BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[flapsforty]

This is the cabin crew forum.
Run for and by cabin crew.

This thread is being kept alive and run for the benefit of BA cabin crew to discuss their dispute in an impartial environment. So BA CC can talk about the matter without having to deal with brow beating from any side.

All others currently employed by an airline are welcome to join in.
That doesn´t mean this is a free for all "let´s stick it to cabin crew" thread.

Both striking and non striking BA CC are welcome to air their views on the BA CC dispute and discuss them here. Note it says CC, so not the pilots' deal, not the pilots' future, not the pilots' anything.

Everybody but CC is here on sufferance.
Everybody including CC needs to behave courteously and stick to the rules.
Failure to do so leads to loss of posting privileges.

Dingbaticus, this thread is, as said, about the BA CC dispute.
Emphatically not about the goings-on on other forums.

Discuss the dispute, not the three ring side-circus.

_____________________________

flapsforty
Member of the PPRuNe Moderating team

[Snas]

To move on a bit... It seems LM has been speaking yesterday, in case you missed it..


Unite general secretary Len McCluskey attacked the "culture of fear" at British Airways today as he launched a drive to discover the level of "bullying and harassment" against cabin crew.

Mr McCluskey said the behaviour of the airline's management had been "disgraceful" in the wake of the bitter 14-month-long dispute over pay and conditions which remains deadlocked.
"We have launched a survey asking whether our members have been subjected to or have witnessed bullying, harassment or intimidation," he said.



That survey should make for some rather interesting reading I would imagine. I'm wondering how it will be conducted, I fully expect to see one drop through my letterbox despite no Unite member being in my household for nearly a year now - best get my pen ready...

Source: - http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98108 (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98108)
..if you can bring yourself to read The Morning Star..!

[Juan Tugoh]

BASSA members, and indeed UNITE members of the CC community have a track record of lukewarm engagement in union activities. The turn out for the consultative ballot and indeed the general turn out for the strike prove this. I suspect that this will lead to a skewed result.

The ones that will respond to such a survey will be the ones that are engaged with this dispute and will be the ones that feel that they have been harassed and bullied by BA. This trend will be strengthened by the those sickened by BASSA/UNITEs conduct of this dispute having already left the union. The pool of those remaining is therefore more politicised and extreme than the union membership was this time last year.

If LM was really interested about B&H he would be asking an independent company to consult all CC regardless of union affiliation over suspected B&H at work. I doubt this will happen and that LM is looking around for a cause to garner public support.

Sadly, the union leadership seems to seek out the emotion laden side issues rather than deal with the real issues. I suspect that this will end the way all such things have ended up during this dispute. BA will ignore them and the union will end up looking silly for it. It might grab a few headlines but it is unlikely to achieve anything positive for the CC.

BA will point to their robust B&H policy and the mandatory training that BA employees are put through and state that if there is any B&H going on then it should be reported immediately and it will be dealt with in accordance with the B&H policy.

[Abbey Road]

In yesterday's BASSA newsletter, "DIGNITY - A DEFINING MOMENT", there was this:

For this now universally discredited British Airways management, the decision to suspend XXXXXX XXXXXX for simply organising a collection to support sacked fellow crew and their families over Christmas, and all that that means to people, could be that event.

For in that action, that one crass, heavy-handed, misjudged action, the very essence of what this whole dispute is about was there for all to see.

Dignity.

There can be no true peace until these wrongs are put right and Bill Francis et al have a change of heart on the way they do their business.Okay, so a hearing has been held and I believe that the person in question has been reinstated due no case to answer. If that is the position, is DH satisfied that BA's procedures (agreed with the unions) are satisfactory? Or does he still think those procedures don't meet his requirements?

[Dingbaticus]

The Blu Riband, you accuse me of pressurising managers over the fraud policy – as this is a public forum I won’t be too specific but a CSD was investigated under the fraud policy for upgrading a staff passenger and feared the loss of their job. Like many CSDs, I was given written and verbal instructions regarding upholding the policy from my manager. Are you now claiming you have read my ess messages too?

As I am so ‘well documented’ you will know that I urged crew who complained about staff being given jumpseats or pilots using First for their rest that we should respect your terms and conditions, as that was what we were fighting for.

It is true I was unhappy at the way the fraud policy was changed but the change was not explained to me in the calm logical non aggressive words of Dexters Laboratory.

Instead I was subjected to boasts that it would be changed as a’ reward’ for ‘Backing BA’. I admit this was provocative to me, as I felt you are supposedly fellow trade Unionists breaking the fundamental principle of trade Unionism – the right to take part in legally voted for Industrial Action. You may claim to be an ‘Association’ but you are part of the TUC and you will note in my ‘documentation’ I do not continually scream, like many Cabin Crew, for your removal from the TUC.

As for both parties being suspended, I am referring to a move to end the petty suspensions such as Andrea Molton’s which resulted in public embarrassment to the Company at a sensitive time. She was fast tracked through the system to reinstate her yesterday, which will now understandably infuriate those still suspended. We need to stop the mad merry go round if we are to end hostilities.

Rape is a police matter and requires arrest, not suspension.





The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[The Blu Riband]

I felt you are supposedly fellow trade Unionists breaking the fundamental principle of trade Unionism – the right to take part in legally voted for Industrial Action. You may claim to be an ‘Association’ but you are part of the TUC and you will note in my ‘documentation’ I do not continually scream, like many Cabin Crew, for your removal from the TUC.I am an individual with my own views and ideas. I always endeavour to find out the facts without getting carried away by ranting rhetoric or mob rule. Nor am I an active trade unionist.

I am a member of Balpa which IS an association, and a member of the TUC.
I am proud of the work Balpa conducts for the good of all of us , particularly regarding ftl's and safety standards generally. I have rarely been more proud than when Jim Macauslan spoke against the call for unrest and general strikes at the TUC conference.

The difference between the work Balpa does, and the level of commitment and professionalism of its reps, and the shambles that is Bassa, is truly indescribable.

The knowledge and endeavour that has gone into successive pension changes attests to that.

terms and conditions, as that was what we were fighting for.Not according to the courts.


