British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only) [Archive] - Page 8

Betty girl

6th Aug 2010, 11:20

Hot Wings,

As you have not worked in BA cabin crew recruitment I do not feel you actually have the knowledge or experience to back up your comments.

I however have been a cabin crew selector.

I can assure you that the selection process for temp crew and perminent crew is exactly the same. Sometimes temp crew are made perminent straight after their temp contract and obviously their track record would be taken into consideration but sometimes they are let go of, it all depends on how many crew are required at that time.

These temp crew have just had the misfortune to join BA at a turbulent time and the processes that have been put in place have disadvantaged them.

BA got crew to apply for the 767 fleet back in the early 90's also when that fleet first started. Crew wanting to become part of that fleet which was later remammed MIdfleet also had to apply and have an interview. So none of this is new. For anyone who was not around then Midfleet was also mixed flying and also worked to slightly different agreements but was later dispanded in the late 90's. My point is that BA always interview for new projects because they do want to make sure they get crew that are commited to making it work.

All this has nothing to do with current temp staff not being up to the required standard. It is all happening because BA has put in an interview system for crew joining New Fleet. This system requires crew to give examples on their application of when they have given excelent customer service because you are right that they do want totally dedicated crew only to be working on this new fleet and that is because they want to create an ethos on this fleet from the start.

Many current crew will get into this new fleet and many will not and even more will not actually want to because of the low wage difference. Some will get CSM but many will not.

These temps will have found it hard to give the required examples on the application form, so many will not have got an interview and I do feel sorry for them. You making out you know why they did not get in and assuming it is because they are substandard along with all other crew on WW and EF is completely wrong.

Maybe you should read back the many posts on here that disagree with you from both pilots and cabin crew and also reread your own unpleasant posts and accept that your assumptions are incorrect. Maybe while you are there you might apologise for the way you have handled the feelings of the young temps who have been through sh*t for the last few months and only want to work for BA and have just had the bad luck to join during this completely useless industrial action. I doubt that though.

swalesboy

6th Aug 2010, 11:44

This whole page of debate has been sparked by one temps post pointing out that were not being taken on full time. Maybe, and I will point out that I don't know this person from Adam, that they just were not good enough. I'm sure there are plenty of temp crew who were taken on full time.

Betty girl

6th Aug 2010, 11:54

You are right Swalesboy. Some will have got interviews and some will not, some permanent crew will get interviews and some will not.

Also many will fail the interview and some will pass.

I think alot of people have just felt sorry for this temp because he/she was obviously keen and the way the hold pool crew got an interview without having to do an application made him/her feel hard done by.

Then to top it all off Hot Wings added in some unpleasant assumptions and comments about why the temps did not get an interview which has insenced alot of good, hardworking, non-striking crew and other pilots who have met good temp crew for that matter.

TightSlot

6th Aug 2010, 12:32

That seems pretty clear... May we move on now please?

WelcomeAboard

6th Aug 2010, 13:02

That seems pretty clear... May we move on now please?

To me that statement sums up the last 18 months or so! :rolleyes:

Islay malt

6th Aug 2010, 13:20

Having followed this forum with interest for the last few months it is clear that there are many informed people who contribute.
I would be interested to know if anybody can give me a break down of where the £16.38 BASSA contributions go to. UNITE, the Labour party, the branch secretary??

Timothy Claypole

6th Aug 2010, 21:32

I believe some of the union contributions go to the reps who make a tidy income from them.

Were anyone in doubt about the degree of implosion within BASSA, tonight they have resorted to naming and shaming on their website, disclosing the real names behind the pseudonyms who have the audacity to criticise Duncan Holley and his clique.

The beast consumes itself.

LD12986

6th Aug 2010, 21:52

Duncan, If you can't take it, don't dish it out in the first place.

Caribbean Boy

6th Aug 2010, 22:03

I heard that for every £15 paid to Unite, £9 goes to BASSA.

Litebulbs

6th Aug 2010, 22:25

I heard that another rep has been suspended.

strikemaster82

6th Aug 2010, 22:58

I don't think this is thread creep, a few people have commented on the comparison between BASSA and a cult (of the mind control type): here are some fascinating excerpts from How Cults Work (http://www.cultwatch.com/hcwindex.html).(a website setting out guidance on how to recognise if you're in a cult...Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true...Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true....Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history.

Character assassination is listed as a sure sign of a cult, as is threat of open debate.

Witness the alleged flaming/attacking of alternate views (on here - the long-suffering mods know all too well- also crewforum etc, also the fact that many BASSA members ignore all company communications, etc

I am convinced that once this is over, the psychologists will have a field day and it will be shown that BASSA in the form we have seen it is actually an example of a mind control cult and this whole thing is about power and control. :ooh:

64K

6th Aug 2010, 23:44

Another Bassa cock up then about the window blinds. For those who haven't seen Unite's 'letter of repudiation':

Our ref: IA/BA’10/100805.REP
5 August 2010
Dear Colleague
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC
This Notice is given in accordance with the requirements imposed upon the Union by the
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Only the Executive Council
can authorise industrial action and it can only do so after a secret postal ballot.
On 2 August 2010 a posting was published on the BASSA website entitled ‘Closing Window
Blinds at the End of Your Flight’. The posting asked cabin crew not to agree to close the
window blinds at the end of each flight. This posting could be taken as a call to take
industrial action. Cabin crew should ignore this posting and should close the window blinds
at the end of each flight as instructed and work normally.
The Executive Council has not authorised any industrial action by Unite the Union members
employed by the above company and this Notice relates to all and any calls, or threats of,
such action.
On Thursday, 5 August 2010 the Executive Council repudiates all and any calls for, or
threats of, such action and is obliged by statute to give notice of that repudiation in the
following terms:
"Your Union has repudiated the call (or calls) for industrial action to which this Notice relates
and will give no support to unofficial industrial action taken in response to it (or them). If you
are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of
unfair dismissal."
If you fail to work normally, you will be taking part in unofficial action. Members who are
dismissed while taking part in unofficial action will not be able to apply to an Employment
Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal and nor will the Union be able to take any action in
support of their re-engagement.
If members wish to take industrial action at any time in the future they should only do so
when the action has been authorised by the Executive Council following a secret postal
ballot.
Yours fraternally
DEREK SIMPSON TONY WOODLEY
Joint General Secretary Joint General Secretary

report call sign

7th Aug 2010, 06:19

BASSA yet again seem to go ahead with ideas of their own on a complete tangent from the mother ship UNITE
When will the (remaining) members (as their formidable leader Mr Holley puts it)
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
Or maybe they are also too busy feeding their tomatoes!

Pornpants1

7th Aug 2010, 07:49

LB said

I heard that another rep has been suspended.

You are correct, I believe its the person who took a very active role in the verbal assault on the Aurora Hotel on the bath road during one of the BASSA "marches"

cessnapete

7th Aug 2010, 10:21

With all the SKY News footage available should be no problem to sort out the people who took part in that episode.
A disgrace to BA and their fellow crew members.

HiFlyer14

7th Aug 2010, 10:56

Bassa per se is not bad. A change of leadership is required.

I agree PC767, with the highlighted bit at least. I would say that you're preaching to the converted on this forum.:)

As you are still a BASSA member, have you posted that on the BASSA forum as well?

What steps, as a current member, have you taken to get the leadership changed?

demomonkey

7th Aug 2010, 11:22

Bassa per se is not bad. A change of leadership is required.

I think that many people would have agreed with that statement now or at some prior point. However BASSA membership has not shown any collective wish to seek a new leadership and if anything those members who are disconcerted with their union have withdrawn their membership.

BASSA seems to be on a one-way mission to paint itself into a corner from which no one can reach it including other UNITE branches, UNITE leadership, non-militant members and certainly not WW/BF.

So what else can people do apart from vote with their feet? That's why the PCCC was formed and far from being a 'closeted paper tiger' I think if you did your research you would realise that it is a very well connected and highly organised outfit.

PC767

7th Aug 2010, 14:19

I have made my views known and naturally I was shot down by the Bassa forum regulars, much the same way I am here when I state that Walsh is wrong. Neither site is really representative of either the 9000+ Bassa members nor the 40000+ Ba staff though. Both sites are frequented by opposing hardcore individuals.

How are PCCC well connected. Would that be to BA as rumoured?

Another rep has been suspended. Nicky Marcus for an alleged offence of "interfering in the employment relationship between British
Airways and its employees". That is a quote from the Bassa website of a quote uncited. I believe, in any case, that this is one responsibility of a union, in particular when a company and its employees are in dispute. It really should be clear that Walsh is antagonising the union and its members. There can be no chance of peace breaking out with such strong handed actions. Walsh certainly isn't engaging with his cabin crew and winning them round.

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 14:43

ranger07

7th Aug 2010, 14:57

The fact that another BASSA rep has been suspended shows that BA is still pursuing its policy of union busting

If 'Union Busting' means the destruction of 'a Union' that is intransigent, militant to the point where all other employess can 'go hang', refuses to accept change, puerile, ETC ETC..

THEN BRING IT ON!!

Look how much he has cost BA and as far as Walsh is concerned, the fight goes on!! Does he not know when he is beaten?

He certainly is not beaten. The board are on side, the share holders are on side, and most of the staff are on side. Staff like myself that are sick to the back teeth of BASSA and expect us to carry on taking the hit.

NO MORE!

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 15:28

PTC a temp who "Backed BA" during the strike, has just had his/her reward from Willie.....you are not good enough for Mixed Fleet. This is a page out of O'Leary's book: " crew are like lemons, squeeze them and then throw them away".

PTC I have some advice for you, join the PCCC and see how much they will do for you.

Of course most of the VCC wouldn't pass the MF interview. And they may not even have a job to go back to!! You couldn't make it up.

strikemaster82

7th Aug 2010, 15:49

HV, I assume you are the latest incarnation? :ok:

The fact that Walsh took to ACAS BA figures showing nearly 5,000 crew went on strike, is a huge admission of failure. The real number is over 7,000.

So what is the failure supposed to be? The fact that 5000 struck, or what exactly? (I don't expect an answer)

Do you feel that BA would provide false figures (from payroll I expect) to ACAS? (Once again I expect no answer)

MrBunker

7th Aug 2010, 15:53

The fact that another BASSA rep has been suspended shows that BA is still pursuing its policy of union busting.

We shall see how selective BA can afford to be with recruits for the Mixed Fleet being paid £11,000 plus £2.40 an hour. Somehow I feel these applicants will be the product of people who married their first cousins.

The fact that Walsh took to ACAS BA figures showing nearly 5,000 crew went on strike, is a huge admission of failure. The real number is over 7,000. He thought just a few hundred might take the plunge, but he miscalculated and his strategy of union busting has failed.

Look how much he has cost BA and as far as Walsh is concerned, the fight goes on!! Does he not know when he is beaten?

You no more know the 7000 figure to be verifiably true than you do the 5000. You are merely electing to believe the BASSA figures and disbelieve the BA ones. There currently exists no independently verified evidence in the public domain to assess the veracity of either claim. The fact that BA were willing for ACAS to assess their numbers suggests they'd be confident in their assessment and, given BASSA's statements of desire to have ACAS involved in other parts of the dispute would suggest that BASSA would trust any assessment so made by them.

You cannot prove 7,000 any more than anyone outside the 2 parties involved can disprove it and thus your post comes across as little more than rhetoric once again.

As for knowing when one is beaten, again a very subjective assessment. We'll only know who was beaten when this is over and we look back.

MrB

mjc507

7th Aug 2010, 15:53

"Walsh certainly isn't engaging with his cabin crew and winning them round."

Actually, PC767, BASSA and many BA cabin crew aren't engaging with Walsh and winning the rest of the company round. It isn't for Walsh to placate BA CC but the other way round. Walsh, whether you like it or not, is the boss and you and everyone else who works for BA are to do what you are told by him or leave. Dead simple!

"PTC a temp who "Backed BA" during the strike, has just had his/her reward from Willie.....you are not good enough for Mixed Fleet."

Well Hector Vector, many current BA cabin crew are not good enough for Mixed Fleet either. Perhaps this new lot will actually do what they are told to do and help this company survive. When some CC say that they would rather see BA go under rather for Walsh to "win" then there certainly needs to be a more rigorous process to hire crew instead of prima donnas.

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 16:03

malcolmf

7th Aug 2010, 16:05

I would be inclined to believe BA's figures, as they will be based on verifiable checkin data, reduced by those who are actually sick. The offer to ACAS to verify shows a high level of confidence.
BASSA don't even know how many members they have, crew have been too scared to communicate with BASSA that they are resigning and are simply stopping their payroll deductions. This is why many received ballot papers when they shouldn't have.
They may have received 7000 claims for strike pay, but there will be many multiple claims for different periods.
Can anyone produce verifiable rather than anecdotal evidence that BA have lied during this dispute?

MrBunker

7th Aug 2010, 16:07

There is no sympathy for the Temps from Mainline crew. They have tried to mob us out of our jobs and now they are rewarded by a ruthless management. They were good enough to get Willie through a strike, but not good enough to earn only £11,000 a year plus £2.40. I think BA have done crew like PTC a favour. Go find yourselves a better job outside of the aviation industry. There is no future in BA anymore, no promotion, no pension, no job security, BA has become a pariah employer.

Perhaps the Temps can have a bit of empathy for what it is like to be on the receiving end of this current LT in BA.

Our jobs? Didn't you refer to your wife as the BA cabin crew member in your initial postings? Either I'm misreading your autobiography such as it exists on here or your cover story is slipping.

Pariah employer? Hmm, well time will tell I guess when MF recruitment gets into full swing. If your assertion is correct then we won't be able to get the staff. Of course, if we do, then you may just have to reassess your position on that one.

MrB

Juan Tugoh

7th Aug 2010, 16:11

There is no future in BA anymore, no promotion, no pension, no job security.

And yet there have not been mass resignations, perhaps the reality is that this is quite a good job and that to get one with similar remuneration and conditions is beyond what is actually achievable in this economic crisis.
Whatever the reality is, it does seem to be a long way from BASSAland.

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 16:12

Malcolm. How do you prove BA is lying?

Does anyone believe the veracity of Walsh anymore? This is the man only 12 months ago said BA had "only six months to survive"? Was that true?

Was it also true when Walsh said that "BA was in a fight for its survival"?

In hindsight, Walsh has tried to bully and browbeat employees into taking pay cuts like the pilots, though the company would now be in profit if it wasn't for the ongoing cabin crew dispute.

It is time for a change of CEO. History will show Walsh to be a failure as CEO; a destructive and divisive leader who ruined a great company.

Sorry Juan, I should have labelled that no future comment with Mixed Fleet. No future at all on that contract.

Flap62

7th Aug 2010, 16:25

Come on Hector, answer the man! You originally stated that your wife was cabin crew and now you state it's your job at risk.

If you're going to come on here as a BASSA stooge, at least try to put a bit of effort into it!

If your entire persona is a fake why on earth should anyone listen to a word you say?

ranger07

7th Aug 2010, 16:26

Does anyone believe the veracity of Walsh anymore? This is the man only 12 months ago said BA had "only six months to survive"? Was that true?

Who knows? I and many, many of my colleagues, in fact, all EXCEPT a 'certain group' of employees, took drastic change with regards to working practises, even to the point of working for 'free'!

Then of course, much of it was 'undone, by a 'group of employees' that felt that they should be exempt from change. So, again, who knows how much 'we' contributed financially. Probably quite significantly.

And you guys wonder why there are so many VCC's.

LD12986

7th Aug 2010, 16:28

Of course most of the VCC wouldn't pass the MF interview. And they may not even have a job to go back to!! You couldn't make it up.

This has been done to death. VCC are not rendering their existing roles redundant by becoming VCC. It has always been made clear that they are just volunteer crews. Projects have been put on hold/delayed and people are working overtime to cover for VCC.

The only workgroup to have demonstrated that the airline can keep going without them are cabin crew.

Look how much he has cost BA and as far as Walsh is concerned, the fight goes on!!

Except it doesn't.

The merest hint of any unofficial industrial action will be kicked into touch by Unite's lawyers. Witness the highly embarrasing public rebuke for BASSA by the Joint General Secretaries of Unite over closing window blinds (the clear, unequivocal advice, free of any rhetoric and sabre-rattling has Unite's legal advice written all over it):

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/100805.BA.Repudiation.pdf

As for industrial action, there is absolutely no hope of BASSA managing to conduct a legal ballot for any further action.

The chances of BASSA managing to identify an entirely new set of issues for a further ballot, get a decent mandate for industrial action, not mess up the administration of the ballot, and not shoot themselves in the foot by linking the strike ballot to the previous dispute in any official communications, internet posts etc are zero.

Hotel Mode

7th Aug 2010, 16:57

If you havent the time to read this then the 1 line translation is "We havent got a clue what to do now"

EASY TO READ VERSION OF WHERE WE ARE
Aug 7th, 2010 by admin

Alternate “Easy to read” version of where we are.

As Oscar Wilde once wisely said, “the one thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about,” so, to that end, our “Walsh’s Waterloo” article served its purpose and certainly got people talking.

Some members loved the ironic metaphor, others lapsed into Daily Mail-esque moral outrage by trying to read hidden messages into ABBA lyrics. We simply tried to spell out, as best we could, where as crew we are and the tactics we now need to adopt to survive - evidently with some of the feedback we got, some of you didn’t quite get it!

So here are the points again, this time a little more bluntly.

Unite leadership met with Willie Walsh on Monday, the meeting lasted an hour or so; ACAS had to persuade him to attend, he is not interested in reaching a fair deal, he believes UNITE should simply accept the deal that you just voted to reject, or threatened the next one will be worse.

No more meetings have been requested or scheduled.

British Airways CEO is simply not interested in a different deal, he prefers a strike and he wants it right now - as soon as possible. Why? He has a glut of strike breaking volunteers to use up from all around this airline, they are sitting in hotels doing nothing, waiting, and if we don’t strike, they will keep waiting. If we strike and he operates a 100% of services, he remains the Daily Mail’s Union-busting poster boy and he sails off to Iberia the corporate hero.

We, as crew and as a union would be destroyed with no way back. We are not willing to put you into an obvious trap of his making. Currently, he also does not have a solution and he won’t get one unless it’s fair; but he can’t go to Iberia as the hero without one.

There lies his dilemma, the dispute needs to be resolved, he will do this either by crushing all opposition to his plans and then simply impose, or he will have a bout of common sense and reach an agreement that people will accept. If he does not, he will get his strike, but not necessarily at a time that is so convenient for him. Make sense?

So what do we do as crew? We wait and continue to demand a fair solution, not forever but until the time is right. It will require resolve and determination to do so but if we stick together and remain strong, we will prevail and achieve the security we need.

There are no forums where managers openly criticise British Airways leadership, or indeed Willie Walsh, or Bill Francis et al; ask yourselves why? We have an open forum where all opinion is welcome but also be aware, it’s double edged. Your managers read it every single day, they analyse and thrive on every negative comment; any disillusionment simply plays into their hands.

We need to be strong, brave and keep our determination; with belief, the parallels were that you can’t suppress your own people forever and that even an outnumbered army will triumph against a superior force if it refuses to surrender.

