British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[TightSlot]

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: Please visit the Pax/SLF Forum where there is an active thread running HERE (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/409355-ba-strike-your-thoughts-rants.html) that welcomes your thoughts.

[riga101]

Email sent to groundstaff yesterday... Preparing for 100% schedule

Over the last strike period, colleagues from across the airline came forward to back British Airways. Without their sterling effort, it would not have been possible to keep our customers flying. You have continually gone over and above, truly demonstrating fantastic teamwork and a sprit that makes this airline truly special.

Unfortunately, we continue to face uncertainty, and possible disruption throughout the summer. Unite has already expressed its intention to ballot for further action - we have to be ready. During the next phase of industrial action, it is our intention to fly 100 per cent of our longhaul operations. This is our commitment to our customers, shareholders, investors and colleagues. We cannot and will not let them down. We can only do this with your help.

To ensure we keep this promise, we need more colleagues to train as volunteer cabin crew. Many colleagues have come forward already, but if you have not as yet expressed an interest in being trained as volunteer cabin crew and would like to do so, please register on the Backing BA pages on the intranet (https://essmail.baplc.com/SRedirect/planetba.baplc.com/general/aptrix/aptrix.nsf/Content/BBIA-Form).

We are currently running training courses, which are begining in the next few weeks.

Let do all we can to keep our customer promise - thank you for your continued support

.................................

So call it a days guys ..... All BA non crewstaff are backing their company not BASSA

[ChicoG]

PC767 said:

Even though BA's only loss has occurred under Walsh's tenure.

Something to do with a massive global financial crisis, methinks.

He also presided over BA's biggest ever profit in 2008.

So is there some kind of point you are attempting to make here? If so, could we please hear it?

From 17th May 2008:


BA staff secured a £35m windfall yesterday after the airline hit its 10% profit margin target for 2008 but analysts warned that the coming years may be bonus-free as a high oil price and a weak global economy pose a fundamental threat to the industry.

Willie Walsh, BA's chief executive, reiterated his determination to guide BA through the storm as he atoned for the Terminal 5 fiasco by waiving the £700,000 bonus he should have received for overseeing pre-tax profits of £883m.

[MrBunker]

PC767,

What you've posted from the BASSA forum isn't, sadly, what they've sent out in the letter dated the 9th Jun to all Unite cabin crew members. Their third point of issue for ballot is as follows and doesn't mention the word unwarranted

3. We consider the disciplinary action taken against Unite members for various misdemeanors (sic) related to the current industrial dispute as vindictive, disproportionate and unnecessary. Unite is therefore seeking the withdrawal of all disciplinary measures administered to Unite members under those circumstances discussed during the recent negotiations.

And that's their official pre-ballot communications.

MrB

[Eddy]

So is anyone willing to wager a bet on when we're likely to see the next ballot papers sent out?

It seems quite clear that talking is as useless today as it was 12 months ago.

The only way this is all going to come to an end is when one side buckles completely under the pressure and has to take whatever the other side is willing to offer at that moment (which is why I think Bassa should seriously considering ending this dispute NOW, accepting the last deal on the table - or even asking for the previous one to be returned.... Call me crazy but I think Walsh would oblige).

Then in 6 months time Bassa should go back to the company and say that things have been working well under the new agreements, there have been no further industrial problems, and ask for staff travel to be returned to strikers.

I don't think Walsh will return it as part of any deal. He is not going to want to appear either weak or that he's been held to ransom. I do think staff travel will be given back, but not as part of any strike-ending agreement.

So it's time that Bassa drops it from the list of demands but offers members an assurance that they will return to the issue in 6 months time.

[Litebulbs]

I don't think Walsh will return it as part of any deal. He is not going to want to appear either weak or that he's been held to ransom. I do think staff travel will be given back, but not as part of any strike-ending agreement.

If it was me, which it is not, I would have raised a grievance with regard to the removal of staff travel, as a punishment for taking part in protected industrial action. I would have asked for one of the Unite GS's as my rep. What have you got to loose? They can't take it away again and you can then show due process before a tribunal.

[PC767]

Mr Bunker.

I await an official letter then, but your copy is disappointing. Although it doesn't represent all the outstanding issues I believed that at least one area could have been dealt with equably and fairly.

Riga101.

What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

Litebulbs.

I believe individual grievances are being encouraged and supported on the BASSA forum.

[PC767]

Eddy.

Walsh not wanting to appear weak or held to randsom is part of the problem, as much as the BASSA leadership. Somebody is going to have to swallow their ego and as the senior partner I believe Walsh should make the first move.

[Eddy]

I agree entirely that someone is going to have to swallow their ego. Sadly, the two sides of this dispute also happen to be two of the strongest egos any of us will ever have encountered.

However, I don't agree that Walsh should be the one to give in. He may be the senior party, but he's also the strongest and enjoying the most support. He has the support of his pilots, ground staff, engineers, office workers... Bassa appears to be able to boast the support of the unwashed hoodlums of the Socialist Worker Party.

Isn't that normally the person who emerges the victor?

I find it incredibly difficult to talk so negatively about Bassa, for I maintain enormous respect for the reps and for the work they do to secure favourable terms and conditions for us, the cabin crew. But this time around it's all gone too far and I wish they could see that.

[PC767]

Eddy.

Victory. That is the crunch.

Why need there be a victory for either side. This is an industrial dispute, not a war or world cup. The only victor should be the company and the passengers.

Both sides claim that is what they are working for! Every side should be backing ACAS to bring this to an end.

A quest for victory is a quest to satisfy an ego. There should be no place for such quests within a company.

Transpose the adage 'In war there is no winner when both sides have God on their side.'

[MrBunker]

PC767,

Ordinarily I'd agree but when you're dealing with two branches of a union which variously refer to the situation with nods to Iwo Jima, Tiananmen Square, 1930's Germany et al and still, on one branch's side at least, has a picture of the CEO with red eyes, I think it's debatable as to which side has the biggest ego problem.

MrB

[Eddy]

It's difficult to disagree with much of what you say, PC.

You're right that there shouldn't, under normal circumstances, be a 'winner'. But this industrial dispute isn't like many others. It's messier, nastier, dirtier and more public. And because it's so public, because the public feel they deserve the right to be involved in this dispute, I think both sides see a need for someone to come out on top.

Again, I agree that there shouldn't normally be a winner in this dispute, but I fear that in this one, someone winning is the only way it'll ever come to an end.

[mastafreighter]

Miss M
Haven't really appreciated many of your posts but the fact you have responded to most questions and in particular, questioned why you weren't offered the chance to vote on a BA proposal proves you weigh up the evidence.


PC767
What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

W Walsh is doing what he and his board are paid to do - strategic planning. If there is a threat of action, as a feduciary duty of a Director to plan around it. If they left it until a positive vote (if it was) had been taken, then shareholders could sue them personally.

Why is always BA/Walsh that should give in or change. Your suggestion that all dicips should be heard by an independent third party is against the agreement already in place and agreed to by both parties. If BASSA doesn't trust BA or wants these hearings, would BASSA be willing to fund them?

I haven't seen W Walsh requesting a certain "lady" to be dicip'd because she called him a ---- perhaps you find that acceptable?

MF

[LD12986]

I haven't seen W Walsh requesting a certain "lady" to be dicip'd because she called him a ---- perhaps you find that acceptable?

Lizanne claims to have called WW a ---- to his face.

Duncan said in one of his daily updates from Bedfont that WW, until very recently, had never met any of other BASSA reps and had only dealt with the Unite leadership.

One of them isn't telling the truth.

[Eddy]

Lizanne isn't a rep; she's the chairperson of the branch.

Neither of them need to be telling lies for both statements to be true.

[PC767]

Eddy.

On a seperate issue, your last post rather proves my point about independent discipline resolution.

Mastafreighter.

Because somebody has to make a move. Should press reports be believed, Woodley stated that the sticking point was staff travel. That being the case Walsh would still benefit if he magnanimously returned the perk. He would have his imposition settled, new fleet unopposed, monthly travel payments etc.

[LD12986]

Eddy. This is what Duncan wrote:

2. He is determined to have a regime change at BASSA. Well he's got rid of me (he thought) but I'm not going anywhere soon. Seriously why is he so anti-BASSA, he's never met me or Lizanne and yet he talks as if we introduced Arthur Scargill to the world of militancy. Willie, grow up - man. Don't believe what Alun Howells told you - we want what you want, what the crew want, a happy successful airline. Nothing more, nothing less - it is a shame that, since your arrival you have never ever bothered to meet us or even talk to us. Had you even attempted to have been approachable from the beginning we surely would not be where we are today.

[mastafreighter]

PC767

"Because somebody has to make a move" Why not BASSA - they are supposed to represent the "majority"

How would getting ST back settle the dispute regarding imposition? He will have still imposed new crew compliments which is what (supposedly) this devacle was about. If he then caves in on that issue, what has been achieved - a short-term loan of £65m?

Woodley onle stated that the union would suspend action and not cancel it completely.

[Wirbelsturm]

I would have raised a grievance with regard to the removal of staff travel, as a punishment for taking part in protected industrial action.

Protected industrial action only covers unfair dismissal, not the withdrawl of ST. Especially where, within the Staff Travel regulations, it clearly states that the perk maybe withdrawn at any time.

Raise your grievance if you wish but expect it to be given the same dismissal as Duncan Holleys employment tribunal got.

Somebody is going to have to swallow their ego and as the senior partner I believe Walsh should make the first move.

Senior partner? Has BA become a law firm?

Why should Willie Walsh 'give in'? What has his ego got to do with it? The implications of taking industrial action were patently clear. In order to recoup as much of the possible losses incurred by the company during IA the 'perk' of ST would be withdrawn.

If you took IA you lost company gifted perks.

BA have been dealing with and attempting to negotiate with BASSA far longer than any other Union. I assume in BASSA speak that all other Unions jumped into bed with BA and are enjoy cushy deals as BASSA was the only Union WW wants? Never forget that WW was himself a Union rep before joining management. He knows how the local boards run, he knows that the local branch of BASSA don't have the full support of the membership, he knows that the company have been more than flexible with BASSA and he knows that the rest of the company, the board and the investors will not accept any compromise after the damage the Union has done.

Nothing to do with egos, all to do with protecting the company from the ludicrous strike threats that have appeared year after year after year.

This IA has no support from either within or without the company except for a dying bunch of hotheads.

Edited:

Just to add that, personally, I don't think this has anything to do with Staff Travel or the re-insttatement of personnel. Myself? I really couldn't care less if, as an olive branch, Willie Wlash gave staff travel back. I don't think most people would care that much either.

The problem here is Unites inability to control BASSA. As BASSA are the only ones within the fragmented Union who can actually call off the dispute they are the ones who need to be brough under control. Sadly something that is unlikely to happen in the near future.

[Stelton]

MissM - Earlier this week week, one of the crew on my trip was asked by a manager to remove her lanyard. Coincidentally, it seems to have been on the very same day you were asked to remove yours. Was it you? Were you on my trip?

She was the only crew on the trip who had been on strike. Maybe that explains her shocking behavior. Being a pilot, I did not witness it in-flight but other crew did. Over dinner at destination, one of the pursers said that this girl had been talkative to the rest of the crew until she learnt that they had not been on strike. From then, she only answered when she was addressed. Another member of the crew had asked if she wanted to do duty free together. The reply given had been a blatant no. After arrival at outstation, until we reached the hotel, she did not say one word to any of us. Not one word. Our CSD made a funny remark when we were waiting at customs, which the rest of us laughed at. Her face was like stone. We arrived at the hotel and were given our room keys. A girl of the crew asked her if she wanted to join the rest of us for dinner later that evening. She answered that she would rather eat dust. Those were her exact words. :ugh:

On the way back, the cold thermostat was back on. She did not speak unless addressed. I tried to open a conversation with her on the bus on our way to the airport but her facial expressions said it all that she was not interested. Back at LHR, she disappeared quickly but we met again on the crew bus to the car park. She looked very busy staring out the window pretending that she did not see me. :uhoh:

Is this how you strikers are intending to behave?

Are you really able to forget about who went on strike versus who did not and act professionally?

Out of curiosity, how are you behaving at work?

[Litebulbs]

Protected industrial action only covers unfair dismissal, not the withdrawl of ST. Especially where, within the Staff Travel regulations, it clearly states that the perk maybe withdrawn at any time.

Staff travel has not been removed.

[Wirbelsturm]

Staff travel has not been removed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this? The documents covering Staff Travel are pertinent to the staff member reading them as they are written in such a manner.

Thus, stating that staff travel may be removed for any reason pertains to the staff member individually. Not 'may be removed in its entirity'.

Semantics I'm afraid Litebulbs.

[Litebulbs]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this? The documents covering Staff Travel are pertinent to the staff member reading them as they are written in such a manner.

Thus, stating that staff travel may be removed for any reason pertains to the staff member individually. Not 'may be removed in its entirity'.

Semantics I'm afraid Litebulbs.

That is your interpretation, but not mine. In my time at BA, it did not happen for IA. I would test it.

Semantics I'm afraid Wirbelsturm.

[ndbluemoon]

To: All Americas teams (BA mainline)


------------------------------------------------------------------------

A week ago I wrote to let you know that holders of EU passports can now volunteer as cabin crew.

I am very pleased to say that this has now been extended to mainline BA colleagues who are holders of US passports.

We urgently need more colleagues to sign up as volunteer cabin crew as we do not know what Unite's next actions will be and we must be ready to support our customers.

By volunteering, you will become a member of the on board team – delivering service to our customers, carrying out duties similar to existing cabin crew and being responsible for the safety of our customers. You will be fully trained to meet all safety and legal requirements.

Please note that you must satisfy the following requirements to volunteer:

* You must be between 5' 2" and 6' 2" tall
* You must have a reach of 6' 7"
* You must be able to swim 25 metres (about 85 feet) confidently
* You must have a valid UK/EU/US passport with more than 6 months validity


Note that we still need to run the business and your participation will be subject to manager approval. Your senior manager will be asked to review and approve your volunteer request.

To sign up, click here. You will be contacted with further details, with training beginning as early as the first week in July.

Thanks again for backing BA and keeping our flag flying.

Regards,

[Caribbean Boy]

ndbluemoon (http://www.pprune.org/members/316658-ndbluemoon),

Thanks for your post, it hadn't occurred to a Heathrow-centric :O person like myself that VCC may come from overseas.

Do you know how many people BA employs in the US? I think that the main bases are at JFK, Bulova and Jacksonville (Flytele reservations). I'm guessing that not too many will be allowed to volunteer as most of their jobs are operational.

[Timothy Claypole]

Following on from the previous threads examples of intimidation from the BASSA forum, I found this nugget on there today in response to the news that BA have accepted a 62 year old employee as a volunter cabin crew member:


Once again new depths are being plumbed by BA. Disgrace........I know its hateful of me but after the last couple of days I've had at work I actually hope something kicks off. That's what WW has reduced me to.
Before enyone shoots me down in flames I am not wishing death on anyone but would be mega happy if slides got blown.

Now I thought that new depths were indeed being plumbed - by the BASSA mentalists, who'll kick up an orchestrated stink about alleged homophobia but don't see any problem with ageism. Then I saw the reply to that post:

Tyaya if it was it would be covered up by BA !!!!!If the public really knew what was going on inside Aushwitz at the moment......!!!!????

Truly astonishing! Time to sack these nut jobs.

[MissM]

Stelton

It must have been somebody else. On my last trip, 9 of 14 went on strike.

I think I'm behaving in a good manner at work. It's becoming easier to spot strikers and non-strikers. I don't talk to strikers more than necessary and I definitely don't socialise with them downroute. Regarding our pilots, I'm always senior enough so I can always choose a position which means that I don't have to look after them.

Eddy

ST should be reinstated when an agreement is reached. Not 6 months later.

[Eddy]

You're missing the point though, MissM. Walsh is, I would hazard a guess, NEVER going to give staff travel back as part of a negotiated settlement to bring to an end these strikes. Too many other people in the company would be up in arms if he did.

A manager friend of mine said that she and "all the other crew managers would go mental if he gave it back" because of all the extra effort they had put in to keep the company flying.

Like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in this company are THRILLED that strikers have been punished for participating in the strikes by having their travel perks removed. Walsh would face uproar if he returned it as part of a strike-ending agreement.

What both parties need to do is drop the staff travel issue here and now. Find an agreement without the inclusion of staff travel. It's the only way this will be brought to a swift conclusion.

And in six months, after operating normally, Bassa should go back to the company and put a case forward to have staff travel given back. I think they'd succeed.

Walsh won't give it back as part of a negotiated settlement because his ego won't allow it. But he'll give it back to be 'nice' in six months time, I have little doubt.

Sadly, just as Walsh's mammoth ego won't allow him to give staff travel back, Bassa's equally hefty ego won't allow a deal to be done without its return.

So again, unfortunately, it comes back to who can sustain the strikes for longer..... And if the company is operating a 100% schedule, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out who that is likely to be.

[Ninna Goaround]

YouTube - BA's culture of industrial relations and people management. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BUuIGAqnrc)

[Caribbean Boy]

Eddy (http://www.pprune.org/members/79133-eddy),

I don't think the non-return of ST depends on Willie Walsh's ego. Why? You gave the answer yourself. Those of us who helped to keep BA flying want consideration for our efforts. We see it as an issue of fairness. It is certainly not fair that those who damaged BA and its customers' travel plans should get away scot-free as far as ST is concerned.

[Eddy]

But why not? When the coal miners went on strike they didn't suffer in any other way than to lose money (and, of course, lost friendships/broken families etc, but I'm talking about company inflicted penalties).

When posties go on strike, they lose the same.

Nobody else (from businesses of another nature) who goes on strike loses anything other than the cash they'd have earned had they been at work.

Walsh has honed in on this benefit we all enjoy and is using it as a bargaining tool when, to be honest, a lot of people aren't sure he should be. A lot of people would argue that staff travel should never have become involved in this whole dispute.

[Timothy Claypole]

Those who've lost staff travel will certainly argue it shouldn't have become involved! Others might say that BASSA have been far to quick to call for strike action in the past and this time they need to understand that actions have consequences. BA have a right to defend themselves against industrial action, why should the BASSAmentalists get away scot free? Perhaps strikers in other industries don't have the benefit of non-contractual perks which their employers could choose to revoke.

[Wirbelsturm]

Litebulbs,

By your (former Amicus rep) interpretation, if anyone loses a benefit within the company for any reason then it should be removed for all?

Why does the removal of a benefit/perk for those taking part in damaging IA which allows only protection from dismissal mean that said perk should be removed from all or not at all?

You can't cry under discrimination as it is at the wish and will of the management as to whether any member of staff 'deserves' said perk and there are no laid down rules or regulation for removal.