I'm glad that Andrea was reinstated so quickly. That a complaint was made was unfortunate and would have to be investigated. I'm reassured that BA's procedures are sound.

CSD was investigated under the fraud policyAnd no action was taken!

[midman]

It is true I was unhappy at the way the fraud policy was changed but the change was not explained to me in the calm logical non aggressive words of Dexters Laboratory. Instead I was subjected to boasts that it would be changed as a’ reward’ for ‘Backing BA’.
The fraud policy was never changed, it was reemphasised at one stage by BA as there had been some reports of 'misselling' of upgrades by ground staff. This was jumped upon by some militants as a method of getting back at pilots who used their right to control who sits where on their aircraft.
The resulting complaints to management of 'fraud' were not dealt with well by IFS managers who just repeated the 'no fraud' mantra. When they passed cabin crew complaints to Flight Ops management, they were told it was within the Captain's authority, and no action would be taken. When a cabin crew member then complained in writing to Asset Protection, a full clarification was made available, ensuring no doubt existed about the ability of the Captain to make seating changes once the doors are shut. There was never a boast from anyone about "Backing BA" bestowing extra privileges on pilots, there were merely accusations of such on cf and other forums.

Altogether a totally self-inflicted problem, created by a few militants looking to right the wrongs they felt had been imposed on them.
I admit this was provocative to me, as I felt you are supposedly fellow trade Unionists breaking the fundamental principle of trade Unionism – the right to take part in legally voted for Industrial Action. You may claim to be an ‘Association’ but you are part of the TUC...
I do not consider myself a trades unionist, and nor, I believe, do the vast majority of my colleagues.

As both parties being suspended, I am referring to a move to end the petty suspensions such as Andrea Molton’s which resulted in public embarrassment to the Company at a sensitive time. She was fast tracked through the system to reinstate her yesterday, which will now understandably infuriate those still suspended. We need to stop the mad merry go round if we are to end hostilities.

Not all suspensions are petty - you hear one side of the dismissal on cf etc but not the full picture that the Unite agreed disciplinary procedure will make evident.
I'm sure the person who gave me an hour of foul mouthed abuse, swearing and threats would have claimed total innocence.

[Dingbaticus]

‘They haven’t got the stomach for a fight.’

A fellow crew member was challenged by someone who sneered ‘What gives you the right to fight this?’

‘Being a woman gives me the right’ came her reply.

On paper a workforce comprising a high number of females and gay men looked unlikely to put up resistance. However, these social groups have had to fight for equality in the past and were not prepared to have their status downgraded by techniques such as In Touch Days that appeared designed to question their worth.

We also have a higher number of straight male stewards compared to other UK airlines. This is because the role of Cabin Crew at BA is seen as a career, requiring higher people skills than low cost carriers and pays well enough to support a family.

You may not agree with what we are fighting for but please don’t dismiss us as a ‘nutty minority’. All three of the above social groups felt threatened by the belief that our Union’s right to collectively negotiate was being destroyed and we were united in what we perceive to be our own ‘fight for survival’.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

Midman, I agree not all the suspensions will be petty but I believe there are some as petty as Andreas and they have not been fast tracked. I hope this might be a sign of things to come as it is stressful for both the victims and the suspendees.

There are many cases coming to court too, which will bring them into the public arena and we will be able to make our own conclusions about the severity of the accusations.

The CSD who was investigated did have the investigation dropped because the seat used was blocked, not available for sale and so no fraud occurred. Had it been available for sale it may have been a different story and this concerned the CSD community.

The Fraud Policy document was changed – a line was removed.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[Yellow Pen]

On paper a workforce comprising a high number of females and gay men looked unlikely to put up resistance..........We also have a higher number of straight male stewards compared to other UK airlines....

I'm sorry but this is the kind of discrimination wolf-crying which makes crew look ridiculous. "They're victimising us because we are women/gay men/straight men/one-legged Somali lesbians" etc etc. As a community you really, really need to get away from the idea that this is some sort of socio-economic attack on you because of who or what you choose to define yourself as. It's not. It's an attack on costs, and BA really couldn't care less what gender or sexual orientation you are, nor does it feature in any of their plans. You are, in the most basic terms, a cost problem, and a cost solution must be found. If your union could deal with it in pure money terms instead of trying to whip up a victim mentality this dispute would have been done and dusted 18 months ago without a fraction of the aggro.

The CSD who was investigated did have the investigation dropped because the seat used was blocked, not available for sale and so no fraud occurred. Had it been available for sale it may have been a different story and this concerned the CSD community.

And what of the popular tale of the CSD suspended for upgrading a Captains wife? Truth or fiction? (Hint: I know the answer to that)

The Fraud Policy document was changed – a line was removed.

The BASI document is the Fraud Policy, not the letter you got from IFCE which stated things that might be considered fraud. The former is the BA rule, the latter is not. It is important to distinguish between an actual change in the policy and a change in a letter referring to the policy.

[midman]

Dingbat,
You imply that the fraud investigation was halted because of the seat being 'blocked'. Galley FM's version? Or was it halted because it had been stated several times that upgrading on board the aircraft for no reward wasn't fraud? Some wanted to get back at pilots by claiming fraud for upgrading, but the problem was, some cabin crew decided to drop their own colleagues in it too, when they saw what their forumite friends considered fraud.

As for suspending both parties, if you were the subject of a prolonged foul-mouthed verbal attack because of the position you took regarding IA, would you expect to be suspended too?
Remember this is a disciplinary procedure signed up to by Unite, and doesn't allow such a provision, nor does natural justice.

[Stiffco]

Come off it Blu Riband

I am a member of Balpa which IS an association, and a member of the TUC.:ugh:

and midman

I do not consider myself a trades unionist, and nor, I believe, do the vast majority of my colleagues. :ugh:

At least the British Dental Association recognises it is a union and says so.
However, I understand that the acronym BALPU :oh: would not sound quite right when used on the radio or television.

[midman]

Stiffco,
I may be a member of an association that is an associate member of the TUC, but I would prefer it not to be, and I don't subscribe to what you would call the principles of trades unionism, and would like to see the powers of unions further curtailed. If that's what you call a trades unionist, then yes, I am.