If people get squeamish over using military analogies, then people please wake up! Mr Walsh has been waging a ruthless “Anti Union War” for the past two years, its hard not to draw comparisons, Nicky Marcus Worldwide rep was suspended last night over an incident that arose from a disciplinary she is doing for a member - we are literally in a “battle” for our working lives.

Mr Walsh wants one glorious big battle that he wins and to the victor goes the spoils of war, we instead need to keep fighting but differently over a longer period, hence the Vietnam analogy.

New mixed fleet is already being recruited. It starts soon, very soon. People are applying from outside and from all over BA, even a number of current crew. They must all end their current contract and be reemployed on a new, very different contract.

This Fleet is where British Airways believes the future is. Not with you. They are calling them the “cr�me de la cr�me of crew”; that’s why you cannot transfer, you must “apply” to ensure you buy into the new culture; they will be kept completely separate from current crew so that they do not learn your culture. They will even be trained by external trainers and will not mix with you. Believe it or not, they will also - no doubt as a provocative stance - wear the uniform hat, to identify them as “different” - better if you like, than you.

The roles, working practices and aggressive performance management you will have to work to on this fleet will bear no resemblance to anything you have known.

Extra mock-ups are being built at Cranebank; they want to be able to process up to 2000 new crew per year. Do the maths and work out how long you could have left in a job that you recognise.

Mr Walsh has all but destroyed the union. Whether it’s window blinds, new crewing levels or less rest, who in the future is going to question it? Who are people going to complain to when things go wrong? The union? If things don’t change then it’s already too late. The office has long gone, reps are being routinely sacked, the union only exists within ourselves now, its structure has been dismantled.

When we needed peoples’ help, too many turned their backs and walked away - if they hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here now.

Crew colleagues broke the strike because they thought that life is just going to carry on as before; it’s not. One day in the not too distant future, they will wake up and realise that they have been had. They may well have “backed BA” but as a result, our management will have backed us ALL into a corner - by then, it will be way too late.

Now please, spare 5 minutes and re-read the article that we sent you, it’s all there, as is what we need to do to prevent this happening; you just need to open your mind a little to see it, ABBA lyrics were not meant to be taken literally they were a parody of Walsh’s desire for his own personal “Waterloo”. Criticism from some simply means that our strategies have to be continually made public; BA must laugh themselves to sleep, that we constantly and so publicly do this. Perhaps Mr Walsh will reciprocate and publish his plans and strategy in the cabin crew news.

Mama mia..

Please keep strong, have faith in us and stay as one!

malcolmf

7th Aug 2010, 17:03

This is the man only 12 months ago said BA had "only six months to survive"? Was that true?
I don't think any of us will know what would have happened if the crew reductions and cost savings hadn't kicked in. Would the city have continued to support BA with cash? The judgement of my union was that there was a need for concessions after they looked at the books, I have to trust them on that.
We still aren't out of the woods yet, we're facing massive competition from lower cost longhaul operators with far more up to date equipment, and highly aggressive shorthaul competitors. We are also severely restrained by LHR. Take a look at what is happening in Istanbul, a brand new airport that can launch modern aircraft non stop anywhere on the planet. Not to mention Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.
Although the loads are good at the moment all we need is a second dip in the recession and we're back in trouble.
We have to become more efficient or we really won't survive.
The thing that saddens us is that BASSA didn't seem to accept any of that and thought that things would just go on like the old days for ever. The last offer is good, accept it and let's get on with the real battle. Perhaps in 6 months time the mood of the rest of the company will be more inclined towards letting the strikers have ST back for more than just commuting.

LD12986

7th Aug 2010, 17:11

When we needed peoples’ help, too many turned their backs and walked away - if they hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here now.

But we were told 7,000 cabin crew supported the strike.

BASSA is pleading for help - but without saying what it is they need.

Time for BASSA to admit they've lost. They made a catastrophic misjudgement. They picked the wrong battle at the wrong time. They massively underestimated the strength of their opponent (not Willie Walsh, but the whole company).

They have done nothing but make matters demonstrably worse for their members. They have lost earnings and staff travel, relationships with colleagues have been damaged and will take years to repair (if at all). Better offers from BA are now a distant memory.

Accept the offer and start to do your bit to rebuild relations with the company and other workgroups.

Then you might have a fighting chance of getting staff travel back.

Juan Tugoh

7th Aug 2010, 17:16

The latest from BASSA all but admits they have lost

When we needed peoples’ help, too many turned their backs and walked away
Mr Walsh has all but destroyed the union
the union only exists within ourselves now

Contrast this "official" BASSA message with some of the still deluded masses

Look how much he has cost BA and as far as Walsh is concerned, the fight goes on!! Does he not know when he is beaten?

BASSA all but admit it is over as they have been unable to rally sufficient support for their ill fated action, it is only the diehard BASSAmentalists that have not understood this message.

I'm guessing that UNITE have told the leaders of BASSA that it is over and they are now starting the spin in an attempt to walk away from this with some small remnant of their dignity still intact.

In a year from now no-one will remember DH and LM except as those idiots who let BASSA self-destruct.

MrBunker

7th Aug 2010, 17:21

To be fair to BASSA, bar the odd reference or two to other events/songs and a little hyperbolic prose, that's one of their better communications. I would have had a great deal more respect for their conduct of the dispute had they presented themselves like that more often and steered away with from the frenzy-inducing hysteria so prevalent in their official releases.

MrB

Caribbean Boy

7th Aug 2010, 17:42

He has a glut of strike breaking volunteers to use up from all around this airline, they are sitting in hotels doing nothing, waiting, and if we don’t strike, they will keep waiting.
Actually, that's news to the VCC who have been back at work for two months.

If we strike and he operates a 100% of services
Duncan, how is this possible when you have 7,000 strikers?

Boondocker

7th Aug 2010, 20:02

LD12986:

The merest hint of any unofficial industrial action will be kicked into touch by Unite's lawyers. Witness the highly embarrasing public rebuke for BASSA by the Joint General Secretaries of Unite over closing window blinds (the clear, unequivocal advice, free of any rhetoric and sabre-rattling has Unite's legal advice written all over it):

As for industrial action, there is absolutely no hope of BASSA managing to conduct a legal ballot for any further action.

The chances of BASSA managing to identify an entirely new set of issues for a further ballot, get a decent mandate for industrial action, not mess up the administration of the ballot, and not shoot themselves in the foot by linking the strike ballot to the previous dispute in any official communications, internet posts etc are zero.

IMO, this where we are. I am resigning my BASSA membership immediately. It may give me the chance of accepting the current offer should it be made available again formally. However, it does not change the fact that the offer is not, IMO, magnanimous or generous as has been previously described. It is quite simply as good as it is going to get.

Missyminx

7th Aug 2010, 20:22

Hector Vector.
BA wishes to create a new ethos amongst future crew; they want to ensure that - as far as possible – they have the right people for the job.(As they have always tried to do with considerable success - there are but a few who let us down, even in these adverse times). The fact that YOU think the salary in not commensurate, is irrelevant; there will be PLENTY of talented, enthusiastic, customer service- orientated individuals out there who will be more than willing to take up the job, if offered. In the job market I knew previously, people who had done a great job were not automatically ‘rewarded’ by being kept on in that job - nor were they necessarily successful after applying for the same job on a permanent basis. It was all dependent upon the requirements of the authority at that time. Hard cheese, I know, but that’s life. People were naturally disappointed, but not bitter. IT WAS NOTHING PERSONAL. Additionally, how many more times does it need to be reiterated, this is not a personal vendetta by Mr Walsh to bust the Union, (although if that WERE to be the case, I think he could be forgiven in this instance, given the utter mess the union has brought about!). It is simply a process to attempt to bring the IFCE cost base down in order for us to compete into the future, whilst, in my view, trying to offer a modicum of security, at least for the next couple of years (which is more than most businesses would do) for those of us who have been accustomed to relatively comfortable conditions and remuneration. Please don’t retort with “the union have provided these” – they were provided by our employer BA – possibly protected by the union IN MORE PROSPEROUS TIMES. The world has since changed; BA is having to adapt now, and so must the Union - if they are serious about maintaining a role in the future at this airline.

P-T-Gamekeeper

7th Aug 2010, 21:02

Boondocker

I think your appraisal is spot on. Sadly, that should have been written by a responsible union 18 months ago, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

giza

7th Aug 2010, 21:11

Of course most of the VCC wouldn't pass the MF interview. And they may not even have a job to go back to!! You couldn't make it up.

Hector, I am not sure how many VCC would want to apply for MF, but however on what grounds do you think they would not pass the MF interview, most I have meet are articulate, intellegent, level headed and hard working, probably just what BA are looking for and stand as much, if not more chance of acheiving MF status should they so wish.

Im backing ba, and willing to close window blinds. G.

giza

7th Aug 2010, 21:28

Does anyone believe the veracity of Walsh anymore? This is the man only 12 months ago said BA had "only six months to survive"? Was that true?

Was it also true when Walsh said that "BA was in a fight for its survival"?

Hector (Duncun) Are you really so blinkered that you can not see what has happened over the last two years, yes it was all true, the rest of the airline has recognised this and has saved nearly a billion pounds on costs, through personal, and team sacrifices and changing working practices, as well as major cuts in managements numbers, pay freezes and structural change. Don`t you think it is the turn of cabin crew to join the rest of us and do their bit !!!!!!:ugh:

G

giza

7th Aug 2010, 21:35

It is time for a change of CEO. History will show Walsh to be a failure as CEO; a destructive and divisive leader who ruined a great company

I am sorry Hector, but what Willy has done has taken a great company that was in a nose dive to distruction and turned it round though strong leadership and negotiation with all unions, except BASSA, and we, the rest of BA applaud the fact that at last someone has the balls to stand up to you and your ilk and refuses to let a few selfish prima dona`s ruining what can, and will be a great future for those of us that remain dedicated to BA, and remain employed.

:D

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 21:43

MissyMinx. You sound like a manager on an "In Touch" day.

Three years ago BA reported huge profits with crew on existing contracts and the workforce even more bloated in numbers than it is today. The fact whether BA is profitable or not, does not rest alone on the T&C's of its cabin crew.

Walsh and his team have made huge blunders, yet no one takes responsibility. This is best shown by the way Walsh sacked Kirkwood and Noyes for the T5 fiasco. BA would be making substantial profits now IF IT WASN'T FOR WALSH. He has dragged the airline through the mud and completely misplayed his hand dealing with the strike.

For instance he was training up VCC's, when he could have broken the first strike simply by not letting the 800 cabin crew take severance until after the dispute was resolved. He could have threatened those crew then who were leaving anyway, that if they took part in the action, they would lose their staff travel and any chance of severance. This was such a fundemental strategic blunder, that he should resign over this issue alone. He personally has cost the airline over £1bn in strike costs and lost forward bookings, over his failed strategy to break BASSA.

To go the injunction route was also a disaster. If the blueprint was to provoke an strike then bust it, his best chance was at Christmas, and it would have all been over months ago. But he blew that too.

The fact that he wants to bust unions in BA, is best typified by the way crew are being recruited onto Mixed Fleet. Not even Temps will make it, as they have been exposed to the good times of allowances, overtime, premium payments, destination payments, DOA's. Heaven forbid a few of them might get fed up with the poverty pay on MF and may even join a proper union like BASSA. Yes, that its the new "ethos" Missy Minx as you properly state. Mixed Fleet will be a non-unionised workforce.

So consider the hypocrisy of all the VCC's, especially the pilots, many of whom belong to a union, who are helping to bring this about. Shame on you.

LD12986

7th Aug 2010, 21:51

Hector

The only people who should be resigning over this sorry mess is every single BASSA and CC89 rep. Every single one should be hanging their heads in shame and resign from the union. And better still, resign from the company.

Throughout this ridiculous episode they have made one monumental mistake and misjudgement after another and they have fundamentally failed all of their members. They are the one who have dragged BA through the mud.

As BASSA all but publicly accepted today, you have lost. There is no way out. There is no grand master plan BASSA is planning to unveil at a time of its choosing.

You can keep on pointing the finger at others and engage in post-event rationalisation all you like. But the fact remains you've lost.

This was a battle of your choosing, not BA's. You could have accepted the original offer on the table and would have never come to this. You could have accepted BA's changes to crewing levels and learnt a lesson that stonewalling the company won't work. But you decided to pick this fight. And you've lost. It's game over.

giza

7th Aug 2010, 21:55

Hector, I am so glad you post, this forum would soon get stale without you and your alter ego`s, however, you do talk such rubbish sometimes.

You say that most VCC`s are in a union, I disagree with you, a lot are managers and a lot more are staff that have left the union in disgust and signed up to VCC, that is certianly the case for all VCC on my course.

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 22:03

Well LD, I notice that the two reps responsible for the mess over your OpenSkies fiasco, did not resign.

The fact is that rather than any talk of having "lost", the action is far from finished yet LD. It is simply moving into a new phase.I hope you understand this.

I am sorry you and others here are disappointed that UNITE hasn't immediately called a third ballot. The ball is in Willie's court, let him impose once more. But he wouldn't dare, not with the appeal looming in October and getting closer every day. If he does though, well we will see.....

Giza, like the Temps, you are equally disposible, especially as you are not in a union.

Litebulbs

7th Aug 2010, 22:18

I do think the non disposability of union members is being called into question in this dispute. You have to start talking realities. BA can sack whoever it wants at any time, for whatever reason. You have to stop pushing the Strawbs defence, because it has no basis in fact.

Caribbean Boy

7th Aug 2010, 22:27

Hector,

Willie Walsh has been saying for some time that if there were another strike, BA will operate 100% of long-haul flights. But the silence from BASSA and Unite on this has been deafening. Indeed, Duncan Holley seems to have accepted that this will happen. Yet they all know that there are WW crew who would obey a strike call. So, who is looking disposable now?

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 22:33

No Litebulbs.

The cabin crew dispute shows that the theme of your post is NOT possible, otherwise it would have been done.

If you are not in a union, then it would be a different story. Look out VCC's and get back to your regular jobs before someone takes your place, or you might miss a promotion opportunity. Look at what has happened to some of the loyal Temps. It could be you next.

Willie will review each department in due course, and the VCC's will only highlight waste which will be permanently chopped.

Also BA is short of pilots at the moment, especially on the 744 fleet. One of the old relics has been pulled from Victoryville to be spruced up and put back into operation. Who is going to fly this aircraft? Managers? Surely pilots can't be spared to fly as cabin crew? What a waste of resources and talent. I don't know, Willie should never have allowed those 800 cabin crew to take severance. What a mistake!!

Just to add, 'CEO incompetence' in making predictions doesn't just rest with Walsh, in November 2008 his mate O'Leary predicted only four airlines would survive the recession including his own. Looks like Irish airline CEO's have poor pyschic abilities.

Litebulbs

7th Aug 2010, 22:46

What part is wrong? As I understand it, BA have dismissed 15 people and have over 100 suspensions related to this dispute allegedly. There will probably be more before this is over.

You have to carry it on your conscience if you in anyway mislead a union member to think that they have more rights than a non union member, whilst in dispute. TULRCA 1992 was the start of the new era in union activities and the ERA 1996 started the move away from collective to individual rights.

LD12986

7th Aug 2010, 22:46

Hector

Let VCC worry about their positions (not they have any reason to). Let BA worry about how many pilots it needs.

BASSA have dug themselves into a hole. How are they going to get out of it (legally)?

Flap62

7th Aug 2010, 22:47

For God's sake - give it a rest with the "VCC are not going to have jobs to go back to" blah!

Even if you were right (which you're not) it is tedious beyond belief that you keep repeating the same old lines. Move on!

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 22:50

Flaps, but it all depends on your point of view. Some people here like LD keep banging on that BASSA has "lost", when clearly it has fought a fine battle with solid support.

Let's face it, Walsh never thought he would be in the position he is now. He is in the pomme frite and it is only the depth that is varying.

As far as collective action or not, many crew are taking out individual actions against BA. This is just the start of a tidal wave of litigation to come.

im1234

7th Aug 2010, 22:56

More 'accurate' numbers...
International Transport Workers' Federation: News online (http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/4898?frmSessionLanguage=ENG)

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 23:05

Thanks for the link im1234.

This dispute at BA is a clearly defined attack on trade unionism, which if it succeeds, could cause a meltdown amongst unions not just in the UK, but Europe as well. No one is in any doubt that employees will be targeted by Walsh at Iberia once he gets control of IAG.

The amazing thing is that supposedly intelligent people, many of whom write on this forum, think they will be immune from this onslaught in the future. They are sadly deluded and misguided even by their own association, who now seeks "mutuality agreements" to protect itself and its members. Look what has happened in the USA to pilot pay. You can't have it both ways lads...shafting your cabin crew colleagues and protecting your own interests. If BASSA/UNITE fail, the domino effect will sweep BALPA out of the way as well, as sure as night follows day

Missyminx

7th Aug 2010, 23:12

HV. Quite so, BA's profitability does not rest solely on the CCs' T&Cs, however BA will have researched where they are spending over and above and will have highlighted the areas (in all depts) where changes could be made for future prosperity.
In terms of blunders, well the Union has to win the award there and at the risk of sounding 'like a Crew Manager on an "In-touch" day':), BA has played a blinder, so far, in this particular issue!

Litebulbs

7th Aug 2010, 23:12

You are absolutely correct about the attacks on trade unionism. I agree that their is a huge amount of litigation round the corner for BA, but at best, it will just be another cost in compensation and many a career could be ruined.

The law is not balanced and to hope that it will help, is a dangerous avenue to follow. It is not fair, but that is UK employment law for you.

demomonkey

7th Aug 2010, 23:15

Hector, BASSA has lost. How can anyone say otherwise. By definition if they haven't won they must have lost.

BASSA expected BA to cave in last year as had happened so many times in the past. Now 18 months later, membership has fallen dramatically, actual 'do not go to work' support of the strike action was ~50%* or less, ST has been lost, the only offer available now is materially worse than those available only a few months ago and even in his postings DH talks about collapse, being beaten, weakened etc.

If that is not failure, I'd hate to see what is. BASSA could have come out of this situation a WHOLE lot better. It's BASSA's fault how badly they managed their strategy. Now it's a case of when they collapse rather than if, they've used the only tactic they have and it blew up in their face. I'd even go as far as starting a conspiracy theory that DH has been paid to weaken BASSA from the inside because in his tenure as leader he has done more to weaken that union's influence than the last 5 BA CEOs combined!

* Approx 14,000 cc. Taking BASSA's figure of 7,000 strikers = 50%. Taking BA's figure of 5,000 = 36%.

Abbey Road

7th Aug 2010, 23:17

Go get 'em Hec Vec! Go get the pills! Take another handful! Keep us laughing! This is marvelous entertainment! :D

strikemaster82

7th Aug 2010, 23:18

Some people here like LD keep banging on that BASSA has "lost", when clearly it has fought a fine battle with solid support.

You have certainly fought a battle, but I don't think it's a draw and I don't think you've won either...

HV/Duncan, you keep repeating the same stuff (in your various alter egos) about Walsh 'coming for the rest of us'.

How many times do you have to be told that he HAS ALREADY BEEN EVERYWHERE ELSE!

