn’t advise British Airways. “The cabin crew will find almost that the world has passed them by.”
British Airways CEO Wages `War of Attrition' as Pay Vote Starts - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-06/british-airways-mounts-war-of-attrition-as-cabin-crew-votes-on-pay-offer.html)

JUAN TRIPP

7th Jul 2010, 11:51

bettygirl wrote;

BASSA are playing into Walsh's hands. If a strike happens again it is just Christmas early for Willie Walsh. He gets to get rid of more crew with the help of the courts and VCC's and will make Mixed Fleet even bigger faster. Just one example of BASSA's previous record is the current long range agreement, that was negotiated by CC89 and BASSA were against that back then but I don't think you will find any crew that are unhappy about that agreement.

Also what about the part time problems in 1993. BA wanted to bring in part time for crew as loads of us had been asking about it. Oh No said Bassa ( as usual ) what this really means is that BA wants us ALL to go part time. No said BA. who turned out to be telling the truth. They also disagreed with the small amount of crew who wanted to go onto 5/2 instead of 6/3. It meant they would be working about 5 or 6 days/year more. THESE crew just wanted to see their families more!! I think it resulted in a strike? Not sure on that one.

The following year BA wanted to introduce the crew card for allowances. Oh NO said Bassa. What this is really about said Bassa, is that BA could see we dont spend ALL of our allowances down route and will subsequently cut them dramatically! BA replied no, its just cheaper and more efficiant to administrate. Oh yes the days when we would trudge round Europe with a bagfull of marks, pesetas, lira, krone et al. The crew now would not believe it, but good old Bassa tried to stop it.

Ah yes then there's 97. All crew will be soon on new contract pay etc. Didn't happen again. Finally i won't even go into the details of the Midfleet scenario, which was once again trashed by, yes I think you know the answer by now!!

MrBunker

7th Jul 2010, 12:00

Juan,

You can do better than to be so disingenuous. The re-deployment agreement has been broadly agreed and brought into the 21st century. It's noteworthy that BA have never put a crew member in CareerLink anyway so you're not exactly giving anything up. Secondly it's not that there's no future IA allowed, more accurately that BA won't guarantee the top-up payment if there's future IA. Not quite the same thing, but then that's never been the strongest of suits of the BASSA argument has it - after all it's suited BASSA to peddle the myth that we have a no-strike clause but not to mention it only applies to a profit share agreement.

Finally, don't big yourself up. The deal on offer in June 2009 kicked this into the long grass in comparison. This current deal is markedly worse because of the IA you took in "standing up" to the "bully" (why is it only one side of this dispute that uses all the emotive language?) and not in any way, shape or form better. You're the ones who threw it all away when you could have had new fleet on the same aircraft as you, a share option and a much slower introduction of newfleet. Sad thing is, it clearly suits you as a collective to paint yourselves as some sort of crusading force for righteous morality. Even sadder thing is, it's only yourselves that have that perception of your collective. For an ever increasing number outside your department (and a strong number inside) you're just a daily, less and less funny sidebar in the history of the progression of the airline.

Fighting for the future of trades unionism in Britain? Don't make me laugh. A large number of the members of Unite hold you in nothing but contempt I'd wager not to mention those who went to work who you claim are benefitting from your "brave" actions. It's an act of mass delusion to presume you know the minds of those who worked, it's an act of mass insult to dare to tell them that they only went to work because they were too frightened and wanted you to fight for them. You big strong things you. Grow up and accept that some people just don't come to the same conclusions when given a set of data. My wife went to work because she read both sides of the deal (remember those that wear "not reading ESS" like a badge of honour, or think it's just hilarious to call senior execs in the company by playground nicknames - only one sided again, isn't it?) and decided she believed BA more than BASSA - not because she secretly hoped BASSA would win and she'd be left alone.

The lack of contemplative thought given to the alternative side of the argument by the pro-strikers leaves me breathless. It's always personal attacks, crapulent nicknames, vague unprovable assertions and a visceral dominating hatred of flight crew, who, for reasons historical (and the aforementioned lack of contemplative thought) are always top of BASSA's to-blame list. Doesn't serve your purpose as well to note the large number of Unite (remember them, fellow brethren of your mighty union?) members who volunteered to Back BA, both on the ground and in the air, does it? Meanwhile you all just crack on painting in the CEO's eyes red on posters (yes, I'm aware that was Amicus too, I strive for balance) and shouting, screaming, swearing, abusing and generally making a laughing stock of the Cabin Crew community by your increasingly juvenile actions and retorts.

Oh, and Duncan, adopt a narrative style when endeavouring to put yourself into the assumed mindset of your penny-dreadful first-person memoirs so that it at least allows a measure of possible assumption that it might, just might, not have been written by you.

As a personal PS, and one which, I fear, might see me moderated, don't assume that withdrawing your social favours from us is viewed in anyway as having a deleterious effect on the quality of my downroute time. Do you really think I want to sit at a table listening to you write the Bedfont songbook? There's plenty of good crew out there even without your self-prized company.

MrB

Juan Odeboyse

7th Jul 2010, 12:17

Intentionally blank - The Mods

Juan Odeboyse

7th Jul 2010, 12:25

Betty Girl - BF also said MF would take on new crew at market rate + 10%. Well with a starter rate of £11k that puts the market rate at £10k........can you tell me of any UK airline that has a starter rate of £10k and especially in the London area. Also £2.40 flight pay....does any airline pay less?

Maybe you can ask bill when you next have a 'chat' to explain?

JUAN TRIPP

7th Jul 2010, 12:31

Mr. Bunker. What a great post. You sum it all up perfectly IMO. I just wish someone would have a word in DH ear and tell him he should try and become a professional writer - fiction only though. As an aside if I was a Southampton fan, I'd begin to worry that as their 'official' historian ( wiki ) what in their past actually happened or not? I'm amazed he hasn't had them down as winners of the champions league at some point!!

Caribbean Boy

7th Jul 2010, 12:56

Juan Odeboyse (http://www.pprune.org/members/323404-juan-odeboyse),
BA's intention is to recruit at 10% above market rate. Maybe that's true, maybe not. But you've decided to disbelieve this in advance and want someone else to investigate this for you. I am impressed - not.

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 13:27

Juan Odeboyse said,
Be aware that what YOU now think is a better offer is only down to your colleagues standing firm against the bully walsh.
Priceless!
Juan, what took you so long to come up with that?:rolleyes:
I only mentioned that to a friend on the phone this morning, that it's only a matter of time before the strikers come on here stating the latest offer is down to them.:ugh:
Incredible!

report call sign

7th Jul 2010, 13:43

So....................
Here it is........finally the final!
Fill your boots, its your choice!
make or break..................
boom or bust................

Bill's letter to Heathrow cabin crew

Dear colleague
Your future in your hands
I promised to write to you at home with an offer for you to secure your future in BA.
We’ve been talking for some time now about the changes we need to make in IFCE to be
competitive. We have made significant progress through the introduction of Mixed Fleet and
the new crew complements at Heathrow. Regrettably, there has also been damaging strike
action by Unite.
Many of you have said to me that you want us to find a way to end the dispute and to begin to
rebuild the trust and respect of our customers and our colleagues.
I hope you will join me on that journey, which begins today.

Our offer to you
As you know, we have made a new offer to Unite and we are making it available to those of
you who are not a member of the union as an individual offer.

Before I tell you how you can sign up, I would like to point out that there are some differences
between the offers, and to explain why this is.

Both the offers include protections for your existing pay, contracts and career opportunities,
assurances about your future earnings and rises in base pay over two years alongside
incremental pay awards.

There is no pay cut and no cut in allowances.

There are changes we would like to make – for example, to the existing disruption agreement
and to some of our corporate policies – which we would like to discuss with our unions before
we go ahead. Because of this, they are not included in the individual offer but when those
changes are made, they will be introduced for everyone.

You can see both the offers in full on the intranet.

If you are NOT a member of Unite
If you are not a member of Unite, we are making an offer to you personally. By signing and
returning the form in this letter, you can accept:

..
A two year pay deal from February 2011
..
Protections for your terms and conditions, now and in the future
..
A new crew top up scheme for variable pay

All you need to do is confirm to us that you were not a member of Unite on Friday June 25,
the day we formally made the offer available, and send the signed form back to us.

If you choose to accept the offer, you are not changing any other term or condition of your
employment contract.

You’d also enjoy the benefit of any deals that may be done in the future through the normal
collective bargaining arrangement we have with Unite. So, you won’t lose out in the future by
making a personal choice now.

If you ARE a member of Unite
If you are a union member, we cannot lawfully make the same individual offer available to you
directly.

However, the collective offer we have made to your union includes exactly the same
protections with no pay cuts and assurances about your future.

If you would like the offer, you can vote to accept it when your union sends you a ballot
paper.