However, if your world view requires a member of such an association to respect trades unionist principles and act in solidarity in support of other workers, then you're mistaken. My world view doesn't, and that's what counts in determining my decisions regarding other groups' IA.

[JazzyKex]

Stiffco

I suspect most members of BALPA, and I definitely include myself in this, did not join with any consideration towards the greater trades union movement. For me it was the only option for collective bargaining/negotiation with the company.

It seems that this is arrangement is one which not only BALPA members are happy with but also the company seems to encourage. How would it be possible to negotiate individual term and conditions for 40,000 employees. It is also this which makes the BASSA argument that BA is anti union complete nonsense! It is completely in their interest as a company to have group negotiation. It is a business, whose decisions are cost driven both long and short term. To remove unions would not be cost effective. However if a negotiating body proves utterly ineffective in either gathering the views of the majority of their associates or in putting those views to the company in business terms, rhetoric and emotion free then are practically useless. BASSA are proving to be, unfortunately for their current and past members ineffective as a group negotiating body.

The fact that being an association affiliated with the TUC comes as part of the BALPA package does not mean that their would be any solidarity for the likes of a general strike. Even in principle let alone practice. To me it is deeply unfortunate that the requirement for moderate negotiation on behalf of a work group can even be considered under the same umbrella as more militant trades unionism.

Let us hope that some sense prevails amongst those with the ability do make change and before another call to strike is encouraged by any 'union' they consider just what is the best future outcome for the majority of their current and potential future membership. Not what their wish list is, but what is actually achievable.

I truly wish the moderate crew luck in the coming months. The atmosphere at work recently has been steadily improving. Most are jaded by the continued background rumble of the few militants. I hope the numerically few hotheads still spitting bile realise that most others are looking forward not clinging onto what has now gone. Much to the shame of BASSA it did not need to be this painful.

Let's hope the end is in sight.

Jazzy

[Stiffco]

midman
Your position is fully understood and appreciated.
You do not have to be a golfer in order to belong to a golf club, just as you do not have to be a militant red to belong to a union.
However, the holier than thou stance taken by members of associations – that clearly undertake all the tasks carried out by unions (albeit in a much more professional and effective way. Which I applaud) will not wash with me.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck ...


Jazzy,
I suspect most members of BALPA, and I definitely include myself in this, did not join with any consideration towards the greater trades union movement. For me it was the only option for collective bargaining/negotiation with the company.
... and just why do you think most people join a union? All staff require a method of negotiating with the company.

As for the rest of your post - fully agree :ok:

[The Blu Riband]

Stiffco

Just to clarify my view, which is similar to those above.

I am a member of Balpa, which is called an Association, and a member of the TUC.

I am not inclined to do want I do not think is right.

I am not political. I have no axe to grind with either management or any particular social group. Nor do I have a chip on my shoulder about being in some minority such as those referred to by Dingbat.

Therefore I would not support Bassa automatically just because we are all members of the TUC.

Neither would I do what Balpa told me if I didn't believe in the cause.

I did not train as crew because I'm on the 777 and we were told not to apply by BA because the 777's were all going to operate. So I never had to make that decision.

Balpa did not tell any members what to do, one way or the other.

[The Blu Riband]

All staff require a method of negotiating with the companySo why would anyone join Bassa? :O

[The Blu Riband]

‘Being a woman gives me the right’ came her reply.

On paper a workforce comprising a high number of females and gay men looked unlikely to put up resistance.

I have suspected for some time that a large proportion of the crew sentiment stems from this kind of persecution complex. The need to " stand up for yourself". Along with the need to go along with your mates.

The trouble has been that ..................... You were wrong!

Wrong about the issues
and wrong to think you could win.

So instead, the only statement you've succeeded in making is " look how dumb we are".

Now, you need to be asking yourselves what to do next . Because continuing along the same path is equally unwise. As is blaming others for the trouble you have caused yourselves.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

Going to go for the prize for most cliche ridden post!
Blaming sexual gender and orientation - I do think that might be desperation. Clutching at straws and any port in a storm springs to mind - let's have action just because??
It so smacks of "what have the Romans ever given us" that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic

[Bridchen]

"Being a woman gives me the right," came her reply.As a community you really, really need to get away from the idea that this is some sort of socio-economic attack on you because of who or what you choose to define yourself as.This is all a giant red herring, and needs to be dropped.

I'm a female cabin crew member who didn't go on strike. I have never heard anyone, whether they're gay, straight, female, male, bla bla bla, talk about the strike before, as incorporating these issues.

I didn't choose to work through the strike because I'm anti the feminist movement, or gay rights. The strike was NEVER about that.

As a very quick aside, Yellow Pen - you are incorrect to state "as a community." As you well know, as a community we were not united in the strike, so your comment is irrelevant. This is a non-issue that's been fired up by a silly remark by a female crew member, who obviously finds it difficult to be logical or make sense.

If one female cabin crew member decided to say that, then good luck to her social life - listening to her must be like watching paint dry. Anyone who feels they've suffered an extreme injustice should want to fight it, regardless of their gender, etc. The problem here was that BASSA waived ALL crew's rights by non-negotiation, and that was why a lot of us went into work.

[flapsforty]

I did not train as crew because I'm on the 777
Blu Riband, as what are you on the 777, if not as crew?

Don´t tell me BA still employ sweepers?

[The Blu Riband]

How witty?!?!

I am not a "crew member", I am a member of the crew.

Too subtle for you?

[flapsforty]

You say you did not train as crew.
Now you say you are a member of crew but not a crew member.
Tortuous linguistics at best.

As said before, here on PPRuNe we use the definitions commonly used in most airlines around the world.

Cockpit crew = pilots
Cabin crew = flight attendants


Together they form a crew:

definition 1: the personnel working aboard a ship or an airplane.
definition 2: a group of people working together to perform a joint function.

[The Blu Riband]

Everyone at BA will know what I mean. A "crew member" is a title here.

Maybe at your airline you get excited by these semantics.

You're making a big deal over an unimportant point and detracting from the discussion.

Moderate, don't interrupt unnecessarily; thanks.

Don´t tell me BA still employ sweepers

What does "still" mean? Or is that just gratuitous rudeness?

[MFCREW]

Do you always write posts this rude?