But I forgot, it would be against the cult message, so you just ignore inconvenient facts.

midman

7th Aug 2010, 23:23

As your in a vocal mood, could you explain how Unite expect to win this and to stop all the plans for mixed fleet and for the imposition of reduced crew complement and for the restitution of staff travel and of sacked/disciplined cabin crew. I'm genuinely interested to hear how this is supposed to pan out.

Be aware, no-one outside your world sees Bassa other than in a whole world of hurt, and to suggest a 'fine' campaign (exemplified by the call to unofficial action with blinds, and by the Abba lyrics) indicates a lack of objective awareness. You won't win by just 'feeling' strongly that you're in the right.

From outside Bassa, they look bereft of ideas and on a path to self-destruct.

WW is continuing to take the company forward - without even speaking to Bassa since 2009.

Hector Vector

7th Aug 2010, 23:23

Litebulbs. BA has also found litigation to be a "dangerous avenue", hence losing its injunction on appeal. Now Walsh is going to be on the receiving end.

The fact is MissyMinx that employees have contracts. Perhaps you have one. There you go, I have just ripped it up. Your annual leave has been cut to 19 days, you are no longer in a Final Salary pension scheme and because you are on a new contract, you no longer have the protection of the 1948 Redeployment Agreement. Your new contract has reduced your basic pay by £5,000 which will also affect your pension, if you have not already left the company. Surely you would agree with this new "ethos"? If you don;t, what are you going to do? Go on strike?

And another note on contracts, I do not get into the queue at Tescos and when I get the bill, just tell the check out till operator what I am prepared to pay for the goods. I may not think half a dozen eggs is worth 97p, but the price is a "contract" to buy.

The same with crew on older contracts. It would have been much cheaper merely to have bought them off with severance, plus all the associated damage to BA and its brand would have been saved. No instead, Willie had to use the big stick and now it is going to cost BA hundreds of millions more to pay for his mistakes.

LD12986

7th Aug 2010, 23:34

And another note on contracts, I do not get into the queue at Tescos and when I get the bill, just tell the check out till operator what I am prepared to pay for the goods. I may not think half a dozen eggs is worth 97p, but the price is a "contract" to buy.

Not quite. The price is not "a 'contract' to buy".

The price displayed for the goods is merely an "invitation to treat". When you go to the till, contractually, you make an offer to purchase the goods which is then accepted by the retailer (which in actuality is done without saying anything).

There is nothing from a contract law perspective from you offering to pay at the till different price for the goods than that displayed on the shelf.

It's called negotiation. ;)

Colonel White

7th Aug 2010, 23:49

This dispute at BA is a clearly defined attack on trade unionism, which if it succeeds, could cause a meltdown amongst unions not just in the UK, but Europe as well.

Aren't we being a little hysterical here ?
a) this is not an attack on trade unionism. The GMB settled as did the other Unite branches, so clearly BA is not out to 'crush the unions'
b) In the greater order of things, BASSA and CC89 represent less than 1% of Unite's members. The notion that Unite could be brought down by a dispute involving these two branches is a flight of fancy worthy of BASSA's tomato grower.
c) The actions of 5,000 (I'm feeling generous on the figures) cabin crew are inconsequential to the trade union movement in the UK let alone in Europe. This does sound rather like you ascribe an overinflated sense of importance to this whole dispute. Unlike the miners, who were largely successful in getting their members out on strike, BASSA and CC89 have consumately failed to get a groundswell of support from their membership in this dispute. Around 45% actually walked out and 600 of those soon became disenchanted and reported for work.

The ball is with Unite, not BA. BA know what they want. The management are well on the way to recruiting lots of new staff. The strikers who sought to intimidate crew who wanted to work normally are reaping what the sowed. I was in the Arora hotel during the strike. There were crew who wished to work who were fearful of walking up to the car park in uniform, because they didn't want to be recognised as crew by the busload of strikers that was doing a circuit around the perimeter road. This same busload hurled abuse at anyone they saw in a BA uniform. That is bullying and intimidation.

BA have people ready to operate as cabin crew in the event that Unite are successful in getting a positive vote for strike action. The company has a flight schedule that it is operating. The empty threats from Unite are having less impact on the passengers as evidenced by the upturnin yields. The longer Unite leaves calling for action, the fewer people are likely to respond. The commuters who hitherto relied on staff travel will find it increasingly expensive to get to work and in all probability will wind up resigning. Sad really, they have been badly let down by a union who gave them garbage advice and then didn't follow through with any meaningful support.

From where I stand I'd say that BA has got pretty much what it wants out of this dispute. It hasn't even got to worry about that pay rise for the union members as 67% of them turned it down, so noneof them will get it. Bit of a cost saving I'd say.

No, BASSA has succeeded in shafting its members. It has cost some of them the best part of a month's pay, loss of travel perks and for what ? The members have gained precisely nothing. Not a penny piece. But then the members really should have looked at what they were striking for, because as I recall, the basis of the dispute had nothing to do with improvng the lot of cabin crew..

Wirbelsturm

8th Aug 2010, 00:57

Willie Walsh never wanted to 'break' BASSA. He just wanted BASSA and its members to accept changes that have been due for many, many years. Changes that all other departments have made over the past years that BASSA stoically refused to entertain.

As CEO of a FTSE company WIllie Walsh has a legal obligation to the BA sharegholders to explore all avenues to prevent losses to the company through industrial action. As BASSA were the ones who demanded and, indeed, exercised a 'non negotiation' stance, the court action was required if not particularly wanted by the company.

BASSA also used a 'show of hands' to delay the ballots for new council members until the current dispute was over. Looks like Liz and Co will be here for a long time.

BASSA will never get the complements back fully on aircraft, the reason for the original dispute. Neither will they get reinstatement of those dismissed through summary disciplinary proceedings. That is all water under the bridge. Neither will they now have the chance to either stop or influence New Fleet, something they could have had if they were willing to negotiate.

What do BASSA have left to offer their membership? Nothing. More IA? More BFC cakes with Duncan? The company has stated it will fly 100% LH if another strike is called. BA has, through the hard actions of its staff, cut its operating overheads dramatically over the past year, imagine how well we could ALL be doing if ALL departments had the same mentality.

Good bye BASSA, you will not be missed.

Wirbelsturm

8th Aug 2010, 01:01

The same with crew on older contracts. It would have been much cheaper merely to have bought them off with severance, plus all the associated damage to BA and its brand would have been saved. No instead, Willie had to use the big stick and now it is going to cost BA hundreds of millions more to pay for his mistakes.

BASSA refused to negotiate with BA in the beginning because they wanted to ensure that there would be no redundancies. The imposition of crew complement changes was done to ALLOW those who wanted to take VR to take it, with the associated 'deal'.

So where does the big stick come in? BASSA threw their toys out of the cot because of imposition starting the whole sorry mess.

Chemin

8th Aug 2010, 09:00

Hector.
Just a small detour.
You are quite wrong about contracts.
You are perfectly entitled to make an offer for the goods in your trolley once you get to the check-out at Tesco. The price displayed is purely, in legal terms, "an invitation to treat", which is to say "make me an offer". Clearly, putting an item in your trolley does not, and cannot, be considered to be entering into a contract, which is only concluded when the payment is offered and accepted. (Lots of case law on this).
That's what the law says, but what your fellow shoppers in the queue, some of whom will no doubt have bald heads and tattoos, say is a different matter!

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 12:09

Wurblestim.

You miss a delicate point in your ramblings. The diference between imposition and a negotiated settlement; the difference between union busting and a resolution that doesn't mean going to war with your staff is this:

1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.

2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.

Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.

Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.

What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".

MrBunker

8th Aug 2010, 12:14

Brilliant,

"Ballsed Up" and "False Accounting". Another exemplary issue from the BASSA factbook. Can you prove false accounting within the legally framed definition of such or are you, as seems to be so prevalent, just shouting the odds in the hope that eventually something might stick, even if only by association?

Try proving your assertions and you'd be taken a lot more seriously.

MrB

mjc507

8th Aug 2010, 12:17

Hector Vector said:

"Let's face it, Walsh never thought he would be in the position he is now."

I think, more correctly, that BASSA and BA cabin crew never thought they would be in the position they are now. Past CEO's didn't have what it takes to run BA or to properly deal with BASSA/Unite and CC really did think that they were BA. Willie Walsh has stood up to BASSA and CC and we have seen exactly who is and who is not BA. It is now painfully obvious to me and others that the BASSAmentalists have nothing to do with being a part of BA and should do the honourable thing and leave, although I would take a lot more pleasure in seeing them forced out.

Bengerman

8th Aug 2010, 12:19

Hector, on a serious note, can you say if the members of BASSA are in a better place now than they were in June last year?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

And, Hector, keep up the delusional postings, they really are very funny!

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 12:22

Wibblesteem.

Many BA crew are not at all worried about crewing levels apart from the fact that imposition breaks collective agreements. For all I care, and this is my personal view, Walsh can take crewing levels on the 744 down to 11, but the service to passengers will be reduced by a commensurate level. There is a finite balance between safety, service to the passengers and what BA is prepared to pay for its crew. Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew.

Two trips ago I made decisions based on my 30 plus years experience, that saved BA at least £60,000. Another inexperienced CSD would have done something completely different. It was an innovative solution. Obviously I am not prepared to go into detail.

If British Airways wants to get rid of its experienced crew and replace us with Fast Tracked "talented crew" with more ambition than ability, then so be it. BA will get what it deserves. In the long run it will cost them far more. At the moment many 'premium' passengers fly BA because of its cabin crew. When the cabin crew have been dumbed down, then BA will have to invest heavily on keeping its aircraft cleaner inside the cabins, and will have to fit interiors to compete with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Singapore, and have a reliable up to date IFE.

BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?

Timothy Claypole

8th Aug 2010, 12:27

I thought you said you weren't BA cabin crew? Good old Duggie, can't keep up the pretense for long, can he?

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 12:31

So PNS. When are you going to stand as secretary for the PCCC?

You could follow in the footsteps of Walsh: be an aggressive and militant union negotiator and then cross over into management.

The fact is that Timothy Claypole would be rejected for Mixed Fleet. Even taking a 50% pay cut, they wouldn;t want him. This is the management that he supports.

Unbelievable.

Juan Tugoh

8th Aug 2010, 12:39

Come on Hector, you can do better than that. At least make some attempt to answer Bengermans polite question.

Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew.

Nice to see you back on this old chestnut, one that has been dealt with time after time in these numerous threads.

Two trips ago I made decisions based on my 30 plus years experience, that saved BA at least £60,000.

And yesterday I flew to the moon but like you I cannot go into any details - so it is a pointless statement which does not add to this debate in anyway shape or form. Provide some details or don't it matters not, but until you do I, for one, will be disinclined to take any notice of this.

At the moment many 'premium' passengers fly BA because of its cabin crew

Of course route network, frequency of service, cost and loyalty programs have nothing to do with it? Are you seriously suggesting they only fly with us because of our cabin crew? If so you are seriously deluded.

BA will have to invest heavily on keeping its aircraft cleaner inside the cabins, and will have to fit interiors to compete with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Singapore, and have a reliable up to date IFE

This is what BA have to do irrespective of what T&Cs the CC are on, hence the New First being fitted at the moment, this is just business and has nothing to do with the current IR problems. The reduction in CC costs that MF will give BA will mean that BA will be more able to do this, but you could equally say that of the engineers, pilots and other ground staff, lower cost base means more capital available for investment.

BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?

You need to add IMHO here as it is purely supposition, much like most of your posts it is a one liner with no evidence or reasoned argument.

What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting

15 months ago we operated 57 747s, we parked up 8 and have recently reactivated one. So we are still 7 hulls down on where we were 15 months ago, but that is seen business being "so good" - only on planet BASSA is this a good business situation.

LD12986

8th Aug 2010, 12:57

You miss a delicate point in your ramblings. The diference between imposition and a negotiated settlement; the difference between union busting and a resolution that doesn't mean going to war with your staff is this:

1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.

2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.

Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.

Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.

What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".

If WW's strategy was union busting all along, then why did BA wait until the start of 2010 to train up volunteer cabin crew (which, I am told, was not WW's idea, it was suggested to him)?

How could BA negotiate a settlement when BASSA put forward a motion of "no negotiation" at one of its branch meetings?

False accounting is a criminal offence, so I would not make such accusations unless you can back them up.

BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?

Funny you should say that. Many think what WW is doing should have been done 10 years ago and the company would be in a much better state today if it had.

Caribbean Boy

8th Aug 2010, 13:32

Hector Vector (http://www.pprune.org/members/334586-hector-vector) wrote: Many BA crew are not at all worried about crewing levels apart from the fact that imposition breaks collective agreements.Indeed they are not worried about crewing levels, so why go on repeated strikes about the imposition last November which Judge Sir Christopher Holland agreed with in the case of Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010).
The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable? I have never known Unite, BASSA or any of their supporters provide any sort of counter-argument to Sir Christopher's ruling. Would you like to have a go at this, Hector?

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 13:45

CB. There is an appeal in October in case you have forgotten which we may win. No comment.

midman

8th Aug 2010, 13:52

You won't win without a counter-argument, Hector.

Anyone can give money to lawyers and appeal, but there needs to be something more than that.

Oh, and any chance you could answer my earlier question about how you think Bassa are going to win this, if you think they're doing 'fine' so far?
What would constitute 'winning' for you?

52049er

8th Aug 2010, 13:56

Can I appeal to you HV to confirm if it is you or your wife that is crew?

LD12986

8th Aug 2010, 13:57

CB. There is an appeal in October in case you have forgotten which we may win. No comment.

BASSA has no chance on winning this on appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is a complete waste of time and money.

Caribbean Boy

8th Aug 2010, 14:00

Hector, thanks for confirming that you have no sort of argument against the imposition of last November's cabin crew complements.

Pornpants1

8th Aug 2010, 14:01

Douggie fashion, stall pusher,puss in boots, loprendo inculo, Hector Vector said

CB. There is an appeal in October in case you have forgotten which we may win. No comment.

Hector, what will a victory mean for you and BASSA?

BA will do one of two things:-

1. Appeal

2. Acquiesce, consolidate all "legacy crew" onto 15/16 crew flights and rapidly recruit 800-1000 more crew for new fleet at a saving of £25-30 million

Neither the above will be a victory for BASSA or existing crew, talk about back yourself into a corner;)

ranger07

8th Aug 2010, 14:13

Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew

You just can't leave it alone can you?

If you and your BASSA pals had negotiated like ALL departments in BA, you would'nt need to attack others with your scaremongering twaddle.

You're up against a CEO that is standing up to you. Willie's mistake, and, more to the point, his predecessors, was that they did'nt clip BASSA's wings a long time ago.

Time to fall in line and drop the self importance.

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 15:08

Ranger there is no scaremongering. Just look at what happened in the USA.

CB. If BA wants to reduce crew and shaft its reputation, that is up to them. I believe it is a false economy. BA in the past has had a better image and reputation for service than say VIRGIN, but if Walsh wants to dumb down BA to that level, then really I personally do not care. My only concern is that the health and welfare of crew are not affected and the service is rolled back accordingly.

Walsh's theory is that the "network" that BA and its OneWorld partners has, will trap passengers into flying with the alliance. Choice will be reduced and fares will go up. It is anti-competitve and passengers unlike other types of travel, will in the future face an ever decreasing standard of service and safety as minimum wage employees take over.

Pornpants/Timothy Claypole/PNS: Isn't it strange that here you are rooting for a BASSA loss in the court case, that is directly going to influence you and your job as a CSD in a negative way. It is a lose lose situation for you. I suppose if BASSA wins, you will be more than happy to reap the benefits of something you have tried your best to undermine.

Unbelievable.

Wirbelsturm

8th Aug 2010, 15:36

HV as you seem to have difficulty remembering who you are and what you do I feel that the same distinction must be applied to the rest of your ramblings.

BASSA have failed in their duty of care fortheir membership and failed in their attempt to bring BA down. Whatever punitive excuses they come up with the fact cannot be ignored that the improvement in the companies position is as a result of the hard work and sacrifices of the rest of the staff. Thus we don't.agree with the self serving attitude of BASSA.

Pornpants1

8th Aug 2010, 15:44

hector, duggie, duncan

Isn't it strange that here you are rooting for a BASSA loss in the court case

Not really, just trying to understand what BASSA hope to achieve, and thought you might be able to give me your invaluable insight:rolleyes::rolleyes:

that is directly going to influence you and your job as a CSD in a negative way

care to elaborate? nah thought not

Tiramisu

8th Aug 2010, 15:46

So PNS. When are you going to stand as secretary for the PCCC?

Pornpants/Timothy Claypole/PNS: Isn't it strange that here you are rooting for a BASSA loss in the court case, that is directly going to influence you and your job as a CSD in a negative way. It is a lose lose situation for you. I suppose if BASSA wins, you will be more than happy to reap the benefits of something you have tried your best to undermine.
Hector Vector,
If it's the same PNS you are referring to, he has never posted on this thread to my knowledge, and also has a distinct style of writing.

You could follow in the footsteps of Walsh: be an aggressive and militant union negotiator and then cross over into management
Historically, isn't that what the BASSA reps have done if you have a look at the Devereaux family and the likes of Steve Farey ?;):=

Tiramisu

8th Aug 2010, 16:17

Hector Vector said,
My wife who is cabin crew with BA informs me that there are now trials to reduce the crew complement on the 744 down to four in WT.

Looks like BA's ambition of doing away with the Psr grade is coming to fruition. All those senior Pursers who thought they could hide in the galleys in the twilight years of their careers marking up SPML's, are going to be very upset now being stuck out on a trolley. Many of whom did not support the strike for fear of losing their Staff Travel. You live and learn; they should have supported their union.

Still there seems to be plenty of Pursers volunteering to work down at the moment. You have to be careful what you wish for these days.

What goes around, comes around

52049er,
Here's the answer you were looking for.;)

Hector Vector,
Are you a retired CSD (guest of easy, you know what I mean,;)) or DH?
DH 's wife is also a Purser on Worldwide as you very well know.

SlideBustle

8th Aug 2010, 18:33

The more I think about it now the more I think BASSA have failed us - BIG TIME sadly!

Mixed Fleet is not great news for us - but we did have the option last year against it - I really could cry when I think that the way we are working now (with temps working to new agreements/pay alongside us) with us remaining on current fleets and no new fleet set up could be the way forward - and BA discussed it a few times. With shares. With bonus ticket :{ Meaning we get into profit and the savings we may have had to endure we would still get rewarded for profit. OMG! It just makes me anrgy to be honest! We didn't even get to see some of the offers apparently - and it wasn't put to the membership of BASSA or AMICUS.

Maybe a book/movie could be made in the future. How a Union can fail a a membership. Plenty of examples could be from the BA dispute.

Of course I do feel for some of the agreements the temps are working to. But if they were that bad - had we had a progressive union that was reasonable and worked with the company AND employees then it could be improved. But now there will be a real them and us with regards to Mixed Fleet crews!

I understand why costs need to come down, and as BF has said there were only a few options I suppose - however some of the options he discussed with (intergrated fleet) were a much better compromise!

Well - after my initial reservations of the proposal which I have expressed - I hope any future offers don't get any worse (especially for those of us in the Union who have stayed to Vote NO to strike!)

Hector Vector

8th Aug 2010, 20:10

Slidebustle. BASSA or any other union could not prevent a company introducing new contracts if it wants to. BALPA could not stop OpenSkies for instance.The point is that these new contracts and working conditions are not "imposed" on existing employees, who have such a thing as a contract. BALPA operate in exactly the same way.