This dispute is NOT about ST, that is just a red herring, it allows Unite to continue to bluster whilst they try and get their incalcitrant child under control.

[Caribbean Boy]

ST has become an issue since Unite have been running out of reasons to prolong the dispute.

They said it was about imposition - but Judge Sir Christopher Holland disagreed with them.

They said it was about Willie Walsh being untrustworthy - a dubious line of argument.

They said it was about disciplinaries - an even more dubious (and deplorable) line of argument.

If ST had never been taken away, some other reason would no doubt have been found to strike. How about:

New Fleet
Future promotion prospects
Harsher sickness policy
Ending of the redeployment agreementI could no doubt find other examples, but these are sufficient for my case.

[Litebulbs]

Those who've lost staff travel will certainly argue it shouldn't have become involved! Others might say that BASSA have been far to quick to call for strike action in the past and this time they need to understand that actions have consequences. BA have a right to defend themselves against industrial action, why should the BASSAmentalists get away scot free?

Some interesting points and I agree to an extent, with your first point.

Those that went on strike have not got away scot free, as you put it, they have lost money. That is a consequence of IA. As I said in previous posts on the old thread, I have not found any case law that has set a precedent, for a business to remove a benefit from a group of employees who have taken part in IA, but are only part of a bigger group, who did not. I am not saying that it hasn't happened. If it has and you can find it, my argument fails.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs,

By your (former Amicus rep) interpretation, if anyone loses a benefit within the company for any reason then it should be removed for all?

Why does the removal of a benefit/perk for those taking part in damaging IA which allows only protection from dismissal mean that said perk should be removed from all or not at all?

Because there has been no process followed. As of yet, or until I or anybody else can find an example of where a benefit has been removed as a punishment for industrial action, then yes, in my opinion, it should be all of a bargaining group, or none. Remember that Unite/BASSA has collective bargaining rights with BA.

[Wirbelsturm]

The problem with that philosophy is that it would give the Union the right to bring any form of benefit/perk into a dispute without the requirement to incorporate it into a legal ballot process.

Thus, I feel, it is unjustifiable to use it as a reason to prolong a dispute where the initial ballot was, in a court of law, judged to be flawed as the imposed change was legal.

If a singular person or a minority group cause financial disruption to a company through their actions, legally protected or not, then there is no reason why singularly granted perks can't be with held.

I guess we will have to wait until due process is invented. Who knows what the result could be, as we all know, the law is an Ass.

[Litebulbs]

I guess we will have to wait until due process is invented. Who knows what the result could be, as we all know, the law is an Ass.

Agreed and it makes all involved with making and managing it very rich. I just hope if it comes to it, your first point that you make, which is reasonable, is balanced fairly with the rights of the employee.

[Eddy]

Those who've lost staff travel will certainly argue it shouldn't have become involved!I've still got my staff travel and I don't think it should have become involved.

[Meal Chucker]

As of yet, or until I or anybody else can find an example of where a benefit has been removed as a punishment for industrial action


As previously posted, BA has removed staff travel temporarily in past disputes, I lost mine in the early 90's, if you are the same Litebulbs that posts on the air mech site I'm sure this can be confirmed on there.

[Litebulbs]

Embargoed to just people on strike, or the whole bargaining group? You still have staff travel now though? (LGW or LHR strike?)

[Meal Chucker]

LHR maintenance base strike. (over threat of 12hr shifts in central area)

All staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years from all strikers.

Returned with full seniority.

[Litebulbs]

I remember the action and I was still there then. It was my understanding that the particular fleet stream, or part of, had ST privileges embargoed, not individual strikers. It appears that I was wrong. But, that is not mean that it was right and it still should have been challenged, but then that would be relying on the top table of stewards at the time!

[Meal Chucker]

The more I think about it, it may not be a valid comparison.

Wasn't it an unofficial strike by the maintenance base engineers in sympathy for the central area guys (who didn't strike) over 12 hr shifts?

I seem to remember it only lasting a few days before it died a death!!

[Litebulbs]

I will ask around over the next few days. Probably best to take this to the other site now anyway:ok:

[PC767]

Another point about staff travel.

If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.

You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.

Who would have believed our pilots would have fallen into a dispute leading to the threat of industrial action in 2007. And now they are held aloft by the LT as shining examples of how to conform. Two or three years down the line there may be further dispute. Cruise pilots perhaps.

And now, for any group, a collective grievance against the company will result in a permanent loss of staff travel. If Walsh succeeds this time, there will forever be a loaded gun at the table when new change is required.

[PC767]

I do believe that staff travel will ultimately be returned.

But BA will not be culpable. HM Goverment will be.

There is no law against discriminating against workers who undertake legal industrial action in the UK. However Article 11 of the ECoHR, when considered with a wider view, as is now the norm, does make such discrimination illegal.

The British Goverment has failed in its obligations to legislate compliance with Article 11. If Walsh does not relent, then the challenge will be to force the Goverment to change the law in line with EU law. A long winded process I know.

For now I do believe that Walsh can state that he has not broken UK law by removing the perks. He has however broken EU law as a result of the Goverment.

[Litebulbs]

The major problem with that, is the UK opted out of the ECoHR being binding in UK law and that was under a Labour Government. I don't think the current arrangement will be too quick in opting in.

[MissM]

Eddy

ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike. BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.

I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.

I know many in this company are thrilled that some of us have lost ST. I can only hope that it will be reinstated fully so that that they will get to taste theiw own medicine. The one who laughs the longest. It's a dangerous wish because as suggested it could be used as a bargain tool in the future. If it goes that far, they won't get any of my sympathy.

[PC767]

Litebulb.

The HRA 1998, however, gives effect to the ECoHR and is binding in UK law.

[PC767]

Miss M.

I concur with the view that staff travel will be used as a bargaining tool in the future.

There are many in BA who are glad at its withdrawl, indeed there a few on this thread who are happy with the current stance.

With the theory, what goes round comes round, to mind, I'd be careful in what I wished for.

[Colonel White]

Ahhh... one academic's viewpoint based on evidence garnered from only one side of the story. What I find totally gobsmacking is that if BA is such a terrible employer with appalling people management skills, dating back for years, how come there are so many folk who would give various parts of their anatomy to work for the company ? The good professor doesn't seem to have an answer for that.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulb.

The HRA 1998, however, gives effect to the ECoHR and is binding in UK law.

The Lisbon Treaty gave the UK the opt out protocol, unfortunately.

[PC767]

Only Article 13 of the ECoHR was not incorporated into UK legislation, the belief being that the HRA gave UK citizens the rights which Article 13 would have provided, ie, the right to take proceedings in the British courts if they considered that their Convention rights had been breached.

Also the HRA states that all UK law must be read so far as it is possible to do so in a way which is compatible with convention rights.

There is no precedent set in the UK for the scenario BA cabin crew find themselves in. However the HRA provides the vehicle to challenge the UK Government, whereby they would consider the removal of perks of employment for taking lawful industrial action, a breach of the wider view of Article 11.

[Colonel White]

As far as the threat of removing ST from other groups of staff who go on strike goes, that has and will always be a possibility. The action by cabin crew has not changed the position. ST, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, is non-contractual and can be removed at any time for any reason. Anyone who builds their lifestyle based on non-contractual or variable items is riding for a fall. One of the reasons I left my previous employer was because a proportion of my pay came in the form of on-call and overtime payments. Of the offers I had, BA was not the highest overall package, but it was the highest consolidated pay.

I woud suggest that ST is highly unlikely to become a bargaining tool. Why ? because from the staff perspective it is already something the company offers as a perk, so what could unions do about it ? Ask for an additional free flight ? But that is only valuable if the individual is able to take it up. Alter the onload priority ? That opens a can of worms if you have staff who move roles, so probably a non-starter. No, the only time that the unions would seek to negotiate over ST is when a situation like the current one occurs. In these circumstances it will be about seeking to get ST restored to staff who have had it removed. I don't believe that it is in anyone's interest to make ST a contractual item. To do so would mean that it would no longer be subload, hence it would be taxable. This would mean that any staff who rely on it as a mens of getting to work might find that the cost makes it uneconomic.

[Litebulbs]

More reading for me tomorrow, as from what I have read tonight, you are right and I am glad you are.

[Eddy]

ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike. I couldn't agree more.

BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.

I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.
In which case, I hope you have a lot of money to sustain yourself through what is going to be an even lengthier dispute than we could have imagined :uhoh:

Huge respect to you, though, for standing up for it. But I have to wonder how you feel about having to do so given that you said in the old thread that you would accept the offer of June 2009 if it included the return of staff travel (and thus, why didn't everyone accept it back then and the whole staff travel removal would never have even been dreamed up!)

Another point about staff travel.

If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.

You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.
But that's where the company had us well and truly over a barrel. So many of us commute by air that staff travel is almost vital to our being able to engage in our employment with BA. The same cannot be said of our ground staff.

The company couldn't really remove the ability for our ground staff to park at the airport so the staff travel removal threat wouldn't hold nearly the same power with them as it does/did with us.

[Caribbean Boy]

Contrary to popular belief, ST is regarded as taxable by HM Revenue & Customs. However, staff do not pay tax as BA pays it on our behalf.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why ST is a money-loser for BA even though staff pay a booking fee in some cases.

[MissM]

Colonel White

ST could easily become a bargain tool for management. If a working group disagrees with certain changes to their terms and conditions, the company could say that they will remove ST. The same will happen if any future strikes should take place. Management will threaten to remove it permanently.

ST should not be contractual but I don't think it should be used as either a carrot or a threat to make people come to work during a strike. BA know the importance of ST to come. Some crew were recruited to BA and told they could still live in their home country and use ST. To threaten to remove something decisive as ST only to make them come to work is disgusting. BA are pushing some into the corner.

Eddy

I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.

A lot happened last year. I don't know why BASSA didn't let us vote on the proposal which was on the table. Did they think that BA would leave them alone if they didn't negotiate? Possibly. But, we can't turn back time and be bitter. All we can do now is to fight as much as we can.

[Eddy]

I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.Hiya hun,

You must see something that I don't, then. I really don't see the proposals put forth by BA as likely to have the massive impact on my earnings that you do. Nor, it seems, do many of our mutual colleagues.

[Caribbean Boy]

MissM (http://www.pprune.org/members/316780-missm) wrote:
BA know the importance of ST to come. Some crew were recruited to BA and told they could still live in their home country and use ST. To threaten to remove something decisive as ST only to make them come to work is disgusting. BA are pushing some into the corner.Your statement is directly contradicted by skylight (http://www.pprune.org/members/321618-skylight)'s post here.

[MissM]

Caribbean Boy

I think you will find many different opinions. BA were recruiting a lot of language speakers and they were told that they could remain overseas and still work in the UK. I don't doubt that they were informed that during standby duties they had to be within a certain range but living home and working abroad, or down in London, was indeed part of BA's recruitment drive at the time.

Regional bases which were closed down could also be included. They were told that they didn't need to move to LON as they could commute using ST.

[Artificial Horizon]

Not quite right Mrs M, when I joined I was told that I had to be within 2 hours of LHR. If I decided to live outside of this then the onus would be on myself to ensure my availability within 2 hours if called, so BA were quite clear that altough I could live anywhere, my base was LHR and it was my responsibility to get myself there. I also find it interesting that before this whole mess started this forum was full of people virtually daring WW to remove Staff Travel saying that it was a useless system anyway?? I still can't understand what BASSA was 'smoking' at the time when they issued statements saying that BA couldn't withdraw staff travel and if they did it would not be a problem to get it reinstated immediately. Read you contract and you will find that staff travel is not a contracted right, it has always been a 'perk' that BA makes available to staff and according to the staff travel policy guide can be withdrawn at any stage.

So where to from here, WW will not return 'full' staff travel privledges as he has said as much. BASSA won't consider any deal without full staff travel being reinstated. After reading all the previous posts I am still not actually sure what these strikes are about, all the elements that have been claimed by CC have been offered at some point by BA, the deals for some reason were not presented by BASSA:ugh: CC were given full warning that Staff Travel would be withdrawn if the strike went ahead, BASSA forged ahead anyway encouraging people to go on strike as BA couldn't withdraw staff travel. Could someone tell me who BASSA's legal advisers are so that I can avoid them at all costs.

The shame is that the 'egos' at BASSA have prevented the membership actually getting a reasonable deal, they have cost their members money in all the lost wages and perks, they are a disgrace.

[MissM]

Artificial Horizon

As I said, there will be many different opinions. Several of my overseas friends say they were recruited to BA and told by the company that they could stay there! They informed them that it would be their sole responsibility to get to LHR but ST would make their life a lot easier. It was part of BA's recruitment drive and I am almost certain that they said this when they recruited in the UK as not everyone wanted to move to London.

We are not arguing that it is not contractual. We are arguing that we have been punished for participating in a lawful industrial action. BA were probably hoping that they could change the minds of many commuters but surprisingly many at BFC were commuting crew.

What were the strikes about? Once and for all. Imposition. Next strike will be a different issue.

[the flying nunn]

Miss M

I am confused, you have said nany times that the new crewing level are working well. None of us expect them to change.

If as you say all of this is about imposition why is your anger not directed at the bassa leadership tjat have led their membership down this path over a completely workable proposal? Why would they have done this? The only reason I can see is that as the majority of the reps are CSDs they might have put their own desires above the needs of the people they claim to represent.

[MissM]

I have explained this before. Some of you don't seem to understand.

Crewing levels were changed without negotiation. Most flights are working well but that is not the issue. The issue is that crewing levels changed without our union's approval. They placed an imposition on our working conditions. I know some of you will say that BASSA failed to negotiate and that we only have ourselves to blame. I don't think that's an accurate explanation of the situation as I think that BA have failed too. BA and BASSA are miles apart of how they want to achieve our savings.

[ndbluemoon]

Approximately 1200

[the flying nunn]

Bassa did fail to negotiate, bassa did fail to take the situation seriously, bassa has failed to ground the airline with it's pointless strikes, and bassa has absolutely failed in it's responsibilty towards its members.

[the flying nunn]

For me this dispute is also about imposition. The constant imposition of the views of the bassa leadership over the legitimate needs of it's membership. I will be voting against this imposition at the next ballot and then I will be leaving bassa to back BA and my future, any claim by the bassa millitants that they are somehow doing something for me is untrue. One day they will thank those of us that have backed BA and made sure their jobs survived.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

Why is Walsh STILL prolonging this hugely damaging strike?

He is now running a company that has twice posted consecutive record losses. Most other airlines seem to be making savings and taking their employees along with them. Why has he been unable to get his employees on side? Most other airlines seem to be managing their staff better than this.

First the pilots failed strike attempt over open skies now cabin crew over imposition of change and staff travel. Who's next?

Walsh is now running a failing pensions deficit. What's his plan? Hang on until the Iberia merger and walk off with millions and leave the next person to deal with the problems he's creating. BA isn't a well regarded company anymore. Did anyone see the recent passenger voted airline of the year awards? BA won nothing.

Time to wake up folks, this isn't a win situation. Time to move on and sort BA out TOGETHER. Restore staff travel and try and turn the company around. Nobody is the victor here, except BA's competitors.

[MrBunker]

Go on then, I'll take this one.

1) Posting consecutive losses in the airline industry in the last two years - not exactly unique to BA - have you happened to see the latest Air France/KLM results?

2) Making savings - if you can get hold of the investor newsletter you'll see that, bar the intransigence of Unite with regard to the CC branches, we're making admirable amounts of savings from the costs of the business

3) He has been able to get nigh on all staff groups on side. It's merely a proportion of one group that are fomenting revolution at the merest hint of hardship.

4) Open Skies? Not the thread and, to be frank, it's been kicked around a thousand times here. Want to know more (rather than assume), PM me and I'll let you know where the issue currently is - it's not dead, certainly.

5) Pensions Deficit. Oh for goodness' sake. Pick a blue chip company with a final salary scheme and see if you can't find similar problems. For what it's worth both BA, all the unions (even the blessed Unite) and the trustees are presenting a unified front regarding the pension deficit and are hoping that the regulator will accept their plan.

6) Walsh (as you kindly refer to him), isn't going anywhere. He's moving up the scale to be the boss of the next CEO of IAG (BA/IB merged). Keith Williams - a finance guy is next up to the plate in BA. If you genuinely think that things will change with either KW as the CEO of BA or WW as the CEO of IAG then I salute your optimism. Don't presume that he's "leaving" KW with the problems he's created. The two individuals will be fully co-operating already over the current situation. I'd wager its safe to say KW is on WW's wavelength.

7) Awards? Relatively meaningless. Nice to have but don't really think they affect the forward booking profile greatly unless we start winning awards for most fatal catering or some such.

8) Ah, Staff Travel. What a surprise. I'm not necessarily in accord with the company's actions here but, frankly, the warning was made loud and clear to anyone regarding this one.

9) Victors? Well, there's a significant cadre of employees on the ground and in the air who now see this as a dispute the airline must win on its own terms. It seems reasonable clear that the city see it this way too otherwise, surely, the institutional investors would have pulled the plug on the board and the CEO by now. That they haven't suggest that the only people who think Mr. Walsh is going about things incorrectly are the 9,000 or so BASSA members, the Amicus contingent and Gregor Gall and his ilk. (PS loved the YouTube post earlier - nice to see an ex union researcher comfortably ensconsed in his ex-Poly professorial chair. Wonder where his political stance was forged?)

MrB

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

MRBunker, BA have posted consecutive record losses of 531 million and 401 million. Just because Air France/KLM have done almost as bad isn't any call for celebration or relief. The volcano will cost in the region of 100 million how much will the strikes eventually cost at 7 million A DAY? BA's pension deficit is what 3.7 Billion how much is BA actually worth 2 Billion? The financial situation at BA is dire. Can you name any UK company with a worse pension deficit? Proposed taxes are only going to make things worse. These begging proposals to the regulator will not offer long term final salary pension protection. If you think BA is a well run operation then that's nice for you but it isn't. WW simply has to reduce costs much more than the cabin crew deal has covered. How comfortable will you feel when pilots salaries and pensions relative to easyjet are being quoted in the papers as an excuse to cut your lot next. Will you be happy at the rest of the company not supporting you over your next open skies strike ballot? At least they won't be able to train as pilots as some of you have done to 'help the company' eh?

We all know BA is being slaughtered by easyjet and ryanair, those airlines having main bases in the UK and half BA's operating costs. All WW appears to be able to do in return is cut routes and prolong a damaging industrial dispute. A good manager would be able to reduce costs AND make permanent change to costs WITHOUT having staff striking. All the other UK airlines are managing to do it why can't WW?

BA still has the highest costs and falling passenger numbers with continuing falling business travel. Why would anyone with a choice book BA with the chance of ongoing strike action?