If you have lost your staff travel because you took strike action, voting to accept the offer
would pave the way for your staff travel to be returned once our offer is accepted and
implemented.

Staff travel is not part of the offer itself. That’s because returning your travel concessions is a
decision the company will make based on implementation of the deal. That progress will be
reviewed with the support of the Trades Union Congress.

If you are a commuter who has lost eligibility, it will be returned on the route from your home
to work as soon as our offer is accepted and signed by Unite.

What happens now
I hope you can see that we will continue to recognise and value your role.

If you are eligible for the individual offer, please sign the form and return it to us using the prepaid
envelope by Saturday July 31, 2010.

If you are not eligible for the individual offer, please make sure your union represents your
views. You cannot leave the union to accept the offer and it is only open to individuals who
were not members of Unite on Friday, June 25.

If you have any questions about what it means for you, please speak with your crew team
manager who will be happy to answer any queries you may have. We know the next few
weeks will be an important time for you and there will be lots of opportunities for you to meet
with the management team and talk this through personally. Please look out for more details
on the intranet and email.

Thank you.
Bill Francis

JUAN TRIPP

7th Jul 2010, 13:52

Yes Tiramisu, but the best thing is that they will still reject it! You couldn't make this up

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 14:04

JUAN TRIPP,
Not sure they know what they want anymore.

Report Call Sign,
I'm eligible for the offer and will be signing and posting it straight away. Thank you Bill Francis and Willie Walsh for your fair and reasonable offer and for recognising those of us who came to work to do what we're paid to do.

report call sign

7th Jul 2010, 14:13

My offer to you - Heathrow

If you are not a member of the union, I am offering you the opportunity to accept the
assurances outlined in this letter.

Pay
I can confirm that there will be no changes to your incremental pay and you will
continue to receive rises until you reach the top of the scale for your grade.

Basic Pay
I am also offering you a two year pay deal that guarantees you will receive a pay rise
in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

..
Year one 2011/12 the company will increase base pay based on December
2010 RPI and capped at 2.9%.

..
Year two 2012/13 the company will increase base pay based on December
2011 RPI and capped at 3%

Your next pay review will be from February 2013.

The new fleet
The mixed flying fleet for new crew, with separate terms and conditions and
bargaining rights will begin flying on 1 November 2010. There will be a separate
negotiating body for the new fleet, which will not discuss your terms and conditions.

Assurances for you
I know that you have some questions about what the introduction of the new fleet
means to you. To continue to demonstrate my commitment to you and to address
these questions, I am offering you the following assurances.

..
Your terms and conditions – I can assure you that your existing contractual terms
will be maintained for the future, unless amended through negotiation.

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

..
Access to route network – I intend to ensure a fair and transparent distribution of
routes to all fleets, based on commercial need.

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

..
Career structure and opportunities for current crew – The career structure for
current crew within current fleets will continue on the basis of existing practice,
unless amended through negotiation. I can confirm that where there are
opportunities available, existing crew will be promoted on existing terms and
conditions on current fleets.

..
Honouring current and future agreements –The importance of honouring
agreements is acknowledged, and the company is committed to working with
current arrangements.

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

..
Variable pay top up - To provide increased assurance in relation to security of
earnings, the company will introduce a variable pay top up. For those Heathrow
crew whose annual variable pay falls below the average earnings for their grade
and fleet in 2009/10, the company will pay a top up lump sum every year after
the launch of the new fleet. The amount to be topped up will be the difference
between the variable earnings achieved by the crew member and the average
amount for the grade and fleet, if there is a shortfall.

The average variable pay for grade and fleet will include variable pay elements
listed in appendix I. Adjustments will be made for non flying time, including unpaid
leave, sickness, line trainer duties and TU duties and activities.

The payment will be pro-rated for part-time crew.

The payment will only be made to those crew who do not participate in industrial

action.

You will have the opportunity to apply for all roles on the new fleet if you choose.
This will provide promotion opportunities for many current crew. All crew joining the
new fleet will have separate terms and conditions.

People
It is important that there is no victimisation arising from the dispute and the company
will work to ensure that any issues are settled in a mature and professional way.
Where there are disciplinary or grievance cases, it is my intention that these will be
resolved quickly. Where behaviour is found to be serious, any resulting action will be
measured and proportionate.

FINAL 25/6/10

Summary
This individual offer maintains your contractual rights at their current level. This offer,
if you choose to accept it, does not reduce or extend them from where they are
today.

This is a genuine offer made on behalf of the company. We are continuing to try and
reach a collective agreement with Unite, with whom we will continue to collectively
bargain. However, after such a long time unsuccessfully trying to reach agreement, I
have decided to make this offer directly to you so that you can move on, with
certainty and reassurance about your future with British Airways.

If you want to accept this individual offer, then please
complete the attached form, and return it in the enclosed
pre-paid envelope. Please do not return the whole
document – this is for you to keep.

FINAL 25/6/10

Appendix I – Variable pay top up

The objective of the crew top up scheme is to provide greater security of variable earnings
for current crew in Heathrow Worldwide and Heathrow Eurofleet. It is designed to mitigate
the concerns over the pace and mix of work transfer to the new ‘Mixed Fleet’. All existing
variable pay will continue to be paid as now e.g. all box payments, all back to backs,
destination payments, excess time premiums, short turnaround payments etc.

The crew variable top up scheme means that everyone at Heathrow will be paid at least the
average amount of variable pay that was earned by their grade and fleet during the 20092010
schedule, regardless of their roster. If crew were to earn less than this, the difference
will be topped up to the amounts shown below on an annual basis.

The minimum amount of variable pay shown below would be increased in line with any base
pay uplift that is applied.

The minimum variable pay full time crew would receive per annum (effective from 1St
November 2010)

FLEET
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
GRADE
CSD
Purser
Main crew
ANNUAL EQUIVALENT (£)

payments removed available on ESS

Eurofleet
Eurofleet
Eurofleet
CSD
Purser
Main crew

payments removed, available on ESS

Part time crew will receive a pro-rata amount of the above sums.

Allowances included within the minimum variable pay

Worldwide Eurofleet
Long Range Premium (LRP) /Box Payment
Back to Back (B2B)
Destination Payment (DES)
Excess Time Premium (ETP)
Long Range Diversion Payment (DIV)
Long Day Payments (LDP)
Excess Time Premium (ETP)
Base Early Report Payment (BER)
Block Payment (BLK)
Short Turnaround Payment (CAT)

The following categories of allowance will also continue to be paid in the same way as they
are today but do not form part of the crew top up scheme

Meal Allowances Daily Overseas Allowance (DOA)
Nightly Incidental Allowance (NIA) Time Away Allowance (TAA)
Line Trainer Payments Willing to Work
Rest Day Working Telephone Allowance
Exception payments from WW Disruption Language Allowance
Agreement (One Down and Zone Closure)

FINAL 25/6/10

Appendix I – Variable pay top up

Deductions from the minimum variable pay

As now variable pay flying allowances will not be paid when you carry out non flying duties. A
daily amount (1/365 of the full time amount shown) will be deducted from the annual
minimum variable pay for each non flying day from the following list.

Sickness
Trade Union Activities and duties
Line Trainer Duties (*)
Unpaid Leave
Grounded Maternity (**)
(*) Current Line Trainer payments will continue to apply
(**) Current Grounded maternity Allowance payments will continue to be made

FINAL 25/6/10

6
FINAL 25/6/10

Individual offer to non union crew

Name: ………………………………………………………………….
Staff Number …………………………………………………………………..
Fleet: …………………………………………………………………..
Grade: …………………………………………………………………..

I accept the individual offer outlined in this document and confirm that I am
not currently a member of the union, and was not on 25/6/10.

Signed: …………………………………………………………………….
Date: ……………………………………………………………………..

If you want to accept this individual offer, then please
complete this form, and return it in the enclosed pre-paid
envelope by 31/7/10.

Please do not return the whole document – this is for you
to keep.

FINAL 25/6/10

PC767

7th Jul 2010, 14:19

Caribbean Boy.

You state BA intent re the Mixed Fleet rate, yet Virgin are recruiting and offering more. BA reneging on a promise already?

Also, the top up payment is not contractual. That is the point, BA will not incorporate the payment into our contract, it remains discretional. And whilst our basis pay is contractual there are two points. First, The basic for most cabin crew is not as high as people have been led to believe. Certainly on long haul, allowances make up over half our take home pay, hence some are concerned about the 'good trips' going across without any, dare I say it, guarantee of what work we will keep. The top up payment is based on the last full financial year. But a concern which is not been answered is, if the'good trips' go over to new fleet, will the next years average allowances, (which will drop) be the basis of the following years top up.