BA will get far more in savings than BASSA offered from existing contract crew, by eventually displacing those crew with new low pay contracts.The laughable thing is that BA's pilots are in cloud cuckoo land, and think their 'legacy' pay will last forever. Two ringer pilots joining now flying the Airbus or 737-400 out of LGW, will never achieve the salaries that the Captains sitting next to them enjoy right now. That is a fact. My advice to the pilots here, is to worry about fighting your own corner and leave the cabin crew alone to deal with their situation. If not, we will have plenty of time to gloat when you are under the cosh.

BASSA have not failed, but Walsh has. He has failed to break the strike and the union. What is he going to do now?

GS-Alpha

8th Aug 2010, 20:30

What is Mr. Walsh going to do now? Well perhaps he will just carry on running BA as normal. He has his cost savings from the imposition. He has his cost savings to cover the cost of the strikes coming from 'New Fleet'. He has kept his promise of not returning staff travel to the strikers.

What do you think he needs to do? It seems to me he already has everything he wants. This dispute is over unless BASSA decides to do something so the question is what is BASSA going to do? Your court cases seem pretty thin to me. Your strike action has failed to push Mr. Walsh to the negotiating table. I can't see any future strikes getting him to the table either. BA is simply getting on with business as usual. Meanwhile the commuters who went on strike are suffering without their staff travel. How long do you think it will be before they start leaving the company because they cannot afford to keep working?

I really cannot fathom where Mr. Walsh has failed. He has done a stunning job treading where his predecessors have not dared to tread, and I hope he continues to do so.

flibbertyjibbet

8th Aug 2010, 20:34

HV/DH/Duggie,
Always comes back to the pilots doesn't it?
I'm not going to rehash the reasons why you are utterly wrong. Suffice it to say that the pilots are most certainly not in cloud cuckoo land. We are sensible enough to realise that we have to do all we can to maintain one cohesive pilot workforce. That's why the pain of the last round of negotiations was spread across all.
BASSA at all points have contorted to maintain the pay and conditions of a very select few on old contracts. Possibly if you avoided sacrificing cabin crew groups, you would have a more unified strike, and stronger negotiating stance.

PS Believe me, we are under no illusions as to the future, but we basically work to annual legal hour limitations, and have comparable pay per hour flown to competitors... Unlike BA cabin crew.

Hotel Mode

8th Aug 2010, 20:35

BASSA have not failed, but Walsh has. He has failed to break the strike and the union. What is he going to do now?

Teensy point but he has broken the strike. There is no strike going on at the moment as far as i'm aware, nor is there any prospect of one. Ergo the strike is broken.

You could of course be on strike now. You have a perfectly valid mandate for continuing action. Why isnt it being used? Even unprotected surely with the glorious support it had there is no risk in taking strike action now because BA couldnt replace you all could they?

So why is there no action at present. Unite dont even have the guts to let some relatively minor industrial action with the window blinds. If BASSA are in such a position of strength theres no risk.

Not expecting an answer.

Nevermind

8th Aug 2010, 20:39

So Hector, how is cloud cuckoo land by the way?

When a union refuses to negotiate, or submits what can only be described as joke offers. there comes a time where changes MIGHT be imposed. Look at the offer that was given last June to BASSA. An intelligent person might be upset to see where the crew are now. Those who unable to make up their own mind without brainwashing (obviously that's how BASSA sees the crew as it didn't even show it to them) CHOOSE to play the victim, wallow in self pity, and ignores the facts. That's what you continually do on this forum, and I truly hope you are not representative of the poor strikers, who have been led down the road to ruin.

As for your info on pilots, you know nothing. Nothing. Fact. So save your idle speculation for the BASSA forum, where it can be said unchallenged. And perhaps mislead one or two other poor crew who are looking for real brave leadership, and instead get distasteful war references and ABBA lyrics.

LD12986

8th Aug 2010, 21:11

BASSA have not failed, but Walsh has. He has failed to break the strike and the union. What is he going to do now?

Count how much he will save but not giving cabin crew the two annual payrises that are in the latest offer BASSA turned down?

Tiramisu

8th Aug 2010, 21:38

Hector Vector/Duggie Fashion,
Your cover is blown, you are the same person who can't decide who you are from one post to another. You talk about your wife being a crew member for BA then claim you are a CSD with 30 years experience. Make up you mind and then post under one name please. As mentioned by other posters, why are you harping on about the Pilot's pay and T's and C's? This is a cabin crew thread.
Still waiting for an answer from you. Are you a retired CSD?

Mods,
There is a lack of cabin crew posts here which is a real shame.

Caribbean Boy

8th Aug 2010, 21:51

Hector Vector (http://www.pprune.org/members/334586-hector-vector) wrote: Walsh's theory is that the "network" that BA and its OneWorld partners has, will trap passengers into flying with the alliance. Choice will be reduced and fares will go up. It is anti-competitve and passengers unlike other types of travel, will in the future face an ever decreasing standard of service and safety as minimum wage employees take over.I am surprised to find myself in agreement with you. Of course alliances, mergers and takeovers are anti-competitive, and an awful lot of these have been happening recently (DL/NW, BA/IB/AA, UA/CO), but the cabin crew dispute was never about competition or standards of on-board service.

A responsible union would have accepted the need for reduced crew complements and worked to add back crew on those flights which were causing excessive workload. But this never happened, did it?

Hector Vector

9th Aug 2010, 07:14

CB. You are completely wrong again.

BASSA has agreed to reductions in crew complements in the past. After 9/11 for instance when First cabins were closed and crew numbers reduced. Obviously the recession was not such an urgent proposition, as this solution was rejected.

We have been flying with empty First cabins and full crew, yet only last year Willie said that the airline had just six months to survive. Sounds like a worse situation than 9/11 to me. So why didn't he take the immediate reduction in crew costs this previous solution offered? Offered career breaks, unpaid leave, more part time.....

No because the agenda was to use the recession as an excuse to force through "structural change", aka union busting. Seems like BA is awash with money to see through this agenda, paid for in part by the salary reductions given up on behalf of BA's pilots by BALPA. No wonder so many pilots have resigned from the association and have joined the Air Transport section of UNITE. At the end of the day, you only need the legal protection in case you put a wheel on the grass. BA pilots would never strike, as Willie well knows.

MrBunker

9th Aug 2010, 07:28

Gotcha.

How do BASSA know the recession was not such an urgent proposition as it's widely accepted they declined the offer to look in detail at the company accounts.

Can I tip my hat to you for brilliantly managing to link pilots with the cabin crew strike? It's now our fault for agreeing changes with the company as this has funded their ability to take you on. Brilliant, just brilliant.

And back to my gotcha. Try digging around the Unite website as an airline pilot seeking union support - it directs you to BALPA. Once again, pure conjecture designed to do no more than rabble rouse and, if I recall correctly, this "Pilots leaving in droves to join unite" was done to death some months ago.

So, answer Tiramisu's question, are you crew, retired crew, a private pilot, airline pilot, webmaster, kitchen fitter, branch secretary or do you just go as the mood takes you as you feel your agenda is more important than the messenger so you can flex the truth as the need takes you?

MrB

PS Check out Viking and Laval cases.

stormin norman

9th Aug 2010, 09:49

Hector

BA has needed structural changes for many years now ,not only in cabin crew but right across the airline.

If the airline does not produce enough profits to reinvest in the company the company will do what Pan Am,TWA,Swiss Air and recently Mexicana did, run out of cash and go out of business-Where would that leave everbody?

BA has some of the best cabin crew in the industry and rightly deserve to be paid above the average salary but you cannot have union officials telling the management how to run the business.

Perhaps its time for some new people at the helm of BASSA.

Nutjob

9th Aug 2010, 09:56

Duncan Vector

*** I hope the Mods will allow this to stay, as it is integral to the dispute and the way that BASSA operate and the (in)sanity of Duncan Holley. ***

I was absolutely disgusted to see the public "outing" of an anonymous (like most on there) poster on the BASSA forum as one who "went to work".

This poor person took issue with the latest fact-less ABBA/Vietnam (News)letter from Duncan. Duncan then named and shamed this person, BLAMED THEM FOR PUTTING REPS AT RISK :eek: , suggested they resign from BASSA and opened the floodgates to further posts against said person. They have now left BASSA.

Here's the text.

Ok enough
I know the identity of XXX X XXXXX.
I also know he broke the strike.
People like him should shrink away and hide under a stone. I would then ignore him. They have the right to do that.
But he came on here taunting and starting a thread which was just trouble making and totally inexcusable.

I have had quite a few messages from genuine strikers who are telling me a lot of strike breakers are trying to ingratiate themselves by claiming XXXX status.
Tonight another long haul rep has been suspended. Nicky Marcus has been doing a fantastic job representing many of the Facebook and dispute related crew.
She has now been suspended for her work on their cases. People like XXX X XXXXX are putting people like Nicky's jobs at risk.

Therefore I think XXX X XXXXX has lost his right to be anonymous.

XXXXX XXXXX WW Purser and - I am ashamed to admit it - ex BASSA rep, I think by you starting this thread you deserve to be outed.
I also invite you to resign so BASSA can rid themselves from people like yourself.
This dispute is getting nasty but you brought this on yourself I am afraid and I will not have good loyal members or reps put at risk by people such as yourself.

Duncan Holley

Now, my question to the rest of you BASSA members is this: Is this really what you should expect from your Union - professional body to which you pay your fees? Is this kind of behaviour in any way acceptable? Since when did Union membership come with the caveat that you must agree with everything the Reps do or say - else you will be publicly humiliated and driven out?

This single incident, more than most others show just how far DH has removed himself from reality. Animal Farm all over again...

The Reps cannot be disagreed with
The Reps can delay elections to make sure they stay in office
The Reps can continue as Reps, even though they are no longer serving CC
The Reps will feather their own nests to the detriment of all others
Some members (those who agree with us) are more equal than others

DH and the reps that sanction his newletters and behaviour are no longer rational and yet they hold SO much influence over your careers. How on earth are they still in Office? You deserve better and you need it SOON, before BASSA take us all down with them.

Nutjob

strikemaster82

9th Aug 2010, 10:18

Ahh... he has taken to expelling dissenters from the Cult.

If I was a sensible BASSA member reading the above I would be cancelling my membership now.

Perhaps it will now descend into a hard-core cult ending where most sensible people leave, but a few die-hards remain and go down (get sacked) in an industrially suicidal ending, maybe with wildcat action?

Traditionally, the cult leader gets away with it though, by slipping away from the compound in a secret tunnel just before the SWAT team moves in... oh, that's happened already! :ok:

Seriously though you have to feel for the poor Purser who has been allegedly intimidated in this way, after all, DH has been sacked already so it's difficult to see what BA could do, if it is all true.

the flying nunn

9th Aug 2010, 10:20

So much for the idea that "this is Britain not Burma".

highlifer

9th Aug 2010, 11:23

As a current BA cabin crew member, and one who went to work having voted 'NO', I am totally disgusted that someone such as DH, ie a person who has been dismissed from the company, can name people on a website which enables people to have anonymity if they so choose. Why didn't I join BASSA? Oh yes, I remember now!!!!

MrBunker

9th Aug 2010, 11:50

Is it at all possible that DH is in breach of his own union's codes for such an action? I know the Unite Rulebook is easily downloaded from their website. I'm guessing the BASSA constitution is only available to members. I'm just wondering whether his intimidatory tactic towards this individual could be construed, formally, as conduct unbecoming a senior officer of the union?

Haven't time to check myself - just off out of the door but might prove interesting especially as DH seems to consider himself exempted from all normal codes of practice.

MrB

Wirbelsturm

9th Aug 2010, 11:54

Odd isn't it that the bullying that BASSA accuse the company of, the intimidation and bullying that so few of the rest of us have ever seen, is displayed so openly by the very person who wishes his membership to vote for IA.

Openly intimidatory tactics and verbal bullying from a paid member of Unite?

Oooops.

LD12986

9th Aug 2010, 11:58

The outing by DH of an anonymous contributor on the BASSA forum is beyond the pale and further proof that he is totally out of control. His actions should send shivers down the spine of every BASSA member.

Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson need to get a grip and take control of this.

Wirbelsturm

9th Aug 2010, 12:06

Probably the only sensible solution to this whole sorry mess is to eject BASSA from the Unite conglomerate. As the membership dwindles in the face of such obnoxious actions from the BASSA board the Unite union needs to decide whether BASSA is a credible, functioning body.

Hector Vector

9th Aug 2010, 12:30

Wobblestum.

The only sensible thing to do is to eject BALPA from the TUC, for providing strike breakers and getting involved in another union's legitimate dispute.

I have not been on the BASSA forum lately, but will have a look. There are posters here who copy and paste directly from the BASSA forum. We know who these people are, but no action has been taken as yet to eject them. I am sure that no one would want to see that interpreted as bullying or harassment by BASSA.

There is not much point taking the subs off of members if they are out to do as much damage as possible to the organisation. Once they have been identified, then chuck them out. In the past there has not been enough discipline, with some crew ignoring agreements selfishly to do their own thing, to the detriment of the majority.

Fortunately there is now a receptacle for such characters....it is called the PCCC

LD12986

9th Aug 2010, 12:41

What about the ground staff and engineers who are members of Unite and acted as VCC?

On the basis of your argument, should Unite also be ejected from the TUC?

mrpony

9th Aug 2010, 12:44

You are a laugh.

Who decides when a member should be outed in an anonymous forum?

Who decides when a member should be asked to leave Bassa?

Just wondered if Bassa has all these procedures in place and has followed them in the unfortunate case of Purser xxxxx xxxxx above?

Or is it just DH who is judge jury and executioner?

I think we should be told.

Juan Tugoh

9th Aug 2010, 12:58

We know who these people are, but no action has been taken as yet to eject them.

More evidence that Hector is actually Duncan.

HiFlyer14

9th Aug 2010, 13:02

For crying out loud Hector, it wasn't the pilots who broke the strike. It was long-serving, fully fledged CABIN CREW.

We came to work. 80% of us. We don't agree with BASSA, we don't agree with DH, we don't agree with you.

We like our jobs, we like BA and we want to continue working here. We want to feed our families, pay our mortgages and use our staff travel to see the world. Working one down was never going to kill us, so we came to work. I came to work during all 3 strike phases - the only pilots I saw were operating on the flight deck. I worked with one VCC from Waterside the entire time.

We think BASSA have behaved despicably and we are pleased that BA are taking such a hardline against bullying and intimidation. This latest outrage from DH naming and shaming people shows how low this man is prepared to go. It also demonstrates why the PCCC have remained anonymous - can you imagine what it would be like if one of us PCCC members got on a flight working with the BASSA mob, and they knew who we are? Their behaviour is so unpredictable, which is why we have remained professional and anonymous to avoid any trouble. We are a peaceful, law-abiding, hard-working and respectful organisation - everything they are not.

The writing is on the wall now Hector. For you, for BASSA and for everyone else who stills funds this sorry affair. BASSA members have had plenty of opportunity to get out of this mess - they could have accepted the latest offer and walked away with some dignity intact. By not doing so, they have now sealed their own fate.

Any BASSA member now remains in the Union at their own risk.

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

Wirbelsturm

9th Aug 2010, 13:13

I do like the changing of names Hector, how long until you run out of purile changes?

You love to blame anyone except the BASSA board who called ill thpught out IA at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Then, when everyone else pulled together to ensure the company would be in a position to recover quickly ( thus ensuring our futures) BASSA claims they are the only ones who clalled it correctly. Convieniently forgetting that IFcE achieved some rationalisation through imposition.

The only way as, something that most parents know, children who consistently refuse to act their age need to have reasonable rules imposed on them.

I was VCC, I wasn't used. There were too many regular CC working and that lead to an increase in aircraft to which I could return to do my day job.

As the Flight Crew CAP is going up we seem to be running more and more services in preparation for the next BASSA spat.

Enjoy it while you can. The CC deserve proper representation, something that BASSA has consistently failed to do (at least they are consistent in something).

Timothy Claypole

9th Aug 2010, 13:28

The only sensible thing to do is to eject BALPA from the TUC, for providing strike breakers and getting involved in another union's legitimate dispute.

Yes how are you getting on with that? It's been some months since people started agitating for action from the TUC but still nothing? My gosh, you work slower than OH Parsons!

I have not been on the BASSA forum lately, but will have a look.

Of course you haven't Loprendo.

There are posters here who copy and paste directly from the BASSA forum. We know who these people are, but no action has been taken as yet to eject them.

You don't know who I am :ok:. You can't eject those people because you've no idea who they are. BASSA doesn't even know who's a member at the moment!

ltn and beyond

9th Aug 2010, 14:40

Hector Vector,

What is your problem with the very flight crew and their union, that each time you and all the Bassa followers go to work, you entrust them with your lives.

I would suggest that if you regard for them is so low then instead of trusting them with your life, you distance yourself and leave what is clearly such a poor employer.

As for strike breakers, as you have been reminded these were mainly Unite members, mostly Bassa members too and many other factions of unite, so by your suggestion unite and Bassa should eject themselves from the TUC. See how your statement holds no water ???.

All the energy that has been wasted by Unite/Bassa blaming everyone around them rather than taking a grown up approach to this issues raised by BA 2 years ago have got you where you are now, backed into a very dark corner.

As for DH publishing a members details on a public forum, this could open him up to all sorts of private litigation. Look again at this "leader" and ask is it any surprise the union were not able to defend his actions during his dismissal procedure with BA and why he now finds himself a former BA employee.

This will sadly be a learning tool for all future union reps training, when covering " how to destroy a union and its reputaion"

You must have a rock solid compromise solution to this dispute, so what is it?,

Im expecting to see:

Sack Willie
CSD off the trolley
Crew member back
Bonus scheme, like the pilots( but without their pay cut)
staff travel back
Sacked members back
No new fleet
and for good measure a well deserved pay rise ???. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

None of which will happen !!!!!!

Human Factor

9th Aug 2010, 15:07

The only sensible thing to do is to eject BALPA from the TUC, for providing strike breakers and getting involved in another union's legitimate dispute.

BALPA did nothing of the sort and has remained neutral throughout.

Betty girl

9th Aug 2010, 15:17

Well I am totally shocked that Duncan Holley has been allowed to post like this on an anonymous BASSA sight. It is bullying in it's worst form.

What he does not seem to understand is that many BASSA members don't post, they just read the posts, often frightened to post because they feel that, although the forum is anonymous, they know that BASSA will know who they are. Many people just read it and it is these moderate members who will be the most shocked by this. Hopefully some of them might actually realise what they are dealing with and resign.

I really hope that this WW Purser will not get a hard time on the aircraft from BASSA strikers. Hopefully thoes like me who did not strike will help protect him. I feel very sorry for him. I hope the Unite leadership get to hear about this. I hope this Purser puts in a formal complaint.

malcolmf

9th Aug 2010, 15:54

One presumes Hector would like to be named on this forum?
In fact wouldn't the whole debate be better if everyone used their real name?

Timothy Claypole

9th Aug 2010, 17:37

And don't mention the PCCC on the BASSA forum or else.......

Discussion about the "pseudo" alternate cabin crew representative body is forbidden under Forum Rules.