This is not the time to continue to prolong a strike. WW can stop it all by returning staff travel. Why on earth isn't he doing it?

[MrBunker]

1) Never said it was - but you were the one who pointed out the WW had presided over 2 consecutive losses. Clearly you didn't see fit to mention he also presided over the biggest profit ever made by the airline too.

2) So by your logic, BA should let the cabin crew "win" otherwise they'll keep costing the airline money. It's the long game here. This is about changing costs forever and reaping the benefits for every year to come so that we've still got an airline to work for in the next twenty years.

3) Nope, I can't, off the top of my head, name a worse pension deficit but, bear in mind, the deficit isn't subject to interest so it's not "costing" the company anything more than the contributions. The new plan involves us paying more to keep a final salary so, actually, better for the company. Are you aware of what it takes to close a scheme to discontinuance for example?

4) I may think it's a well run airline but it isn't? Well, that's me told then. I think what we have there is an opinion. Just like I have.

5) Generally wouldn't be unhappy being compared to EasyJet pilot salaries for my seniority and experience. We're pretty much there or thereabouts. I won't labour this one as it's been kicked around a lot recently and this thread's about cabin crew.

6) Don't make me laugh. I don't expect any support regarding industrial action. Bright unions know when to fight however. OpenSkies is still going on in the background. Oh, and with Unite as well. Did you know exactly where the Viking Laval legislation is at the moment?

7) BA isn't being slaughtered by EZ and RYR. We don't compete with them. I take it you're shorthaul? We use our shorthaul network predominantely to feed the longhaul network. The two products just aren't comparable business models. But hey, cherry pick your examples if it helps you.

8) You're right, a good manager would be able to reduce costs without a damaging industrial dispute. In the main, he's achieved that. Don't forget that the majority of BA have already done their bit without the need for a strike. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's BASSA that've got it wrong. Even the more eloquent posters on here have suggested they'd take the deal of Jun 2009 that was offered. Yup, that one. The one that BASSA never even put to their members. The one that was followed by a vote for no negotiation at one of the racecourses.

9) Why isn't he returning staff travel. Personally, it's of no interest to me if he does or doesn't. What I think is pivotal though is that he's establishing once and for all who runs the airline. I think I speak for many when I say we're all tired of BASSA trying to wag the BA dog. Hot towels in WT+ anyone? For once and for all, it's not "our" airline, we work for the company. It's the shareholders' airline if anything.

MrB

PS As a general aside, and I'd love this to get back to the wider community, BASI13 is being re-written as we speak so all those spiteful crew who are thinking they can report people for fraud - you might want to check the new version with the notable exclusion.

[Eddy]

The financial situation at BA is dire.Yes, the financial situation at British Airways is dire.

All the more reason not to simply throw in the towel and sign up to an unsustainable agreement put forward by the union.....

Willie Walsh is perhaps one of the best suited men for the job of bringing our agreements to a level where they can be sustained by both company and employee - I genuinely do not see Mr. Walsh wanting to strip our earnings back to the bone - and that's important on so many levels.

If we get to a situation where both company and employee are happy, we'll avoid the risk of regular strike action that seems to go hand-in-hand with the Bassa of today.

I maintain that Bassa is important to this company and certainly to this workforce, but I'm not sure it's the Bassa of today with its somewhat antiquainted views of how an employee should be rewarded that stretch back to the days of nationalisation.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

All WW has to do is return staff travel and the strikes stop. Why not manage the airline in a reasonable way and get on with it?

These are just punitive bullying measures to teach the strikers (and anyone else who might want a strike ballot in the future) a lesson. That's great if you think you'll never want a strike ballot in your own department.

[MrBunker]

And there, I think, you make a key point. It's probably arguable that strikes are an industrial tool of the past. A forward looking union will see problems on the horizon and neutralise them before they become an issue. Do you think BASSA can reasonably claim to have done so? Did they tell you about the NI issue in the last pensions round for example?

MrB

[malcolmf]

All WW has to do is return staff travel and the strikes stop.

The strikes have stopped, (Unite only said that they would be suspended, very different) Unite now have to re ballot, the result may well be very different, everyone will be in no doubt that the rest of us won't roll over. It will not be a "send a message to Willie" vote this time.

[DeThirdDefect]

WW simply has to reduce costs much more than the cabin crew deal has covered.
Agreed!
That's why every other part of the company has long since accepted a variety of changes to reduce costs, but when BA wanted to talk to cabin crew about cost-savings they refused to even begin talking.

All WW appears to be able to do in return is cut routes and prolong a damaging industrial dispute.
Did you miss the recent announcement that BA is to begin operating flying to Cancun later in the year? In recent years we've also begun flying to places like Las Vegas, Sharm-el-Sheikh and the Dominican Republic as well as London City to JFK.
Like every other airline, whether low-cost or full service, we've dropped some loss-making routes.

A good manager would be able to reduce costs AND make permanent change to costs WITHOUT having staff striking. All the other UK airlines are managing to do it why can't WW?
The fact that BA has reduced costs without a sniff of a strike with everyone else at BA apart from cabin crew suggests to me that the problem lies with cabin crew or their union rather than BA.

Why would anyone with a choice book BA with the chance of ongoing strike action?
If BA is seen to reliably deliver an ever-growing majority of their schedule with each successive strike period, I imagine fewer people will be deterred from booking with BA.

This is not the time to continue to prolong a strike. WW can stop it all by returning staff travel. Why on earth isn't he doing it?
Because BASSA/Unite have only offered to suspend the strike if staff travel is returned.
Because the board of BA set the strategy he's following and the major institutional investors agree with it.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

It might not be staff travel though.

WW is showing that he wants or feels he needs to impose a change to YOUR working conditions, your pension etc, and you or or your representatives can't come to an agreement with BA, then if you are left with no option but to strike, you could lose ANY non contractual aspect of your work.

That's what's going on now. It's all about showing everyone else what will happen if they think they might want a strike ballot next.

[Betty girl]

What dose this button do,

I just can't understand why you all striked in the first place if all he has to do is return staff travel for it to be over now!!!!!!!.

Can you explain why you went on strike in a way that I can understand because the Imposition has not gone away, infact it is about to get worse!!!!!!

Thanks to BASSA making themselves totally impotent, WW is now going to impose a New Fleet agreement on any new crew that join. Had BASSA stayed in the loop and actually talked and sat down in a negotiating room they would have had an influence on the outcome.

Instead we got a group of CSD's (which nearly all of them are) hash up a proposal completely designed to protect their job. Which is why it was not accepted by Walsh and Bill Francis. Infact alot of crew preferred the proposal put forward by Bill in June. But hey, we were never given the chance to vote on that by our CSD BASSA Reps, were we!!!!

[gatbusdriver]

WDTBD

You say that anyones Ts and Cs could be changed by imposition at any time. This may be true, but with regards to crewing levels, the courts have already landed on side with BA....they are not contractual.

The other point is that any forward thinking union would have negotiated change rather than stonewalling the company that pays its members. Your union is solely responsible for the position that you find yourself in now.

[MissM]

the flying nunn

Are you still a member of BASSA? I get the feeling you went to work during the strike. You should have resigned from the union on the same day you crossed the picket line. Why are you still a member? To have a vote in the next ballot? It sounds like a waste of money to me if that's your only reason.

Maybe you would be better off supporting the PCCC who don't even have the courage to reveal their identities. I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that. All they are doing is hiding behind a computer screen. Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?

[PC767]

Mr Bunker.

If I may pick up a couple of points.

BA do, unfortunately compare our SH product with EZ and RYR, when searching for cost savings. Despite the acknowledgement that BA SH feeds BA LH and because of that can be seen as inefficient in comparisson.

The outright cheek of BA. So, BA cabin crew were warned about not upgrading friends of friends and those on staff travel. Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.

Despite this many crew looked after one another, (flight and cabin), onboard. Recent events have changed matters. Some crew have felt it inappropriate for pilots to be working as crew, intruding and prolonging our dispute. Based on evidence provided by BA, and listed above, they have declined cooperation on requested unofficial upgrades. Further, those crew who have lost staff travel consider it bad form to be serving a friend of friend upgrade when they nolonger have the option of even a jump seat.

How have BA responded. Re-written the fraud policy which will now clearly states that the Captain can upgrade who he/she desires. The policy will exempt Captains. This is the result of edgy crew refusing to move people onboard - and can you honestly blame them. The general feeling is that BA is on a witch hunt and should one place a foot wrong, your out. Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.

[DeThirdDefect]

I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that.
And I would never be able to trust a union that when asked by my employer to discuss changes to my working conditions that it considers important for the company's long-term sustainability refuses to turn up for several months.
I would consider such a failure to represent my interests unforgivable.

Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?
Given how cheap it is to get a web-site hosted, I can't imagine the PCCC needs any outside support from anyone.
Why do you seem to struggle with the possibility that a number of your colleagues are unhappy with the way they've been represented by Unite and have, unprompted by BA. decided to come together to form another body which they feel will serve their interests better?

[MrBunker]

PC767,

That's not quite what's happening at all. BA haven't re-written the policy to suit Captains. They've acknowledged that the example used in BASI13 did not meet the definition of deception or fraud (as there was no pecuniary advantage involved) and, as such, is being re-written to amend that. It just happens to have coincided with crew trying to make a stand over the issue after losing their staff travel. Like it or not, the reference to captain's authority has never changed in the JPM and is the master document with regard to behaviour and authority on board. I think all that's now happening is that BA are firmly making clear what has always been the case - the captain is in charge, of everyone and everything, on board the aircraft once the doors are closed. Now I know some crew will balk at that but it's the case both corporately and legally.

Basically, at the risk of sounding glib, it was a nice try by the offended strikers but BA aren't weathering it. Indeed, of the reports made so far, none have come to anything. That's not because there's one law for one group and one for another. It's because BA have never regarded those incidents as fraud - sadly BASI13 wasn't well worded, a fact BA have acknowledged. I think it's important to note here that it's not whether a crew manager, or indeed the head of IFCE, says it's against the rules. It's whether Asset Protection (who's job it is to, funnily enough, protect BA's assets and define what constitutes a loss to the company) deem it to be deception and fraud and it seems at the moment, they don't. If CSDs want to note it that's fine. Equally they'll have to accept that our department has told us it's inappropriate for those CSDs to ask for our signature on the onboard form or otherwise in those cases. It's not a witch hunt. That's the basic emotional error made by many cabin crew in this dispute. No one in the higher levels of BA either loves or hates you. There's a business dispute and that's that. At least from BA's point of view.

So report away if the mood takes you. It'll likely come to nothing and may even bite you on the proverbial.

MrB

[Stiffco]

Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.Not a problem. Just add another condition to the
"we'll come back when ... " list:ugh:

[MrBunker]

PC767,

To add to my point I note that some crew still feel that it's fraud even if the company don't think so. I'd point out that as no deception of the company is taking place (they know it's going on) and there's no pecuniary advantage for the individual that this meets no definition of fraud other than that cooked up in the brains of strikers desperate to have a scalp or two.

MrB

PS Whilst I'm lying on the sofa waiting for my back to heal, I'm watching a South Park (yup, that's my mental level) episode where Canada goes on strike. It's surprisingly prescient.......

[the flying nunn]

Miss M


I did not vote for the strike action, my views and the views of other members that did not believe the propoganda were not even acknowledged as existing let alone heard. I realised long before christmas that the bassa leadership had an agenda quite seperate to the proclaimed one of looking after our futures so why wouldn't I have crossed the picket line?

I feel that your demand for me to leave the union now perfectly illustrates the arrogance that started this madness and has led us to the point where you have lost earnings and staff travel only to reflect that in hindsight the deal on offer before the strikes started wasn't that bad after all.

My belief is that at the next ballot the voters will actually seriously consider where to put their X. In the past the membership have simply followed the views and positions imposed upon them from the bassa leadership, this time I think we will see a more considered result.

After almost two decades of paying my membership fees I feel that the money
I pay between now and the ballot will be the best money I have spent in all the time since I joined.

Miss M I am not asking you to tell us here how you will vote but I do hope that when you open the envelope, you take a minute or two to consider what you are voting for.

[demomonkey]

MissM the FlyingNun does have a fair point and is certainly not in a minority I might even go as far to say a majority. Along with all those hard working people down at LGW BASSA has largely disenfranchised itself from a significant percentage of it's members.

Any union should be 'Of the members, by the members and for the members'.

[PC767]

Mr Bunker.

I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.

Now, I'll happily accept they are technically wrong, but they believe they are correct because of what they are told by BA. Ironic perhaps, but those in the know do so because a cabin crew member wrote to the head of asset protection for a definative answer. The rest is history, the policy is flawed and will be re-written. In the meantime the company has made no official announcement, it seems BA is happy to see continuing deterioration of the relationship between IFCE and the rest of BA.

My view is different to the majority, but I accept the majority view because they have been told no different. I believe the situation is likely to turn around and bite cabin crew on their backsides, (in particular when staff travel is returned!), and I will do my best to re-educate. But its not my job and I'm not a red notice, so I'm having little effect.

It does seem to me to be another company mess which just happens to be a useful tool for alienation and barrier building.

[Caribbean Boy]

PC767 (http://www.pprune.org/members/205141-pc767) wrote:
I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.
You previously wrote:
Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.A free upgrade is fraud. Why is that not clear to everyone?

The BASI13 anti-fraud policy can be found here:
https://planetba.baplc.com/general/airline/basi.nsf/072561aa006322660725618c006b09a0/c4a9474a106331e68025761c0033dbb9?OpenDocument

[PC767]

The debate centres around the criminal definintion and the company definition.

During the middle of the dispute the company email senior cabin crew that upgrades were not acceptable and would be liable to a charge of fraud. There was some degree of contradiction with the JPMs regarding a Captains authority.

This situation was deliberate and has not been clarified even though asset protection accept the wording of the policy if flawed.

[MrBunker]

PC767,

Indeed they did. Certain IFCE managers took it upon themselves to issue SCCMs with a copy of BASI13. This had recently reared its head due to ground staff selling upgrades on, I believe, a bespoke website for the purpose. As there was pecuniary advantage, fraud had taken place. The whole point about this is that in neither a legal, nor a company sense does the other upgrading issue constitute fraud, hence Asset Protection saying the example used in BASI13 was inappropriate. As there's no financial gain and no intent to deceive there's no fraud however it's cut. I grant you though, that until the document is re-issued, it serves to add nothing but confusion!

ATB

MrB

[strikemaster82]

PC767

The situation was probably caused by a meddling manager with not enough to do, sending an email which grasped the wrong end of the stick.

Disaffected cabin crew have capitalised on this to 'get back' at people. As pointed out, if they do get their staff travel back at some point, then this could blow up in their faces. What goes around, etc.

JPMs cannot be contradicted re Capts authority, the latter always over-rides.

Cabin crew have always been able to move passengers around the cabins for all sorts of reasons, they have always done this under the Captain's authority, although, crucially, they may not have realised this was so :ok:

Several Capts are now briefing their crews to inform them before moving anyone, re-emphasising the correct state of affairs.

Carribean boy, you are misinformed.

[MissM]

DeThirdEffect

I don't have a problem with that people have different opinions. I just can't understand why PCCC are insisting on not stepping forward. It's a crucial time for everyone. When are they going to do it? After the dispute is over? As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.

[Caribbean Boy]

MissM (http://www.pprune.org/members/316780-missm) wrote:
As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.How can they feel safe when your union disgracefully keeps calling on Willie Walsh to rescind the penalties handed out to pro-strike cabin crew who were found guilty of bullying and harassment.

[essessdeedee]

Could someone tell me who BASSA's legal advisers are so that I can avoid them at all costs

That would be OH Parsons, then.

[DeThirdDefect]

As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.
While doing Backing BA Cabin Crew support during the strike I met a member of cabin crew who'd had their car 'keyed' and who believed it had been done because of their working during the strike.
Despite BA's intolerance of bullying and harassment they did not feel able to report the damage to management.

[Litebulbs]

Despite BA's intolerance of bullying and harassment they did not feel able to report the damage to management.

Why is that, do BA support the strike?

[Litebulbs]

UK Opt Out -

" To give effect to the UK’s opt-out, a protocol to be added to the future reform treaty will state that:

The charter does not extend the ability of the [European] Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom, except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

The effect of this protocol will essentially be that the charter cannot be used to challenge current UK legislation in the courts or to introduce new rights in UK law. The outgoing UK prime minister, Tony Blair, attending his last EU summit in June, said that the outcome of the talks made it ‘absolutely clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not going to be justiciable in British courts or alter British law’. "

[PC767]

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights are not the same thing. The 1998 Human Rights Act gives effect to the ECoHR in the UK courts and remedy to claimants without the need to go dircetly to the ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights.)

There is no legislation offering protection for discrimination against strikers in the UK, there has been no other case challenge of discrimination in the UK. If Unite feel it to be appropriate they can take a case to the UK courts under the HRA stating that the wider view of Article 11 has been breached. If in agreement a UK Judge cannot change the law, at the most they can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'. The requirement then is for Parliament to remove the incompatibility.

I am suprised that BASSA felt the staff travel issue could be so easily handled. But the situation isn't lost, although it would be a long winded process, (which also leaves BA in the clear as it has acted legally in accordance with UK law).

The best hope is that Walsh returns the perk.

[Litebulbs]

I think I get your position, (old and a slow learner) but my point a while back was for no detriment for union activities, which is a UK civil law, not a discrimination right within the UK. That is why I would test it through tribunal. But their is probably a reason why Unite are not doing this, which probably means that their legal advice which is vastly superior to what I understand of the law, is saying don't do it.

[Runway vacated]

Litebulbs, what you and everyone else droning on about staff travel are missing is that you are NOT being discriminated against because you went on strike. You are suffering the CONSEQUENCES of going on strike.

You were informed quite clearly what would happen if you withdrew your labour. Not one single striker can claim that they were unaware of the consequences. Yet you still chose to go on strike.

Now whether you chose not to believe your employer, or you chose to continue believing the BASSA propaganda, is something neither I nor I suspect most other BA employees give a damn about. The fact is you were warned, and it has happened. Stop whingeing and get your union to actually do something to make your lives better, not worse.

They don't seem to have managed to do much of that recently.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs, what you and everyone else droning on about staff travel are missing is that you are NOT being discriminated against because you went on strike. You are suffering the CONSEQUENCES of going on strike.

Commenting, rather than droning. Again, can you show me where it says you can punish somebody for taking protected industrial action?

[the flying nunn]

I would like to ask where it is written that despite countless warnings about staff travel bassa had the authority to decree that it would not be removed?

[Litebulbs]

An equally valid point.