Secondly, crew are concerned that as new fleet grows and old fleet becomes less significant, the new re-deployment agreement will come into play. (Just because no cabin crew have ever been in careerlink doesn't mean it won't happen). This provides only a year of our contractual salary being paid. Then we move onto the new rates, which currently are £12k pa for experienced crew.

report call sign

7th Jul 2010, 14:24

pc767

THERE ARE THREE MAIN ITEMS THAT ARE CONTRACTURAL

PAY
LEAVE
HOURS

A top up payment is relating to pay and is listed WITHIN the contract being offered by BA
So..........
Please explain how then, what is written within a contract, signed by both parties and is a legal binding contract witin the eyes of the law, AND concerning pay is, as you say, NOT contractual?

TOP UP IS CONTRACTURAL and WILL ALWAYS be based on 2009/10 schedule as i understand it

I would be very interested to hear your take on this
oh, and while you are at it, please could in inform me of another Blue Chip FOOTSIE 100 company that gives unlimited guarantees and promises within employment contracts....because I would like to apply immediately for a job with them!
Many thanks

fly12345

7th Jul 2010, 14:36

All Heathrow and Gatwick cabin crew have been mailed at home with individual offers and an accompanying letter from Bill this week.

This information is expected to land on your doormats from today, but can also be found here.

Bill will be responding to your questions on these individual offers and the collective offer already put to Unite, via a dedicated webchat this Friday 9 July. You will be given a chance to post your questions to him tomorrow, so please revisit the forum/Webchat section.

Bill will respond to your questions throughout Friday.

Safety Concerns

7th Jul 2010, 14:37

This individual offer maintains your contractual rights at their current level. This offer, if you choose to accept it, does not reduce or extend them from where they are today.

sorry but have I missed something here. The final offer keeps everything as it was? What was the past few months all about?

PC767

7th Jul 2010, 14:39

report call sign

7th Jul 2010, 14:41

sorry but have I missed something here. The final offer keeps everything as it was? What was the past few months all about?

maybe ask UNITE that question, they may be able to help you!

fly12345

7th Jul 2010, 14:42

Bill will be responding to your questions on these individual offers and the collective offer already put to Unite, via a dedicated webchat this Friday 9 July. You will be given a chance to post your questions to him tomorrow, so please revisit the forum/Webchat section.

Betty girl

7th Jul 2010, 14:48

Juan O . I don't personally agree with the low starting salary and I have posted about that before on this forum. I think that people will join though but be more like Virgin and only stay a while. I don't think that has got anything to do with why you went on stike though. I doubt you care what new crew earn.

MRC1972

7th Jul 2010, 14:55

You state BA intent re the Mixed Fleet rate, yet Virgin are recruiting and offering more.

Well for your information the first intake for Mixed Fleet will be handing their resignation sooner than you think...... Most EX Temps applied to Virgin when we got layed off spring 09, were successful and put on hold. A little interview and the job is ours to start training in September.

So they want crew to stick around for 2-3 years? hardly any crew are going to last 3 months. I think all of us EX temps are frustrated as we don't know if we're coming or going at the moment and would like to stay with BA but now we find it hard to see a future.

I hope WW realises mixed fleet is a big mistake.

Betty girl

7th Jul 2010, 15:24

MRC1972.

I really do feel so sorry for all you temps. I do hope whatever you choose to do you will enjoy it.

I think that the salaries are low but no one knows what the extra payments are going to be for good performance, they might improve it.

If you have already worked for BA or another airline you might be offered Crew talent and then I think your prospects might be quite good then, moving up to CSM quickly.

Anyway I am sad we will not have new crew working on our currents fleets and my own personal opinion is that it is BASSA's fault for years and years of being incredibly dificult to deal with.

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 15:31

MRC1972 said,
I think all of us EX temps are frustrated as we don't know if we're coming or going at the moment and would like to stay with BA but now we find it hard to see a future.

I hope WW realises mixed fleet is a big mistake.

Hi MRC,
Frustrating as it seems, don't forget that BA has been through one of the most prolonged industrial disputes in it's history and considering this, I think BA has done very well with all departments rallying round to keep it going.
Non of us are certain of our futures, permanent or temporary or are any other staff in BA. And the same goes for jobs in other industries.
Many of us who joined BA when I did, said we wouldn't be doing it for life, and I was a 6 months temp too. But here I am 26 plus years later, and can't imagine doing anything else and wouldn't want to either.

As for Mixed Fleet, no one knows and can say it is a mistake, we'll just have to wait and see. Whilst I understand your predicament, I think there are many out of work graduates who would be happy to do the job for 2-3 years and move on. Who knows they may even end up staying and move on to other jobs in different departments as many have done in the past. A lot of graduates will see it as a foot in the door.
As I said previously, the CSM role is an interesting and a challenging role. How about keeping your options open and applying for that instead?

ottergirl

7th Jul 2010, 15:33

MRC1972 - good luck at Virgin. The crew have a lot of fun! An ex-temp friend of mine is working for Flybe and has decided to stay with them rather than take a pay drop to apply for BA.

You are right to be cautious of New Fleet, I suspect there are going to be many changes as it grows and the fleet that we end up with 3 years down the road will be very different from the pipe-dream it is now. Strangely, there seems to have been no attempt to learn from lessons of the past when setting up the CSM role. Many of the ideas from the last 20 years have been reinvented on Mixed Fleet without the realisation that they were all scrapped as unworkable or logistically difficult to combine with flying. I'm thinking in particular of 'teams' which we flirted with in the 90's but found rostering impossible, combining flying with managing like Fleet Directors, CSD X which never even got started and not anticipating new crew will grow to be resentful about being paid less than the 'old fleets' which will damage their motivation. (It doesn't matter how many times you say "you knew the deal when you signed the contract", it's human nature to want more, ask any post 1997 crew). Could the problem be that the IFCE management team have not been around long enough to remember?

There will be changes, 23 years of jumping over 'new brooms' guarantees it!

swalesboy

7th Jul 2010, 15:51

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 15:52

Could the problem be that the IFCE management team have not been around long enough to remember?

Ottergirl,
Some of them have, as it happens.
Don't forget that the Head of Mixed Fleet, was in Mid Fleet.

ottergirl

7th Jul 2010, 16:15

Well Tiramisu, in that case she's old enough to know better!;)

Ava Hannah

7th Jul 2010, 16:23

Ava Hannah

You have been saying for a while that you would not accept the deal as one reason is that you have lost your seniority on your commuting route. Bill Francis has now said that seniority will be returned on your commuting route, so does this mean you will vote to accept the deal?

Does anyone know if the return of seniority on your commuting route was part of the last deal?

It's always a beginning but I would prefer to see that staff travel is fully reinstated without any sanctions. There are also other issues with the proposal which I have doubt of. They are route and aircraft transfers to Mixed Fleet, no strike clause and redeployment agreement.

In previous proposals, they included a matrix including what destinations would go over but that was with previous number on how many crew they would be recruiting. This number has changed to 1,250 and surely that means they would take even more destinations?

BA have said that no cabin crew has even been placed in the redeployment agreement. Should this act as an assurance? It could as easily be their way of trying to convince us to make us accept the proposal by saying that nobody has been placed in Career Link before. With Mixed Fleet and 1,250 cabin crew to be recruited standing around the corner, I'm doubtful.

HiFlyer14

7th Jul 2010, 16:44

That isn't a contract of employment, it is an agreement. The top up pay is not being incorporated into your contract of employment, which is why, should you strike it will be removed.

PC767

When you change from full-time to part-time you don't sign a whole new contract. You simply sign "an agreement" as you put it.

It is legally binding though, as they can't suddently tell you you're full time. It doesn't say on it "will last until infinity" but it does. Every one is more than happy to sign their part-time agreements - why would this be any less legally binding than a switch to part-time?

Ava

As long as there are cabin crew manning aircraft doors, and not robots or electronic switches on the flight deck, (just joking Boeing!) we cannot be put into redeployment. If the role still exists, then so do we and we cannot be got rid of simply because there is somebody cheaper and younger to do the job. Age discrimination would be a huge liability for BA - and many of us could and would simply take them to tribunal under that law.

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

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 17:05

Ava,
Just a piece of humble advice, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
It won't be there for long.

essessdeedee

7th Jul 2010, 18:14

Your role may be light years away from how it was 20 years ago, but have your earnings been decimated to where they were 20 years ago? Thats what crew are concerned about.

Can you demonstrate where the intention is to decimate crew earnings? You are being guaranteed a pay rise! for 2 years!!!! more than the rest of us have:oh:

and dont talk about losing allowances on the 'good' routes.:=

Look at the long ranges gone over the last 10 years because they don't make any money. KUL, a reduction to HKG and NRT. GIG has fewer services too.

CC need the restructure to allow BA to open up new routes, making us more profitable and securing our future!