Anyone trying to re-open discussion about this will have their posting rights AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED WITHOUT NOTICE.

First and only warning.

This thread is now LOCKED and CLOSED.

http://www.bassa.co.uk/phpbb3/images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif BASSA MODERATOR

LD12986

9th Aug 2010, 17:41

What we are witnessing with Duncan's wholly unwarranted outing of a BASSA forum member is the unedifying sight of someone who has held a considerable (and disproportionate) amount of power for 13 years doing all he can to exercise whatever power is left as the end is in sight.

This is not pretty to watch and I fear there is worse to come.

If I was still in BASSA I would get out now (quietly and quickly). Who knows what could be next.

deeceethree

9th Aug 2010, 18:02

Perhaps the cult is beginning to build up for the final suicidal frenzy?

When the Wall Street Journal describes this fiasco as "Is BASSA an Unruly Child for Unite in British Airways Row?", then you know that a wider audience is aware of BASSA's childish tantrums for what they are:Cleaning up BASSA’s mess, Unite was forced to remind cabin crew:

“If you are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal. If you fail to work normally, you will be taking part in unofficial action.”

Is BASSA an Unruly Child for Unite in British Airways Row? - The Source - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/08/09/is-bassa-an-unruly-child-for-unite-in-british-airways-row/)

It brings back unpleasant memories of Jim Jones and his cult in Guyana, which claimed a lot of innocents, but it may just be better for the wider good if BASSA hurries on with consuming itself in it's quest for a suicidal end.

D O Guerrero

9th Aug 2010, 18:03

It seems to me, as a non CC member of the aviation industry, that the problem now lies with finding a way to allow BASSA to save face. I don't think even they are deluded enough to think they will get what they want - but they need to be given a way out and there doesn't currently seem to be one on the horizon. Ideas anyone?
Even Duncan whatsit is the professional equivalent of the drunken tramp, wandering around a shopping precinct in his slippers threatening to kill people with a cornish pasty. I can't imagine there is anyone left who takes him or the union seriously. Which is a shame because with some able people at the helm they might have achieved something for BA CC. Instead they've just left themselves looking like craven lunatics and Walsh like the victor.

The Blu Riband

9th Aug 2010, 18:33

Actually, the thing that is truly scary is that there are still 1000s of crew who trust this incompetent imbecile.

Yes, there are still some BA cabin crew who want to go on strike because.................!??!! :ugh:

Eddy

9th Aug 2010, 19:35

I'd like to put a slightly different spin on the very anti-rep chat that's been going on here recently.... They're not all bad. Infact, few of them are.

I've just come back from a trip and my CSD was a Bassa Rep. A very senior Bassa rep. I saw his name on my briefing sheet and sh*t myself. But I held my head high and didn't make any attempt to hide my feelings (but nor did I broadcast them).

I'd be incredibly surprised if he didn't know that I'd worked during the strikes and certainly think he'd have made the assumption when I told him I was transferring to LGW next month, but he treated me as he did the rest of the crew.

I was invited to his for a "room party" along with everyone else. He was professional and courteous onboard.

So let's not be too hard on the reps. They're all doing what they think is right and most of them (I've seen others since the strikes) are conducting themselves very well indeed when with non-strikers.

Melissa1510

9th Aug 2010, 20:47

Eddie, it is reassuring to hear that even the diehad can be civilised and professional. This people deserve a job in BA regardless of their views, instead of behaving like DH is out and all he has left is the power of ranting and bulling his ex colleagues.

Hector Vector

9th Aug 2010, 21:44

Oh dear Melissa. After a condescending first sentence, you relapse into the usual rabid anti BASSA rant as per the three post before Eddy's.

The fact is that most of BASSA's members have individually given decades of loyal service to British Airways, only to have it completely denigrated by a CEO who has no regard for loyalty or long service. British Airways does not "owe" these crew a living before many of you point this out, but they do not deserve the Bliztkrieg type management that Walsh typifies. Yes it is a harsh world out there, which I know full well owning and operating my own business. It is tough.

However the tide has turned and it seems a strange decision that BA should not want new crew to be 'mentored' by those who have so much experience. It reinforces the view though that the union busting is still in full flow, as this is only a tactic to try and make existing staff feel isolated. Pretty pathetic stuff and completely transparent.

The fact is that the anti-BASSA brigade here as one ex Temp has already pointed out, will not be employed on the Mixed Fleet because they are not good enough. It is nice that the Mixed Fleet crews will be made to feel special wearing their hats and gloves, but after a few months of being flogged around the routes, they will find that those items of apparel are no substitution for decent employment conditions, a fair salary and the possibility of a career through promotion. In all of this, the Mixed Fleet crews will not be fulfilled and this will be reflected through a huge turnover, with most crew just surviving for 6 to 12 months before the penny drops...or they drop first.

LD12986

9th Aug 2010, 22:02

Yes it is a harsh world out there, which I know full well owning and operating my own business.

So you work for BA and you own your own business?

Hector Vector

9th Aug 2010, 22:09

The Blu Riband

9th Aug 2010, 22:23

it seems a strange decision that BA should not want new crew to be 'mentored' by those who have so much experience.

Wasn't it Bassa who refused to allow the new fleet at LGW to be mixed with (or mentored by) "experienced" crew just 3 years ago?

Although if I was doing the recruiting I would be very wary of mixing new entrants with some of the cynical and negative attitudes some of the "older" crew display.

demomonkey

9th Aug 2010, 22:30

Sooner or later Hector, BASSA are going to be history at BA. They will become an academic case study of poor trade union policy. Few will shed a tear.

Hotel Mode

9th Aug 2010, 22:52

Well, I've some breaking news for you Hector (and your fellow BASSAmentalists), the majority of the strikebreakers (VCC) come from other depts within BA and are/were members of your very own union

Not only that but a Unite Shop steward resigned his post in order to volunteer. Exactly the same as BALPA. We should definitely be campaigning for Unite to be removed from the TUC.

Notice my post of yesterday wasnt replied to as expected.

Juan Tugoh

10th Aug 2010, 05:34

You post is going to upset quite a few people here Eddy, who only portray BASSA and its reps in a stereotypical 'militant' image

Actually Eddy is highly regarded on these pages as an honest voice, someone who voices his opinion based on what he sees and makes his own mind up. His posts are quite often contrary to the run of the tide, but they are never rude, they are never falsehoods, they don't seek to blame everyone else for BASSAs failings, but similarly they do not demonise people or BASSA out of blind faith. Eddy represents the balanced, sensible independent minded cabin crew that BASSA so despise, he thinks for himself and does not blindly follow the cult of DH.

MrBunker

10th Aug 2010, 06:59

Heartily seconded with regard to Eddy. I think he highlights an interesting point though. The BASSA reps on a personal level seem to be very well regarded. It's of note to me therefore that their public union persona inspires such opprobrium in a large number of individuals outside the union circle. Would I be remiss in suggesting there's an image/PR management issue with them in that respect then or is it merely that the union persona grows out of groupthink and as such can provide a shield for a more belligerent attitude? Just musing.

MrB

Hector Vector

10th Aug 2010, 08:49

'As the backlog of work grows, so does the disillusion we feel for our leadership team and Willie Walsh.'
Anyone walking into the reception area of Waterside (British Airways's head office at Heathrow) cannot help but notice the poster that hangs in front of the security barriers; a poster that implores staff to "Back BA". The building is awash with such posters: hanging in front of the "pavement cafe" (a popular meeting place for staff) is a banner spanning the width of the "street", the message is the same: "Back BA."

Look closely at the staff and you will see that their BA identity passes swing proudly from lanyards that declare "I am backing BA". The wall where staff were invited to post their views of the dispute and the cabin crew may have long since been removed, but its presence looms large.

The views of many within BA, so clearly depicted on BA's "wall of shame", are that the cabin crew are a cosseted, precious and overpaid workforce. When faced with such a damning condemnation of a group of individuals, it is not difficult to see why BA was so confident in its assumption that its staff could be persuaded to "back BA" and to fly as voluntary cabin crew.

Couple this with the widely held belief that BASSA (the cabin crew branch of Unite) is a group of unyielding and intransigent militants who have held a gun to BA's head for more years than anyone cares to remember, and it is not difficult to see why so many staff are happy to back BA.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of staff have been released from their day jobs to train as cabin crew, and continue to be released as we brace ourselves for the next round of strikes that could happen towards the end of the summer. But the day job doesn't go away – the emails keep coming, our people still need to be managed, there are disciplinary and grievances hearings that we need to hear, attendance management issues that have to be addressed. As the backlog of work grows, so does the disillusion we feel for our leadership team, board of directors, chairman and CEO, Willie Walsh.
Scratch below the surface and you will find that, while many proclaim to back BA, the reality is that many managers and staff of all levels are growing increasingly resentful of senior management and the chief executive. Anyone who has attended his management briefings cannot help but liken the situation to a leader who is losing the war but will never surrender. We are a weary and embittered army who just wants peace.

To question the direction that Walsh is taking this company is seen as heresy, so everyone continues on, worn down by a dispute that is the most acrimonious in BA's history; a dispute that an increasing number of managers believe should have been settled months ago.

We all keep our counsel, choosing to voice our concerns to only our most trusted colleagues, believing that this dispute is not just about cost savings but rather the destruction of Bassa and its mother union, Unite. Like the cabin crew, those of us who do not condone this management style are fearful of our positions within the company

We attend the briefings held by Walsh in the Waterside theatre, we read the propaganda that is sent to us daily and we ask ourselves "why didn't I have the foresight to take the voluntary severance when it was offered".

Those managers who have not chosen to volunteer as cabin crew find themselves under-resourced, overworked and despairing of a dispute that has become BA's primary focus. To voice concern is inconceivable; those who have dared speak out are viewed with suspicion and colleagues are quick to distance themselves from them, fearful of being tainted by association. The culture of fear is all-pervading; staff are suspicious of their co-workers, of those they report into, and of those that they once thought of as friends.

What is most frightening is the ignorance within the management team as to what actually lies behind this dispute. As a manager who can count their years of service with BA in decades rather than years, who has witnessed numerous disputes within BA, believe me when I say that the ramifications of this dispute will be felt for years, even decades into the future.

BA will struggle to weather the fallout from this bitter dispute. Our brand, our reputation and our integrity as an employer have all been damaged – indeed continue to be damaged – as this dispute rolls on with no sign of a resolution or closure. The road ahead will be fraught with challenges – challenges that we will all have to deal with. It will be an uphill struggle and it will not be easy.

Those BA staff who have chosen to volunteer as cabin crew have unwittingly prolonged this dispute and, in all probability, hastened their own demise. Their actions have allowed BA to keep flying rather than to reach a negotiated settlement.

As Unite prepares for another ballot and, in all probability, more industrial action, many managers are trawling through employment websites, desperate to find anything that will enable them to leave the bedlam that is now BA.

For anyone who really wants to understand what it is like to work for the world's favourite airline, I would suggest reading George Orwell's 1984.
I just wonder why the posters in Waterside don't read "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". Take care, BA employees and BA shareholders, the end is just the beginning.

Hand Solo

10th Aug 2010, 08:52

I don't think it's anything as sophisticated as that. To put it bluntly some (not all) of their reps can be pleasant on an individual basis, but they are simply not up to the job of being union reps. They aren't smart enough to form a sensible business strategy which is why they blunder from one avoidable disaster to the next.

Pontius

10th Aug 2010, 09:21

"current Airline Staff Only"

Hector Vector,

Are you or are you not one of the above? If not, please take your tired propaganda elsewhere. Your continued lies (you're a CSD, no, hold on, your wife is cabin crew. You're a business owner, no, hold on, you own a four-engined aircraft etc etc) ensures you have zero credibility and contribute nothing to the discussion, because nobody believes a word of what you say.

Go back to writing nonsense about your diet and disclosing the names of those that dare disagree with your lies on the BASSA Forum and leave the conversation here to the grown ups.

StoneyBridge Radar

10th Aug 2010, 09:51

Heckling Hector/Duncan, give it up mate. Go back to your whine (sic) and talking to your tomato plants; who knows, they might actually listen to your drunken, inarticulate diatribes.

Text received today from a colleague and hardliner....

"Have also been told UNITE are talking with Willie and that Woodley has expressly excluded BASSA. He and UNITE are furious with Holley. Woodley told Holley his call for wildcat action re: shades must be withdrawn as it would give the co. carte blanche to sack. Holley refused so UNITE issued retraction themselves. Fuming !! He now wants to isolate BASSA. With internal elections coming up, woodley doesn't want anything to do with what he calls the BASSA DISASTER. It's over. It's no longer a fight for CC; it's an internal fight to preserve their own positions. Don't know where we go from here."

the flying nunn

10th Aug 2010, 10:15

British Airways does not "owe" these crew a living before many of you point this out

No they don't hector, but how many times have they offered deals to cabin crew in the last 18 months. Shares, free tickets, guaranteed monthly payments to continue earnings at current levels long after new fleet has swallowed up "all the good routes". Not bad for an airline that owes nothing to its crew.

There is one debt that is long overdue for repayment. That is thjat BASSA owes it's members some decent representation. The representation we pay for and have not got for years. When are you going to start representing us instead of your own narrow self interests?

Betty girl

10th Aug 2010, 11:47

Well I think these comments about the crew being inexperienced are silly because there are CAA rules that require a certain level of experience on board any aircraft and BA will start this fleet up slowly at first to make sure this is complied with.

Having said that I do feel that these crew wearing the hat is a devisive move. When this new uniform was set up we were not asked to wear the hat nor were the ground staff. If BA want a hat worn, to make the uniform look nice, why not get all of us to wear the hat not just this New fleet crew.
As a crew member who worked during the strike and one who has high uniform standards, I feel rather let down by this decision. I think it will create a them and us feel in the crew report centre which is not a good idea.

Once this IA is over we need to all work together to make BA the great airline it can be. We should be able to work as one team, even if we are on different contracts, not pitted against each other with some feeling more superior than the others for either not wearing the hat or for wearing the hat. This is only going to create bad feeling and this is not a good thing to be doing right now.

cloudn9ne

10th Aug 2010, 12:13

Hector Vector,

I'm sorry but your ''enlightening'' long winded posts follow the same BASSA orientated themes of old and seem to pass blame for this current industrial situtation from yourselves and blame everyone else.

Bottom Line: BA was/ is losing close to £2,000,000 every day!! BA needs to cut costs. Everyone but the BASSA mentalists seem to realise this. You wont have a job at all if BA is losing £700,000,000 every year!!

We have all taken cuts, lost pay but why shouldnt the cabin crew make a meaningful contribution too. It was never enough and it was always tempory.

From day one BASSA argued the figures had been exaggerated, BA isnt fighting for its life. Its not really losing so much money!! im sorry but the rest of the work force can see it so why cant you.

The vast majority of BA DO back Willie because he is doing what all good CEOs must do: make sure BA survives, grows stronger, competes and ultimately grows. This is in everyones benefit, even yours.

Please, please where is the logic in fighting to maintain your generous perks and pay if your company will falter, lose money and ultimately fails as a business??

At some point you have to lift your head from the sand and see that the reason that EVERYONE else disagrees with you and your minority of BASSA supporters is that your actually wrong on this one.

Why shouldnt Willie want to crush BASSA when all it has done is encourage strikes during the deepest recession in living memory!! think about it. Your company is losing £2 million every day and your going to strike for 12 days over christmas. Who would want to negotiate with a union like that. How is BA every going to be a successful business with a union like that.

You blame WW for driving customers away. its not WW thats done that its BASSA. The public, rest of the workforce, your managment and the volunteers will never support your stance and its bewildering you cant see why.

New fleet is here because of BASSA direction from day one. If you wont make the cuts then WW will make them by starting a new fleet.

We all need to be enlightened, times are changing, BA must change, this means we all share the pain and we all contribute to the cuts.

coffeewhiteone

10th Aug 2010, 15:10

Going back to the hat argument, a number of CC said they'd refuse to wear one when the LCY service started if they were operating on the route. The reason....it wasn't in their contract. And here we go again :ugh:I for one would like to see all CC wear hats.

Bridchen

10th Aug 2010, 15:26

I'm not sure about the not in their contracts. It's not in mine but we had to wear one for years, carting around hat box, 'n all, and if we reported having forgotten it, we were taken off the trip. This wasn't a hundred years ago, either. It was costly to replace them, and they got misshapen in the rain. This also caused the woollen ones to shrink leaving you with an attractive looking line on your forehead resembling a labotomy scar. :) I'm neither here nor there, but the company saying they're a "perk" for MF that won't be offered to current crew, will get most people burning a path to uniform stores to pick one up. :-D The predictable nature of us animals!

mrpony

10th Aug 2010, 16:13

...has HANDLE VANDAL pasted up that tedious article from the Grauniad? Probably the most unbelievable bit of fictional b******t in the world.

HV - your time would be better spent rallying those Bassa members that still really exist to the great (lost) cause. Remember Dorkan Holy (sic) has promised that further action ( of a non-specific nature) will take place ( at an unspecified time) so you need to be prepared. Go forth HV and gather your flock for the last great battle against the evil tyrants at BA.

Betty girl

10th Aug 2010, 16:14

I don't think anyone is particularily bothered about wearing one or not wearing one.

The hat that we used to wear was very big and had to be kept in a big hat box. When it rained the felt version shrunk and the summer straw version went soggy. It was removed because it was not popular with staff and it cost the company alot.

It is in our contract to wear a uniform and that uniform is whatever the company decides.

The point is that having one group wearing it and one group not is sending out a strange message. It is devisive to both the wearers and the non wearers. Both to new crew, current crew and also ground staff who also do not wear the hat.

giza

10th Aug 2010, 17:14

You post is going to upset quite a few people here Eddy, who only portray BASSA and its reps in a stereotypical 'militant' image.

Your comments have blown that. The rep in question killed the crew with kindness, and why was that such a surprise? Only because the Colonel this and the Mr that's here are dedicated to spending hours tapping away anti-BASSA rhetoric, and it is getting a little tiresome.

Hector, I dont think every BASSA rep is being tarred with the same brush, I am sure their are good and bad in sections, but most of the "rhetoric" you speak of is based on particular incidences and reps, the fact that this rep is doing a good job and has therefore NOT been suspended proves that BA are not bullying and targeting only those reps that need to be held accountable, good luck to all those "good" reps and may you eventually rule the roosts with reason and concideration for the people you represent.

Nutjob

10th Aug 2010, 18:25

"A BA Manager Speaks"

Written by Duncan Holley, sent to the Grauniad by DH, poster here by DH no doubt. Pathetic.

Duncan
Do you stand by your "outing" of the WW Purser?

Hector Vector

10th Aug 2010, 19:14

Cloud9. BA would be making substantial profits right now if Walsh had not targeted BASSA and provoked a strike. Virgin have picked up at least 50,000 extra passengers from BA and our dispute has probably stopped them from going bust. Both EasyJet and British RyanAirways have also seen a large increase in traffic

All the money other departments have given up has merely been squandered on union busting. You only have to look at Aer Lingus and how Walsh dealt with the pilots there who refused to adopt the new work patterns, to see that what is happening with BA's cabin crew is not without precedent. Walsh is too one dimensional in dealing with industrial relations problems, especially the ones he creates.