[HiFlyer14]

Miss M

As you are fairly adept at making frank (sometimes curt) statements, I hope that you are able to accept some frank talking in return.

You make statements that quite frankly have little bearing on reality, and are nothing more than BASSA soundbites: "imposition" "WW is out to get the unions" "attack on our T&Cs" "staff travel".

To clarify, here are the FACTS:

No-one has ever been told that they could use ST to get to work. It is part of our T&C's that we must be able to get to work within 1 and half hours. If you do commute, it is expected that you would stay within the airport area prior to operating.

You are happy to blame non-union members for coming to work, people who voted yes for coming to work, VCC and anyone else who backs BA. You then claim that you "were not told about the October offer" and appear now to be blaming your beloved BASSA about this. Well, you were told MissM. We were all sent an email from BF on the 23 Oct 2009 entitled: "Message from Bill Francis to all crew: important news on our package of changes in IFCE". If you chose not to read your BA emails, which I would assume is a requirement of our job, then you only have yourself to blame.

You also like to criticise the Professional Cabin Crew Council, yet it is thanks to the PCCC that cabin crew have been made aware of what this community has lost. Not many people were aware of the shares/bonus/free ticket option and the PCCC has highlighted that fact. Many cabin crew are very grateful for it - and it seems that you yourself would have taken it, had you been aware of it. Perhaps if the PCCC had been in existence last October, we would have all been better off.

You criticise the PCCC for staying anonymous. Yet it was a BASSA rep who set up a porn site with the same name as ours. BASSA militants, who you support, have sent hate mail to people. Cabin crew have had their cars marked with S in the car park, and some militants are choosing to ignore non-strikers on trips (as reported on here). Cabin crew who have spoken out on other forums have been banned and ostracised. If it weren't for the despicable behaviour of BASSA, we would not have to remain anonymous. Do you feel proud that your Union behave like that?

You now state that IF Staff Travel were to be returned, you would accept the offer. You are therefore saying that you would now be willing to accept an offer that is WORSE than the one you went on strike for, knowing full well that you would lose your staff travel if you did strike.

So let me summarise:
You and your fellow strikers have effectively been on strike for nothing. You and your fellow strikers have cost this company millions. You and your fellow strikers have cost our entire cabin crew community the opportunity of having a share scheme, bonuses, and an extra free ticket. And most despicable of all, you and your fellow strikers have cost our cabin crew community our good name which will take years to re-instate.

But with this in mind, you are still intent on going on strike. :ooh:

Isn't it about time that you stopped blaming everyone else MissM and started taking responsibility for the damaging part that BASSA and the strikers have played in this sorry affair? Do you not yet realise that if you do strike again, it will be you and only you that loses out? Or do you intend to simply keep your head in the sand, and carry on blaming everyone else?

[Runway vacated]

"Commenting, rather than droning. Again, can you show me where it says you can punish somebody for taking protected industrial action?"

Again, Litebulb, you are missing the point. You are not being punished, you are simply suffering the consequences of taking a course of action of whose consequences you were well aware. Nothing underhand or discriminatory. You made a choice, this is what you were told would happen. Live with it.

[gatbusdriver]

I personally don't agree with the strike, and I hope ST isn't returned for a while at least, but to state that they were warned, and as such the company can carry out what they have threatened doesn't make it legal.

There is no doubt that strikers have been punished for taking IA, but until this is challenged in the courts no-one really knows whether this is legal action taken by the company or not.

Runway vacated

Would you be willing to bet your house on the fact the company are legally in the right? I know I wouldn't (even though I hope BA is).

[HiFlyer14]

There is no doubt that strikers have been punished for taking IA, but until this is challenged in the courts no-one really knows whether this is legal action taken by the company or not.



Well said Gatbusdriver. If I were a striker (do,di,do,di,do,di,do) I would not be on here claiming it is unfair.

I would be banging on BASSA's door asking them why they sent me a text before the strike saying "Staff travel will be returned within 5 minutes" and yet, 3 months later, they still haven't pursued it through the courts. Why ever not?

[TightSlot]

For those who have asked - No, Litebulbs is not cabin crew, or serving BA staff, or based at LHR. However, he/she is employed by an airline as an engineer and is therefore eligible to contribute to this thread.

[wiggy]

It is part of our T&C's that we must be able to get to work within 1 and half hours. If you do commute, it is expected that you would stay within the airport area prior to operating.



Does it really say that in BA Cabin crew contracts?

[Hand Solo]

Doesn't it say that in JPMs? I'd imagine the contract would say people were required to comply with all BA regulations etc etc.

[Runway vacated]

Gatbus:

"Would you be willing to bet your house on the fact the company are legally in the right? I know I wouldn't (even though I hope BA is)."

Luckily I don't have to as I am represented by a competent (and emotionally stable) union. I also read my contract when I was initially offered a job with BA and understood the scope of my own responsibilities and liabilities.

Whilst I would not like to swap places with those who have been so badly (mis)led by BASSA I am afraid that my sympathy for them is zero.

[HiFlyer14]

As pointed out by Hand Solo, JPMs refer:


1.16.24.3.2
If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 1/2 hours, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accomodation nearer to base.


Additionally during the cabin crew recruitment process, we are asked to sign a form confirming this, and other factors, such as adherence to uniform standards, no visible tattoos, etc.

It may not specifically be stated in our contracts, but it is something we have agreed to, albeit many will undoubtedly be unaware of it!!

[Chuchinchow]

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights are not the same thing. The 1998 Human Rights Act gives effect to the ECoHR in the UK courts and remedy to claimants without the need to go dircetly to the ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights.)

There is no legislation offering protection for discrimination against strikers in the UK, there has been no other case challenge of discrimination in the UK. If Unite feel it to be appropriate they can take a case to the UK courts under the HRA stating that the wider view of Article 11 has been breached. If in agreement a UK Judge cannot change the law, at the most they can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'. The requirement then is for Parliament to remove the incompatibility.

I am suprised that BASSA felt the staff travel issue could be so easily handled. But the situation isn't lost, although it would be a long winded process, (which also leaves BA in the clear as it has acted legally in accordance with UK law).

The best hope is that Walsh returns the perk.


Hand on heart, PC767, do you honestly think that Unite - with all the problems it will face after the publication of the austerity budget tomorrow - will have the time,resources or the will to pursue the demands of the return of a luxury perk?

The Labour Party is no longer in power and the new coalition government will not be receptive to Unite's demands in this respect; quite the contrary.

Public opinion, in the form of every other worker throughout the United Kingdom, is already against the BA cabin crew strike. The vast majority of British workers do not enjoy such a privilege, nor anything remotely similar. Their thinking is "why should they have such privileges when we are working harder than we did under Labour, paying more taxes and getting less in return from central government?"

BASSA's threats to strike over Christmas, and the recent actual strikes, have done absolutely nothing to endear BASSA to anybody other than itself. Even the Unite leadership has expressed its frustration in dealing with BASSA.

Publicly pursuing the return of staff travel privileges, especially after the CEO warned strikers on at least two occasions that they would be lost if employees went out on strike, would be sheer folly and a major loss of money taken straight from BASSA members' pockets that would line the pockets of BASSA's legal advisors.

And let's face it: those "advisors" have not given BASSA good counsel up to now.

[wiggy]

albeit many will undoubtedly be unaware of it!!

I'm still confused as to what is is that we are supposed to be aware of.

JPMs do not specify that BA crew must live within 1 1/2 hours of base or that our homes must be within 1 1/2 hrs of base.

If such a caveat is genuinely in Cabin Crew contracts then an awful lot of crew at BA are at risk (and not just those who use Staff Travel ;) )......

[Timothy Claypole]

I think the JPM extract quoted by HiFlyer would cover things wiggy. Claiming otherwise is to indulge in the kind of pointless semantics that BASSA and Litebulbs like to indulge in.

[flapsforty]

Wiggy, read at least the current page before you post!

And when you do post, don´t merely stick your fingers in your ears and your tongue out your mouth and go lalalalalalala.

This is not a kindergarten, we´re trying to run a discussion thread here.

Read => digest => react in an adult fashion.

In that order.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by HiFlyer14
It may not specifically be stated in our contracts, but it is something we have agreed to, albeit many will undoubtedly be unaware of it!!

Posted by Wiggy
I'm still confused as to what is is that we are supposed to be aware of.



Wiggy,
I think the referece is that some crew are not aware that they have an hour and a half to get to work, regardless of commuting from abroad or in the UK. On Eurofleet, we are sometimes given what is known as a 'ring in' when no trips are available in the system. However, if and when you ring in say it's a 14:00 ring in, then you have two hours to get yourself to work if you are required to operate should BA require you to do so. Of course, this would equally be a problem for someone living in Durham or in Italy.
In balance, you make a fair and valid point.

[Juan Tugoh]

In fairness to wiggy JPMs do not say that crew must live within an hor and a half from their base. What they do say is this:

1.16.2.3 - "The essentials are identified by the words 'should' or 'must', desirable features are identified by the words 'should' or 'may'."

1.16.24.3.2 - "If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 1/2 hours, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base."

So there is a desirable not essential onus on the individual to ensure that their normal travelling time is less than 1.5 hours or to make arrangements for temporary accommodation closer to their base. There is no absolute requirement to do this within BA scheme rather a statement that it is desirable that you do this.

JPMs further state:

1.16.2.2.1 - "Responsibility for the proper control of flight and duty time does not rest on the Company alone. The formal responsibilities of crew members under the Fatigue of Crew provisions of the Air Navigation Order are described in Requirements of the ANO 2005 furthermore, individuals must not operate if they know that they are, or are likely to be, in breach of this Scheme."

So basically if you have a long commute, irrelevant of whether it is by air or car you may well be putting yourself in a very dangerous position should there be an incident and subsequent court case. You have responsibilities under the ANO and Scheme which you may well be ignoring with a long commute prior to operating unless you make temporary arrangements to have ensure rest prior to operating, and by rest I mean a nights sleep, not an hour with your head down in the carpark or quiet room.

[MissM]

HiFlyer14

Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work. When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London. When language speakers were recruited from all over Europe, they were told that they could use ST. We could debate this as much as you like. You will still be insisting that they have not. I will be insisting otherwise.

I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later. I don't think it will help once the dispute is over and everything has gone back to normal. As you are backing BA, you would probably get the support needed from them. And, no. I don't always feel proud of BASSA but they are also responsible for my terms and conditions, some of the best in the industry, which YOU are also enjoying at the moment. BASSA are not all bad. Why did you choose BA? You could have gone to BMI or Ryanair surely?

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days. Instead, we see that WW are desperately trying to break the strike by using any means possible. Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance. WW does not want to negotiate. It has never been part of his agenda. Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it. He has spent hundreds of millions on a strike which could have been easily avoided if he had wanted to. Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?

WW is responisble for this mess. Don't blame us for trying to protect our jobs and what we have. He won't be here forever whilst the rest of us are intending to stay here and create a career until we retire. WW has created such a misery in this company and we would be better off without him. IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.

[Juan Tugoh]

He's not welcome in BA

That is not quite true, it needs qualifying. I think you will find that you do not speak for BA, most of BA do not think the way that you do, most of BA employees are backing BA and have reached a negotiated solution with BA and WW. BASSA and effectively a small portion of the CC probably less than 3000 are the ones that find him unpalatable. So when you come out with statements like "WW is not welcome in BA" you do not further your case, rather you weaken it by sounding arrogant and petulant.

[wee one]

The 1.5 hrs quoted in your JPMS is a direct migration of CAP371 which is the law. It is to ensure that you are not fatigued through travel at the start of duty.Alleviations are possible to facilitate dual bases.

To ignore this means you are exposing yourself and the company to liability in the event of an incident. More than 1.5 hrs means not rested and therefore to work you are breaking the law.

Yet another worm creeping out of the can thanks to Bassa. Its not just applicible to air commuters but everyone who travels further than 1.5 hrs to get to work but even worse if you are not correctly acclimatised when commuting from another timezone grater than 2hrs wide where you have been for more than 3 local nights

There are many ways the company can get you if they choose to cover their legalities.

[Chuchinchow]

MissM has informed us that:I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later.

If by "we" MissM means BASSA that is fine. However, if she includes PCCC in that grouping then she is mistaken. AFAIK, PCCC has no animus against British Airways.

When MissM becomes a subscription-paying member of PCCC she will be entitled to offer it advice. Until that happens . . .

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days.

Sometimes one does not get everything one wants in life. There is always some awkward person (or people in this case) who confounds the best laid of BASSA-hatched plans.

IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.

Yet more cloud cuckoo land ranting. Has MissM taken soundings from a representative cross-section of staff in both companies - or is this her own wishful thinking?

WW is responisble for this mess.

Really? WW is responsible for doing exactly what he was hired to do: to return control of the management of British Airways to the Board of Directors (who, by definition, are there to direct the management and running of the company). BASSA is a trade union, representing the interests of its members, but it is most certainly not in the business of running BA.

When MissM declares that WW is responisble for this mess she violates one of the cardinal rules of contribution to and participation in PPRuNe. She is "playing the man and not the ball".

Willie Walsh will not contribute to PPRuNe; he is too busy running British Airways. But that is absolutely no reason whatsoever for MissM to malign the man in that scurrilous manner.

[malcolmf]

It is important to be aware that within JPMs "should" does not mean "must". There are many references that have this wording, they are carefully worded like that to give some latitude and room for interpretation.

[ranger07]

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days

It's because the afforementioned do not agree with your strike, the afforementioned who HAVE endured changes in their working enviroment, together with resultant decrease in salary. And furthermore, the afforementioned who feel that YOU should drop the militancy and get on board with helping the airline rather than offering a 'loan' which you would expect repaid to your fraternity.
Our CEO is standing up to you MissM, with our backing, the board, the city and the public in general.

[Dogs_ears_up]

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike... ...Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance
Golly Gosh! What a jolly huge number of people to blame. It appears to be everybody else's fault - The crew that did go on strike but then didn't, the crew that didn't go on strike, the pilots and all the other staff in the airline that volunteered, and those that didn't. Oh, and of course... the Americans. Did I forget the Managers & WW? And the customers that treacherously chose not to put their business elsewhere but to fly with BA during the strikes?

So, basically, everybody is to blame - except BASSA of course.

[Wirbelsturm]

Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work

Out of interest, do those crew have that fact in writing? If not then I'm afraid it's worthless. If they do then they have a good basis for a legal fight against having it removed. If they do have it in writing however then that would also be discriminatory against all other 'non commuter' strikers wouldn't it?

On another more interesting point. Rather than go around the houses to discuss the red herring of ST perhaps Unite should lokk how it got into this untenable situation. A situation that I am fairly sure will lose its shine and its priority after tomorrows emergency budget as Unite will have its hands (and resources) full dealing with the potential huge public sector JOB LOSSES (not, we are going to remove one from the office) to come.

Is the current balloting method really acceptable in this day and age? The fact that non returned votes are counted as yes votes is symptomatic of the Union and New Labours 'opt out' system where you say yes unless you say no.

Surely in such a contencious and expensive issue as this dispute there should be a clear majority of members voting yes, not a majority of returned votes voting yes. If a non returned ballot was cast as a 'no' vote instead of a yes vote then an absoloute majority, with no quibbling, i.e. more than 50% of the total membership would be required to take IA. in excess of 50% of the returned votes would not be enough unless the total number of yes votes returned exceeded 50% of the membership. This woudl avoid the 5000 ballots returned from 12000 sent out with 4000 voting yes giving a landslide victory from 1/3 of the membership.

Bound to be cheaper in the long run for the Union and gets an accurate representation of the members views rather than headline grabbing figures of 81% of those that could be bothered to return the paper.

[Meal Chucker]

Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it.

Not quite!

Some the Bassa costings were, imaginative at best - I understand the figure was nearer £17M difference, this has been accepted by Bassa in their reply to BA's way forward document. Also don't forget that a huge part of Bassa's proposed 'savings' are a loan that BA is required to pay back in full.

Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?

Who is responsible then?

Approx 40,000 other staff managed to negotiate with their unions still intact.

Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days.

Bassa ARE responsible for this mess - you and your fellow strikers are responsible for prolonging this dispute NOT the strike breakers, VCC's or temps.

[Runway vacated]

Ok, from the top.

Yes they may have been told they can use ST to get to work, but they were explicitly NOT told it was a contractual right. Because it isn't. Just as I have been told I will be provided with somewhere to park my car at Heathrow, but it is not in my contract, and may be removed at any time.

Yes BASSA are responsible for not only your current terms and conditions, but also the pickle in which you find yourself. They have spent all their industrial muscle defending your prehistoric work practices, and failed to adapt them to modern conditions. Adapt or die seems the most apposite phrase.

Blaming everyone but yourselves, and regurgitating false and repudiated BASSA "facts" is not a convincing argument anywhere except planet BASSA. Your argument can be summarised as "This dispute would be over if you had let us have our way". An infantile and utterly ridiculous position for a supposedly 'professional' union to take.

Finally, when all other lines of 'argument' have failed, play the man, not the ball. This dispute is not about WW. He is regarded by most employees as the right man for the job. The evidence for this is that every other department has reached agreement on cost reduction, and the Backing BA campaign has been overwhelmingly supported from all other sections of the company. Including many members of your own beloved Unite. WW has begun to turn this company into an airline with a future, not just a past.

Surely THAT says something.

[Middy]

When will people realise that Willie Waslh did not wake up one morning and decide on a whim to reorganise the cabin crew and their agreements.

That decision was taken by the City, the Board and the Shareholders long ago. Mr Walsh is the figurehead of the Company and the one who is paid to take all the abuse thrown at BA by BASSA and Unite.

It strikes me that those within the Company who think this is personal should get over themselves..........not many of us ( including myself ) are that important.

[MissM]

Juan Toguh

Most of the other employees have a union which not WW is after. Their union is not being busted by management.

80% of the cabin crew at IB have also made their point. They don't want him either. I can only salute them. I will happily buy a full fare ticket to MAD and join them on the picket lines (if allowed).

Chuchinchow

Ignored.

ranger07

BASSA agree to changes. Initially they didn't. They thought BA would leave them alone if they didn't speak. But, look at their last proposals and you will see that they are agreeing to it.

Dogs ears up

If they had minded their own business in the first place, none of us would have been here today. The strike wouldn't have lasted very long. Instead, they insisted on crossing the picket lines and supporting WW in his union busting. Of course I am disappointed with them.

Meal Chucker

WW is to be held responsible for this mess. He never wanted to negotiate. He pushed us into the corner which we are at.

No, those of us who went on strike are not responsible for this dispute. A strike is always a last resort. Nobody wants to strike. If nobody had crossed the picket line or done our job, WW and his contigency plan never would have worked and he had been forced back to the negotiating table.