Juan Tugoh

7th Jul 2010, 18:17

Bill Francis has now said that seniority will be returned on your commuting route

Not trying to be provacative, I am just looking for some clarification. Did BF say this on a web chat? It doesn't say it in the offer just that ST would be returned on the commuting route. If it is returned on the commuting route and this allows the ending of this dispute I am all for it.

MIDLGW

7th Jul 2010, 18:40

I just don't understand why commuters should be treated different to the rest of the crew who live near the airport. Why should they achieve staff travel back but the rest can't (at the moment anyway). Don't get me wrong, I agree with staff travel being removed for strikers, and I don't mind if it gets given back (new seniority) if there's an agreement.

People choose where they live.... (no, I don't want to hear about recruitment in various parts of Europe x amount of years ago)

swalesboy

7th Jul 2010, 18:46

Juan Togoh

This is an extract from 'report call sign' post on the previous page. I may be reading it wrong, but it sounds like seniority returning on the commuting flight.

"If you are a commuter who has lost eligibility, it will be returned on the route from your home to work as soon as our offer is accepted and signed by Unite."

spin_doctor

7th Jul 2010, 19:21

This is an extract from 'report call sign' post on the previous page. I may be reading it wrong, but it sounds like seniority returning on the commuting flight.

"If you are a commuter who has lost eligibility, it will be returned on the route from your home to work as soon as our offer is accepted and signed by Unite."

No mention of seniority there, just staff travel.

Caribbean Boy

7th Jul 2010, 19:22

PC767 (http://www.pprune.org/members/205141-pc767) wrote: Easy.

That isn't a contract of employment, it is an agreement. The top up pay is not being incorporated into your contract of employment, which is why, should you strike it will be removed.Certain agreements are incorporated into individual contracts, some are not - like the crew complements agreement which cover planning for and deployment of thousands of cabin crew.

This one says that if you strike, you lose variable top up pay. It's contractual because it's individual to the employee.

Easy.

AtlasDrawer

7th Jul 2010, 19:23

Just to pick up something:

"If you are a commuter who has lost eligibility, it will be returned on the route from your home to work as soon as our offer is accepted and signed by Unite."

What exactly does 'eligibility', mean? There is no explicit wording saying that seniority will be restored.

If I was a commuter who had lost their staff travel as a consequence of going on strike, I would want that wording clarified.

report call sign

7th Jul 2010, 19:39

Easy.

That isn't a contract of employment, it is an agreement. The top up pay is not being incorporated into your contract of employment, which is why, should you strike it will be removed.

And it isn't bad, just the points I raised need addressing. I'm not looking for unlimited guarantees and promises. Just a guaranteed framework of trips and/or trip movements between fleet which will protect future earnings. Is it now unreasonable to at least expect some say in what we earn.

Year one on old fleet will be fine. Earn bellow the average of yr 2009/10 and the company will top you up. But throughout the year box trips are moved across to new fleet. In extremis old fleet are left with Africa and India trips. That will drop the average variable payments for the year 2010/11. I would like to know now if my 2011 top up will reflect the 'new' average or the 2009/10 average. The guarantee I'm after is the detail used for future top up payments. The company may happily state that the top up will be reviewed yearly. I can then make my mind up if I like the guarantee or not. At least I know where I stand.

to answer a few of your questions with facts from the company

ALL FUTURE "top up" payments will be based on a trigger figure of 2009/10s ACTUAL flying schedule
When Current fleets get smaller and smaller and the routes get less and less, there still will remain enough "work" on those fleets for the crew on them....IE Bill francis wants to maximise your 900 hours so you are efficient and effective to the business.
Now lets say some or even alot of the high earning routes have LEFT current fleet (which will happen to reflect expansion growth and commercial requirements) you still will be working a full roster, you will still be paid the top up payent,,,,you will NEVER earn less than the trigger figure. Even if it means you have done 50 New yorks in that year and no other destinations. Unlikely, but you get my drift!
so
in answer to your question "The contract is binding and legal in the eyes of the law between you and your employer. you will both have signed it............ you can look to pick it to pieces and never choose to lay out any trust, however if thats the case i ask you this one vital question
WHAT do you actually want?

AtlasDrawer

7th Jul 2010, 19:40

Also, this commuting route thing could be open to abuse. How about I say that I commute from LAX when I don't (I just like going on holiday there). I suppose they would need proof of residency?

And also, why should one group of strikers (commuters) get an advantage over strikers who live in say Brighton, for example? It seems to put one group at an advantage over another.

AD

Abbey Road

7th Jul 2010, 20:03

"If you are a commuter who has lost eligibility, it will be returned on the route from your home to work as soon as our offer is accepted and signed by Unite." This will not include staff travel seniority. It is only, as mentioned by the company several weeks back, that ST will be returned to commuters asap, and to the rest of the strikers later in the year (October?). Seniority for strikers has been lost in toto for the time being!

AtlasDrawer

7th Jul 2010, 20:09

This will not include staff travel seniority. It is only, as mentioned by the company several weeks back, that ST will be returned to commuters asap, and to the rest of the strikers later in the year (October?). Seniority for strikers has been lost in toto for the time being!

So I suppose this is no good to Ava Hannah and the rest of the strikers?

Whats the feeling out there, amongst the strikers about this proposal? Think it will be accepted? I am not at work at the moment, so can't tell.

Juan Tugoh

7th Jul 2010, 20:15

If there is no restoration of ST DOJ for the commuter route there is precious little reason for strikers like Ava to accept this current offer. This would be a shame as it represents a missed opportunity.

dmp298

7th Jul 2010, 20:48

Just seen this on Google News. (I'm BA crew down at LGW btw - someone told me about it earlier today at Jubilee House). 100% of all flights? I get the impression that this is the last throw of the dice for Unite/BASSA because what happens when the strike can't stop one flight getting away? Interesting times and I hope this is resolved in the not too distant future.

(Reuters) - British Airways will be able to guarantee all of its flights should there be any new strike action, the company's Chief Executive Willie Walsh said in an interview on Wednesday.
"If in case of a strike 100 percent of flights will, as we believe, be guaranteed, British (Airways) will not only not lose money it will end up saving," Walsh told Il Sole 24 Ore.
The days when the trade unions could ground airway companies were gone, he said.
Walsh said flight personnel costs had been cut by 45 percent. "In terms of annual savings the benefit to the company is 65 million pounds per year. For now," Walsh said.
Walsh said the credit crunch had forced BA to cut its flight capacity by about 10 percent. "At the moment we have recouped about 1.5 percent of the lost quota," he said.

AtlasDrawer

7th Jul 2010, 20:54

I have a question - What kind of percentage is needed to accept this proposal? I cannot find anywhere what the acceptance rate (if indeed there is one) and what is the threshold for the deal to go through.

Does anyone know?

Abbey Road

7th Jul 2010, 21:05

If there is no restoration of ST DOJ for the commuter route there is precious little reason for strikers like Ava to accept this current offer.

Perhaps the offer is not intended to be attractive to people like Ava Hannah? It may be intended to make people 'self-selecting'? :hmm:

Colonel White

7th Jul 2010, 21:47

What kind of percentage is needed to accept this proposal? I cannot find anywhere what the acceptance rate (if indeed there is one) and what is the threshold for the deal to go through.

Same as it ever was. There has to be a majority of those who cast a vote . So.... if only 20% of the membership can be bothered to vote, provided at least 51% of them (i.e. just over 10% of the membership) vote to accept the offer, then the union have to accept it. This is why Unite were playing canny in the way they were setting up to ballot staff for a further bout of IA. They were planning to ballot all of LHR and only those crew in LGW who walked out. By dropping the rest of LGW, they were loading the dice in favour of a strike call. Now in theory, only those who were balloted could then go on strike, but the law is a bit hazy on this. The catch that crew would face with any strike action based on the complaints put forward by Unite for the now suspended ballot is that BA would maintain it was a continuation of the previous dispute and thus there was no protection from dismissal for any staff who subsequently walked out. It would be a swift and painless way to get rid of a number of people. It might be interesting to see how many reps suddenly take leave on strike days. Talk about lambs to the slaughter. It would be down to the dismissed staff to establish in a tribunal that the strike was not a continuation of a existing dispute, which means stumping up for some fancy lawyer and praying. Might be worth noting that BA have already intimated in a letter to Unite that they believe the ballot grievances are a continuation of the existing dispute - haven't seen Unite deny this.

Hotel Mode

7th Jul 2010, 21:57

Might be worth noting that BA have already intimated in a letter to Unite that they believe the ballot grievances are a continuation of the existing dispute - haven't seen Unite deny this.

I think that the fact that Unite arent recommending the rejection of the offer and their desire for a postal rather than internet consultation on the deal speaks volumes for the Unite lawyers view of the legality of the strike ballot.

SlideBustle

7th Jul 2010, 22:00

I think the general consensus from strikers - is this proposal is certainly not good enough.