So Cloud9, enjoy your pay cut if you are a BA pilot. See if your sacrifice to "Back BA", may as well have been given to charity for the good it has done to help BA "survive".

Hot Wings

10th Aug 2010, 19:26

Holley Vector,

Will the next strike now be about hats? CSDs to have the same hats as Captains perhaps (they're good for keeping an armpit warm on a cold day).

Please do the decent thing before you have a complete mental breakdown. There is still an opportunity for you to end this with some of your dignity intact. Your career at BA is over but don't ruin it all for your old cabin crew colleagues.:ugh:

LD12986

10th Aug 2010, 20:05

Hector - I would not make claims about the financial health of other airlines unless you have evidence to substantiate them.

Once again, you are completely deluded as to why the strikes failed: the majority of cabin crew reported for duty, as Duncan Holley himself accepted in his latest missive.

You are also wrong to claim that the savings from other departments have been used to fund "union-busting". All the costs of the strike action is being recovered from IFCE.

Hector Vector

10th Aug 2010, 20:20

LD. All the savings from other departments went into the pot and paid for things like chartering British RyanAirways aircraft.

Many crew reported for duty who supported the strike, because they were single parents, could not afford to give up Staff Travel or a myriad of other personal reasons. At least 20 to 30% of the strike breakers fell into this category.

It cannot be taken as a given that all the people who did turn up for work are "Backing BA". That is a ridiculous assumption.

LD12986

10th Aug 2010, 20:27

Hector - The quid pro quo is that many who went on strike actually wanted to report for duty but didn't for fear of intimidation on the way to work, and after the strikes in the CRC, on board and downroute. Witness the difference between the number that went on strike and voted no to the latest proposal.

Desk Jocky

10th Aug 2010, 20:48

Hector Vector wrote:
All the savings from other departments went into the pot and paid for things like chartering British RyanAirways aircraft.

Many crew reported for duty who supported the strike, because they were single parents, could not afford to give up Staff Travel or a myriad of other personal reasons. At least 20 to 30% of the strike breakers fell into this category.

HV, Do you actually read what you post ahead of clicking the submit? If you did you would see how misguided you are being in your analysis.

Take the savings you say were spent chartering aircraft? I really think that the savings made upto now have been significantly greater than the £200m cost of BASSA IA. :ugh:

To say that up to 30% of non-striking crews were only doing so because they were single parents or couldn't afford to give up staff travel (like the 5,000 or so that have!). Not only is this a huge numbers, when overseas crew and those travelling from regional basis can only be around 2-3% of the total CC number, and an even smaller amount of these have to travel further than it would cost to choose a uk alternative such as easyjet, ryanair etc.. and I had no idea that the CC community was blighted with such a high contingent of single parent families! But then you probably know them all personally. :rolleyes:

What we are seeing now is the final hours of a union not beaten into submission, but whos own actions have cause immeasurable damage to the BA brand, in an the vain attempt to try and beat what every other employee group has accepted as the necessity to keep BA going forward. :D:D

BackingBA

10th Aug 2010, 21:03

Guys,

Why do you all keep feeding the troll? Granted I have a mild case of BA vs BASSA masochism as I have been reading this thread for about 18 months but those of you who keep asking for an adult debate from posters who have no interest in a fact based discussion need to see a medic.

May it all be over soon

Melissa1510

10th Aug 2010, 21:20

i work in WTS and i can honestly say that if that post is for real...hum..., then i can imagine this person being one of these dinasours the rest of us wish they would retire sooner later than later and take their winging with them.
People are just getting on with their worklife and hardly talk about this situation as ther is nothing more to say. We just feel we are pretty much back to business as usual. Most of us are busy and if we need to work a bit harder to keep the company flying we just do so.
"working a bit harder", something everybody is embracing around the nation to get out of this crisis, except some very stubborn colleagues of us.

Colonel White

10th Aug 2010, 22:14

I do hope that Hector is aware of the copyright laws. Copying an article verbatim from the Guardian and posting it on here with no credit given is a straight infringement of copyright. When it was published under the Comment is Free section of the Guardian it drew some very scathing comments plus the usual far left, SWP support.

Some very good comment on the SLF thread on this topic. The root cause probably lies with previous BA managers who failed to grasp the nettle with the TUs. I believe that the problem stems from a civil service mentality, the last vestiges of which are still present in the company. Too many employees, managers, supervisors and ordianry workers, had very little experience outside of BA. When I joined 20 years ago, the average length of service was around 15 years. You joined BA and stayed for life. As a state owned business it was as secure as the civil service. When Thatcher sold it off, the people stayed the same. The attitudes have taken a lifetime to break down. So because the unions have been used to getting their own way it has come as a bit of a shock when a CEO lays things out in pretty stark terms. He can do this because he has swept away a raft of managers who liked to maintain the status quo. Those who are left are hungry for change, hence they support him. The smarter operators on the union side looked at the abyss and decided not to jump. Which is why, albeit there have been grumbles, successive groups have done deals on pay and productivity. Except BASSA.

BA and Willie Walsh did not target BASSA and anyone who thinks that to be the case should be very careful about making such statements without proof to back them up. BASSA self selected themselves. BASSA have put their credibility and the livelihoods of their members on the line by pursuing an action that had no real hope of success. They picked the wrong arguement at the wrong time. Anyone who seriously thinks that an appeal court is likely to overturn the judgements in the case Malone & ors vs BA is in for a big surprise. The sample case of Stott was thrown out as Nigel admitted in court that he had not worked under the new regime. The judge determined that since that was the case, he had not suffered as a consequence, thereby holing his case below the waterline - own goal or what! So roll on October.

I will lay odds that the Unite leadership wish to see this whole sorry affair drop. They have elections for a new general secretary looming and it is noteworthy that some of the contenders are distancing themselves from this dispute. A new general secretary has the opportunity to brush this under the carpet and label it a mistake by former leaders. For cabin crew the worst case scenario is that Unite formally dissolve BASSA as a branch and amalgamate it into a large grouping along with ground staff.

Bridchen

10th Aug 2010, 23:35

Hector Vector:
Many crew reported for duty who supported the strike, because they were single parents, could not afford to give up Staff Travel or a myriad of other personal reasons. At least 20 to 30% of the strike breakers fell into this category.

Hector Vector, have you considered that people tell you what you want to hear, either for fear of being shouted down, "outed" or simply because you choose to surround yourself by people who can only make up their minds about something because you give them permission to hold your opinion?

I was, at the time of the strikes, a single parent who could not afford to give up staff travel or a month's salary. Those were not the reasons I chose to come into work. If I had felt the union were doing a good job in representing me and keeping me informed, and were being brow-beaten by WW, instead of the actual scenario, which was nothing more than a self interested and damaging attempt to tell the company how it was going to be, then I would have been on the picket line.

Come October, I will no longer be a single parent, but I still won't be on a future picket line. If I'm joining any queue, it will be to get a re-imbursement of all my BASSA contributions from last year where they failed to negotiate a reasonable deal, despite being given numerous proposals to work on. Instead they decided to concentrate on rubbish and not only failed to represent the interests of thousands of main crew who were already working in the cabin on a trolley, but refused to discuss them at all. Simply, BASSA didn't do what they were paid to do. That's written warning material, isn't it? But there's no come back for those of us who didn't get what we handed over our hard earned cash for. We can't even get them under trade descriptions.

I keep hearing about all the T&Cs BASSA have negotiated through the years and how grateful we should be. THAT IS WHAT WE PAID OUR SUBS FOR AND WHAT THE REPS GET RENUMERATED FOR. If I'd been non-unionised, then maybe it would be fair game to have a poke at me, but I helped pay for those negotiations to take place at all, by my subs being used for reps ground duty payments. And don't start banging on about them missing trips and allowances. We all know they de-rostered themselves from the DEL and BOM, worth £70 for 3 days work, and gaining £300 for the 3 day trip length. Nice if you can get it! But at least the rest of us could operate the trashier end of the roster to give BASSA reps time to go to meetings that they failed to turn up to.

So, I'm afraid, Hector Vector, that's the opinion of at least one single mother, and I KNOW I'm not alone. We want a settlement, not an extended fight that is so all encompassing, it's now trying to incorporate a work-to-rule on window blinds.

Hector Vector

11th Aug 2010, 06:35

Perhaps Bridchen you might like to explain what you would do if your new contract pops onto your doormat next week?

You have obviously put your trust in Walsh and Francis. Hopefully come October, you might marry into money. You will need it.

Desk Jocky

11th Aug 2010, 07:29

Perhaps Bridchen you might like to explain what you would do if your new contract pops onto your doormat next week?

Hector, that is pure conjecture, as you have no way of knowing if new contracts will be issued to any member of CC, let alone those that have supported BA, throughout this whole mess. If anyone was likely to receive a new contract it would be the 5,000 or so misguided BASSA members, who felt so strongly about their T&C that they were fully justified in costing thier employer hundreds of £millions through pointless IA :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Hector Vector

11th Aug 2010, 08:18

Desk.

Walsh could have accepted the unions proposals and without going through it all again, there would have been over £50m in savings, no £200m wasted on strike costs and around £1.5bn retained in forward bookings.

Instead Walsh, as he has done before, ran true to character and wielded the big stick. As someone once said on this forum over a year ago, Walsh and his team all thought at the first onset of IA, all the cabin crew would be down their doctor's surgeries "practicising their coughs". Well it hasn't worked out that way. Over 7,000 went on strike. A slight miscalculation I would say. One certainly worthy of a resignation.

So what is going to happen now? Whilst the company loses money hand over fist (allegedly), the LT award themselves £11m worth of bonuses, paid for in part by sacrifices made by other departments in BA. Just a banal customer satisfaction target was all that was needed to trigger this windfall. So whilst we are all expected to tighten our belts, the LT are at the trough. And before anyone says "Willie didn't take his", future bonuses and salary for Walsh as CEO of IAG, will make those bonuses look like a weekends pocket money in the near future.

To be honest, most of you have been taken in. I would like to know what "books" BALPA were privvy too before they rail-roaded their members into taking a pay cut. If I was flight crew, I would be very unhappy now at that decision.

BA would be currently reaping big profits as the company surfed the crest of the recovery, but instead it is a business racked with industrial relations problems. Its front line staff are marginalised as hate figures by other employees, and vilified in the Press. No doubt customers look and think: "well if that is what the CEO thinks of his staff, I'll book with another airline".

There is no way back from the mess that Walsh has been allowed to create. I fear the airline is in a financial stall from which it may never recover.

Emergency action will be required before the end of the year. My prediction is that LGW shorthaul will be sold off to FlyBe and the long haul routes sent to LHR. BA will struggle to recruit staff of a sufficient calibre even to meet the new lower expectations of its customers. The meltdown will continue, as even BA staff tell friends and family to book with other carriers.

The embedded problem now at British Airways is a bit like the psychology of car assembly workers for Chrysler, a decade ago in the USA. No one wanted to be on the Neon production line, and it showed in the quality of the cars produced. If they don't like the Neon, then surely it will not be a good experience for the owner. That is what has happened at BA now, and will be impossible for the current management to turn this round.

TightSlot

11th Aug 2010, 08:47

A large number of deletions and thread-bans required recently - Here is something to think about.

If you have nothing new to say, try saying nothing. Endless iterations of the same point, recycled with added presumed wit and insight are very dull

Hector Vector is a form of troll. You cannot reason with a troll: You cannot prove or disprove anything they say, because they have no interest in engaging in the first place. The intention of a troll is to inflame and provoke. You are adults - do not be inflamed and do not be provoked. Just ignore. That's what adults do.

We are reluctant to ban the BASSA trolls, in any of their incarnations, because of a desire to enable as many different views as possible - However, there are limits to this policy and HV is fast trying our patience.

Try not to act as a pack and aggressively hunt down even mildly pro-BASSA users. If you collectively create an environment where they are ruthlessly and immediately attacked, it will be no surprise when there is no other point of view expressed. Then you will have nobody to discuss anything with but yourselves, which is boring to others.

In attempting to keep this thread on topic, and of even vague interest to the larger world outside the small number of serial posters on this thread, mods will make heavy use of the Delete function. This is an imperfect process as we try to keep the thread relevant and interesting. I'm afraid we don't have the time to respond individually to each poster writing to enquire why their brilliant and incisive contribution was deleted? You'll just have to roll with the punches.

Bengerman

11th Aug 2010, 09:51

Hector, I'll have another go............

On a serious note, can you say if the members of BASSA are in a better place now than they were in June last year?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 10:12

HV.

What you need to understand is that the 50million savings you offered were not popular with the vast majority of crew, with the exception of some CSD's.

On euro fleet we did not want mixed flying (all the longhaul low value 767 routes) just to preserve CSD on euro fleet.

We were happy working to the new crewing levels on all but a few flights and even thoes now we have been able to master.

We would have accepted :-

Pursers would have been happy to take out a 767 in charge if this had meant protecting our situation and having new joiners on our fleet.

Most crew would have dropped a day off to keep new joiners with us.

But did you try and negotiate. NO!!!! You were only interested in protecting the CSD rank on eurofleet and protecting CSD's on worldwide from having to do a little extra work.

That's why you did not get the support you wanted because many crew could see you were just looking after your own self interests and now we are all in a far worse situation than before.

HiFlyer14

11th Aug 2010, 10:13

Perhaps Bridchen you might like to explain what you would do if your new contract pops onto your doormat next week?

We have already had our new contracts - the one that says we will get a 2 year pay rise, keep the current crew complements and work to our existing contracts.

So best the BASSA members focus on taking care of themselves and what BASSA members will do when a new contract lands on the doormat. Us non-BASSA members are doing very well without BASSA thankyou. No loss of pay, no loss of staff travel, and a pay rise to boot. I could not be happier in my job.:)

Volmet South

11th Aug 2010, 10:20

My prediction is that LGW shorthaul will be sold off to FlyBe and the long haul routes sent to LHR.

Your point begs a few obvious questions such as

1. Where will FlyBe find the money given their other financial commitments ?

2. Where will the additional slots at LHR be created for BA to allow the extra flights to operate ?

As you assert that other airlines have higher load factors thanks to the industrial action, I don't see slots being relinquished any time soon.

I fear the airline is in a financial stall from which it may never recover.

British Airways today (July 30) presented its interim management statement for the three months ended June 30, 2010.

Period highlights:

Operating loss of £72 million (2009: £94 million)

Strong yield performance in both cargo and passenger business

Loss before tax of £164 million (2009: £148 million)

·Cash balance of £1,749 million, up £35 million from year end

·Pensions agreements approved by the UK Pensions Regulator

·Regulatory approval received for transatlantic joint business and Iberia merger

Ergo.... I think the stall recovery will be straightforward. Martinis all round chaps !

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 10:41

Here Here HiFlyer

asperge

11th Aug 2010, 10:43

Betty Girl you seem woefully misinformed. Where did the unions ever accept or request mixed flying? The proposal for mixed flying comes only from BA and has never been accepted by the unions for existing crew members. The other examples you cite about what shorthaul pursers would and wouldn't accept are frankly immaterial too as they have not featured in the discussions. If you want to make a contribution to this highly charged debate it would be better if you came armed with the correct facts and not to post your own views as though they are part of negotiations, as these threads are already soaked in half truths and falsehoods.

Timothy Claypole

11th Aug 2010, 11:26

Did not one of the BASSA offers include the transfer of 767 work from WW to EF?

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 11:27

Well you obviously have not even read BASSAs original proposal, you know the one they keep saying would have saved 50 million.

The offer definately brought all 767 aircraft over to eurofleet with all the 767 longhaul routes.

The companies original request, that BASSA were so upset about, created a single supervisory position on Eurofleet having a cabin manager replace CSD's and Pursers. It was after the breakdown of these talks that caused the company to take the Purser off the 767 leaving just the CSD in charge. It was at this time that they reduced all the crew compliments also.

I am sure that there are lots of well informed crew on here that will confirm that BASSA did want longhaul 767 work as part of their proposal and also that the company did want one single supervisory rank on eurofleet.

I think you will find that it is you that is ill informed. Try and find BASSA's offer to BA. It used to be pinned up on the board at CRC but it has long gone from there now.

StudentInDebt

11th Aug 2010, 11:33

Where did the unions ever accept or request mixed flying? The proposal for mixed flying comes only from BA and has never been accepted by the unions for existing crew members.

The following is taken from the proposal put forward by BASSA/UNITE in June 2009.

Productivity - Euro Fleet

B767 aircraft will move to Euro Fleet to be operated under a new Euro Fleet agreement.

Euro Fleet Single Supervisor.

It is agreed in principle that the CSD and PSR role can be considered a single role for the purposes of bidding/rostering. The principles are as follows;

- A CSD or PSR can bid for or rostered any trip on any single aisle aircraft type (except 767.)

- A CSD or PSR can be rostered in-charge of B757.

- Only one SCCM to be rostered on B757 and any single aisle aircraft type and the current PSR position is to be replaced by a main crew member.

- On Euro Fleet B767 the SCCM must be a CSD, with the current PSR position being replaced by a main crewmember.

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 11:39

Asperge.

What really shocks me about your post is that you actually have so little knowledge of what your union was trying to negotiate in your name.

How can we be in the situation we all find ourselves with people like you, willing to put your jobs on the line and lose your staff travel, who actually have no knowledge of what your union was suggesting in your name.

Yes that has always been part of BASSA's 50 million savings. It is how they wanted to keep the CSD on Eurofleet. Oh yes, has the penny dropped for you!!! Yes they are nearly all CSD's!!!!

Devereux the lead negotiater has always wanted longhaul 767 work on eurofleet and he saw this as a way of getting it. That is why so many euoofleet crew did not want this BASSA proposal and many preffered BA's original proposal but the union was only interested in protecting themselves, the CSD's.

You need to actually know what you are talking about before you tell others they are wrong.

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 11:45

Asperge.
Just another question to you. Are you actually crew?

Just wondered because we hear about BASSA members that never bother to read the company emails and letters but I am shocked that you don't seem to read the union ones either!!!

Witraz

11th Aug 2010, 11:51

To be honest, most of you have been taken in

HV - From the pens of the psychologists Chablis and Simons: There is no doubt that a CEO is officially responsible for the performance of their company, but attributing all the company’s success or failures to the one person at the top is a classic illustration of the illusion of cause.
So, who has been taken in?

Abbey Road

11th Aug 2010, 13:21

Hector Vector (Dunc),
Walsh could have accepted the unions proposals and without going through it all again, there would have been over £50m in savingsHow many times do we have to put that right? BASSA offered near zero savings - they wanted all the money back after a couple of years. They were treating it as nothing more than a 'loan' to BA. So HV (Dunc), you're otherwise weak argument fails at the first hurdle. :}

Its front line staff are marginalised as hate figures by other employees, and vilified in the Press.And with those of your ilk attempting to pass off drivel as fact, then it is little wonder the marginalisation occurs. Self-inflicted handiwork - well done! :D

Betty girl,
Asperge, Just another question to you. Are you actually crew?