[flapsforty]

Blu Riband, ignoring the arrogant tone and the attempt to attack me rather than what I write; I am happy to answer your points.

You wrote that you are on the 777 yet did not train as crew.
Most European airlines flying to the FE used to employ on-board sweepers on various routes. They were the only workers on board who were not crew.
No European airlines that I know of employ them these days, hence the "still".

Next point; you are making a big mistake in calling crew nomenclature an unimportant point.

Cohesion within a crew is of prime importance. For safety, for smooth operations and for a pleasant working environment.
You, like all air crew, have been taught this.

The habit within some factions of BA employees of putting verbal barriers between different members of the flying team is detrimental to all of the above.

If the factions of CC-despising pilots and pilot-hating cabin crew would find back to what is normal at most legacy carriers, namely friendly relations and the intent to look out for each other within an operating crew, this would go a long way to improving matters.

Last point; your attempt at engaging me in a p!ssing contest is Don Quixotic.

[The Blu Riband]

Flaps

when you talk of arrogant you should read your posts!

The only person persisting with the crew / cabin crew / flt crew semantic is you.

I'm suggesting we move to the point in question , not the only thing only you seem to be interested in (which is another, and separate, issue).

And yes, your "sweeper" comment was deliberately rude and insulting.

I am part of an onboard crew, but did not train - during the strikes - as cabin crew!

Happy now?

Do you always write posts this rude?

What are you referring to?

[Betty girl]

Can I just say that, contrary to the impression you get from reading this thread, the vast majority of BA cabin crew and pilots get on very well. I work on E/F and I can tell you that it is a pleasure to work with all our airbus pilots.

This thread does seem to attract a very caustic kind of crew, both cabin and flight, and certainly does not reflect reality in BA or at least what I see on my flights.

I can see why you feel the way you do Flapsforty and at times I despair at some of the postings on here. Many of us who are not in the union anymore come on pprune to find out the latest information about the current situation at BA and in my case I often leave this thread feeling I have lost the will to live because some of the posters actually sound as if they hate crew and that's both kinds, flight and cabin.

[ILS27LEFT]

"Dear Mr McCluskey,

I am writing to congratulate you on becoming the new General Secretary of Unite the Union.

As you are aware, I have published open letters arguing that the quality of BA’s professional and experienced cabin crew is one of the few advantages left in flying with British Airways. Because of these letters and my subsequent involvements, I have witnessed first-hand the passion and enthusiasm of the cabin crew against a management that were trying to destroy the premium airline so loved by the crew.

However, I hope you would agree that Unite should and could have done better to help and represent the cabin crew in their dispute with BA’s management. It is undeniable that Unite’s badly organised campaign to convince the public that the cabin crew had no choice but to strike, has been most ineffective. Against a well managed and efficient BA publicity machine, Unite’s attempts looked amateurish.

Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management. More importantly, Unite have lost important grounds to BA management during their negotiations probably because they lacked the benefit of competent professional and business advisors that BA had the support of.

I have read with interest your recent comments in the Financial Times. You stated that in your experience there is no such thing as an “irresponsible strike”. However, in modern day Britain there are many better ways than striking to protect the interest of your members . For example, in the case of British Airways, there was a golden opportunity for your Union to persuade BA’s large shareholders that contrary to what BA management were telling them, it made financial sense for BA to agree a fair settlement with the cabin crew long before there was a need to strike.

I hope you do not mind me writing this open letter criticizing the performance of your Union and agree that it is good to receive constructive criticism from an outsider with no vested interest.



Yours sincerely,"



No comment.:mad:

[Wheezyjet]

This is all a bit unnecessary and doesn't add to the debate. I think this little spat needs to be put behind us and harmony restored!

WJ

[flapsforty]

I am part of an onboard crew, but did not train - during the strikes - as cabin crew!

Happy now?

Very. ;)

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

[Bridchen]

Actually, I quite enjoyed that. :ok:

[Dingbaticus]

Bridchen, we might not agree on some things but I rather enjoyed that too, there is some spark on this forum!

The Blu Riband, on reflection I can see you are right, the SPIRIT of the FP never changed only the wording on the document to bring it back in line with the spirit.

Unfortunately, on board the aircraft you are my Commander but back at base we are managed by two different management structures. I believe this issue has highlighted how additional pressures such as IA can impact on their effectiveness and ability to communicate under the One Team concept.

Our management teams are like 2 boats riding the stormy seas of the recession. The Pilot Managers power boat zips about cutting through the waves whilst the IFCE barge lumbers on uncertainly. Should it seek refuge from the storm in the tiny port of Premium Carrier or head for safety in the larger port of Low Cost Carrier?

I believe the Pilots Management boat needs to throw a tow rope to the IFCE barge and lead her safely back whatever the port, butting heads or pulling in the wrong direction only leaves us all lost at sea.

As for being the victim of abuse in the workplace, I have a close friend who has bravely challenged this. A lengthy process impacts on the victim as much as the alleged abuser and I hope we will see speedier resolution to cases after Moltongate.

I agree the Company is dependant on a Union (or association) when communicating with the workforce and I have already stated I believe mistakes have been made during this dispute. It has certainly engaged the workforce and there is a greater awareness and questioning of BASSA. I believe there are changes and challenges to the way things are conducted, trust me there are some driven people who intend to make their voices heard.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[GS-Alpha]

Could a statistical spike in sickness above the norm for the time of year be construed as unofficial industrial action?

I wonder how BA might respond to that?

[Litebulbs]

GS-Alpha,

On the face of is, no chance. However if the call for sickness appears in union related forums, who knows what the BA legal team would make of it. I am sure all the patterned sick data is ready.

It would be for Unite to defend because of the proof would be supplied.

[Dingbaticus]

Midman, I keep getting drawn back to your post #1507, where you share your experience of ‘an hour of foul mouthed abuse, swearing and threats’.

As Cabin Crew we often have to deal with volatile situations. A combination of experience and above industry average customer service training gives us the skills to diffuse situations that can be very frightening for both crew and customers locked in a metal tube flying through the air at incredible speed.