As for non-strikers - it may be mixed - think there will be many that will sign or vote YES for it (especially non-unionised) but I think there could be some who either won't vote or will Vote NO!

There are good points of it, but some of it is very vague and with Mixed Fleet here with 1250 already, we NEED contractual agreements.

There can never be GUARANTEES in the sense ''you are guaranteed a job and salary for life'' - unfortunately BUT when people say they want guarantees I think what they mean is that when BA say ''WE INTEND TO TRANSFER WORK FAIRLY'' - they want them to guarantee that by putting a matrix of routes/and actually state very clearly an exact way they will ensure this... They could then say ''any changes in BAs route network/disposal of routes will be reviewed with UNITE at the TUC at the time'' - this will ensure if say they dropped the HKG route - then they wouldn't have UNITE balloting a strike because they took the HKG route off us - because there was this condition in there. BUT at the same time it ensures that whilst HKG IS a route at BA it won't be unfairly taken off WW and given to MF.

That's what I think people mean by guarantees. More like contractual agreements!

We are very reliant on our allowances - and they vary greatly so we do need to maintain that.

Tiramisu

7th Jul 2010, 22:14

Posted by MRC1972
Well for your information the first intake for Mixed Fleet will be handing their resignation sooner than you think...... Most EX Temps applied to Virgin when we got layed off spring 09, were successful and put on hold. A little interview and the job is ours to start training in September.

So they want crew to stick around for 2-3 years? hardly any crew are going to last 3 months. I think all of us EX temps are frustrated as we don't know if we're coming or going at the moment and would like to stay with BA but now we find it hard to see a future.

MRC1972
Are you sure Virgin will be around long term? They are trying to sell the company, and it's no secret that Singapore Airlines want to sell/reduce their 49% stake in Virgin. Long haul is dominated by the alliances - Star and Oneworld, and Virgin doesn't belong to any. I'd be careful about this if I were you. BA has its faults, but it has more chance of still being here in 5 years - and growing thanks to its links with Iberia and American don't you think?

Incidentally, a bit of a personal question having noticed your age if that's your right age, just wondered what made you start flying at such a late stage in your life.

SlideBustle

7th Jul 2010, 22:30

I agree Tiramisu,

I do think BA has more chance of being here than Virgin.

I am not sure what the allowances are like at Virgin - compared to Mixed Fleet. The basic looks more though - infact more than a few years ago when I went to a Virgin interview.

It depends really if full time long haul suits you! Personally, I like shorthaul!

Caribbean Boy

7th Jul 2010, 23:23

SlideBustle (http://www.pprune.org/members/315409-slidebustle) wrote: There can never be GUARANTEES in the sense ''you are guaranteed a job and salary for life'' - unfortunately BUT when people say they want guarantees I think what they mean is that when BA say ''WE INTEND TO TRANSFER WORK FAIRLY'' - they want them to guarantee that by putting a matrix of routes/and actually state very clearly an exact way they will ensure this... They could then say ''any changes in BAs route network/disposal of routes will be reviewed with UNITE at the TUC at the time'' - this will ensure if say they dropped the HKG route - then they wouldn't have UNITE balloting a strike because they took the HKG route off us - because there was this condition in there. BUT at the same time it ensures that whilst HKG IS a route at BA it won't be unfairly taken off WW and given to MF.BA says that its intention is to ensure a fair and transparent distribution of routes to all fleets and to deploy new aircraft based on commercial need across existing and new fleets. These are medium-term objectives. It would be ridiculous for BA to guarantee a limited transfer of routes to MF, which is what many cabin crew are after. No company in the 21st century would tie its hands with such a 1960s type of agreement so beloved by BASSA.

Ultimately, all routes will be operated by Mixed Fleet. This will take several years, unless you hasten the process by striking.

As I said, you have the luxury of time to sort out your job and career. You are indeed lucky in this respect.

SlideBustle

7th Jul 2010, 23:45

So, basically do you agree that in 15 years - even if there are some current crew left - Mixed Fleet will take over somehow?

Or do you reckon - it will be until the last person retires (which if they wait until 65 could be over 40 years!)

If it is the former, is this very fair? If BA was to start Openskies or some sort of New Fleet for pilots or maybe a new seperate group at other departments would it be expected that they should just ''accept their job is up (not redundant just given to cheaper staff) and look for something else'' - obviously jobs are made redundant and people lose their jobs, changes happen etc etc which if just the way of working life, HOWEVER to create a seperate workforce that takes work off more ''expensive'' staff is unfair.

...Goes off to plan career change! :ok:

I am not fully disagreeing with you - as you do make some VERY valid points and guarantees with jobs aren't always unfortunately given - just being devil's advocate. As you know I didn't support the strikes, but just want to see it from the point of view of strikers aswell.

MrBernoulli

8th Jul 2010, 00:04

SlideBustle, you seem to be using the word 'fair' quite a lot. BA's business isn't about 'fair', its about making money. BA will almost certainly not wait for even 15 years to start having MF take the major routes. Those routes don't 'belong' to current crew, so BA will likely switch MF to them when it suits their business plan. By that time the option will be along the lines of "If you really want to go to Narita, do you want to join MF, or stay where you are on your old Ts & Cs flying to Abuja?"

swalesboy

8th Jul 2010, 04:40

WRT staff travel seniority being returned on the commuting route, have a look at the link
http://www.pprune.org/5781206-post297.html

essessdeedee

8th Jul 2010, 06:07

We are very reliant on our allowances - and they vary greatly so we do need to maintain that.
Which makes you wonder why bassa refused to discuss an hourly rate when balpa were having similar discussions with BA 4 yrs ago. :confused:

3Greens

8th Jul 2010, 07:10

hmm and i always thought that allowances were paid for downroute living expenses :oh: and not to supplement basic wage. is it any wonder HMRC increased the tax on allowances?

ottergirl

8th Jul 2010, 08:08

Slidebustle - we can see how this will pan out by looking at GLA base. They were allowed to run down slowly until they got to the point of unsustainable. (If you remember, we were doing a lot of positioning up and down to fill in their gaps) Sooner or later, with no recruitment, it could be the end of the old fleets. The question is, "How long?"

hmm and i always thought that allowances were paid for downroute living expenses :oh: and not to supplement basic wage. is it any wonder HMRC increased the tax on allowances?

If the basic wage was not supplemented, do you suppose we would be killed in the rush to earn 11K? In London? This has always been the way an airline ensures that it only pays the crew a living wage when they are working, think of the basic pay as a retainer! HMRC have kindly turned a blind eye to this for many years and have been threatening to redress the balance. It was no surprise they came calling in the current economic climate, we've been expecting it for a long time.

Other carriers, like Emirates and Gulf provide accomodation for their staff. Some get London weighting. Easy get higher basic. Some charters get shift pay or hourly rate. We get better allowances. Simples! Not pensionable, not paid when your off sick, pregnant, on holiday, not NI taxable. Thats a deal that many employers would like their staff to buy into. I'm sure BA would prefer to pay everyone on the payroll in the same way - now that really would be a saving!

PC767

8th Jul 2010, 10:14

Thanks Betty.

Some folks fly off the handle on here! Dam, I hope they are calmer and more measured if they are pilots, or indeed anything else.

The 'tentative' talks were 'thats what we are offering - take or leave.

To clarify, I do not for one minute believe I should be paid, nor deserve the pay of a pilot. The values are vastly different but the theory could be the same.

I went to ask for clarification from Francis' web chat, of how the top up payment will be calculated beyond 2011, and whether the payment will be incorporated into my contract. I've been beaten to it, the question is already posted. I will be interested to see the answer, alot sways on this answer.

On the point of how BA wind down fleets. I'm ex regional crew, we were not left to wither on the vine. Worse, friends who stayed with BACON on the understanding that there was two years to collectively turn the business to profit. Was it six or eight months before BA reneged and sold the lot to FlyBe. Those friends and I are now at LHR and are hearing the same words used about 'old fleet'.

How can we really trust BA's intent.

SlideBustle

8th Jul 2010, 11:04

Thanks Ottergirl and PC767,

Of course - meal allowances theoretically are for downroute living expenses - but try living on 11K in London which is the starting basic! Also we get allowances for doing there and backs. Why is that if they are for downroute? Fact is, it would be very hard to survive in London on 11K... There was a recent report actually which has stated that wages in the UK are too low, like the minimum wage is etc.

I do think an hourly rate would be quite a fair way of paying it to be honest. The longer you work the more money you get. However, downroute, some destinations are more expensive than others. Also £2.10 an hour/£2.40 an hour would be a paycut!

cessnapete

8th Jul 2010, 11:07

You can't expect to 'trust BA' any longer than a future pay deal lasts, one year two year etc..