Just wondered because we hear about BASSA members that never bother to read the company emails and letters but I am shocked that you don't seem to read the union ones either!!!Thats a wee bit rich, isn't it? The union is barely capable of putting together any communication that is coherent and truthful. All we have seen are hopeless allusions to wars and atrocities (much of it offensive) and stories about tomatoes and song lyrics - not an ounce of substance anywhere! No one has asked HV (Dunc) if he is actually crew - is that because you are clearly aware that he isn't actually crew .... anymore? Consequently, he doesn't meet the test required by this thread:
This thread is intended for use by people presently employed as airline staff.

If you do not fall into this category - please do not post here ......But the Mods do acknowledge that HV (Dunc) "is a form of troll", and is perhaps riding close to the Mods "heavy use of the Delete function".

52049er

11th Aug 2010, 15:52

Looks like another (the final excepting the Muppet Show?) part of BA has managed to reach a negotiated settlement..

The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ba-staff-close-to-deal-2049808.html)

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 16:04

Abbey Road,

I see your point about the union not being able to put together any communication that is coherent and truthful but the proposal that BASSA suggested, was up on the BASSA notice board for months and monrhs last year as were letters of theirs explaining how bad it was, that BA wanted to replace CSD's and Pursers with a new single incharge crew member. It seems strange that this passed Asperge by.

Timothy Claypole

11th Aug 2010, 16:11

The grounds staffs deal has been done in all but name for months. Unite had resisted signing the deal in a show of solidarity with the cabin crew but it appears even they've now lost patience. BASSA really have been cut adrift by every other employee in BA.

Tiramisu

11th Aug 2010, 17:07

Betty Girl,
With respect, more Eurofleet CSDs came to work over the strike than Pursers, at least that's what I saw as I worked most days of the strike.

We have fought long and hard to protect our rank. Why should I give up something I have worked my socks off to achieve when I have accepted change. I had to wait 14 years as Main Crew before I was allowed to go for Purser promotion after which I immediately applied to be a CSD. That is how it was when I joined BA, many moons ago.

If you were a CSD, would you be prepared to go down a grade when you had worked hard to achieve promotion?
On 767s we are managing really well without a Purser since imposition and Bill Francis and BA have been fair in allowing us to keep our grade. This has contributed to huge cost savings.
To be a Cabin Manager or whatever the title would have been on Eurofleet for the single supervisor, would have made very little difference to our salaries. This is something BA would not have been able to change in any case, so there is very little point in doing away with the grade. We might as well as may be the case, die a natural death so to speak.

I have also 'backed BA' more than the average crew member and gone above and beyond more than most. Please be a little bit more reasonable when attacking CSDs, because you are tarring us all with the same brush.

Betty girl

11th Aug 2010, 17:19

Tiramisu. I think you misunderstand. I know alot of CSD's came to work. I don't think BA wanted to remove your pay they were just wanting to have one senior crew member on E/F. E.g. current CSD's would have kept their pay just no more Pursers would have been made into CSD's in the future. They were basically wanting to have one SCCM on eurofleet and had been wanting that for a long time.
I think personaly that that would have been a better option for you than the one we have now when you CSD's are doing just 767 band 4 work.
I personaly like the fact that I now only work on the airbus and don't have to work on the 767 anymore.
I was not meaning to upset you as a CSD but just trying to show how short sighted the union were in all their negotiations.
It was the fact that all the union reps were CSD's and just looking after their own interests that I was getting at.
Of course I don't blame CSD's persay. You are a great bunch and you in particular give great posts on here.

I think the union has actually let you down the most. You could be doing a much nicer mix of trips if they hadn't been sio insistant that only CSD's could be in charge of the 767s. So sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying.

TightSlot

11th Aug 2010, 18:34

Please be advised that the account of Hector Vector is temporarily suspended pending confirmation of airline employment. Therefore please refrain from posting further comment to this user until you see further posts from him: This will be your indication that credentials have been confirmed. This post will be removed at that time.

DeThirdDefect

12th Aug 2010, 07:38

One of HV's oft-repeated mantras is/was that VCC should watch out because they placed their jobs under threat by demonstrating that they are expendable because the airline continued to function without them when they were off training for and serving as VCC.
Given that, it's interesting that in its very first sentence in "A Senior Manager in BA Writes" posted by him http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-95.html#post5859940 mentions a growing backlog of work and twice more it describes the problems being caused by VCC being away from the office.
It was kind of him to provide the ammunition to demolish one of his favourite claims.

WeLieInTheShadows

12th Aug 2010, 08:21

The VCC are indeed an interesting element of this situation. For the third time recently I have heard from CM friend of mine (all from 3 comments from different CM's) that one (on one occasion two) of the VCC on her flight was "not a team player".

The feeling was that as they were a manager in their normal job, this was something they were "expected" to do, not happy to do. Also they were not happy to muck in and help, but instead tell the regular crew when toilets needed restocking, there were safety issues in the cabin etc etc. A bit of a supieriority complex that the CC job really was a bit beneath them unfortunately.

Needless to say, all received feedback.

If that also was their attitude (I have no reson to doubt the people I know, not these ones anyway!), I'd actually be quite happy that they didn't interact with customers, and pass on issues to the people who do want to be there.

I would also say that these individuals are also in the minority and apart from these comments have heard nothing else but good things.

The point I'm trying to make is although VCC are "backing BA", not all are doing it willingly, or find that the CC job is for them (see the pilots and facebook incident a few months ago).

Luckily at LGW the VCC keeping in check are "extra" to the normal crew levels. Giving CM's the option to give such individuals the option to "sit the rest of the flight out, to consider if CC is for them".

Another part of this interesting web.

FWIW.....

I think the SH at LGW will go to Flybe eventually (Walsh has been very open about looking at other revenue streams for the LGW shorthaul product in all his forums). The LH will stay (Again Walsh has been very open about starting new Eastern routes, subject the changes in the MOA). The crew will end up being moved onto the new mixed fleet contracts and dual based.

There seems to be a almost elated atmosphere amongst the crew at LGW that the SH will be go and that only the LH will be left.

If they think BA will leave it like that, I think they need to think again.

The changes have only just begun.

LD12986

12th Aug 2010, 08:53

On VCC, out of hundreds of volunteers, it is not surprising that some will find the role (and it is a temporary one) just is not for them or do not work well in the team environment.

I'm sure if you put long standing flight and cabin crew into an office environment every day for five days a week, many would find the adjustment very difficult.

As for LGW short-haul, something may happen (possibly after the Iberia merger) but I will believe the disposal of the entire operation when I see it. I think the company will want to retain the ability to move short haul routes between LGW and LHR.

MrBernoulli

12th Aug 2010, 08:54

DeThirdDefect

I am not convinced that the text of that posting is a from a 'manager' at all. It has all the hallmarks of being one of the many BASSA-initiated fairy tales that they try to pass off as coming from supporters of BASSA. Even if it does partially sabotage HV's claims, I firmly believe it is bogus.

HiFlyer14

12th Aug 2010, 09:41

For the benefit of the large number of cabin crew who worked during the strike, yet still surprisingly remain members of BASSA, here is an outline of the BASSA mistakes, and what the Professional Cabin Crew Council (PCCC) would have done differently:

a. Negotiations.
BASSA refused to attend meetings, watch presentations etc. The PCCC would have sat through the presentations, etc and negotiated. That's what a union is PAID by its members to do.

b. Imposition
BASSA went on strike about one crew member off an aircraft. Crew did not mind. The PCCC would have agreed the one crew member off in exchange for tough negotiations about Mixed Fleet, thereby improving our job security.

c. Strike Action
Calling a strike for the 12 days of Xmas was a fatal error that has cost us all dearly - the general public, and other BA employees now hate us. The PCCC simply wouldn't have done it.

d. Listening
BASSA should have listened to what the members want. They should not name/shame people on their forum who post a different view. The PCCC would conduct proper, legitimate ballots to establish the general consensus. A show of hands at Kempton Park, given that our community is dispersed around the world, is not a democratic or fair way to do it.

Along with this are all the other errors, as has been proven through the various court cases.

Any cabin crew member who came to work during the strike is throwing good money after bad by remaining in BASSA. They won't represent you if you need their help, so you are wasting your money. Call Payservices (the number is on the back of cabin crew news) and cancel it today!

If every crew member who came to work during the strike had now resigned from BASSA/Unite, the Union would probably be defunct. Do it now!

AtlasDrawer

12th Aug 2010, 15:08

Hello

Today I received a letter from BA, signed by BF telling me that because I accepted the last pay deal from BA 'Way Forward Agreement' that I am now covered by the pay deal and the assurances within the agreement. This comes into force from November 2010. This, I have to say is a big relief to me as , lets face it the pay deal is not going to get better.

Then I had a thought: what is going to happen to our other colleagues in UNITE? Is staying on the contract that they have going to be an option come November? One thing I thought might happen is that they will continue to work to their old EF agreement, but because of diminishing work, not be eligible for the top-up payment. Or perhaps BA will give 90 days notice on the existing contracts on WW and EF (SOSR?) and force everyone to sign up to the Way Forward Agreement.

In the letter, it says that over 1,100 crew signed the agreement and that this equates to @95% of non-union crew members.

And as for Hector Vector's argument that:

Perhaps Bridchen you might like to explain what you would do if your new contract pops onto your doormat next week?

That isn't going to happen, well not to me or anyone else who signed up to the offer. Or at least not for the next two years , and lets face it who knows what will happen in two years.

If I was in UNITE, and had not gone on strike, I would be thinking very carefully about remaining a member in this union as it does not appear they have done a very good deal at representing their members in this whole sorry affair. And that is even before you consider that DH might name and shame you for not going on strike on the BASSA forum.

I am so relieved to be out of this union, and in the future if anyone says 'oh but BASSA got that agreement for us' I shall be able to say 'oh no no they did not, my agreement was secured with BA'.

AD

sttropez

12th Aug 2010, 15:37

Thanks AD

What concerns me is will the CC who were BASSA members on 25th June but backed BA and came to work and have now left BASSA get the chance to accept the latest offer?

Or will they be treated in the same way as the strikers?

A lot of CC stayed in BASSA so they could vote for BA and had no warning from BA that if they remained in BASSA they would not be eligable for any offers from BA.

Thank you

AtlasDrawer

12th Aug 2010, 15:52

What concerns me is will the CC who were BASSA members on 25th June but backed BA and came to work and have now left BASSA get the chance to accept the latest offer?

Or will they be treated in the same way as the strikers?

Hi sttropez..

My hope is that the next step will be to put the offer forward to anyone who wants it. Because, lets face it BASSA are not going to recommend this to their members.

If I were you, I would email BF and ask him directly. Then you shall have an answer one way or the other.

On another forum, it has been mentioned that TW was on a BA flight in the last few days and let it be known that another strike ballot is unlikely, and that BASSA are fighting a losing battle. Oh dear.

AD

sttropez

12th Aug 2010, 16:20

Thanks AD

Will do. Fingers crossed and hope we all get the chance to accept the offer.

sttropez

28L

12th Aug 2010, 16:45

What concerns me is will the CC who were BASSA members on 25th June but backed BA and came to work and have now left BASSA get the chance to accept the latest offer?

Or will they be treated in the same way as the strikers?

The CSD on my flight last week (might have been you?) made this very point, and I sincerely hope that BA change their mind. It seems unfair that crew who have 'seen the light' don't get the same deal.

Snas

12th Aug 2010, 16:55

I sincerely hope that BA change their mind

It is illegal for BA to make offers to encourage people to leave or change a union.

...and union members are bound by a collective agreement, which as sub paying members they (employees) in turn have agreed to pass the choice to their union to accept offers or not.

Bed made..! Sorry, it's a grim situation I know and I do feel for those that remained in just to vote no, but there you go.

Perhaps it's time to leave now before the same thing happens again?

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 17:22

What concerns me is will the CC who were BASSA members on 25th June but backed BA and came to work and have now left BASSA get the chance to accept the latest offer?

Or will they be treated in the same way as the strikers?

A lot of CC stayed in BASSA so they could vote for BA and had no warning from BA that if they remained in BASSA they would not be eligable for any offers from BA.Is that right?

I seem to remember getting plenty of notice from BA that I'd be given the opportunity to vote IF I wasn't a member of the union.

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, StTropez, but it's very easy to claim support for BA now that there's no doubt in anyone's mind (well, bar a few hundred crew, perhaps) that the war is over than that BA has emerged victorious.

But for those of us who backed BA from the very start, to see the offer extended to those who went out on strike and only opened their eyes after causing untold damage to the reputation of the airline and after it became clear that there was no way Bassa would win, seems somewhat unfair.

Just as the strikers delighted in saying that non-strikers shouldn't be allowed to benefit from the deal secured as a result of the strikes, it works both ways. Why should those who did strike be allowed to enjoy the benefits secured by those who didn't?!

It's harsh and for that I apologise, but many of us have gone through months of hell in our quest to back BA.

Additionally, there was NEVER any way that the ballot return would be anti-Bassa. No way. Bassa has built itself up as an unbeatable organisation at the polls - its members will, largely, always vote in the union's favour. So I don't REALLY buy the "stayed in to vote no" thing.

Further, how do we know who ACTUALLY voted no? Unite sure as hell won't tell us.

MrBernoulli

12th Aug 2010, 17:32

Refers to incidents a while back now, but highlights such hopelessly juvenile behaviour by the BASSA cultists. :yuk:

The Sun
Strike row BA crew in dirty demo
Thursday, 12 August 2010

CABIN crew on a British Airways plane poured milk over beds and stuck trolley doors shut with GLUE after flying into a rage with bosses, it was claimed last night.

The furious staff also disconnected ovens and blocked sinks with bags of waste, sources say.

The dirty demo happened at the height of the strikes that rocked the airline in the middle of June.

The crew, working on a Sydney-to-London flight, went on the rampage after they found out they were being relieved by "scabs" in Bangkok.

An insider said: "They rendered the crew rest area useless by pouring milk over the bunks, blocking sinks and stuffing coffee pots full of foul liquid."

The source added: "One of the people involved was suspended by post on Tuesday."

BA last night refused to comment on the Sydney Sabotage.

But unions are angry that they have suspended key member Nicky Marcus. She represented the cabin crew who were hauled before bosses. Ms Marcus was also prominent on picket lines at Heathrow.

BA would only say she was suspended for "interfering in the employment relationship between British Airways and its employees".

The airline and unions have still not agreed changes to working practices after more than 18 months of talks. British Airways cabin crew in vandalised a plane on Sydney-to-London flight, it has been claimed | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3091625/British-Airways-cabin-crew-in-vandalised-a-plane-on-Sydney-to-London-flight-it-has-been-claimed.html)

AtlasDrawer

12th Aug 2010, 17:54

I have heard rumblings of this for a while... oxygen bottles emptied in the crew rest area etc etc...

To the crew who did this.. proud of yourselves are you?

Eddy:

I also have the same reservations as you reference people staying in the union - I keep hearing "I am only staying in the union so if I get into trouble at work, BASSA are duty bound to protect me". Yes they are duty bound to protect you, but whether they bother much providing you with a good defence at the time remains to be seen.

The meeting at Kempton racetrack (early Sep) should be interesting. Obviously I am not going!... but if I was a member who went on strike and had no staff travel, I would be there asking hard questions of my reps, one of which should be:

"Where is my staff travel, you promised it would be reinstated in 5 minutes?"

If this question did get asked I will wager that BASSA will try to blame the strikebreakers or sc*%s.... as they like to call us.

sttropez

12th Aug 2010, 18:09

Hi Eddy

Don't know how to do quotes but here goes:

My concern is for those who 'Backed BA' and did NOT go on strike.

Is that right?

I seem to remember getting plenty of notice from BA that I'd be given the opportunity to vote IF I wasn't a member of the union.

On 25th June Bill sent out:

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.

On 9th July the:

Individual and collective offer (https://planetba.baplc.com/general/aptrix/aptcsops.nsf/Content/Inflight+Services+Home%5CBusiness+Tools%5CIndustrial+Relatio ns?OpenDocument) (Friday, July 09, 2010) appeared on the intranet.

What notice did you get prior to 25th June 'that I'd be given the opportunity to vote IF I wasn't a member of the union'?

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, StTropez, but it's very easy to claim support for BA now that there's no doubt in anyone's mind (well, bar a few hundred crew, perhaps) that the war is over than that BA has emerged victorious.

But for those of us who backed BA from the very start, to see the offer extended to those who went out on strike and only opened their eyes after causing untold damage to the reputation of the airline and after it became clear that there was no way Bassa would win, seems somewhat unfair.

I take your point Eddy, but I repeat my concern is for those who 'Backed BA' and did NOT go on strike, but had not resigned from BASSA on 25th June.

sttropez

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 18:14

Eddy, I am really suprised at what you have said to St Tropez.

Thousands of crew voted NO to BASSA's first ballot and lots voted YES to the offer. Lots did stay in the union in the hope that more people would vote YES to the offer and the union would accept the companies proposal.

Why should crew who worked through the strike, like you, and voted against IA and voted YES to the offer, be penalised.

This offer was not a reward for the select few who happened to have already left the union before 25th June like me and you, it was a serious offer that BF wanted all crew to have it was not a reward to you..

I really don't think you need to worry St.Tropez because I think the union will eventually come to it's senses and accept the offer on your
behalf.

However if I were you I would leave the union now ( you can always rejoin again in the future) just in case he makes the offer again and then you would be in a position to sign it then.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 19:10

Eddy, I am really suprised at what you have said to St Tropez.Soweeeeeee :\

Thousands of crew voted NO to BASSA's first ballot and lots voted YES to the offer. Lots did stay in the union in the hope that more people would vote YES to the offer and the union would accept the companies proposal.But I just don't get that logic.

The union was ALWAYS going to win the ballot. Always. A far stronger show of defiance by crew would be a mass exodus from Bassa's membership register than a large no-vote when it came to accepting a deal.

Like Atlas said, a LOT of crew wanted the best of both worlds. They wanted to be able to enjoy the "benefits" of having not been a striker, but also wanted to enjoy the protection that being a full union member normally offers.

You're right that thousands stayed in the union to vote no, but what seems better/stronger for a union? A result seeing a large, but not nearly large enough, "no" vote OR a large "yes" vote of the members remaining following 3,000 resignations in one month? What makes for a better headline!?

Why should crew who worked through the strike, like you, and voted against IA and voted YES to the offer, be penalised.They absolutely shouldn't be. Where did you get that I thought they should be?

This offer was not a reward for the select few who happened to have already left the union before 25th June like me and you, it was a serious offer that BF wanted all crew to have it was not a reward to you..I don't see it as a reward, either. A reward, in my opinion, would have been being offered the deal of June 2009, or the one of March 2010 (before the first lot of walk-outs). That would have been a reward.

What this was was a sensible decision on the part of the company to keep happy those of its crew who had elected to back the airline during the industrial action. It wasn't a reward at all - it was merely the company offering crew not involved in the IA a chance to sign up to a deal to get rid of the uncertainty over just how bad an offer a union to which they don't belong would ultimately secure for them.

In terms of those who stayed in the union to vote "no" but still want the chance to accept the deal extended to non-union members, that's the danger of union membership hun. Sad to say. You take what the union agrees, or you leave. That's how unions are meant to work. Those who wanted to stay in the union to vote yes should have been able to see from miles off that the "yes" would never, ever win.

But I don't see it as a punishment. I see it as these members getting what their union has agreed for them, or atleast not getting what the union has rejected.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 19:22

Snas

12th Aug 2010, 19:29

Bassa refused to offer protection when called upon for it.