I often find allowing someone to vent a little takes the steam out of them and you can then have a meaningful productive conversation. I have to confess even a rhino skinned old hostie like me could not tolerate what you describe.

I would have to move to another part of the bus or aircraft or leave the restaurant. I can’t help wondering, were you somehow restrained?

It sounds horrific and I suspect the police are now involved. The Company offer excellent support, don’t be too proud to seek help as traumatic experiences have a habit of creeping back up on you if you don’t acknowledge their impact and seek the help of professionals.

GS-Alpha, I suspect sickness is already higher, with the well documented posts on Union related forums of the health related side effects the stress of our IA has taken on both strikers and non strikers.

There will be the usual suspects who scream for strikes screaming they are going sick. We are caring Cabin Crew professionals who are fighting to have our status maintained and our Union recognised. Deliberately going sick will undermine that fight and is unfair on our customers and colleagues who are genuinely sick.

The cold and flu season as well as snow is upon us but one good thing to come out of our IA is the VCC who will be able to support any shortfall in the operation.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[sudden twang]

To be honest Flaps forty some of your comments have been a little terse. I can see why TBR reacted.
I don't profess any expertise except a piece of paper with JAA CRMIg flight and cabin crew on.

[dave3]

Dingbaticus.. I agree there will be some who shout for strikes and screem however there will also be genuine people who are sick, I imagine more than most at this time due to the stress and toll that the last year has taken on people. We then need to remember the commuters who were employed by BA in their own contries with the prommise of commuter tickets. How will they get to work.. for those less informed crew these commuters are not going to sign a ticket for staff travel untill it is reinstated in full as it should be with fulll date of joing.

[Sporran]

dave 3,

You are throwing 'red herrings' about again!

When BA employed foreign cabin crew part of the incentive was that they would be able to use staff travel - not that it was 'part of their package'!!

There is a huge difference!!

It would be much eaier if the wording was more akin to ' ST is a reward for those who support the company' that way we would not have all the mis-information that is presently going about.

[dave3]

Goodmorning Sporran thank you for your reply.. I would like to correct you the ST ifor commuters was part of the contract.. do you have one?. if so you could go and quote it I have mine but as I am away I am unable to quote but would be happy to do so when I get home.
Staff travel has never been a reward. Its something you pay for even with your free ticket.. it has discaplinary proceedures in place if you abuse the travel.. and those discaplinary porceedures rightly need to be followed to the full when staff travel is removed,

[vctenderness]

Goodmorning Sporran thank you for your reply.. I would like to correct you the ST ifor commuters was part of the contract.. do you have one?. if so you could go and quote it I have mine but as I am away I am unable to quote but would be happy to do so when I get home.
Staff travel has never been a reward. Its something you pay for even with your free ticket.. it has discaplinary proceedures in place if you abuse the travel.. and those discaplinary porceedures rightly need to be followed to the full when staff travel is removed,

I doubt that very much indeed. Over the years I have heard many people quoting what is in their 'Contract' they are always wrong!

The BA employment contract is very general indeed it has phrases like 'which can be varied at any time'. It requires you to carry out your duties as required by BA etc. I does not have specific promises to provide anything whatsoever.

Some crew who came from bases that had been closed had special arrangements for 'duty travel' tickets to get to and from work. Foreign nationals who were recruited by BA did not.

[dave3]

hello vctenderness.. You speak with authority on the subject are you able to offer the readers andy proof quotes or anything to support your view please

[overstress]

Sorry dave3 I think you're misleading people here, there is no contractural right to staff travel in BA

edited to add: posted the same time as vctenderness. People's 'authority' on here can never be established, dave, you have to go by the tone and content of their individual postings and always bear in mind the warning at the foot of the PPRuNe home page.

Asking people for 'proof' on an anonymous forum makes your own argument look weak.

[Juan Tugoh]

There has never been a contractual right to ST. It is a perk and always has been. If it were as simple as a contractual right, this would have already been the subject of legal action. BASSA were very quick to test whether or not the staffing levels on the aircraft were contractual in court. It is just not credible that BASSA would not have also tested the possible contractual status of ST if there was any doubt whatsoever. This specious argument has been rehearsed here many times already, repeating a untruth does not make it any the less untrue.

[MrBunker]

It never ends- BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11866508)

PS Dave3 I'd be astounded if the actual wording of your contract specifically referred to a provision of commuting tickets in and of themselves as opposed to a perk of staff travel which you can, should you wish, use to facilitate your commute.

[Tiramisu]

It never ends (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11866508)
It doesn't, Mr Bunker.
Tony Woodley has just announced Unite Cabin Crew to be balloted for fresh strikes.
He mentioned imposition, Mixed Fleet, Straff Travel and sacked and suspended crew as reasons for the ballot.

[Snas]

Another strike ballot, oh dear. I’ll be very interested indeed to hear what the grounds are going to be and the unions position on the strike being protected, or not.
Naturally I don’t expect a single word of warning to be formally issued to crew as to the potential risk to their continued employment if it’s unprotected, save for the statutory wording on the actual ballot paper itself.

This is terrible news really, on and on it goes.

“11,000 members”, really? I guess my partner, ex-member for nearly a year now, is still one of those.

[highlifer]

I'm sure I'll be included too, still get Unite stuff in the post and by e-mail although I left them several months ago!!! :ugh:

[binsleepen]

This from the AMICUS section . LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

28th November 2010 - Open Letter From AMICUS to Unite JGS Tony Woodley, and Len McCluskey

Open Letter - Without Prejudice.

28th November 2010

To: The JGS of Unite the Union
From: The Unite Cabin Crew/Amicus Section

Dear Sirs,

It has now been almost 3 weeks since we met and the decision was taken to approach British Airways with four 'no cost' items that would enable the union to establish if the company was indeed sincere about their desire to find a MEANINGFUL settlement to this dispute.

The silence speaks for itself.

As you will recall it was contrary to the position AMICUS Cabin Crew wished to adopt which was to go to an immediate industrial action ballot and use the intervening time to approach British Airways.

We must presume that British Airways has shown no interest in the items or the approach from Unite and has chosen not to respond. One can only surmise that this has been to ensure we are unable to organise and carry out any industrial action over the Christmas period.