[MissM]

Wirbelsturm

Nothing in writing but of course BA would never write anything on a piece of paper which could be held against them. They prefer gentlement agreements which they can break whenever it suits them. They never seem to honour any exisiting agreements. Look at the operations over the past few months. We seem to be operating without any agreements in place.

[jetset lady]

Miss M,

Instead of apportioning blame, isn't it time that the leaders of Unite and BASSA ask themselves why so many crew have broken the strike? Why so many people have volunteered? I'll give you a hint. For many, it has nothing to do with staff travel! If they can fully understand that then maybe there will be a glimmer of hope of seeing this dispute finally resolved.

In the meantime, back at LGW, a fully paid up member of BASSA recently went to them with an issue. They were told that as the majority of crew at the base had not supported the strike, BASSA weren't interested. Fair enough. But if that is the case, then they need to advise all of their members at LGW that they no longer feel able to represent them and stop taking their money!

[Timothy Claypole]

When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London.

They most certainly were not. They were told they would have assistance for two years, in the form of duty travel tickets before and after rostered duties, or mileage allowance, plus Hotac when reasonably necessary, or they could take the standard BA relocation package. They were not told they could use personal staff travel ad infinitum regardless of future breaches of contract. Perhaps they just assumed they could? BA are under no obligation to support commuting crew from their former bases. BA offered them continued employment within the BA group and thats the limit of their liability.

Miss M, you really must try to get your information fom sources other than the BASSA and Crew Forums, which simply repeat the same tired old lies. The inner clique there continues to convince itself that:

If only Willie would leave the problem would be solved (Keith Williams fully supports this process, and he's the next CEO);

That the only 9 out of every 20 VCCs is finishing their course because crewing is too hard (completely fabricated,they aren't);

That Willie is desperate for volunteers (he isn't);

That they're recruiting VCCs from the US because nobodys applying in the UK (they are overwhelmed with applicants from the UK, so much so that the other departments are running out of staff they can spare. The US VCCs don't need US visas either, so rapidly add to the numbers of US -capable VCCs);

And finally - this one is my favourite - that there are rumours that a massive 'yes' vote will force Willie out! Thats right, the massive 'yes' vote that didn't work first time, and has clearly failed a second time, will work third time around. Do they not learn? Will you swallow that fib for a third time? Let me leave you with a quote from Einstein:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

[cessnapete]

You continue to confuse your own version of events with reality.
Facts.

The majority of your cc number did not support you in the most recent IA.

The vast majority of staff back WW and BA, including many VCC who are Unite members. (The introduction of USA VCC's are the result of US staff request, and a need to spread the load amongst departments, not lack of volunteers.)

NO other group of BA staff support CC in the IA.

Any future IA will have BA fly the entire Long Haul route network, flying all booked pax.
Short Haul will probably not be ramped up much further as BA will only fly the moneymaking routes and continue wet leasing, as they are cheaper to fly than our own a/c with the restrictive rostering practises of Eurofleet.

Public opinion is against you now, but just wait until you announce strikes in the Summer holiday period.

The City support BA, look at the Share price during IA.

BA now run the day to day operation, not BASSA (No 48 hr diversions. No one down in F/C so close it and downgrade the pax. No BASSA consultation ex LHR if departure delayed, etc etc. etc.)

The BFC brigade said loss of ST no problem as not used much, and WW could stick it up his -etc etc (Sky News footage) So why the outcry about its reinstatement?

I could go on but it's getting boring!!

[Chuchinchow]

Chuchinchow

Ignored.

A rather infantile and petulant response, MissM. You know you can do far, far better than that.

[MissM]

Crew crossed the picket line for different reasons. I could think of the most obvious ones:

1. Not being part of a union.

2. Not being able to afford to strike.

3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...

4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...

5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.

6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.

I could think of a combination that some went to work convinced that there would be enough crew going on strike so they didn't need to do it and at the same time keep their ST.

As for LGW, they should have received representation if they needed assistance regarding a personal matter, especially if they are a paying member.

[skylight]

Miss M I am not going to conduct a tennis match of a debate with you over the argument of using staff travel as tool to get to work.I have been montitoring your comments and appreciate that you have not been judgemetal in this context.


I will simply state yet again ..That as part of the recrutiment and selection team within cabin services we emphasised the need to reside within 90 mins travelling distance of their airport base...secondly on overseas campaighns we again stressed that it was a responsibility of the individual to relocate to the uk mainland in order to live within a reasonable travelling distance ie 90 mins from their allocated airport base.This ideal was encouraged...of course we acknowledged the candidates choice if sucessful to live in the uk or anywhere else in the world...was essientially their own personal choice.
Please remember that it takes 6 months of continuous employment and not being on the probationary peroid of emplyment to earn the staff travel perk...so to suggest that it is used as a means to get to work at the outset would be ludicrous....not forgetting travel embargoes...air traffic control fairlures...industrial action from any airline. oraviation associated company.....weather disruption...terrorist and security alerts etc would make any crew member who relied on BA staff travel totally as a means to get to work totally vunerable....to the unpredictable happening.IE who would believe that a Volcano in Iceland could bring airtravel to a complete halt for a week!
I get the tube into work....thats not my only source as sometimes part of the line is out of functionality due to engineering works...signal failure etc.I need to be dextrous with my forward travel planning.

As previously mentioned by myself and others ...it is an individual choice if one decides to commute from London...New York or the moon! The individidual is obligated to make their own necessary arrangements in order to get to work on time, fit....fully rested and ready to work.
Yes indeed it is an advantage of cabin crew as well as pilots to be able to commute from far away lands.They also realse that its their responsibility ,and not the airlines, to get themselves to their workbase.

You state that peoples opinions differ on this issue...I am merely stating fact. from my own perspective, not an opinion on the issue of BA stating that part of the recruitment package was to woo candiodates to BA particulary from overseas with the promise of staff travel to assist them in getting to work.
Any overseas candidate whom I assessed at group or interview stage..or who I may have been aquainted with during the group presentation...would be able to state that they were in fact encouraged to relocate...and were certainly made aware of the 90 min travel distance window.It was in our best interests to stress this as we would not wish to waste resources recruiting candidates who felt that getting to work for them would be a physical impossibility without acess to BA staff travel.Again they would not have been entitled to staff travel at the outset.

I cannot speak for all cabin crew selectors...and all overseas based crew etc...but this has been my actual experience and many of my fellow selectors who i have been in discussions with on this very issue.
This is ,my last word on this subject.
Enjoy the footie!!

[Wirbelsturm]

Nothing in writing but of course BA would never write anything on a piece of paper which could be held against them. They prefer gentlement agreements which they can break whenever it suits them. They never seem to honour any exisiting agreements. Look at the operations over the past few months. We seem to be operating without any agreements in place.

Unfortunately you have described a company not operating in the real world. When a grown adult works for a large company that adult has to shoulder the responsibility of employment as well as the employer shouldering due care for the employee by providing a safe working environment.

The last time I looked it was neither BA's concern nor indeed any of their business where you live as a consenting adult. They require that, under normal rostered circumstances, that you be within the vicinity of your work place 2 hours prior to report time.

The company you seem to be denigrating doesn't exist. In the real world agreements are made, broken, discarded and remade as circumstance allows. I have worked in many places before coming to BA and, trust me, BA is a good employer to work for. But like all employers you must pull your weight both with respect to your individual job and your department.

BA do not owe anyone a living. BA do not have to give anyone staff travel, BA does not have to give free parking, free uniforms, discounted meals etc. etc. etc.

What we have now is a generation within BA who have become so used to having everything given to them on a plate and cosseted to the Nth degree that the loss of anything becomes a personal attack.

Many within BA don't realise how nasty the real world can be.

Perhaps soon the BASSA militants who blame everything and everybody for their situation except themselves will find out.

Time will tell.

1. Not being part of a union.

2. Not being able to afford to strike.

3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...

4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...

5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.

6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.


You forgot to add 7.

7. Don't believe in the self centred, militant rantings of a Union from a bygone era protecting their own backsides and demanding that everyone else pays for their 1980's style cushy expenses whilst stubbornly denying that anything is foing on nasty outside of Plabet BASSA.

[Timothy Claypole]

Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...

And most of the short range flights departed too.....

Is it too hard for you to fathom that if only 56% of cabin crew voted for strike action that many of the remaining 44% simply don't agree with you? Not scared, not greedy, not ambitious, not skint, they just don't agree with you.

[ranger07]

Crew crossed the picket line for different reasons. I could think of the most obvious ones:

1. Not being part of a union.

2. Not being able to afford to strike.

3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...

4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...

5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.

6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.

I could think of a combination that some went to work convinced that there would be enough crew going on strike so they didn't need to do it and at the same time keep their ST.

As for LGW, they should have received representation if they needed assistance regarding a personal matter, especially if they are a paying member.


7. Did not agree with the strike and refused to be intimidated.

8. Wish to Back BA and respect the customers who pay their wages.

9. Believe that BASSA have not acted in their interests by at least stating the company offer (s).

10. Sick and tired of the moaning whinging minorities who make their working life a misery.

[Tiramisu]

All quotes posted by Miss M
Crew crossed the picket line for different reasons. I could think of the most obvious ones:

1. Not being part of a union.
Correct, some of us left BASSA as long as 6 years ago because we saw the light as far back as then.
2. Not being able to afford to strike.
Correct again, can you afford the strike? I know who pays my mortgage and it ain't BASSA, Miss M.
3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...

Many of us lost money as we lost most of our good earning 3 day trips, I lost 4 of them Miss M. We lost more than half of our planned allowances during the strike, no thanks to BASSA.
4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...

Just shows how wrong you are Miss M, many of your BASSA reps who participated in strike action and were main crew or Pursers during previous strikes are now CSDs or Pursers.
5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.
Incorrect, with the price of tickets being quite competitive these days, losing ST does not apply to everyone.
6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.

Wow, you admit striking is a 'dirty' job! So why do it then?
Many of us also believe the strike is unjustified and morally wrong, Miss M.

[Chuchinchow]

Psalms 135:16

[Tiramisu]

Miss M,
Final question please as you've refused to answer this previously.

There are no lifelines left...
You can't ask the audience because you know what they think......the public hate us.
You can't phone a friend as many of them came to work and you know what they think.
There isn't an option for 50:50.

Please tell me honestly, what has going on strike achieved for you and what will future strikes achieve?

[Wirbelsturm]

It would seem that I am not the only one wondering over the lunacy of minority/majority 'automatic yes' votes!

Make it harder to strike, say bosses | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288201/Make-harder-strike-say-bosses.html?ITO=1490)

How surprising that they use pictures of a useless, ill informed, non event strike as the picture.

Take IA over the management have the audacity, the sheer audacity to decide how many crew are required on an aircraft. I mean, come on, how could they even dream up such radical changes without the safe, steering guidance of Auntie BASSA?

BASSA, who were so certain that crewing levels were contractual, until the Judiciary told them otherwise. BASSA who were so certain that action by them would 'ground the airline', only it didn't. BASSA who were so certain that they would get ST back 'in days' only they didn't. BASSA who have run out of ideas in a strike they should never have called but they don't know how to do anything else. But Auntie BASSA tells us that we will all be smiling and she'll buy the ice cream when that nasty man Willie Walsh goes and the nice man Kieth Williams takes over because he's a nice money man....... who knows exactly what savings are required...... and what the cost savings will be ........ when the CC are rationalised into modern practices........... and who fully endorses the current non compromising action ........ oh .......?

Unite are going to be fighting wars on all fronts from tomorrow as the public sector, who have been largely cushioned from the recession as the private sector took the hits, gets the result of 13 years of extravagent Labour over spending.

Will they care about CC whose jobs aren't threatened? Who have a jolly nice Pimm's up on the picket line? Who are pictured drinking beer next to their M3 convertibles? Oooops.

If you haven't got anything by tomorrows emergency budget then I suggest you leave BASSA and save the money. You are going to need it!

[the flying nunn]

Miss M

I know you blame the ones that saw sense and went to work to do nothing more than the job they are paid to do. I myself blame the bassa leadership for not doing the job that they are paid to do. Rather than looking for the real views of the members at the meeting at sandown last year they manipulated the ones that were present into a unanimous vote for no negotiation with BA. No view was sought from the three quarters or more of the membership that were not present or any opportunity given to voice any opinion other than the pre determined one.

What do you think would have happened to any member that put their hand up and said they would like to see more negotiation? The next ballot, if there is one, will give a clearer indication of where the feeling truly is. Will you join me in encouraging people to make their own minds up on the issues?

[midman]

Wirbelsturm

Nothing in writing but of course BA would never write anything on a piece of paper which could be held against them. They prefer gentlement agreements which they can break whenever it suits them. They never seem to honour any exisiting agreements. Look at the operations over the past few months. We seem to be operating without any agreements in place.
You mean the flights have been planned in accordance with established agreements, but due to the circumstances on the days of IA and their aftermath, people have been doing what is required to get passengers to their destination?
Wow, what a disaster that must have been for those involved.

Well no, it wasn't. For all involved the atmosphere was positive, can-do, and highly satisfying knowing that the best that Bassa could offer was being thwarted by a great team, working together to get passengers to destinations without the malevolent influence of the Bassamentalists.

That's how we will work in the future. With you (if you adapt to the new order) or without you.

[Caribbean Boy]

People are made aware of the need to be able to get to their base within 90 minutes even before they join BA. Here is an advert for CC: it's a couple of years old, but I can't imagine that it would be different today.

Ref UKLGW95
Region UK - Gatwick
Location London - Gatwick
Category Customer Contact

Job Description

Closing: 10th March 2008

Air Cabin Crew - Gatwick Fleet LGW

Interacting with a wide variety of people from a broad range of cultures forms a major part of the Cabin Crew role. Cabin Crew must be able to relate to others and show a passion for delivering excellent customer service. There is a need to balance confidence and professionalism with a friendly approachable manner. Anticipating and exceeding customer expectations is essential.

Requirements

* The right to live and work within the UK with no restrictions.
* Holder of a valid European Union passport allowing unrestricted world-wide travel or a passport issued by one of the following accession states: - Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta.
* Aged between 18 and 62 at time of application.
* Experience of front line face to face customer contact in a busy and challenging environment.
* Demonstrate respect, attention and professionalism to customers.
* Fluent in English, both written and spoken.
* Educated to GCSE or equivalent standard in Maths and English.
* Willing and able to apply for a criminal record check.
* Able to provide the names and addresses of references covering 5 years continuous work and academic history.
* A high standard of physical fitness.
* To be a minimum of 5ft 2in (1.585m) and 6ft 2in (1.88m) in height, with weight in proportion, such that the ability to perform all job functions is not hindered.
* The ability to, whilst facing forward, walk and fit comfortably down the aisle, fit quickly through the overwing window exit, and to fit into a jump seat harness without modification including closure without a seatbelt extension.
* Able to successfully pass a comprehensive medical questionnaire.
* Live within 90 minutes of the airport from which you are based.

You as a person

Representing British Airways as a member of our Cabin Crew is a unique experience. Our customers have their own unique needs and requirements. You?ll find every day holds a different challenge - from the moment you welcome our customers aboard the aircraft, their safety and comfort are your responsibility.

Your role includes all aspects of customer care from communication to serving refreshments. You will hold the key to our customers having a fantastic flight and, most importantly, wanting to fly with us again.

* Friendly and caring personality.
* Competent in handling difficult situations.
* Confident communicator and great listener.
* Supportive of colleagues and a team player.
* Able to remain calm and efficient under pressure.
* Willing to treat everyone as an individual.
* Satisfy current BA/CAA health requirements.
* Takes pride in personal grooming with no visible tattoos or piercings and willing to conform to uniform standards.
* Able to swim well with confidence.
* Be prepared to work unsociable hours any day of the year, at any time, including weekends and public holidays.
* Able to work to tight time constraints.
* Successfully complete initial training and recurrent training programmes

Benefits

Full time basic starting salary £10,815.00 per annum.

Flying allowances variable and can vary each month depending on trip allocation. Typical new entrant cabin crew member can expect to earn in the region of £500 per month additional flying allowances.

Holiday entitlement is 28 days (including public holidays pro- rated in first year). As the flying operation is 365 days a year, Cabin Crew must be able to fly on public holidays and religious festivals.

Hotel accommodation whilst on flying duty.

Free Uniform, worn in accordance with uniform regulations.

Your remuneration package will be determined by your individual contract of employment. Whilst this varies from business to business, typical benefits include:

* Profit share scheme*
* Bonus*
* Employee share scheme*
* Car park, subsided catering, sports and social facilities.
* Choice of contributory pension and private healthcare schemes
* Opportunities for reduced air fare travel and travel discounts*

[beesflyer]

Miss M.

I would be very interested to understand what you think would have happened when CC went on strike,had no one had volunteered to take striking CC's place. Do you and others think that you would be on the same TC's now.

Rgds
BF

[MissM]

3cessnapete

We could argue over this for a lifetime.

I believe a full WW schedule when I see it. That they are looking for VCC in the US is nothing but a sign of desperation and they are having trouble finding enough of VCC in the UK. I don't even want to know how much this is costing BA. They should have settled with our previous proposal and none of this would have happened.

It is not OUR fault that the public is against us. Blame WW and his so called management.

Chuchinchow

Why? I said to you earlier that unless you remove your patronising attitude I don't want to debate with you. You said in a PM that you couldn't care less. What's the problem?

skylight

Crew have been told different things then. I know of several "language speakers" who were recruited and told that they could use ST to get to LON.

Wirbelsturm

I think you will see that most crew are taking their responsibility in getting to and from work. Commuting crew are spending a huge amount of time and money to enjoy their lifestyle. But, some crew were recruited to the company and told that they could use ST. Some will argue otherwise. This is a discussion which could go on and on forever.

If BA is a good employer is debatable. At least it used to be until WW took over. He has done nothing good to the company. We are becoming a laughing stock with a falling service and brand.

Timothy Claypole

No, it's not difficult for me to fathom that everyone doesn't agree with me. Everyone crossed the picket line for whatever reason. But, I still think that every member should follow what the majority vote for. If a union calls for a strike, every member strikes.

Facts remain that every ballot has had a strong turnout so there is definitely some disagreement amongst the cabin crew.

Tiramisu

You are paying your mortage with money which BASSA have negotiated for you. It says BA on your payslip but the amount of it is because of BASSA.

I can't afford not to strike. Sure it's a dirty job. I have lost £1400 in basic pay plus trip allowances. I don't know exact numbers but I have probably lost somewhere around £2500 in total. Why am I striking? Because I believe in it. It's always a last resort but dealing with a management which is not interested in serious negotiations is not easy and brought us to where we are today. Our strike has not achieved anything yet which is the fault of all those crew who reported for duty and all VCC who have been trained to do our job. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have been here today. I can only hope that any future strikes will bring back both sides to serious negotiations and a reached settlement.

beesflyer

If nobody has crossed the picket line or volunteered to become cabin crew, BA would have been grounded and WW had been forced back to the table for some serious negotiations. I don't doubt we would have reached a good deal.