Can I be a hairsplitter here, in the interest of clarity.

A union can offer representation, not protection. No union member employee enjoyes more protection than a non-member employee, the employment law (which is where the protection comes from) is the same for both.

Copenhagen

12th Aug 2010, 19:31

Read eddy's comments again. If true (and I'm not saying it isn't), it seems that BASSA failed to provide representation in a disiplinary because the member worked during the strike.

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 19:34

Well Eddy, hindsight is a great thing.

Alot of people who were in the union also worked during the strike and I personally don't want any of them to be diadvantaged by not being able to take advantage of the offer. Only 5000 went on strike remember.

BA is a unionised company and they have actively encouraged membership in the past. At no time has BF told people to leave the union, firstly he would not be allowed to and secondly he actually wants the union to represent the majority of people's views. Having said that of course this union has not actually done that, they don't seem interested in finding out the views of their membership but thats not the members fault and particularily thoes that voted NO to striking and YES to the offer.

I personally hope that the union will eventually see sense but failing that I hope that anyone that wanted to accept the offer can and is not penalised because they did not leave the union. I can't understand why anyone would think any differently.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 20:13

Betty, I'm kinda torn. There are people like yourself - good people who acted with the best of intentions - who will suffer as a result of the company's (current) lack of willing to extend this offer to Union members. I wouldn't have a problem with the offer being opened up to you. By the sounds of things - correct me if I'm wrong here - you've actually realised that the union is leading you down a long path over a long cliff, that the company isn't the demon Bassa would like you to believe and that the current offer is a good one (though IMHO not as good as those we've seen in the past).

CHANGE OF MINDSET HALF WAY THROUGH >>>>>

Actually, no. If you've left the union, you should be allowed to take this deal. The company should open up this offer in My Opportunities and give people one month to accept it - and they must NOT be a member of the union by the end of those 30 days.

I respect those who now support our union. I respect those who supported the company and worked. I do not respect those who did both (and there are a lot of them, sadly).

Snas

12th Aug 2010, 20:21

who will suffer as a result of the company's (current) lack of willing to extend this offer to Union members.

Sorry Eddy, I cant let this one go. It was extended to union members, they voted to reject it.

The company should open up this offer in My Opportunities and give people one month to accept it - and they must NOT be a member of the union by the end of those 30 days.

That would be illegal.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 20:27

Sorry Eddy, I cant let this one go. It was extended to union members, they voted to reject it.I know. I know. I know. I'm so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

But what about the union members who voted to accept?!

I KNOW, that's the danger of union membership. You wanna be a member of a union, you take what said union negotiates on your behalf.

I think I changed my mind again. No - it shouldn't be re-offered.

That would be illegal.No moreso than the offer I signed....

"This offer is only available to crew who are not a member of the union on XX of XXX 2010".

Snas

12th Aug 2010, 20:32

No moreso than the offer I signed....

"This offer is only available to crew who are not a member of the union on XX of XXX 2010".

My bold: - as the letter said "were"

Note quite chap. The first offer was made after the cut off date for union membership meaning that it could not be viewed as encouraging you to leave, as it was already too late.

Were a new offer to be made (for example) on Monday on condition that you had let the union by the following Friday, then that would literally be encouraging you to leave the union, and illegal.

Eddy - I totally understand where you are coming from and for the most part agree with you - however BA is ruled by the law in this, and thats that.

AtlasDrawer

12th Aug 2010, 20:32

By the way, a manager I know recently had to deal with a disciplinary case involving a Bassa member who had worked during the strikes.....

Bassa refused to offer protection when called upon for it.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Kinda knew this would happen, but its more evidence for the case that people should leave BASSA. Lets face it, lots more broke the strike than actually striked. BUT shame on BASSA for refusing someone representation, as I thought they could not do that....hmmm??

sttropez

12th Aug 2010, 20:34

Hi Eddy

Replied earlier but my post has to be approved by a moderator :confused: I am new to this so in brief

I seem to remember getting plenty of notice from BA that I'd be given the opportunity to vote IF I wasn't a member of the union.

On 25th June BA made the offer if you were not in a union on that day. I would be grateful if you could provide comms from before 25th June to back up your statement

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, StTropez, but it's very easy to claim support for BA now that there's no doubt in anyone's mind (well, bar a few hundred crew, perhaps) that the war is over than that BA has emerged victorious.

But for those of us who backed BA from the very start, to see the offer extended to those who went out on strike and only opened their eyes after causing untold damage to the reputation of the airline and after it became clear that there was no way Bassa would win, seems somewhat unfair.

I take your point Eddy, but I repeat my concern is for CC who were in a union, 'BACKED BA', did NOT go on strike, still have ST, have supported BA throughout this awful time, and may not have a chance to accept the offer if Hothead Holley calls another ballot for IR

Betty, Thanks.

PS don't know how to do quotes :confused:

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 20:34

Perhaps it was more to do with 'when' Bassa had someone 'available' to represent the crew member. Perhaps Bassa were 'having a busy year' and couldn't spare someone.....

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 20:36

Eddy,
I am not in the union and I did accept the offer. I just know lots of good people who did work during the strike but remained union members and I am just hoping for their sake that the union sees sense or the company gives them the chance to sign in the future.

That's all.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 20:40

Hiya Betty,

my apologies - I mis-interpreted your situation.

I think these people need to leave the union IMMEDIATELY.

Sitting around, waiting, hoping that the company will make the same offer again to the union and that, this time, their union colleagues will see sense and accept, it daft.

Tell your friends to GET OUT NOW. If this offer is ever to be made again, they'll need to be out of Bassa to be allowed to accept it.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it. Your friends have to choose between the protection the union might offer you on the off chance that one day you'll need it (the two times I've needed their help they've been useless!) and accepting a decent offer here and now.

That's not to say I still don't respect the majority of the Bassa reps, the work they do and the reasons they do it. But when it comes to something major like taking strike action, one has to make a personal choice.

As for your friends; they cannot have both.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 21:13

Hiya StT! :)

Replied earlier but my post has to be approved by a moderator Don't worry about it.... Things have a tendancy to go missing on here from time to time :ok:

On 25th June BA made the offer if you were not in a union on that day. I would be grateful if you could provide comms from before 25th June to back up your statement.Forgive me, I can't. And you know what, perhaps I'm getting befuddled.

Nevertheless, those with the foresight to leave the union that descended into chaos early on in this whole affair have been given an opportunity to sign up to a deal unlikely to be rivalled by anything union members will now see.

Those who, for whatever reason, chose to retain their membership of said union, have not been privy to the same offer.

It's harsh, but it's fair.

I take your point Eddy, but I repeat my concern is for CC who were in a union, 'BACKED BA', did NOT go on strike, still have ST, have supported BA throughout this awful time, and may not have a chance to accept the offer if Hothead Holley calls another ballot for IRFor starters, they shouldn't have remained in the union. I think I might actually have been in the union for part of the strikes, but only for the first one and only because of major problems getting BA Pay Services to stop my contributions.

But I'd never dream of staying in a union that I am defying the strike calls of. Not for any reason.

Those people did a good thing in backing BA, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they kept paying the union and, thus, helped FUND the strike!

PS don't know how to do quotesNe'er mind! It's not particularly straightforward. Why they don't just give us a quote button is beyond me!

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 21:14

Was in CRC today.

You might imagine that a union member would think twice before gleefully boasting that they had lost £348 by going on strike, yet had recieved more than £400 in strike pay from the union.

You might imagine that, but you would be wrong.

Regards continuing union membership: As in all areas of life, there are choices. Choices have consequences. (Sorry, that probably sounds a little condescending). But basically, my view is that to continue to fund an organisation (and thereby appear to apparently "support" it) with which one appears to have a very fundamental difference of opionion, is quite simply silly, or at best misguided. Therefore one of the above mentioned "choices" has to be made now, once and for all. Too many seem to be fence-sitting on a now very dilapidated and rickety fence. Surely it'd be best to jump off the fence now, before it collapes around you, and possibly harms you in so doing?

While BA certainly does seem to want union representation and therefore continuing collective bargaining, surely it's entirely upto the employees to decide exactly which union it is that'll represent them, and the manner in which that representation is undertaken?

Just as acting as a representing union is a very serious matter, with possibly very far-reaching consequences for all involved, then so also is being a member of such a union. Too many seem to have failed to grasp this, and see the whole thing as a bit of a laugh. Not quite so funny now though is it, for those still choosing to support bassa/cc89/unite?

Today we have news of the unite strike ballot of BAA staff. Just minutes ago, Brian Boyd was on BBC R2 News, talking about " .... the employer, the British Airports Authority .... ". It's not been called that since 1986! It'd be nice if those at the top end of unite could get the general details right, before trying to interfere with the minutae of many hard working peoples working lives.

giza

12th Aug 2010, 21:17

Hector, why do you continue with this same rubbish when you have been proved wrong so many times

Walsh could have accepted the unions proposals and without going through it all again, there would have been over £50m in savings, no £200m wasted on strike costs and around £1.5bn retained in forward bookings.

Not sure where you get the £1.5 from, but aside from that, you wanted the £50m paid back in the good times, so no saving there, without doing anything more, BA will make £1.5bn savings over the next 10 years with crew reductions and new fleet, money well spent.

Instead Walsh, as he has done before, ran true to character and wielded the big stick. As someone once said on this forum over a year ago, Walsh and his team all thought at the first onset of IA, all the cabin crew would be down their doctor's surgeries "practicising their coughs". Well it hasn't worked out that way. Over 7,000 went on strike. A slight miscalculation I would say. One certainly worthy of a resignation.

7000, not true, 4973 in total, with 667 of these returning to work

So what is going to happen now? Whilst the company loses money hand over fist (allegedly), the LT award themselves £11m worth of bonuses, paid for in part by sacrifices made by other departments in BA. Just a banal customer satisfaction target was all that was needed to trigger this windfall. So whilst we are all expected to tighten our belts, the LT are at the trough. And before anyone says "Willie didn't take his", future bonuses and salary for Walsh as CEO of IAG, will make those bonuses look like a weekends pocket money in the near future.

I am sure if the TU wish to talk about performance related pay for any staff group Willy would be happy to listen

BA would be currently reaping big profits as the company surfed the crest of the recovery, but instead it is a business racked with industrial relations problems. Its front line staff are marginalised as hate figures by other employees, and vilified in the Press.

What planet are you on, even take away the strike and ash costs, we still would have only broken even.
Crew hated ?, not true, all the crew that worked are admired and respected by all in the airline

There is no way back from the mess that Walsh has been allowed to create. I fear the airline is in a financial stall from which it may never recover.

You might be right here, but this is due to BASSA, not Willy.

Emergency action will be required before the end of the year. My prediction is that LGW shorthaul will be sold off to FlyBe and the long haul routes sent to LHR. BA will struggle to recruit staff of a sufficient calibre even to meet the new lower expectations of its customers. The meltdown will continue, as even BA staff tell friends and family to book with other carriers.

I hope you not a betting man, if you are bet on this. BA cost savings allow expansion into new routes, the low cost base of the CC has allowed many new routes from LHR to florish, due to the slot limitation at LHR, both full and increased usage if LGW has allowed for growth from both airports as well as via Madrid. \the tie up with AA on the Atlantic has allowed schedules to be aligned leading to improved profits on these routes, ba back to 10% profits by 2012, shares go through the roof, staff rewarded with big bonuses (well, those that have signed up for the new deal)

G.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 21:23

Sometimes it's not a bad thing for BAA to be referred to as British Airports Authority. There is a common misconception that BAA and BA are the same company (or atleast that people mis-hear BAA as simply BA and draw their own - incorrect - conclusions).

When talking about strikes, we need as little risk of people thinking they're talking about BA as possible.

An elementary mistake on the part of the Unite lacky, but not an unforgivable one, for once.

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 21:31

Hi Eddy

Point taken.

Although personally, I'd rather hear BA refered to as British Airways (which is, after all, its official name), and BAA refered to as BAA (which is its official name).

I did once have to pick-up Jeremy Vine on the very same issue, a couple of years back.

What's that saying? ..... "The Devil is in the detail". (Devil is in the detail - Idiom Definition - UsingEnglish.com (http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/devil+is+in+the+detail.html)) :)

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 21:34

HV may not get to see your post for a while, as per post #1941 by TightSlot.

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 21:44

While British Airways can't entice employees to leave a union, I as an individual certainly can. Although to be honest it's nothing so complicated as enticing .... I just simply tell them to leave.

Is it not highly likely that British Airways will make another identical offer in the near future, specifying that it's open to employees who are not members of unite on XX/XX/2010?

While a lot of things are currently unclear at the moment, this is exactly why people, colleagues of mine, simply HAVE to open their eyes, search for the clues, and then decide what's best for them.

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 21:53

Eddy.

The thing is that prior to the anouncement on 25th June there was no other way of getting the offer accepted other that voting YES, so that is why many were still members on 25th. Not because they wanted representation, not because they agreed with the union but because at that time, that was the only way to get the offer accepted.

BF was being inundated by people like you, who felt duty bound to leave the union, asking him to give them a way to accept. At the same time he wanted to heap pressure on BASSA so that is why he made the offer.

However because BF cannot by law offer an inducement to leave the union, he had to anounce it on the 25th and also make that the day you had to have already left the union. So NO people like StTropez had no way of knowing and even though he has probably now left the union he has no way of accepting the offer. I just feel sorry for him and knowing what a normally thoughtful and caring person you are I was just a bit suprised at how harsh your original post sounded towards people in StTropez position.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 21:57

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 22:03

I remained a BASSA member to vote yes to the latest proposal, before that I voted No and No to both strike calls, I thought that was the best thing to do at the time. ( better to have a voice and dilute )
I have now left BASSA unfortunately after june 25th cut off.
I returned my acceptance ( after the cut off date) with a side letter explaining, but BA have not replied, not even an acknowledgement.
I too worked during the strikes.
I understand that BA cannot be seen to entice crew from the union, however I am now left without BASSA backing and it would appear also from BA.:ugh:

pcf - While admiring your honesty, I think maybe it was a mistake to enclose a side letter with your acceptance. All British Airways needed, was for you to state that you were not a member of unite as of 25/06/10.

I'm pretty certain you'll get another chance to accept a direct offer from British Airways, as will everyone else who has now left the union.

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 22:05

pcf, I cannot express enough sympathy to you.

Have you now left Bassa?

(EDIT : I notice Tor above has said what I'm mid-typing)

I hope you have, because I suspect the same offer will be extended again in a month or so to people like yourself. People need to start making their minds up now about what they want.

Good luck - I mean that sincerely.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:08

I contacted the 'BA helpline' and was advised not to make a false statement - on the acceptance form it clearly stated ' not a BASSA member on 25th June' ..I didnt have an option

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 22:11

pcf,
Please don't worry.
I think if you had just said you were not in BASSA instead of enclosing the letter you would have got away with it because not even the union knows who is or isn't but I guess you are too honest to have done that. But that's by the by now.

I think it would be a good idea for you to email BF directly [email protected] ([email protected]). He takes a while to reply but he always does and he may be able to put your mind at rest. I have emailed him loads of times and he has always been very caring and reassuring to me.

I am hoping that BASSA will see sense soon and accept the offer and then everyone will automaticaly get it even if you are not in BASSA so please don't worry.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:13

yes Eddy I have left BASSA, thru the payrole and e-mailed them and yes...they wished me well ! I too have found the reps to be very reasonable, its the members that are the problem:eek: or dare I say the forum members ! I had a long conversation with a very senior rep recently and found him to be very grounded.

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 22:17

I contacted the 'BA helpline' and was advised not to make a false statement - on the acceptance form it clearly stated ' not a BASSA member on 25th June' ..I didnt have an option

My sympathies also, in addition to Eddy's.

Once again, and with my full admiration, your complete honesty has been your downfall in this instance. While I in no way condone dishonesty, simply signing the statement and returning it to British Airways would have sufficed. Of course, the very next thing on your "to do" list would have been resigning from the union.

Don't worry, I really can't imagine that there won't be another chance for you and others. British Airways is obviously aware that many more have left the union since 25/06 and will not leave you in apparent limbo for much longer.

Chin-up.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:17

Betty Girl, thank you for your support and the link to BF - yes I am going to contact him - I have always found BA to be a good employer, but currently feeling a bit down about this situation - however you are right - 'take the bull by horns' !!:ok:

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 22:21

....I am hoping that BASSA will see sense soon and accept the offer and then everyone will automaticaly get it even if you are not in BASSA so please don't worry.

But surely, bassa in its present form isn't just suddenly going to "see sense" and do a complete about turn. If anything, this is the proof that the (remaining) members either have to storm the castle and force a change in the top echelons, and hence the way bassa conducts itself, or simply give-up and resign from the union.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:28

Eddy

12th Aug 2010, 22:32

Afraid of what/whom, PCF?

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 22:38

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 22:39

I know this may sound daft - but many of them are afraid .. I have many friends who have had dreadful messages and threats and will NOT do anything about it ... yes, I have talked to them about help put into place by BA but ...

No, in the current situation, what you say doesn't sound daft at all.

All I can say is that for me, and my many friends who have also left bassa, it's just such a relief and so totally mind-freeing. (They can't touch me, I'm NOT part of the union :))

This is where people REALLY DO HAVE TO GET REAL. If they are having threats made against them, they just HAVE to act. Whether that's going to BA or maybe even the police, as scary as it might seem, it DOES have to be faced upto, and taken for what it is.

While this apparent paralysis is quite understandable, nothing is going to change if nobody reports anything.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:39

striking/non- striking 'friends', friendships that span 20 years plus have now been ended..it is so sad, I know people who post here tend not be be emotional but very factual however sadly what has happened is emotive. best not say too much or I will be moderated, but thanks Eddy for asking.

pcf

12th Aug 2010, 22:42

and Torc and Betty Girl - thank you

Betty girl

12th Aug 2010, 22:46

pcf,

You are right it is so sad and it will never be forgotten. It will go on being a rift in our community untill WW and EF cease to be and that is so, so sad.

TorC

12th Aug 2010, 22:49

TorC
Yes it is a bit of a problem.

The trouble is, it is impossible for these people to put pressure on the union because alot have subsequently left.

I personally would email BF and WWalsh and write to DS and TW and ask them to put pressure on BASSA but that is the kind of person I am. You don't get what you don't ask for is my moto. If hundreds of people wrote to DS and TW and explained how badly represented they felt, they might take notice but I know that most people would feel able to do that.

I am no longer in Amicus but I still send them emails asking them if they are happy what DH is doing in their name!!!Reminding them if they disassociate themselves from BASSA that I and many others might rejoin them. It probably does no good but it makes me feel better!!!!

With respect Betty girl, this is NOT something that someone else is going to sort out.

Remaining union members really should, IMHO, grasp the fact that it is they themselves that ARE the union, and as paying members, they have the rights to get the union to do as THEY wish. If that proves impossible, then surely they should just resign and seek an alternative means of representation?

Given the huge financial machine that unite now is, I personally feel that £s, or more precisely the loss of those £s through dwindling membership, is pretty much now the only thing that might stand a chance of getting the message through.

What's more important here: the desire of the union to represent workers, or the desire of the workers to be represented?