Whilst we represent the minority of the membership and it was disappointing that more of our members appeared not to have supported the previous actions, we solemnly believe that we are left with little option but to call once again for an Industrial Action ballot. We believe that this reflects the broader view of popular opinion in the community – one which cannot now be ignored.

On a wider note, and to use the military vernacular that you favour, if the members represent the army, the committee the generals, then you must be the field marshals? We must now ask you as the 'field marshals' to accept that the strategy recently adopted has not been as successful as we might have liked. Whilst it was one based soundly on being reasonable and attempting to find an equitable solution and agreement, British Airways leadership team have exploited that reasonableness and continued to restructure and IMPOSE changes at will. They have been relentless in what can only be termed as bullying and harassment towards the membership in a crude attempt to weaken their resolve. In truth, this has only served to raise our community’s anger and commitment to their principles even higher. BA’s approach has been summed up by the outgoing CEO, when he stated, for the record, that "a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations". How true that has proved to be.

We must therefore ask that Unite adopt a much needed change of strategy. For clarity we do not believe that this dispute will be settled on the picket line, we believe that it must be negotiated. However British Airways must be brought to the negotiating table with the genuine intention of finding a solution and not continuing to throw "take it or leave it" offers on the table that are designed to wear us down and punish us for enacting our lawful right to industrial action.

We believe that the lawful use of regular and de-stabilising strikes and the timely and proactive use of the judicial system will facilitate such an end. We need to address the legal issues that are presented to us with more urgency. We must ask that more emphasis is put on the existing legal challenges and they are elevated and pursued more vigorously. We must petition you to instruct our legal team to action our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contract/crew compliments case.

For the benefit of those that might call into question our motives, please be assured it is the well being of this community to whom we are actively listening- as we are part of that community. We must resist the bully and ensure we are not battered into submission. We cannot take our eyes off the ball and lose sight of why we have taken this action. It was IMPOSITION that sparked this struggle and it has NOT been adequately addressed in our opinion. Some may wish to write off that issue, but to do so would undoubtedly be to our collective peril. The introduction of mixed fleet is now living proof of that.

It is clear that the British Airways strategy is one designed to obliterate any form of meaningful representation, now and going forward. They are adopting the carefully organized union busting strategies of bullying and harassment in the workplace under the guise of `managing’; Diverting the dispute with issues they control and use as leverage to force settlement (i.e. staff travel); and treating us with contempt which is evident in their treatment of those disciplined and sacked, their treatment of the reps, andsubjecting us to a modern day "lock out". The time has now come for us all to effect change to our benefit.

Whilst the nature law of these things will have you supporting the view of the committee that represents the largest numbers, we sincerely hope that our view will not be dismissed and the merit and relevance of the minority's contribution will not continue to be ignored or lost. Weundertake to represent the views of the whole membership and to keep the team focused for the benefit of the collective.

Yours in Solidarity,

The Unite Cabin Crew/Amicus Section, Of Unite the Union.To compare themselves to to generals is a little strong, jumped up corporals maybe.

Regards

[binsleepen]

And this from Unite

New ballot at BA as Unite says end victimisation and punishment of cabin crew – put passengers first

29 November 2010
Unite, the union for British Airways’ 11,000 cabin crew, today (Monday) confirmed that a fresh ballot for industrial action at the airline is soon to get underway.
Announcing the new ballot, Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, said: "British Airways’ latest offer is not acceptable to our members, a point we made clear to the airline earlier this month. Regrettably, we have not found it possible to resolve the outstanding issues concerning cabin crew since then.
“BA told us it was a business in crisis. It demanded structural change. These changes have been made and this business is now in profit with senior management filling their wallets with the spoils.
“Yet BA is determined to continue with this vicious war against its workforce. It is time for BA to put its passengers first - and the best way to achieve this is to resolve the issues between us, which would not cost BA a single penny and yet would bring priceless stability and peace to the company.
"However, BA's continued hounding of union members leaves us no other option but to conduct a new industrial action ballot.
"This airline has conducted a year-long assault on cabin crew collectively and on many of them as individuals. We will not stand by while this airline bullies our members out of their jobs, and if it takes strike action to bring BA management to its senses, then that is the road we must, regretfully, travel.
"Our door is open to negotiations with BA, but it must understand the depth of feeling among our members. Nothing short of the fairness and decent treatment they deserve will be acceptable."
Tony Woodley outlined the specific issues that BA should address to solve the dispute:
An immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA
Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the dispute
Restoration of the wages docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates
Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this.Unite expects to serve notice of an industrial action ballot to the airline shortly. The ballot should be concluded in early January.
ENDS
Regards

[Human Factor]

He mentioned imposition, Mixed Fleet, Straff Travel and sacked and suspended crew as reasons for the ballot.

Unprotected strike action then. Should sort the men from the boys (ok, ok and the women from the girls). IMHO, a gift for BA.

My condolences to the lemmings.

[yellowdog]

Dave,

hello vctenderness.. You speak with authority on the subject are you able to offer the readers andy proof quotes or anything to support your view please

surely this is almost impossible for vct to do. It's easy to prove the existence of something by showing it is there, but proving the non-existence of something by showing it isn't there is a little more difficult; unless of course the whole contract was to be posted!

YD

[demomonkey]

Attributed to Albert Einstein;
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr;
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[Caribbean Boy]

So, Tony, having declared that you'd negotiated the best deal you could, and having said that you'd ballot your members on it, you now decide to go straight for a strike ballot. Who is running your union: you or BASSA? Hint: not you.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

Oh dear - surely there will be legal challenges again as there wasn't proper consultation?

[GS-Alpha]

Unless the crew are happy to lose a lot more, I think they are dabbling with fire if they vote for more strike action. I can't see the company tolerating much more of this.

[Abbey Road]

I would like to correct you the ST ifor commuters was part of the contract.. do you have one?. if so you could go and quote it I have mine but as I am away I am unable to quote but would be happy to do so when I get home.
We are all looking forward to seeing your contract posted here, dave3 - be sure not to forget to do as you have promised now, okay?

28th November 2010 - Open Letter From AMICUS to Unite JGS Tony Woodley, and Len McCluskey
........