[Caribbean Boy]

MissM (http://www.pprune.org/members/316780-missm) wrote:
If nobody has crossed the picket line or volunteered to become cabin crew, BA would have been grounded and WW had been forced back to the table for some serious negotiations. I don't doubt we would have reached a good deal.So, BA's offer last year was so bad that you had to go on strike. Was it the same offer which someone said that she "would have happily accepted it as it meant that future crew would work on existing WW and EF fleets".

Hint: that person was you.

[Wirbelsturm]

If BA is a good employer is debatable. At least it used to be until WW took over. He has done nothing good to the company. We are becoming a laughing stock with a falling service and brand.

Here we have the nub of the problem.

BASSA and its advocates take everything to heart and act emotionally. Willie Walsh was also CEO when BA made its greatest ever profit. Willie Walsh is not interested in Jane Bloggs from IFcE personally. He doesn't know, personally, the names of all BA's employees. That is the line managers job. From them to the department manager to the head of department to the CEO to the board. Welcome to business.

Willie Walsh has a mandate to ensure that the company survives, is profitable into the future, provides investors with a safe investment vehicle and is competitive. He will delegate the responsibility of deciding what changes are viable to his senior management team, in the case of IFcE Bill Francis. In this case the prior history of the intransigence of BASSA has led BA management, finally, to decide to grasp the nettle and address the problem head on.

As far as BASSA are concerned that makes Willie Walsh the henchman. However BASSA have been a thorn in BA's side through their militant stance for the past 15 years. Hardly a year has gone by without threats of strike action from BASSA because they don't like something. The benefits taken into the future far outweigh the short term costs now.

This is no longer about £10 million here or there, this is about BASSA disobeying Unite, as they felt they were sold down the river by Tony Woodley last time, and desperately trying to cling to the power they felt they held over the past 15 years.

Far from being a bully, Willie Walsh, through his management team is finally standing up to the playground bully that is known as BASSA.

[harrypic]

Miss M,

Whilst I applaud your tenacity, you may want to consider a thought:

When you fly in the face of adversity, in this case adversity means 40,000 other BA workers, other Unite members, your senior management, your board, your shareholders and the majority of the general public, so in total maybe 40 million people, it may be prudent to consider that maybe you've got this wrong...

"he/she who hold their head high in the face of adversity are likely to get it shot off"

[HiFlyer14]

Miss M

Simply repeating BASSA soundbites neither makes them facts, nor any more convincing. They remain simply that: BASSA soundbites. Carry on repeating them, if it makes you feel better.

In the meantime, here are some more FACTS to dispute your BASSA soundbites.

Base closures were handled, as stated earlier, by 2 years of DUTY TRAVEL. Foreign recruits were given exactly the same staff travel perks as every other BA employee - to use as they feel fit. But hey, carry on "insisting" you are right. Your insistence, which never has any shred of evidence alongside it, does not make it right or fact.

You also claim that the rest of us "enjoy" the achievements of BASSA. Wrong again. In the last 20 years or so, all the key agreements - long range agreement, midfleet, BEP 97, CSD talks, have all been negotiated by CC89/AMICUS. BASSA have either been on strike over them or refused to sign the relevant documents, even though they operate on them.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this "debate" when one side of it merely insists on repeating, parrot fashion, infathomable, unjustified statements.

Miss M..... Malone, I presume? Could that explain why you're so concerned about the Professional Cabin Crew Council? www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) ;)

[DeThirdDefect]

I believe a full WW schedule when I see it.
From an answer to a previous question I got the impression that if you saw a full schedule, you would just claim it was BA spin.

That they are looking for VCC in the US is nothing but a sign of desperation and they are having trouble finding enough of VCC in the UK.
If they're having trouble finding enough VCC in the UK it's odd that there's been no fresh call for people to sign up as VCC since the original appeal early this year.

They should have settled with our previous proposal and none of this would have happened.
Equally, one could say that the union should have accepted any of the company's proposals and none of this would have happened.

It is not OUR fault that the public is against us. Blame WW and his so called management.
Was it "WW and his so called management" who called a strike over the Christmas/New Year period?
Was it "WW and his so called management" who broke the confidentiality of negotiations by tweeting?
Have you actually asked any members of the public why they were against you?

I know of several "language speakers" who were recruited and told that they could use ST to get to LON.
How did they get to LON before they qualified for ST?

If BA is a good employer is debatable. At least it used to be until WW took over. He has done nothing good to the company.
I suspect that most BA staff would beg to differ.
The fact that he was appointed as CEO of BA-IB suggests he's well-regarded by the board of at least one other airline.

It's always a last resort but dealing with a management which is not interested in serious negotiations is not easy and brought us to where we are today.
Is it really management who aren't interested in serious negotiations?
The following's from the judge's ruling in the February court case.
"BASSA had a heated argument with Amicus and refused to cooperate together"
"I heard evidence as to the course of events at ACAS and the following emerged. The BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal. In the overall result there was no meeting between the Union and BA."

[Chuchinchow]

MissM:Chuchinchow

Why? I said to you earlier that unless you remove your patronising attitude I don't want to debate with you. You said in a PM that you couldn't care less. What's the problem?


Problem? I have no problem. Patronising? Where and when? All our postings are available for anyone to read.

I have a job I love, a salary and allowances that satisfy my material needs, reasonable pension expectations, and (for the most part) very congenial company while I am at work.

I am not going to jeopardise all that by consorting with a morally bankrupt trade union that appears to function solely to protect and to advance the personal interests of the very "representatives" who are entrusted with the professional affairs of the rank and file membership. I expect and demand that my CSD gets off his/her rear end and help with serving the passengers.

You are "playing the person, and not the ball", MissM, and that is a direct contravention of PPRuNe rules. You are doing that not only with me (who can and will respond) but also with Willie Walsh and every other member of the BA leadership team. And don't suggest that WW responds here; he will and does talk to your elected representatives - when they show up.

If you don't like what I contribute to this thread you are under absolutely no obligation to respond. But you have - again.

[MissM]

Wirbelsturm

Of course they should take it personally when WW is after their union. If we are to believe BA, he has never met any of the BASSA reps. He probably already has his opinion of BASSA. That is personal.

BA has a fund which will help them. They will not go bankrupt. This has never been about fighting for our survival. It was one of his many, unsuccessful, attempts to send a message to IFCE. He has done nothing but damage to this company yet he's cashing out a huge salary every year.

It's obvious it is no longer about £10 million. This has always been about breaking our union, once and for all, at any cost. It has NEVER been about reaching an agreement with us. We could have sold our souls and they never would have accepted it. Take the new trick for instance. How much will it cost to bring in the VCC from the US?

harrypic

A majority means nothing. A majority can be wrong.

HiFlyer14

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not the one you are insinuating.

DeThirdDefect

BA will never be able to run a full schedule. But, I believe it when I see it. In such case I want proof that they are fully crewed with passengers and not just cargo or even worse, empty.

Maybe there haven't been any fresh calls after VCC because they know it won't help. Maybe the interest previously was so low that they are going abroad. Who knows?

We could have accepted any of the proposals put forward by the company if they had been waterprooved, which they obviously have not been. BASSA are making sure that any proposal includes that we will be fully protected but BA are not wanting this. BA pushed us to take industrial action. We did not. Nobody wants to strike and we are not striking for the sake of it. We are striking because we feel we have reached a dead end and we are not getting anywhere with BA.

WW may be well-regarded by the board but it does not mean that he is well-regarded by the workforce. IB crew have conducted a poll and 80% of them have said that they will go on strike if WW takes over. They don't want him. As I said earlier today, I will buy a ticket to MAD and join them at the picket lines.

BASSA were, as I have said a couple of times, in the beginning not interested in negotiations. That Amicus and BASSA could not sit in the same room was unfortunate. Ridicilous to say the least.

Chuchinchow

Good for you.

[dwshimoda]

It is not OUR fault that the public is against us

Actually, it is. It is entirely down to you, and the people leading BASSA. No one else.

I just hope that the public are purely against the 3,000 or so BASSAmentalists, and not the BA CC in general, who (in their majority) are backing BA by working through the strikes, resigning from BASSA, and generally NOT turning up at BFC.

[MissM]

I need to set it straight here too.

I am NOT Lizanne Malone as suggested by HiFlyer14.

[Chuchinchow]

IB crew have conducted a poll and 80% of them have said that they will go on strike if WW takes over

It is strange - very strange indeed - that this "poll" has not been reported on any of the usual search engines nor in the aviation trade papers and definitely not in the Spanish press.

Perhaps someone can supply us with a URL or some other link to this "poll"?

After all, if the report is truthful, I think that Willie Walsh ought to be told.

[Timothy Claypole]

I suspect its another unscientific poll conducted by crew commuting home on Iberia. The other places are full of these things, like "70% OF CREW WENT ON STRIKE", based on a militant trooping round the aircraft demanding to know who'd been on strike. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them people might lie in order to get rid of them.

Anyway, does it really matter of 80% of them say they'll go on strike? BASSA tell us that 80+% of BA cabin crew will go on strike and the airline seems to run better without them.

[Hampshire Hostie]

Sorry to deviate but does anyone on here know if it's the case that recent strikers haven't been notified about loss of staff travel?
If so what could the reasons be?

[Colonel White]

'Most of the other employees have a union which not WW is after. Their union is not being busted by management.'

Um... we are talking about Unite, right ? After all, Whilst BASSA and CC89 are two groupings within Unite, neither group is able to cnduct separate negotiations with BA, All agreements have to be with Unite. If BA wanted to 'bust' Unite, surely this would have been manifest in previous negotiations with other bargaining groups, after all, there are some 15,000 Unite members who are not cabin crew working for BA. Oh, to save you the maths, that's half of the rest of us non-cabin crew staff.

'WW may be well-regarded by the board but it does not mean that he is well-regarded by the workforce.'

Not true. Have you been to any of the staff forums he's been at ? OK so not a lot of people fit in the Waterside theatre - can't remember the seating capacity but it's several hundred. Never seen him fail to get everyone onside. I come from the land of bean-counters (Finance & Performance). The only time there was disquiet about the way that the company was being run was when the major reshuffle took place. The way that was done was counter to the way that BA had reorganised in the past. That said, what was needed was decisive action and the old way of a more concensus based decision making would have taken too long. Better to bite the bullet.


'A majority means nothing. A majority can be wrong.'

Yes, very true. Once upon a time, the majority view was that the earth was flat and if you went far enough you'd fall off the edge. What disproved that was hard, evidence based, logical reasoning. Sadly, the noises coming from BASSA are none of this.

Why was the strike action so ineffectual ? Look at the numbers. Now I'm led to believe that the current cabin crew workforce is around 13,000 folk. Of this number, 10,000 are Unite members. Of this 10,000 about 6,000 voted for strike action. So before you get down to the number who will walk as opposed to just vote, there are probably slightly more people who didn't vote for strike action than did. For a strike to be effective, you need to be able to guarantee that at least 75% of the workforce will down tools. BASSA never got anywhere near that figure. Now, look at it from the individual's perspective. They may have voted for strike action, but when they found that the likelihood was that the company would still run a successful operation, it saps the resolve. It's even tougher when you work out that there isn't the mass support that the union is trumpeting. As soon as it was abundantly clear that at best Unite had got only the support of 60% of its members, strike action was doomed to fail.

Why was the support not stronger ? Maybe the '12 days at Xmas' had something to do with it. Maybe the fact that crew were working to the new numbers and found it not that much tougher contributed. Now Unite can call for another ballot on another cause, but unless it's something which impacts all cabin crew and not just benefits a few, I can't see it being a rip-roaring success - although I could be wrong. Put it like this, if the action had happened in my area and I had previously voted for strike action, but for whatever reason had elected to work normally and was now presented with the reasons that Unite are putting forward for further IA, I'd vote it down.

[DeThirdDefect]

BA will never be able to run a full schedule. But, I believe it when I see it. In such case I want proof that they are fully crewed with passengers and not just cargo or even worse, empty.
Given that you don't trust figures released by the company to the stock exchange exactly what "proof" would satisfy you?

Maybe there haven't been any fresh calls after VCC because they know it won't help. Maybe the interest previously was so low that they are going abroad.
Or maybe, despite there being sufficient interest, the company decided it was prudent that VCC be drawn from as many parts of the airline as possible to share the burden of Backing BA.

BASSA are making sure that any proposal includes that we will be fully protected but BA are not wanting this.
Really?
Unite recommends rejection in BA cabin crew ballot and challenges BA's motives for settlement (http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand/unite_press_releases/unite_recommends_rejection_in.aspx)
No mention of that when Unite recommended rejection.

IB crew have conducted a poll and 80% of them have said that they will go on strike if WW takes over.
As someone once said....
"47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot."
And as someone else said....
"I'll believe it when I see it."
Must be more BASSA spin.

[OpenCirrus619]

#152 (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-8.html#post5766517)
I still think that every member should follow what the majority vote for.

#159 (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-8.html#post5766720)
A majority means nothing. A majority can be wrong.

[cessnapete]

USA VCC need not cost any more then UK based. After the initial training in UK they can be based in US to cover BA services.

When a BA US service leaves Lhr the number of VCC are known, and can be changed to fresh crew for the return trip to UK and visa-versa. Once up and running these people can be based in USA.

No different to UK crew slipping in USA.

[malcolmf]

It might be instructive to see what BA could have done:
1) They could have issued 90 day notice to all crew and a new contract. (source BASSA's QC in the High Court)
2) They could have imposed minimum crewing levels outside strike days. crewing levels aren't contractual (High Court again)
3) They could have applied for union de recognition on the basis of lack of support within the bargaining unit.
4) They could have taken away staff travel from all CC with the proviso that you get it back when you sign a new contract.

None of these have happened, are these the actions of an employer who wants to break the union? All BA (and the rest of us) want is an adult 21st century relationship with the union where common problems are recognised and shared.

[ltn and beyond]

Im now getting tired of hearing at work, "WW is trying to bust the union!, well he wont !!", as i have said to many other crew, I dont think he is trying to bust the union, he is a old union man himself so therefore understands the benefit of having unions in a large company like BA. What he does want, without any doubt to to take control of the day to day running of BA IFCE, an area that BASSA/CC89 have too much involvement. And its this that senior Bassa/CC89 reps dont like as it removes them from their nice little social club in CRC office flexing the union musscle!.

I have asked many times without answer, so i'll ask here, what is the role of the union? :

1.To protect jobs ?
2.To protect T&C's ?
3.To run the buisness ?

Personally I think its 1, followed by 2 but not at the cost of 1, but never 3 unless invited by the company.

I was involved in a conversation last week when a CC member told me she thought is was good I had not been a VCC, and said thank you for not doing her job:),we had a grown up and informative conversation which was very refreshing and I was starting to think maybe some of the bad press the strikers are getting is wrong .But, then when I told her that because of her union strike as flt crew i had lost a number of trips and therefore a big chunk of allowances costing my pocket too, she just replied "well you basic is high enough, you can afford it" :ugh:. I was amazed how someone who at first appeared reasonable and educated enough to be able to talk about all the isssues at BA would then just cast a flipant remark as she did. A true BASSA/CC89 suporter :=.

This type of selfish attitude is Im affraid what has turned off the support for the strike, from other working groups..

[52049er]

There are some very simple reasons why the company is looking for VCC from abroad - and none of them is to do with a lack of volunteers from the UK.

On a recent trip our VCC member usually worked in a department of 9. It used to be 15, but (BASSA take note) has been reduced in size to help the company compete.

Of those 9, 6 had volunteered. Only our colleague had been released by her manager as the department was unable to spare anyone else.

Even so, our colleague was still replying to emails and texts whilst downroute.

Lessons? Everyone has taken a hit recently. There are plenty of VCC volunteers who can't be used. VCC's will not find their day jobs will disappear as the company realises it can do without them - indeed quite the opposite.

[stormin norman]

The BBC are reporting that BA reached an agreement with its trade unions on the pension changes in March.

Don't remember UNITE or BASSA balloting its members on this issue ?

[Beagle9]

"A majority means nothing, a majority can be wrong" - Miss M


Like the majority that voted "YES" to a strike and "NO" to accepting the last proposal? Selective opinions?

A couple of other things,

Would Iberia crew voting to strike on the basis of it's employers choice of CEO, be legal? I've got my doubts.

BA Breaking agreements? Not to any degree, in my experience (As SCCM). Maybe during a crisis (extreme weather, vocanic ash, strike), when BASSA decides it's going to sulk and be totally unco-operative, but frankly you can't expect an employer and all it's customers to be held hostage in such situations. Contrast this to the way our (oh, and I just know you are not going to like this!) flight crew colleagues do business, where they suspend their union rules in such situations and work to the scheme rules to get flights/customers/crew home, or somewhere more convenient. BALPA are ok with it. They have a much more mature relationship with BA for the common good. Oh how I wish we had the same. Negociating a much more flexible and realistic disruption agreement would save BA millions, yet affect individual crew members, what twice, three times a year? What did BASSA do? Scaremonger with tales of crew being on permenantly flexible rosters. It's so infantile and so frustrating to those of us that want representatives that put crew, customers and the company all before themselves.

That's why I get so many crew now curious about the PCCC.

[tr1ggermckay]

Unite and GMB balloted engineering members on the pension proposals around a month ago.

[Fargoo]

BBC reporting the same

BBC News - BA strike: Unite union to ballot members if no progress (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10382434.stm)

Unite said that it was giving BA until 29 June to "demonstrate that it is willing to negotiate a solution to the fresh issues between the parties - or will ballot its members for strike action".

It said the new issues under dispute were threefold: BA's use of other employees to cover as cabin crew; the removal of travel perks from crew who went on strike; and "vindictive, disproportionate and unnecessary disciplinary action" taken by BA against some of its crew members.

"Once again, we say to BA: Do not seek conflict," said Brian Boyd, Unite national officer for civil aviation.

"Drop the tough talk and work with us to deliver the change needed for the future and preserve the standards associated with this great airline."

[Juan Tugoh]

Unite has today notified British Airways that it intends to open a ballot for strike action among Heathrow cabin crew. The ballot will open on Tuesday June 29 and close on Tuesday July 27, raising the prospect of strikes at Heathrow during the busy summer period.

Brirish Airways has said,

"Once again, Unite and its cabin crew branch Bassa have demonstrated their selfish lack of concern for our customers and their own colleagues.

Their apparent wish to target the summer holidays of tens of thousands of families is deplorable.