BA is run as a hopefully profit making venture, for shareholders and ALL staff, not just cc. The available pay allowance pot will vary as the financial performance varies in any given period.
In the present financial climate any agreement with a pay rise and a promise of no drop in allowances has to be good compared to staff in other depts.

BA run the airline not BASSA , and route structure, a/c allocation to 'good routes' etc is their decision not 'yours.' This would have been less of a problem with a negotiated hourly rate as per f/c. The hourly rate would have been the same as f/c. As Bettygirl says, we all eat the same. (perhaps some more than others!)

Because of the failure to negotiate it is obvious that the A380/B787 when introduced will be Mixed Fleet, could have been different perhaps, with a bit more 'give and take'

Good luck in the next few weeks.

Caribbean Boy

8th Jul 2010, 11:17

PC767 (http://www.pprune.org/members/205141-pc767),

Welcome to the real world. BA Connect was losing too much money - £1 per minute every day. So, BA sold it. Actually, it was more like a give away as BA had to pay Flybe £130m to take over BA Connect (except the LCY operation).

Even then, 15 routes got axed because, low-cost as Flybe is, these routes could never become profitable.

MIDLGW

8th Jul 2010, 12:34

I've just had the electoral reform services paperwork through, with 28 pages of "info" from unite. Strange, as I left the union quite some time ago (even had a letter a couple of days ago from unite acknowleding my lack of payments).

I was under the impression that unite was supposed to stay "neutral" in regards to this vote, by not stating their opinion? It's pretty obvious to me that there's nothing "impartial" about this paperwork. Apart from ONE page stating "the good" (out of 28 pages), it's all doom and gloom and scaremongering. Anyone with some form of business sense will have a giggle (better than crying) at some of the statements.

For those who aren't sure how to vote on this, please read the proposal from BA thouroughly (on ess, not the unite version). Put business head on and think realistically. It's obvious the offer won't get better if you vote no to this one. I'm voting yes. Not sure if this has any legal ramifications as I'm not a member. Does anyone know?

Caribbean Boy

8th Jul 2010, 13:00

MIDLGW (http://www.pprune.org/members/152323-midlgw),

The legal ramifications of invalid ballots could be an injunction brought by BA to stop a strike as the ballot was illegal as happened when crew voted even though they had left BA. However, the circumstances are different this time.

Snas

8th Jul 2010, 13:10

MIDLGW

I suggest you contact the Union to confirm that you have left. My partner is having all sorts of issues trying to get them to acknowledge the fact that she left in February currently so she can qualify for the BA offer...!

I suggest you dont return the vote however, you are either a member, or you aint...

MIDLGW

8th Jul 2010, 13:28

Thank you for the clarification, Caribbean boy. Snas, I have sent 2 letters. One when I stopped payment and another when I got 8 reminder letters in one day. The same reminder (stating I hadn't paid), same date, 8 copies sent. Not sure what else I can do? I still have these letters to show I haven't paid the union fees since I stopped payment. Also have all bank statements and payslips to prove I'm not a member.

essessdeedee

8th Jul 2010, 14:24

If you choose to accept the offer, all you need to do is return your acceptance to BA from the offer letter sent to you by BA.

Snas

8th Jul 2010, 15:01

If you choose to accept the offer, all you need to do is return your acceptance to BA from the offer letter sent to you by BA.

Unless it hasnt been sent to you as the Union still has you incorrectly listed as a member...

VSOP Fables

8th Jul 2010, 16:09

In which case, contact BA (HR and/or your manager) and send them a dated copy of your resignation from the union. Then you will be in a position to sign the BA agreement even if they haven't sent you one yet - because you can prove you had left Unite before the 25th June. If you want to, that is.

Betty girl

8th Jul 2010, 16:16

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

I am pretty sure that you could sign the BA contract if you were still in the union because it would only be your word against theirs about when you left. BA have just given this date of 25th June because legaly they are not allowed to offer inducements for us to leave the union. If they ended up going to court about the vote again, BASSA could use it against them if they hadn't said you can only sign, if you were not a member at the point the offer was mentioned, which was 25th.

MIDLGW. The union don't know it's your vote because it is enonomous. Really you shouldn't do both but who can tell that you have if you do!!!!

VSOP Fables

8th Jul 2010, 16:18

Surely if Unite accept your vote and you are NOT a member, it makes the ballot illegal????? Remember last November?

Betty girl

8th Jul 2010, 16:25

MIDLGW,
I got my union paperwork today and I had also left. Were you in AMICUS like me or BASSA. The information with mine is full of anty BA propaganda too but the letter heading is all AMICUS. I just was wondering if the BASSA info is the same.

I was suprissed because I thought they were just going to let us make our own minds up and not try and persuade us either way. Just wondering if BASSA stuff is the same.

HiFlyer14

8th Jul 2010, 16:39

BASSA have made a complete hash of everything (sorry for stating the obvious).

They have been unsuccessful in their industrial action. They have been unable to produce legal ballots. Now they are going to be unsuccessful in producing an accurate list of who is a member and who isn't.

The Professional Cabin Crew Council are urging cabin crew to act with dignity and decorum here, to rise above the immaturity that BASSA have shown, and to do what they are entitled to: ie. either accept/reject the individual offer if you were not in the Union on 25 June or vote in the Union ballot which arrived this morning if you were.

If we start playing games and voting twice etc., the numbers simply won't add up. I would imagine both sides will be asked to declare numbers of acceptance/rejections/spoilt papers etc. If the numbers don't add up then we will be back to square one as one side or the other will shout "foul play".

We must take this opportunity to cast our votes, legitimately, and to prove to BASSA once and for all that we the cabin crew community believe that this offer is reasonable and fair. It is time for all of us to put this awful conflict behind us and move on.

It's our one chance. Let's not blow it.

Betty girl

8th Jul 2010, 17:13

Highflyer. Moraly you are right people really should only either vote or sign the offer not both.

However, I don't think you need to worry about the figures not adding up because in all the previous votes so many crew have not even bothered to vote. The turnout has been so low and basically it seems that apart from people like you and me, and all the other passionate posters, mostly only NO voters vote, which is why they got such a large % vote in favour of a strike.

I know that alot of crew just stayed in to vote NO to a strike and really want to be able to accept the offer. I think you are morally right but no one in either BA or the union can be sure of the membership. The union office must be in total disaray they have barely enough staff to deal with the disaplinaries let alone their paperwork.

None of us want them to strike again and voting to accept the offer might help to stop this but signing will also help to show BA they have our backing.

So I think the only people that will suffer if someone was to vote and also sign would be the union. So don't worry too much.

Snas

8th Jul 2010, 17:33

In which case, contact BA (HR and/or your manager) and send them a dated copy of your resignation from the union.

Yup, doing all that, and more :ok:

harrypic

8th Jul 2010, 17:59

If you have received ballot papers and are not eligible to vote as your no longer a member of the union you should inform the independant auditor of the ballot ie the electrol reform services.....

stormin norman

8th Jul 2010, 18:22

I'm not sure anybody can trust UNITE

In their recent communications on pensions they state

'although it was our intension to do so ,we did not hold a consultative ballot on the pension issue for our cabin crew members within the timescale afforded to us.
We must apologise for this oversight'

I presume due to an oversight they forgot to put out the original (BA) offer to crew as well ?

Caribbean Boy

8th Jul 2010, 19:21

Strange, I'm a GMB member and somehow they found time to ballot us on the pension proposal.

52049er

8th Jul 2010, 19:52

Oversight.

Of the most important change to members T&C's in years. A change that could make the impositions of last summer pale into insignificance....and they forgot to ask you about it.

Now do you believe the sensible majority when they warn(ed) you about these..... Well you fill in the blank.

:ugh::ugh:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

the flying nunn

8th Jul 2010, 21:28

PC767

The 'tentative' talks were 'thats what we are offering - take or leave.

That is simply untrue PC767, there have been several offers from the company, each one of them worse than the last. I just don't understand how you say you voted against striking, went to work but then come and defend BASSA as if they have been right all along? What exactly is your position on this dispute?

DeThirdDefect

9th Jul 2010, 06:04

Surely if Unite accept your vote and you are NOT a member, it makes the ballot illegal????? Remember last November?
No, that law specifically covers strike ballots, not consultative ballots.
There is no legal requirement for a union to consult its members (or former members) before accepting or rejecting something offered by an employer during negotiations.
And if a union does choose to consult, they can do it in any way they deem appropriate.

WeLieInTheShadows

9th Jul 2010, 09:28

What's getting me is people ate saying the new fleet is such bad pay blah blah blah.

Well.... Big news guys.

It's the same (or even slightly more!), than LGW pay.

No strike ballots over the past 4 years over that one.

The shortsightedness of the unions over that one is truly astounding. And they wonder why LGW crew feel sold out when they are asked to LOAN money to help out get the CSD off the trolley, and why 20 or less people went on strike.