We believe that the lawful use of regular and de-stabilising strikes and the timely and proactive use of the judicial system will facilitate such an end.Ah .... well ... there lies a problem. Nothing that Unite/BASSA/Amicus have demonstrated so far has been anything vaguely approaching consistently "lawful", "timely" or "proactive"!

On a wider note, and to use the military vernacular that you favour, ...Conveniently forgetting that a good military outfit has a proper, functioning Command and Control structure, and that rigorous discipline is required to effect a successful outcome.:rolleyes:

And as for Woodley's apparent about-turn, I wonder if he is smirkingly lining up the militant BA cabin crew for the coup de grâce. Ta da! :E

[overstress]

I know someone who trained as cabin crew with BA as a stop-gap before becoming a BA pilot. I was chatting to him to see if he had any extra 'perspective' on the dispute. His comment was that in his experience, a large number of BA cabin crew can be very 'sheep-like' and tend to follow the rest of the flock, or defer to ever is shouting the loudest.

I don't mean to post this in any insulting way, but I assume if there is a sheep mentality it would explain why things have got to the current state. The sheep have allowed themselves to be led to the field where they currently are grazing, the only problem is that the nice field is just at the back of the slaughterhouse. :sad:

[Eddy]

FromTunbrideWells said "Oh dear - surely there will be legal challenges again as there wasn't proper consultation?"

I can't help but think that, if I were Willie Walsh, I wouldn't waste my time or money on challenging these new strikes through the courts. I'd let the strikes go ahead and I'd let the ranks of VCCs - alongside the majority of full-time crew who have decided to back the company - keep the airline flying.

Then, when the strikes are done, I'd spend the money I would have spent on blocking the strikes on getting rid of the most militant members of the Bassa camp. They'd participated in unlawful strike action, afterall.

There are few people I'd wish unemployment on, but I cannot forgive those responsible for my hate-mail, my menacing SMS and phone messages and the vicious PMs on Facebook. To those people, unemployment is a mild punishment considering what I'd love to see meted out.

[Eddy]

- and on a side note, as someone whose mother and father have both served time in the military, I wish Bassa would stop trying to draw comparisons between what the crew supporting the strikes are going through and what those men and women who work to defend our country have to endure.

There is no comparison, and to suggest that there is some is nothing short of insulting.

[MissM]

So, it looks there will be another ballot. Bring it on. Thousands of us (in majority) will mostly like to vote for industrial action again.

[vctenderness]

hello vctenderness.. You speak with authority on the subject are you able to offer the readers andy proof quotes or anything to support your view please

Yes. Go find your contract of employment that you claim gives you these rights and read it!

[Caribbean Boy]

Hi Eddy,

Much as I sympathise with you about the harassment you have suffered, BA cannot normally target strikers. It can only be legally done, I believe, if BA were to take Unite to court in order to win a case of an illegal strike, i.e. the new strike was about the same issue as the original.

[MrBernoulli]

A pleasing development! Another ballot and, I hope, an overwhelming vote (even by the minority of BASSA members) for strike. Finally, the opportunity to get this over with! Bye bye BASSA!

[Yellow Pen]

So, it looks there will be another ballot. Bring it on. Thousands of us (in majority) will mostly like to vote for industrial action again.

Of course you will. And just like last time half of the 'yes' voters will go to work.

[Human Factor]

Miss M,

BASSA run a real risk that any new action can be linked directly to the previous action. If that is the case, the new action will not give the strikers any legal protection from dismissal.

In all seriousness, how many of your "thousands" do you think will walk out if they know they can be legally dismissed for doing so?

[Chigley]

I have to agree with Yellow Pen, even if all 8-9000 members that are left in BASSA (and thats probably a generous estimation) vote for further IA. At least half that amount will come into work just like last time. They are solely responsible for this prolonged dispute as had they put the 'x' in the correct box in the first place none of the last years events need have happened. This section of your membership have cost you your staff travel, your wages, your union and now will undoubtedly vote the same way and sit and watch as their 'brother and sisters' take whatever consequences BA inflict for further IA.

With regard to your 'majority' comment. Considering how bitter and angry most of the strikers are (with the exception of Dingbaticus and others like her/him) it was quite alarming that only 3419 bothered to vote in the last consultative ballot? Not that close to the 7,000 figure DH has fed the membership, but certainly more realistic to the 4963 figure published by the company...... this ballot will really give us a clearer picture of where we are? So as you say ...... Bring it on!!!!

[Hotel Mode]

Not that close to the 7,000 figure DH has fed the membership, but certainly more realistic to the 4963 figure published by the company......

Even Tony Woodley cant be bothered with keeping up that pretence and has more than halved the difference with BA to 5500-6000. So even with the Unions figures Miss M was never in any majority.

See interview here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w78gt/PM_29_11_2010/) 12 min 40 secs in.

[cellstar]

Also interesting in the BBC interview around 14:20 onwards Tony Woodley when pressed admitted that 22 days of strikes have achieved nothing.

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Also interesting that at the very end, when pressed after admitting the strikes achieved nothing and that BA said they had shook hands on a deal to recommend to their crew, he replies.
'yes we did shake hands and we all thought, both myself and the reps that we had a deal we could recommend to the crew; however the most important people themselves, the crew, said the deal was unacceptable'

Q: how do they know what the crew (majority) felt it they never had a ballot on this offer?>

..and then he also accuses BA of amnesia!!!!!!!

How totally unprofessional!

[JUAN TRIPP]

ORJ - spot on. Also TW says that ALL the shop stewards were in agreement about recommending ( reluctantly? ) the deal in OCT. Whaaaat! Have I missed something. DH for one, wasn't going to recommend it in a million years.:ugh: The last bit of the interview - from 14.30 min onwards, just illustrates perfectly what WW means as dealing with a dysfunctional group. I know he meant Bassa originally, but this interview clearly now includes TW in that statement!! He adds that BA are now back in profit. Oh dear Tony, would someone please explain to him that 'this profit' was for the 1st 6 months, and the difficult winter 6 months is still to come. I totally despair that these 'so called professionals' know so little about business:ugh:

Also edited to add that this strike is really about trying to give WW a bloody nose on his way to IAG on 24th jan next IMO. I'm sure he's really worried to death!