However, should there be any further industrial action, we are determined to keep even more of our customers flying.

We will strengthen our contingency plans and aim to fly from Heathrow 100 per cent of longhaul operations and a substantial proportion of shorthaul services in addition to our full normal programme from Gatwick and London City.

Unite has shown its weakness by excluding from this ballot Gatwick cabin crew, who have never believed its claims that the company's actions have been unreasonable. Unite and Bassa are interested only in representing those who accept their narrow view of the world.

We believe our crew would vote to accept our offer to Unite which guarantees pay rises for two years, protects existing crew's terms and conditions and leaves Heathrow crew the best-rewarded in the UK airline industry".



Oh dear, BASSA are getting desperate only balloting Heathrow crew - funny I thought LHR and LGW were all part of the same NSP. The percentages may be better if they only ballot LHR crews but the absolute numbers will show this as a failed action. That is, of course, if BASSA can run a legal ballot this time around.

[BikerMark]

Unite has today notified British Airways that it intends to open a ballot for strike action among Heathrow cabin crew.

From Gerrymandering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering) :
"Gerrymandering is a form of boundary delimitation (redistricting) in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are deliberately modified for electoral purposes, thereby producing a contorted or unusual shape. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander; however, that word can also refer to the process."

Presumably the "Unite" name is now being used ironically, as they are clearly going to play one base off against the other.

[LD12986]

Can BASSA legally exclude LGW crew from the ballot?

[HiFlyer14]

First they expect LGW to take a pay cut to subsidise LHR CSDs. Now they are excluding LGW all together, when the outcome impacts on them.

Absolutely appalling.

Gatwick crew urgently need to sign up to the Professional Cabin Crew Council at www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) so that they can once again gain a voice in all of this.

[Hotel Mode]

Oh dear.

Unite appear to have run a consultative ballot on the pension proposals with their BA members. They have forgotten to ask the BASSA members though and the other departments have approved the deal by a large majority.

BASSA Chair says

All departments had a consultative ballot. All voted in favour as recommended by the Union.
That is why I have asked Unite to explain what happened to ours.

Looks like even Unite dont trust the BASSA members to be sensible.

[jetset lady]

This suggests to me that Unite aren't too sure of the support from LHR crew either. LGW members on their own have never had enough members to really affect the outcome of a ballot. But if Unite are concerned by the amount of possible "No" votes from LHR, then Gatwick could just shift the balance. I guess they are shortening their odds.

HiFlyer,

We need representation strong enough to get our voices heard above and beyond whatever happens to be occurring at LHR at any specific time. I can not put my faith or money into an organisation that insists on remaining anonymous during such a critical time.

[ranger07]

We need representation strong enough to get our voices heard above and beyond whatever happens to be occurring at LHR at any specific time. I can not put my faith or money into an organisation that insists on remaining anonymous during such a critical time.

Hope they don't remain anonymous for much longer. The sooner we slay the BASSAsauras Rex the better.

[Newyorker001]

Just had a text from a crew friend and they have said that BASSA are looking at 12 weeks of strikes, to counter BA regards of operating 100%. I just cant see how the crew would accept this. I know its a rumour buts its the 3rd time Ive heard it today.

[jetset lady]

I'm afraid it's too late for me, Ranger07. They have shown a lack of conviction that makes me wonder at their ability to negotiate with a company as strong as BA. There's been a lot of talk but as of yet, nothing to back it up with.

[Timothy Claypole]

How has BASSAs perceived conviction fared them in negotiations with BA? It would seem the PCCC would have to go a long way to do any worse than BASSA.

As for 12 weeks of strikes, I'd like to see how may crew could afford to sit at home for 12 weeks on £45 per day.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Jetsetlady
This suggests to me that Unite aren't too sure of the support from LHR crew either. LGW members on their own have never had enough members to really affect the outcome of a ballot. But if Unite are concerned by the amount of possible "No" votes from LHR, then Gatwick could just shift the balance. I guess they are shortening their odds.


Looks like LGW have been dumped by BASSA. Perhaps it might be an idea for our Gatwick colleagues to do the same by dumping BASSA en masse.

[HiFlyer14]

Thankyou Timothy.

Jetset Lady,

You are, and I mean this in all sincerity, apart from the BASSA militants, the only person that appears to hold the Professional Cabin Crew Council in disdain.

To date we have been entirely self-funded and have prospered and grown due to the generosity and kindness of well-wishers. Our fantastic new website (www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk)) was provided free of charge courtesy of another BA employee who does web design. Our business cards and logo were designed and emailed to us from a well-wishing customer. We now have an Industrial Relations Expert offering us free advice. We have realms of emails of support from all over the globe from BA employees, BA customers, and even other airline staff. We have had gold card holders and others offering us donations (which we have politely declined). The support for what we are trying to do has been absolutely tremendous. I am therefore curious as to why someone who clearly doesn't support BASSA should feel the need to put us down in the way you do?

JetsetLady with all due respect, you do not work at LHR and you cannot possibly understand the strength of hatred from the BASSA militants. Nor do you seem to understand the lengths they will go to. The LGW members on our committee could not believe that NO-ONE at LHR wore the Backing BA lanyards - until we introduced them during the strikes. It seems at LGW people have been wearing them without problem. People would have been struck down at LHR for wearing them, prior to this.

Additionally, a crew member at LHR had their car marked with an S in the car park. A crew member on one of my flights during the strike was shouted "Scab" at in the car park. Hate mail has been put in mail drops. 50+ suspensions is not for nothing.

Why should we open ourselves up to this level of abuse, until we absolutely have to? We are, like you, cabin crew who do not support what Unite are doing. We recognise, as indeed you do, that there is a far better way of doing business - and we intend to try and find a path to do that. We are also trying to stem the damage that Unite have done. To date, we have informed the majority of crew that were unaware about the share scheme, bonus option and free ticket offer last year. We posted publicly that we would be working during the strike, and we went to work on the first day, in full uniform to the crew car parks at LHR and LGW. We then emailed everyone and told them where the pickets were, and that it was perfectly safe. We have received emails of thanks from our members saying what a support it was to know that we had gone in first. They felt better going to work and I like to think in some small way, we gave people the courage to cross the picket line.

We are now wearing the Backing BA lanyards, and the tide is slowly turning at LHR - the militants are less inclined to start strutting their stuff in the briefing rooms. Perhaps, most important of all for our community, we have a forum on our website where cabin crew can talk freely about how they would like this to end, and how they don't agree with BASSA.

It may not seem like much to you, but believe me, by LHR standards it is huge inroads into the BASSA machine. And we intend to keep plugging away. After all, what have we got to lose? So why not join us, instead of putting us down. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Doing nothing is not an option. We may not succeed, but at least we will have given it our best shot.

[tomkins]

Already done my dear,and I know that a lot of my colleagues have done the same.

[beesflyer]

HiFLyer14,

I wish you all the very best, as do most of the ramp staff at LHR :ok:

[report call sign]

What is the mandate?
I hear it is three fold
1. Staff travel returned in its full.......NO CONDITIONS
2. The suspended and dismissed crew reinstated
3. Imposition

oh please, get real
answer..................
1. NO
2. NO
3. Ehhh NO

there is no need to negotiate then, Fait accompli?
Bring on the ballot; let’s get the ball rolling.....
Can’t wait for the result, bound to be over the % needed to call a strike.......
why? Because they have left 25% of their NSP out of the ballot that would vote no! Clever move?:ugh: I don’t think so!!!
Just watch this crumble

BASSA playing its last card? Maybe
but one thing is for sure........it isn’t an ACE one!!!!!

[Juan Tugoh]

From the Unite Twitter feed

BA wrong again - Gatwick crew will vote in ballot. Crew unified against bullying! #brutishairways #ba about 4 hours ago via web

I guess that once the scam of just trying to ballot LHR crews has been exposed they have to include LGW.

[Hotel Mode]

I guess that once the scam of just trying to ballot LHR crews has been exposed they have to include LGW.

Or Unite left the paperwork with the branch (BASSA) and again they mucked it up?

If BA are saying that it excludes LGW, then we can maybe assume that the notice of intention to ballot excludes LGW somehow. BA's legal team havent put a foot wrong yet.

[report call sign]

BA's legal team havent put a foot wrong yet.

AND THEY WONT!

[sixmilehighclub]

I lost faith in BASSA during the last episode of industrial action a few years back.

There were many points on the table, which they claimed the crew were dissatisfied with.

Then the Gatwick crew, for the sake of a raise in breakfast payment of about £4 (please correct me if I am inaccurate), were added to the arguement, making 12 points.

Gatwick would never have gone on strike over a £4 payment would they?

BASSA including LGW in the bundle of demands, were just adding them to gain numbers in support.

If you scrape enough barrels, you have enough for what you need right?

The majority of crew are happy with what the company have offered, but BASSA are refusing to believe this. They're just fighting an old battle vs BA and have no regard for its members.

Why don't BASSA put out a questionnaire to all crew listing every single
issue they are arguing over?

eg:
The reduction of one crew member on selected routes - I accept this change/ I dont accept this change/ I accept the change as a temporary measure.

Then both sides will see where the support really lies.

Six :ok:

[Tiramisu]

Well said, HiFlyer14.
It might be an idea for all the LGW crew to disassociate themselves from BASSA and join the PCCC.
The PCCC is definitely gathering momentum as more crew on my flights talk openly about it, too. Always happy to direct them to the PCCC website and I have to add that as a signed up member myself, the Forum is excellent with lots of useful tips etc for crew. It's a far superior website than the 'other' two in style, design and more crew friendly.
Time for change and the sooner the better. Go PCCC.:ok:

[sixmilehighclub]

FYI boys and girls you can be a member of more than one union if you feel the need.

Six

[Hotel Mode]

I see that the BASSA chair is having a foot in mouth evening that even the faithful have noticed. First she claimed that Unite have 45000 members in BA as justification for Unite forgetting to include BASSA in the pension ballot 'because it wouldn't have changed the result' (not true when cabin crew are roughly half Unites BA membership) When challenged the reply was..


BASSA Branch Chair * *
Post subject: Posted: 22 Jun 2010 19:23

* *
I am prone to exaggerate lol


Priceless.

[HiFlyer14]

FYI boys and girls you can be a member of more than one union if you feel the need.



Absolutely Six (as in name - not six unions:\).

Also, the Professional Cabin Crew Council are NOT a union. We do not collect subscriptions so you can register your intent on our website even if you are a BASSA member. You are simply registering that you do not approve of what BASSA are doing and are helping us gain the membership numbers that we need to enable us to approach BA.


We need representation strong enough to get our voices heard above and beyond whatever happens to be occurring at LHR at any specific time....
There's been a lot of talk but as of yet, nothing to back it up with.


JetsetLady,

Sorry - I hope I wasn't too harsh previously, but I realise now from the above quote that you probably don't understand the legalities of all this and therefore seem to think we should have done more. Whilst we would like to, we can't. Cabin crew simply can't just go up to BA and say "We don't agree with Unite". BA have a collective agreement with Unite, and that stands. Even if they would like to, BA cannot go outside that agreement. The only way to challenge it is through numbers. We need at least 40% of the workforce if we want recognition by BA. Only then, will we be able to approach BA and only then will BA be able to listen to us.

All the Professional Cabin Crew Council are doing at the moment is gathering members. It's all we can do. We HAVE to have the numbers so that we can then use the registrations to approach BA and then provide a voice for what cabin crew really want - sensible, adult, negotiation.

Hope this explains - and hope you will now join the PCCC so that you can help us, help you. That, in a nutshell, is how it works.:)

[jetset lady]

Having written three indepth replies and lost my internet connection all three times, I have given up therefore this will be short and sweet. I will try to keep adding to it and correct the grammar as and when I can!

Timothy Claypole,

No they haven't but by the same token, I'm not going to choose my representation based on the fact that they can't do any worse than BASSA.

HiFlyer,

I don't hold PCCC in disdain but I do have my suspicions on how effective it will be when it comes to representing me as a crew member at LGW. Comments such as....


JetsetLady with all due respect, you do not work at LHR and you cannot possibly understand the strength of hatred from the BASSA militants


...do not help. How do you know that I can not possibly understand the strength of hatred? Do you think I haven't had hate mail and threats? Please don't treat me like the slightly simple child from down the road. I get enough of that from the BASSA Massive!

Why should we open ourselves up to this level of abuse, until we absolutely have to

Why indeed when you can let others take the flack for it? If you are serious about this, then now is the time you have to. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Many crew are feeling badly let down and as a result, aren't very trusting right now. They need to know that they are signing up to a real chance of good representation rather than good intentions.

Doing nothing is not an option. We may not succeed, but at least we will have given it our best shot

And there we agree. You may not believe it but I don't want PCCC to fail which is why I am one of the few on here that will question you. Or would you rather have sort of unquestioning blind loyalty that is shown to BASSA? Despite what you think, I am not the only person questioning the stance you have taken with regards your identities. I just happen to be one of the more "gobby" ones!

Sorry - I hope I wasn't too harsh previously, but I realise now from the above quote that you probably don't understand the legalities of all this and therefore seem to think we should have done more. Whilst we would like to, we can't. Cabin crew simply can't just go up to BA and say "We don't agree with Unite". BA have a collective agreement with Unite, and that stands. Even if they would like to, BA cannot go outside that agreement. The only way to challenge it is through numbers. We need at least 40% of the workforce if we want recognition by BA. Only then, will we be able to approach BA and only then will BA be able to listen to us.


Once again, I am not the village idiot! Believe it or not, I did already know the above, despite me being a mere LGW crew member. By backing it up, I meant standing up and being counted.

P.S. Just out of interest, how many LGW crew are currently involved in the running of PCCC?

[HiFlyer14]

JetsetLady,

I sincerely apologise if you think I was treating you as a child. That was never my intention.

Can I ask you to state exactly what it is that you feel the PCCC could or should be doing? Or indeed what it is that we are not doing?

[Colonel White]

It strikes me that Unite have either indulged in a really crafty move or have just shot themselves very neatly in the foot. Let me explain. By balloting only LHR staff they may be able to argue that the basis for complaint is new even though two out of the three items they are ballotting on arise from the previous dispute.

The snag is that by abandoning crew in LGW they are unable to seek to have any staff travel restored to any LGW folk who did walk out. Now this hardly smacks of solidarity. Suspect that the union reps down in LGW are going to be a bit miffed (I'm assuming that they walked out in principle and consequently lost their staff travel.

The union also leave themselves wide open to any strike being very effectively broken. If LGW crews are excluded from any strike action, there is nothing to prevent BA management seconding them wholesale to LHR and backfilling with temps. Obviously the way it would be managed would be to ramp up the temp numbers to way beyond what the LGW operation actually needs in the first place. The cost ? well, temps would be on a one month notice deal. Unite are calling for 12 weeks of action. Worst case is it costs 3 months for extra temps. BA will be able to get a good indication of how many are going to be needed from the stats on who broke the last strike and the ballot result. Airline runs a 100% operation. Unite get sidelined. Next ballot probably has to line up with Xmas and how many will back that ??

All this assumes that Unite succeed in getting a majority. But they've just made life even more difficult as they need to be absolutely certain that they only ballot LHR staff. Given the fiasco last year when they ballotted folk who had left the airline, I reckon that BA management and their legal eagles will be watching the numbers very closely. The slightest whiff that Unite have included LGW staff or excluded some LHR staff will probably result in the company waiting for staff to walk out and then mounting a legal challenge. If the ballot is proved to be illegal, those who walked will be sacked.

It will be interesting to see what eventually transpires. My bet is that we are seeing the final death throes of a desperate bunch of individuals.

[jetset lady]

HiFlyer,

I sincerely apologise if you think I was treating you as a child. That was never my intention

I may have been a little over sensitive for which I also apologise.


I can not put my faith or money into an organisation that insists on remaining anonymous during such a critical time.


We appear to have reached a stalemate. Maybe we should leave it there.

Jsl

P.S. You never answered my question. How many LGW cabin crew are currently involved in the running of PCCC?

[Vld1977]

Hiflyer,

I´ve heard from some CC, and not only BASSA supporters, that they are reluctant to join the PCCC, precisely because it´s not a union. I would find it really surprising if even the board of directors would recognise the PCCC as an official bargaining force.
Some people have told me that they are reluctant as they see the PCCC perfectly capable of signing a no-strike agreement with BA, effectively decimating the negotiating strenght of the workforce, but I think this is total nonsense. There would be no need for a no-strike agreement, becuse the real issue is that, not being a union, PCCC members would not be protected if they needed to take industrial action, and for this, the negotiating power of PCCC would only depend on the goodwill of the directors and investors. Only a union is capable of defending employees´ conditions, by law.
Of course this could all be total nonsense, and I am anly talking about what a few people have told me. But bear in mind that WW hasn´t got a problem in continuing to recognise Unite as the bargaining group for CC, only wants to change the nature of this bargaining. Big companies need official unions, not staff associations, representing staff, and I am not only talking of the employees, but the whole organisation.

[malcolmf]

Can I ask you to state exactly what it is that you feel the PCCC could or should be doing? Or indeed what it is that we are not doing?

Perhaps they should be looking at : Statutory derecognition of a trade union owing to lack of support for bargaining arrangements | Business Link (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?site=131&r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858787&r.lc=en&r.l3=1074436131&r.l2=1074436102&r.i=1074439143&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1084264512&r.t=RESOURCES)

Which describes how A worker in a bargaining unit can call for the derecognition of a Union. In particular
The CAC will only accept your ballot application if:

it is made in the proper form
you have copied the application and any supporting documents to the union
at least 10 per cent of the workers in the bargaining unit favour derecognition
a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour derecognition
there hasn't been a previous application for an end to the bargaining arrangements in the last three years

[HiFlyer14]

VLD1977

Thanks very much for the feedback. You make some valid points, and ones that we are very much aware of.

Unfortunately what people don't seem to realise is that we are in a catch 22 situation. We cannot be a union, until we get a large majority of the workforce on side.

Cabin crew have had enormous amounts of information thrown at them over the past 18 months - some more factual than others - and the last thing we want to do is to add to the confusion. Some people are therefore simply putting their heads down and coming into work, trying not to get involved in the politics of it all. And that is completely understandable.

But it is very simple and cabin crew must appreciate this:
If we don't all get together and form a new organisation, be that a union, a council, or an association, or anything else we decide to call it, then the only voice we have is BASSA/Unite. They have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are not acting in our interests. BASSA/Unite are however the current recognised union and the only way to override that is, as pointed out by Malcolmf, to get a majority of the cabin crew community together to ask BA for something else.