Architects of their own destruction, and protectionism at it's very worst.

I hope LHR crew wake up and see BASSA for the self serving cash cow milking fools they are.

Unions are supposed to work for all their members, not just for the minority on WWLHR.

Unfortunately it's too late now. We're all screwed. Nice one. You couldn't make it up!

ftrixiebelle

9th Jul 2010, 10:19

HiFlyer14, you say

'We must take this opportunity to cast our votes, legitimately, and to prove to BASSA once and for all that we the cabin crew community believe that this offer is reasonable and fair. It is time for all of us to put this awful conflict behind us and move on.

From this I assume that you are still a Union member?

From the strength of feeling I'm gauging amongst strikers there will not be acceptance of the 'Final Offer' As someone who has remained with the Union post 25 June (to have my voice heard and to remain part of the collective bargaining that BA is part of) I now feel seriously isolated.

I too would like to have had the chance to sign an agreement with BA and am now the most worried I've ever been about the future (and believe me I've been worried the last 19 months)!:sad:

Snas

9th Jul 2010, 11:08

My partners offer letter has arrived, despite the unions poor administration with regards to membership status...

There is a simple declaration to make regarding your union membership status on the 25/06/10.

I know at least one person that is very happy today - :) - Lets hope that many more are happy soon also, on all sides and departments.

HiFlyer14

9th Jul 2010, 11:32

My offer has arrived today - and I am more than happy to sign it.

Ftrixiebelle, no I am not a union member - I left well before Christmas as it was clear that this Union had no idea what it was doing. The Union has achieved nothing for its members, has virtually led them to financial ruin - paying full fare tickets from abroad to get to work has to be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Yet still they do nothing to try and resolve the situation for their members.

I hope that you have joined the Professional Cabin Crew Council. There are many people on there like you that are still Union members and are very worried. You can log onto our forum and hopefully gain some support from being with like-minded crew members.

We would suggest that you vote in the union ballot and then resign from the Union. What have you got to lose? I would also say - don't worry (I know it's easy for me to say). If you came to work during the strikes, that is the important thing. BA would not want to target people who crossed the picket lines. The more people that join the PCCC (it costs nothing!) the more chance we have of approaching BA for representation. If people don't sign up, then we can achieve nothing. It's down to all of us to make our voices heard, so JOIN NOW!

Everybody who wants to accept this offer owes it to themselves to join the Professional Cabin Crew Council. It is, quite literally, the only chance we have of having a reasonable, and moderate voice to collaborate with BA on the things that are important to us.

nurjio

9th Jul 2010, 13:06

The above, represents quite the most perfunctory piece of journalistic tosh I've read in a while.

vertigowerty

9th Jul 2010, 13:12

I got the offer this morning, signed it on the spot and returned it..

But I have the feeling that the brainless bassaists will reject it... and my scenario is... another strike ballot which will either be deemed illegal and it will all start from the beginning, or the strike will go on and then hopefully those militants will be jobless...

I still can't believe how some people still believe bassa... I have to congratulate them on doing such a good job in brainwashing and putting people's brains in halt...

I joined pccc as soon as it started and I think it is important for all of us to join so we can get rid of bassa asap...

Tiramisu

9th Jul 2010, 13:53

Got mine too, Vertigowerty!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Signed, sealed, delivered, I'm your's BA!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Bill Francis(Head of IFCE) in his latest web chat this morning, has said he will do everything he can to support all crew who came to work normally whether they are member of the Union or not.

Caribbean Boy

9th Jul 2010, 14:00

Did BF say what this support would be? No doubt many strike-breaking crew want support due to intimidation suffered downroute and in the CRC.

gcal

9th Jul 2010, 14:49

All this is going around and around and the business as a whole is passing it by. A small minority of the employees of the company seem to be digging their heels in.
But take stock for a moment:
The company is shrinking, just take a look at live departures from LGW to see that. So many destinations gone.
The travelling public are confused as to the situation. They were always confused as to the scale of the strike.
Competitors are forging ahead, and take a look at this:
Emirates have ordered almost 80, yep 80 A380s to bring their total of the fleet on this one type to 90. Just think about that for a moment.
Isn't it time once and for all to wrap this up?

HiFlyer14

9th Jul 2010, 15:49

Just when you thought this archaic, self-obsessed, money-grabbing union couldn't possibly wreck any more havoc, they do. In the first answer to BF's webchat today, on a question about introducing a bidding system for WW this is the reply:

We have looked at this and offered a new bidding system to Unite, but again this is not something they were interested in us pursuing on your behalf

:ugh::{:yuk:

What on earth gives them the right to act so unilaterally without an ounce of consideration for what the members want? I'm afraid if this doesn't make you see the wood for the trees, then nothing will. Unbelievable. Get out of the union now!

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

Juan Tugoh

9th Jul 2010, 17:56

We have looked at this and offered a new bidding system to Unite, but again this is not something they were interested in us pursuing on your behalf

It probably wouldn't benefit LHR WW CSDs - therefore is of no interest to BASSA.:ugh:

Right Engine

9th Jul 2010, 18:06

I'd rephrase that "It probably wouldn't benefit CSD's (who have friends in rostering and are peculiarly quite militant or BASSA reps) - therefore is of no interest to BASSA."

nurjio

9th Jul 2010, 18:53

WRT to the Emirates purchase of A380s. Emirates is a fearsome competitor.

But, remember the call from the diehards - "we don't care if the company goes bust, so long as we fight, fight, fight the bully Walsh. We are loyal, upstanding...", blah, blah, blah. on and on.

Emirates, ShmEmirates as far as they are concerned...., bring it on, let's watch BA squirm, because WE know best. WE know how to run an airline. WE are the airline. WE are the brand. WE are in control.

ottergirl

9th Jul 2010, 21:30

Caribbean Boy

9th Jul 2010, 21:51

Your basic pay, or any kind of variable pay, is contractual but can be taken away if you strike.

HiFlyer14

9th Jul 2010, 22:03

Haven't yet signed my form and sent it back because there is something on it that is worrying me. Am I right in thinking that I will forever be barred from taking part in industrial action or will forfeit the monthly cap? While I have never taken part in industrial action for the 23 years I have been here, I still think it should be an absolute right. Also, if this monthly cap is to be contractual, how can it be removed in the event of indutsrial action?

Hi Ottergirl

I think the reality is we are unlikely to ever see this Top Up Pay as we will invariably earn more than that in variable pay.

It would depend on the circumstances at the time. Just as people weighed up the odds this time about striking, they will have to do so in future. It does not take away your "right to industrial action". However, it is pretty much like the current strike situation - strike and you lose it (just like they lost staff travel). Therefore it would be for us to weigh up the odds in the future - is it better to go on strike, or is it better to hang on to our Top Up Pay?

Of course, if you have a Professional Cabin Crew Council collaborating with BA rather than a "Just say NO" union, the likelihood of future strikes probably diminishes anyway as industrial relations take on a more mature and professional approach.;)

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint.

jetset lady

10th Jul 2010, 01:08

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

Highflyer. Moraly you are right people really should only either vote or sign the offer not both.

However, I don't think you need to worry about the figures not adding up because in all the previous votes so many crew have not even bothered to vote. The turnout has been so low and basically it seems that apart from people like you and me, and all the other passionate posters, mostly only NO voters vote, which is why they got such a large % vote in favour of a strike.

Although I know where you are coming from, I can't help thinking this is on very dodgy ground, Betty Girl. As has been pointed out by Diplome over on the passenger thread...

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

Why give BASSA any possible ammunition?

Safety Concerns

10th Jul 2010, 06:25

does this vote become null and void if persons outside the bargaining unit receive the papers?

Tiramisu

10th Jul 2010, 08:54

Safety Concerns asked,
does this vote become null and void if persons outside the bargaining unit receive the papers?

I believe the vote would only become null and void should the person not in the Union, cast their vote and return the ballot paper and that ballot paper is counted. As always, happy to be corrected.
To be fair, in my view the person receiving a ballot paper would be just as guilty of foul play should they deliberately return the completed ballot paper.

Bill Francis(Head of IFCE) in his latest web chat this morning, has said he will do everything he can to support all crew who came to work normally whether they are member of the Union or not.
Caribbean Boy asked,
Did BF say what this support would be? No doubt many strike-breaking crew want support due to intimidation suffered downroute and in the CRC.

Naturally we do, and this would be and is being dealt with separately as BA adopts a zero tolerance policy on bullying and harassment.

Bill Francis said he would do everything to support crew who came to work normally, in relation to the offer which many crew who are still in the Union, would like to accept. That is my understanding of his statement.