There is no other way out of this desperate situation. To say that we will sign a no-strike clause is simply BASSA scaremongering. Nothing we have said or done would indicate that. We are taking advice from an Industrial Relations Expert. We have people with legal degrees on our team. One of our steering group members has previously and independantly taken BA to an industrial tribunal and won. Two members are ex-union reps. We are certainly not people to sit back and be walked over. We are more than capable of assisting people in attendance meetings etc. as any colleague can attend, it does not have to be a union rep.

We all need to stop worrying about the future and start focusing on what is happening now - this dispute. If we don't, we may not have a future to focus on. What the PCCC will look like in the future will be whatever the members and BA agree that it should be. What it is right now is effectively a driving force of cabin crew who do not agree with the unreasonable, unjustified action that Unite is taking. The PCCC is trying to save our jobs, save our community and save our company from the destruction that Unite is inflicting on all of us. We are dealing with what is happening right here, right now. When we have done that, we will be in a position to decide what shape and size we will take for the future. But if people don't recognise that they need to register with us to achieve this, then Unite will win.

If you came to work during the strike, you need to register with the PCCC. You can retain your BASSA membership if you want to, but if you do not register with the PCCC, then you are allowing Unite to continue on their path of destruction. Crossing the picket line is a good move. You now need to take the next step and register with the PCCC. If you don't, the PCCC can achieve nothing.

[stormin norman]

With the announcement yesterday of massive public sector pay and pension reductions,
whats the betting on the unite leadership making this their main focus of attention
in the coming months (its going to be fun watching Woodley attacking the over paid
while on his terms and conditions )

[64K]

And here we are - mixed fleet LHR is launched! Job adverts out on ESS...

[Tiramisu]

And here we are - mixed fleet LHR is launched! Job adverts out on ESS....
Just been reading about it, 64k. All applicants welcome from across the airline for both grades, Main Crew and Customer Service Manager.
Thanks BASSA and well done! :ugh:
It could have been so different had you bothered to negotiate.
The world doesn't revolve around you anymore. Life and BA goes on....

[Tiramisu]

Maybe, just maybe they'll read their ESS messages now and not press the delete button. But you never know, a few months down the line some crew may still be saying Mixed Fleet what....when......?

Who knows this might prompt a mass resignation from BASSA and they may see sense to join the PCCC. Hopefully the PCCC may just get the numbers to be recognised.

One thing crew have to remember is, if you do move to Mixed Fleet, you cannot be a member of BASSA/AMICUS. So BASSA, please take note, you are going to lose members as I know numerous cabin crew who have been waiting for this opportunity. Mixed Fleet will have it's own bargaining agreements.

[64K]

Info here: British Airways Careers (http://www.beoutstanding.co.uk/)

[License to Fly]

I wonder how long it will be before all the big £££ trips are only operated by Mixed Fleet ?

I guess they will now just allocate NRT etc onto Mixed fleet and put less and less flying through the old fleets ? What does everyone think ?

[Chigley]

I don't believe with the implementation of MTP that ALL the lucrative routes will go to mixed fleet. It would not make financial sense as MTP is already paying an average payment including those routes to crew on the current LH/SH fleets.

Although, when I read that ESS I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Cry because a small element of fear within me hopes that this will not see the sudden demise of my career as I have no intention (purely financially motivated) of moving to the mixed fleet.

However, laugh as already on the 'other' forums the knives are out regarding this news and it's hysterical. The BASSA supporters still can't see that their beloved union has meant the introduction of a new fleet WITHOUT any negotiation! Quite incredible. :ugh:

[Tiramisu]

I guess they will now just allocate NRT etc onto Mixed fleet and put less and less flying through the old fleets ? What does everyone think ?

License to Fly,
Bill Francis promised us a fair transfer of work and this has been mentioned in all his correspondence and web chats with us. I will take him at his word. I don't think all the lucrative routes will go to Mixed Fleet. Work will be transferred on a rotation basis with the High, Mid and Low earning trips.
The other thing to remember and I know I have mentioned this a few times previously, is that it will take Mixed Fleet 10 years to get to 40%.

[Get Smart]

Hi flyer a question if you please?

Thank you for your efforts with the pccc which is something I'm watching with interest. It seems that pprune members are aware of it's existence but not the cc community in general. I was told by someone that during the last wave you intended to blitz crc with flyers to start gaining the publicity you need but for some reason this didn't happen. My question being that surely it's time to really get out there sooner or later and advertise heavily rather than relying on word of mouth. It seems an opportunity was missed during the last wave of strikes. If cc who are so disgruntled with bassa knew more about the pccc then you'd really start getting the interest.
:ok:

[License to Fly]

... it will take Mixed Fleet 10 years to get to 40%.

Hi tiramisu - do you think the £150m cost caused by the strikes might change that now and cause BA to speed up the implementation ?

LTF

[Tiramisu]

Hi tiramisu - do you think the £150m cost caused by the strikes might change that now and cause BA to speed up the implementation ?

Hi LTF,
Good question, and it might do. However, the growth of New Fleet was part of the Investor day presentations and I really don't think that will change. But then, it's only my opinion and naturally for personal reasons, I hope it is the case.
I also think that majority of us were under the impression that Mixed Fleet would have started around July/August. So this announcement comes as no real surprise.

[64K]

The website states that the mixed fleet will (at least initially) operate A320 series and B777 aircraft, so that rules out some routes moving over.

[License to Fly]

Mixed Fleet starts flying in November according to BA

I wonder if Unite have time to change the new ballot to include this as the 4th reason to strike!

[SnackPack]

Excellent news. I have found out today that there are going to be 20 redundancies at my airline in October so that couldn't have come at a better time. Thank you BA.

[HiFlyer14]

License To Fly

Please remember that this news has come out of the blue, and every cabin crew member is affected by it. We are also now in the very precarious position that Mixed Fleet has now been implemented WITHOUT any safeguards in place for us (MTP, route transfer agreement, etc) thanks to BASSA's inability to secure what was quite literally offered on a plate.

Thankfully BF has stated in his email today:


No one will be forced to join Mixed Fleet
You can stay on your current terms and conditions
You can still be promoted on your current terms and conditions
Current permanent crew at Heathrow can transfer between Worldwide and Eurofleet on current terms and conditions
You won't lose all the best earning routes or aircraft types to Mixed Fleet
There will be assurances around your average variable pay


So, shall we leave the unsubstantiated scaremongering to BASSA? They do enough without anyone else joining in.:)


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

[Juan Tugoh]

The website states that the mixed fleet will (at least initially) operate A320 series and B777 aircraft, so that rules out some routes moving over.
64K is online now Report Post Reply

At least until the fleet plans are published for next summer - so lets say 10 months?

[Juan Tugoh]

So, shall we leave the unsubstantiated scaremongering to BASSA? They do enough without anyone else joining in.


No it's far more fun when we all join in!

How about the next round of CR which will only affect Old Fleet?

[Juan Tugoh]

Fly12345

sorry next time I will put smiley faces on everything for the hard of thinking.

[License to Fly]

Whilst its is very sad certain CC will be faced with a rapidly changing job, I think BASSA must take alot of responsibility for this. If they had evolved with a changing airline industry this would probably not be happening now

WW has been very calm and collected through this dispute and I think he has been waiting for this moment - the moment that many CC will not feel anger against BA, but against the union for not sorting out a fair deal.

In my crystal ball i can see :-

-mixed fleet having a large number of routes in 12 months time.
-old fleet CC will be going to same places alot/places that do not earn much money
-old fleet not being utilised as much as they can be (like the shorthaul CSD's are now), thus restricting the pay of the old fleet crew
-many current CC will have joined Mixed Fleet as it will offer them a promotion (that would not have been there otherwise) and higher wages for them.
-all part time requests will be approved, enabling new fleet to grow quicker
-all new planes (787/380) will be new fleet
-high standard of performance management brought in to all fleets
-BASSA membership may dwindle due to the above and a new (modern) union could be born which will look at sensible negotiations for the benefit of CC and BA

if BA has brought this out of the blue, who's knows what is possible over the coming months...

LTF

[Caribbean Boy]

I don't see Mixed Fleet expanding rapidly. For cabin crew, the starting salary is only £11,000pa and the flying allowance £2.40ph, so most of the existing cabin crew will have to take a pay cut if they join as no pay differential will be paid. Part-time crew may find that they won't be offered a part-time contract.

Furthermore, there will be no transfer from existing fleets, so everyone must apply for jobs (with no guarantee of success) which are now advertised in eJobscan (see https://jobsadmin.baplc.com/eJobscan/).

If you want to apply, get your CVs up-to-date!

[fruitbat]

Yes, true for BA applicants. However, these positions are being advertised to external applicants as well. I'm sure the conditions are better than many airlines, even at this level. And remember there is to be a bidding system, so people will have some say over their trips/days off.

[Caribbean Boy]

I don't see a large number of external crew being recruited as this would blow the IFCE budget - which is already under strain. Initially, only BA staff can apply for cabin crew posts. My guess is that external candidates will be able to apply only when the number of successful internal applicants is known.

[Hotel Mode]

I don't see Mixed Fleet expanding rapidly. For cabin crew, the starting salary is only £11,000pa and the flying allowance £2.40ph, so most of the existing cabin crew will have to take a pay cut if they join as no pay differential will be paid. Part-time crew may find that they won't be offered a part-time contract.


Many BA main crew will be able to apply for the cabin manager role. At 25k that will be very attractive.

Main Crew:
36+ months full time or equivalent as BA Cabin Crew within the last 6 years, plus 12+ months experience in a people management or leadership role (internally or externally to BA) within the last 6 years - to include team, performance and resource management.


Many recruited in the last 6 years have that experience.

[Chigley]

I expect that mixed fleet will really grow when we start seeing expansion in the business again. Until then it will be relatively small scale. Yes, some current crew will seize the opportunity for promotion, and for some it will be a great opportunity.

I can't see old fleet being 'starved' of work either as BA will be effectively paying two people to do one job? And if we are being paid MTP then does it matter if you fly to DXB when your being paid and average payment that includes a NRT/HKG? Another reason why I can't see it happening.

Also, IMO EF CSD's have been 'starved' of work because they have not been getting fair share of the SCCM workload. The company has wanted to discuss the Single Supervisory role for sometime but BASSA have always blocked any talks. Hence the CSD's have only been working CSD a/c and not doing an equal share of the airbus work. Another area of the workforce let down by the union.

I do think p/t and even further offers of VR in the future will be incentives for current crew which will inevitably shrink the existing fleets. But I still think that the presentation at the Investor Day is closer to reality.

After all I was told before the strike in '97 that we would all be forced on to cheaper contracts and I would never get promotion - the scare mongering then is no different from now, needless to say it was all rubbish. :)

[Hotel Mode]

I don't see a large number of external crew being recruited as this would blow the IFCE budget - which is already under strain. Initially, only BA staff can apply for cabin crew posts. My guess is that external candidates will be able to apply only when the number of successful internal applicants is known.

External recruitment has also started.

Here (http://www.beoutstanding.co.uk/home/)

[Caribbean Boy]

The only job which is being offered externally is Mixed Fleet Customer Service Manager. It is Band 3, salary £25,000pa. You can only get an email alert for cabin crew jobs.

[Bluejay]

Miss M


Maybe there haven't been any fresh calls after VCC because they know it won't help. Maybe the interest previously was so low that they are going abroad. Who knows?

Utter Rubbish - I know of plenty of colleagues who were and still are keen to volunteer as VCC

LD12986

can BASSA legally exclude LGW crew from the ballot?

I am not sure they can I read something recently that stated that any IA had to ballot ALL members and that there MUST be a minimum response rate of 40% of all members only then will it be legal if there is a majority vote.

Anyone have any idea of the BASSA numbers, I can only guess that it will be difficult to get 40% what with LGW crew being excluded plus the attrition of the BASSA membership

[DeThirdDefect]

I am not sure they can I read something recently that stated that any IA had to ballot ALL members and that there MUST be a minimum response rate of 40% of all members only then will it be legal if there is a majority vote.
The union must ballot all members who will be called out on the resulting strike and mustn't ballot anyone who won't.
So, balloting only LHR members would be consistent with a lawful LHR-only strike.

I don't think there's a minimum turnout specified in the law. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_13#pt5-pb3)

[winstonsmith]

UNITE will not be excluding LGW in their next ballot - get your facts right.

[License to Fly]

I don't see a large number of external crew being recruited as this would blow the IFCE budget


I was flying with someone last week and she said BA had been at her daughters UNI (Loughborough) recruiting .... think about it, if you are graduating now there are not many jobs out there, so a 11 month contract which will allow you to see the world is fab - then apply for your proper job if you want to (or maybe even stay). At least its money to stop going into further debt.

WIN : WIN as BA get lots of cheap labour and some intelligent people. I wonder how many other University campus' BA have been around ...

[Caribbean Boy]

The LGW-based crew are a lost cause to Unite, that became obvious during the first two strikes. Unite is entitled to ballot only its LHR-based cabin crew members. Legally, the only times that all members must be balloted are:

in advance of a merger with another trade union
elections to fill senior positions within the trade union
to start up and continue a political fund

[LD12986]

Unite has denied that LGW crew are to be excluded:

Twitter / Unite-BA updates: BA wrong again - Gatwick c ... (http://twitter.com/UniteBAupdates/status/16782521399)

[BABOBO]

UNITE will not be excluding LGW in their next ballot - get your facts right

Winstonsmith,

Maybe you should get your facts right..... but Unite is excluding LGW in the next ballot!!! The only crew who will be ballotted at LGW are the crew who lost their staff travel because they went on strike as apparently 'return of ST' is the only issue in this ballot which affects LGW!!! This info comes directly from a BASSA rep and I for one wonder if this is legal.

[HiFlyer14]

Hi flyer a question if you please?

Thank you for your efforts with the pccc which is something I'm watching with interest. It seems that PPRuNe members are aware of it's existence but not the cc community in general. I was told by someone that during the last wave you intended to blitz crc with flyers to start gaining the publicity you need but for some reason this didn't happen. My question being that surely it's time to really get out there sooner or later and advertise heavily rather than relying on word of mouth. It seems an opportunity was missed during the last wave of strikes. If cc who are so disgruntled with bassa knew more about the pccc then you'd really start getting the interest.


GetSmart

You are right - a lot of cabin crew are unaware of us, and therefore we do need to raise the profile. We did manage to do this very successfully during the last strike. There were flyers on the noticeboards (including the BASSA noticeboard!), business cards in the ad stands, etc and people talking freely about the PCCC. Our membership doubled during the last strike.

However, now the BASSA dirty tricks department are back, the flyers only stay up a matter of hours, it is difficult for people to talk about it and therefore many cabin crew do not know about the PCCC. Alongside that, the BASSA militants are stating that we are managers, funded by BA, or BALPA etc so we have to combat that too.

Raising the profile of the PCCC is acutely difficult in the environment that we are in. We are aware that being anonymous doesn't help and we are looking into that. But if there are any budding marketeers out there with some good ideas, please email us at info(at)my.pccc.co.uk.:ok:

With Mixed Fleet well under way now, and no MTP or route transfer agreement in place for existing crew, the Professional Cabin Crew Council is the only chance that cabin crew have got.

JetsetLady

You don't seriously expect me to answer that to a non-believer on a public forum do you? If you were to join, you may well find out!:p

[DeThirdDefect]

I for one wonder if this is legal.
As I said, if the only people they're planning to call out on strike (in the event of a 'yes' vote) at LGW are those who lost their staff travel, the lawful way to conduct things would be to only ballot those people.

Entitlement to vote in ballot
Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action in question, and to no others. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_13#pt5-pb3-l1g227)
I can see nothing in the act that limits a union's ability to pick and choose the specific employees it wishes to include in a strike.

[jetset lady]

HiFlyer,

Erm...yes, I do actually. I'm not asking for names. I would just like to know how many LGW crew are involved in the organising of PCCC. Coming from a base that has always played second fiddle to LHR as far as BASSA are concerned, I would like to know that there is someone at the top table that not only knows our agreements inside out but that has also worked to them and knows the issues we have. Surely that is not unreasonable, is it?

However, if you feel that you are unable to reveal that, then that's fine. I shall let it rest.

[AtlasDrawer]

As I said, if the only people they're planning to call out on strike (in the event of a 'yes' vote) at LGW are those who lost their staff travel, the lawful way to conduct things would be to only ballot those people.

So how are BASSA going to ballot only those members at LGW who lost their staff travel as a result of going on strike? How are they going to know who to send the ballot papers to and who not to?

The way that I see it is that only a few people (9? I could be wrong here)actually went on strike at LGW but I am assuming that BASSA have a lot more members than that at LGW (at the moment).

So, if they are only going to ballot the members who actually lost their staff travel as a result of going on strike... how are they going to know who those people are?

The only way I can see them getting around this is to ballot the whole LGW membership.

[fruitbat]

Surely you can't only ballot those who you know will return a YES vote!

[report call sign]

Tiramasu
you seem to be praising the PCCC alot recently
any reason?

[DeThirdDefect]

So, if they are only going to ballot the members who actually lost their staff travel as a result of going on strike... how are they going to know who those people are?
Presumably people were sent a letter by BA officially advising them of their loss of staff travel.
All BASSA needs to do is ask people to provide a copy of that letter so that they're included in the ballot.

Surely you can't only ballot those who you know will return a YES vote!
Yes - provided they're the only ones you call out on strike.

[report call sign]

Stop Panicing
I think you all need to take a chill Pill and see what happens over the next few days once the dust has settled!:)

[Tiramisu]

Tiramasu
you seem to be praising the PCCC alot recently
any reason?

report call sign,
As a signed up member of the PCCC and not having been with a Union for six years, I'm hoping that the PCCC gather momentum and gain recognition from BA. I know that there are many crew who are in the same boat as me.
I have also had enough of the BASSA bullies and would like to see a more reasonable approach and better representation for all of us.
With Mixed Fleet here, who do we have now who will negotiate and represent us?
It's time for change.

[AtlasDrawer]

Presumably people were sent a letter by BA officially advising them of their loss of staff travel.
All BASSA needs to do is ask people to provide a copy of that letter so that they're included in the ballot.




This seems quite an unsual way of conducting a ballot? This could be fraught with problems:

1. Who kept their letter? some may have thrown it away.
2. Someone may forge a letter to get a vote ( just looking at all possibilities).

[ArthurScargill]

This seems quite an unsual way of conducting a ballot? This could be fraught with problems:

1. Who kept their letter? some may have thrown it away.
2. Someone may forge a letter to get a vote ( just looking at all possibilities).

Not to mention how long it would take to identify everyone who received a letter !!
No, they'd have a better way for sure ??

[AtlasDrawer]

ArthurScargill:

No, they'd have a better way for sure ??


You would think so, although this is BASSA we are talking about. :}

AD