Juan Tugoh

10th Jul 2010, 09:46

As this is a consultative ballot on the BA offer and not a strike ballot the rules are different. If BASSA inadvertently ballot people not in the union it is an irrelevance in terms of ballot invalidation, as this ballot will not lead to IA. Even if it were for IA, BASSA only need to prove that to the best of their knowledge all people balloted were union members. If you remember the previous case, it was Miss Malone's stupidity in telling people who would not be in the company when any IA happened that they were still eligible to vote that led to the ballot being illegal. Essentially this ballot is a different thing entirely.

SlideBustle

11th Jul 2010, 14:43

I think like Tiramisu has said if anyone does recieve an inadverdant paper from BASSA/UNITE then they should not return it if in the Union. Especially if they have signed the individual offer.

Ottergirl,

I understand your concerns aswell - this offer has created so many mixed feelings for me. I do think striking should absolutely be a right - sometimes strikes are unjustified but sometimes they absolutely are. Also I don't particularly like the fact they want to ''reduce our rights to be represented, and have less rights in polcies in sickness, attendance, redeployment and grievance policies'' - so does this mean that our job will be less secure (redeployment policy - especially with Mixed Fleet) or they will even be stricter with EG300 (which remember in our job we are more restricted with how fit we have got to be to fly - also flying is not the healthiest job in the world! So I do think the EG300 system is flawed as it is - to be stricter would be an insult and yes, I do know some people take the mick and don't turn up ''cos they can't be bovvered'' - but most people do try to maintain good attendance!

Also, the way the proposal has been worded is IMO very clever with the use of ''we INTEND to...'' when it comes to route distribution etc etc... Rather than a binding contractual agreement is all statements of intent... I know we can't have absolute GUARANTEES as people will say on here, but I think it is only fair we have agreements to protect what we have otherwise we might aswell just give it up now!

However there is plenty of good in it aswell - like the pay rise which is a good thing, no CR also a good thing, many areas make us better off and luckier than other workgroups with the recession. But I can't help think the Mixed Fleet is not about saving the company but getting rid of us in the long term... not fair really... and other workgroups wouldn't like it.

Of course I could be (hopefully!) wrong, and yes I do recognise we are lucky (at the moment!) We are just stuck between a rock and a hard place IMO!

midman

11th Jul 2010, 19:48

Slidebustle,

It's good to hear the concerns in the proposals that some cabin crew have, so maybe they can be clarified and concerns allayed. And it's good that they are expressed reasonably and sensibly unlike the 'vile' (great cabin crew word!) contributions often offered on CF and occasionally on here by the hard of thinking.
I do think striking should absolutely be a right - sometimes strikes are unjustified but sometimes they absolutely are. Very true, and that right to strike isn't being removed, but that if you do strike there will be the removal of a concession by BA to provide a minimum level of allowances.
Also I don't particularly like the fact they want to ''reduce our rights to be represented, and have less rights in polcies in sickness, attendance, redeployment and grievance policies'' Are you sure that's what's being suggested? I can see that the company want to regain control of the operation on a day to day basis, not having union reps decide whether flights operate (when I tell non airline people that union reps veto operational decisions by captains and managers they look at me incredulously). But I don't think there's any less representation offered in personnel matters?

... so does this mean that our job will be less secure (redeployment policy - especially with Mixed Fleet)

There seems to be a huge misconception about the redeployment agreement - we should consider ourselves lucky that we have a 52 day one, most people have none at all,just 90 days notice and a P45. 2 years guaranteed employment at current pay is not sustainable for a company in this financial position, and BA had to demonstrate to the City that its potential liabilities were being managed downwards.

Also, the way the proposal has been worded is IMO very clever with the use of ''we INTEND to...'' when it comes to route distribution etc etc... Rather than a binding contractual agreement is all statements of intent... I know we can't have absolute GUARANTEES as people will say on here, but I think it is only fair we have agreements to protect what we have otherwise we might aswell just give it up now!
I'm a bit confused, you say you realise there can't be guarantees in the way the airline allocates its work, but then you say in effect that's what you want. How would you like the wording to look? How can BA provide agreements which protect what you currently have? This is all about change which has to happen. (see everyone else's new arrangements). Bassa's over the years have always warned that acceptance of change will result in catastrophe for cabin crew - see the introduction of the Long range agreement, crew card for allowances, mid fleet, the post 97 contracts et al. - but the world carried on rotating and cabin crew weren't made redundant, or starved of allowances or made to work only on cheap routes or placed in Redeployment.

As I've said before, this dispute is all about the senior Bassa reps wanting to retain control over their department, as they have power, money and the ability to run their working lives as they see fit. They have done a great job of persuading many cabin crew that this is about the imminent demise of their jobs, which it simply isn't. BA have never acted like that and there's no reason to suggest they would have acted like Bassa suggest.

Only the costs incurred by IA from an incalcitrant Union could cause the very changes the membership fear most.

But I can't help think the Mixed Fleet is not about saving the company but getting rid of us in the long term... not fair really... and other workgroups wouldn't like it.

BA have never suggested that they want to get rid of you - they want new cabin crew to be on cheaper, more flexible contracts and that the industrial environment they operate in is one more representative of the 21st century, and not a 1970s socialist agenda.

jockmctavish

12th Jul 2010, 09:23

I am a current member of Amicus/Unite and have, correctly, been sent the latest consultative ballot. However I have also been sent the offer to sign by BA.

I did think about this before they arrived and as I pay by union subscriptions by direct debit from my bank account, wondered how the company could exclude me from the offer as they effectively had no way of knowing whether or not I was in a union.

I then thought that they might have been given a list of all crew being balloted for industrial action, as part of the legal framework, and might be able to exclude me using that. However, that hasn't happened.

It seems like the whole process is a bit of a shambles!

Betty girl

12th Jul 2010, 09:51

Jockmctavish.

Every crew member got the offer. You are asked to sign a declaration that you were not in the union on 25 June if you want to sign it.

He is sending it to every one for two reasons:-

1) He does not know who is or is not in the union and could not rely on the union to know either.

2) He wants to make sure we all get a copy of the agreement whether we are entitled to sign it or not. If you can't sign it because you are a union member he want you to put pressure on the union to accept it by voting yes in their ballot.

Abbey Road

12th Jul 2010, 10:54

Whether Betty girl meant to or not, her reply to jockmctavish illustrates precisely one of the fundamental problems of this entire saga - the majority of Unite members have chosen to only read what (drivel) has been fed to them by Unite, resulting in them not knowing the specific detail of offers, past and present, by BA!

The current offer has been sent to all cabin crew in an attempt to circumvent the pathetic spin, filtering and outright untruths that BASSA and Unite wish to perpetuate. However, unfortunately, a large proportion of the BASSAmentalists will almost certainly still not read BA's offer in any detail because it differs so hugely from the fantasy world that they have 'built' around themselves. Nevertheless, there has been a noticeable reduction in the reactions of the noisy "no, no, no" group which appears to indicate that somewhere, somehow, the message may be getting through. And the message is that the water rising around them could actually mean that the 'Unite Cruise Lines' ship, 'HMSS BASSA', is sinking with all hands. :hmm:

Man the lifeboats! Er ..... what lifeboats ......oh, thats right, they were sold off to keep BASSAmentalists in the posh cabins ........bugger.

Colonel White

12th Jul 2010, 11:04

I'm puzzled by the hesitancy by some crew on the deal offered by BA.

Let me explain. As a fellow BA employee, I can see it offers a pay deal that I and my colleagues would fall over for. Now, accepting that management will want something in return, have a look at what it is. The top up on allowances to the average figure is dependant on the employee not going on strike. So in essence it's a bit like what they've done with staff travel.

Now, is it such a lousy deal ? It doesn't remove the right to strike. It doesn't mean that staff won't get paid. In fact let's work the numbers a bit. Assume you've been doing some high value triips and it's now three quarters of the way through the year. The union calls a strike. You have earned more than the average in additional payments, so you wouldn't get the top up anyway, so you have nothing to lose (except the pay for the period you are not working) If you were on the average, you probably wouldn't get the top up either, so you have nothing to lose by striking (again, except for loss of pay). If you were below the average, then clearly you would be out of pocket if you walked out, however, I would suggest that you might be tempted to work normally in a bid to recoup the lack of additional payments.

Put the notion of guarantees of routes to one side. New Fleet is a reality, Unite had the opportunity to influence it but didn't take it. Rejecting this pay deal will not remove New Fleet, in fact any strike action now is more likely to hasten its expansion. Looking at the language coming from the management side, my reading is that BA won't put another offer on the table. It's this one or none at all. Track back on the previous offers. they've been getting successively poorer. Why ? Because the company has to recoup on the costs of the action by crew.

Time to take the deal, regroup and negotiate. Time also to get some decent union representation. According to BASSA, of the nine people on the BASSA council, two have been dismissed and four have been charged with gross misconduct - which usually means sackable. That should leave space for some new blood that better matches the members views.