[dave3]

Dave, you want to post here, and we re happy to have you.

So please stick to the rules.

As said more times than we care to remember, this thread is NOT about the deal the pilots struck with BA.
So stop bringing that up.

And "crew" doesn´t mean just cabin crew; it means both cockpit and cabin crew.

CC Forum Moderators

[dave3]

as stated vctenderness I am away at the moment I will post on my return..,:O

[Lib Dem]

Someone tell me if I have totally misunderstood but I read some earlier posts on this forum and Mr Woodley has 4 points of contention with BA.

From where I'm sat, they are things that we had before the strikes took place or are related to the earlier strikes. So the High Courts will have a field day again.

Thanks Bassa and Unite for acheiving absolutely nothing on behalf of the Cabn Crew. Just more lies about how everyone else refused to negotiate and about how us Cabin Crew have somehow totally rejected the latest offer!

And as for Mr McLuskey waging a war against bullying and harrassment; he needs to wipe it out in his own offices before he can clean up the nation's employers.

Tail wagging the dog, I reckon.

[Sporran]

TW and Untie have completely lost the plot!! I thought that TW had at least 'half a brain', but his latest ramblings have removed that kindly thought.

It is all so predictable that the half-witted reps from bassa & amicus think that they should be involved in negotiations. Would these be the same negotiations that they voted NOT to engage in and the same negotiations that THEY screwed up by spending all their time bitching and moaning and refusing to work together - all as carefully explained in the court transcript.

How long will the other BA employees who are members of Untie continue to pay their dues to such a bunch of complete dimwits who seem hell-bent on screwing up the company that pays their wages.

The 4 points that have been announced are exactly the same as previous times and it appears that Untie think that the cabin crew should not have to make savings because BA have declared a profit.

Wake up and smell any kind of coffee!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

The only reason that profits came our way was because the majority of BA employees accepted changes to their T&Cs. It is essential that BA force through change within IFCE and do not let them off the hook!

Since Untie are still just bitching and moaning about previous issues they are sure to set themselves up for a fall. 'Unprotected legal action' WILL hopefully result in the militant agitators being sacked.

Interesting to hear that the Human Resources section are being taken over by the legal department. Maybe this time the company will take appropriate action - and get shot of the trouble-makers once at for all.

[stormin norman]

'Lenny' (swept into power on a 15% majority) appears to have put paid to any chance of a deal and appears hell bent on confrontation which will surely lead to industrial action and the fall out to follow.

If BA stopped processing BASSA/Unite dues out of pay, would BASSA members still opt to pay by direct debit ? - i suspect not.

[Betty girl]

Cabin crew have been working to the new crewing levels for well over a year now, so as a community WE HAVE contributed to the profits.

I do realise that this was not agreed by the unions and that the union has also caused costs but people keep on saying that cabin crew have made no contribution and this is not true.

BA have made huge savings from the cabin crew compliment changes which are ongoing savings and will be making further savings from their introduction of the new M/F contract.

I think that for now BA will just let the union carry on making a fool of itself as BA have been able to implement M/F anyway. I personally feel that Bassa and Amicus's actions have caused us cabin crew far more damage than anything that BA would have done had they negotiated in an adult manner. I am worried about the future but everything that these unions do just seems to make things worse for us cabin crew.

[Juan Tugoh]

Well said Betty Girl. There is precious little acknowledgment that the CC community have made savings - forced rather than negotiated, but still savings. However, the strike action that has been taken has also cost the company about £150m which is very similar to the amount of savings they have contributed. So all in all the CC community have not really contributed in any meaningful way.

[Betty girl]

Just thought that some of you may be interested that there are M/F cabin crew upset on another forum that they have only been given one day off after some of their long haul flights.

I am surprised that they don't trigger two days off as a minimum as they can be rostered a block of short haul work immediately before as well. Anyway not surprisingly some of them seem upset about this. I know that when I was on long haul many moons ago I would have found it very hard to just have one day off because it is a physically tiring job, on your feet most of the time.

I also note that Finnair cabin crew are on strike about Finnair trying to reduce their days off after long haul flights too. Seems that the working conditions of all cabin crew are a popular target at the moment.

[MFCREW]

Yes BettyGirl you are 100% right - MF rosters are out with first longhaul trips and we have just got 1 day off after a longhaul trip - not what we were expecting at all

[Betty girl]

Thanks for confirming that MFCREW.

Has this upset you or are you ok about it. I think it sounds very tiring but how do you and your fellow Mixed Fleeters feel.

[bagsybtmbunk]

OMG - I so wanted to be in a position to see how the fleet was before applying but with it being brand new had no choice and applied anyway.

One day off is going to be very interesting to say the least!! My estimate of 900 hours in 8 or 9 months can have a couple of months shaved off of that.

Maybe they just don't have enough crew online as are still training at the moment and as soon as more are out of training then the 2 days off as talked about can be more easily rostered?

[Betty girl]

Are you still on your training course Bagsybtmbunk or just about to start.

I do hope, as you say, it gets better in the future. I hope you are right.

I think if you all get exhausted they would have to alter it because it would be just so tiring to do that on a regular basis.

Best wishes to you.

[bagsybtmbunk]

Hi Betty girl - I'm starting at end of month. Really looking forward to it. I've worked flights with one day off before during really busy periods and it is manageable. When the 2 off in 14 comes it feels like a weeks leave! Lol.

[MFCREW]

Just had a call with two friends from m y course in the same position - we all expected two days off after longhaul, seems like it is 2 local nights we are getting - we are all sure that BA promised 2 days - the meeting with scheduling seems like ages ago now though and cant remember the exact words they used, one friend really upset as she is from Yorkshire and wanted to commute

[Betty girl]

Thanks for that both of you.

I really hope you both enjoy M/F and I hope the days off situation gets sorted or you will be dying on your feet.

I am sure that if you ALL find it too tiring they would have to alter it otherwise sickness levels would go up.

Anyway good luck and thanks for all your info.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I'm curious, you work a maximum 900 hours a year but feel it's too much, for an average working person that means about 3 hours a day based on a 5 day week, at worst. Why is that a tough working life?

Or am I missing something?

[bondim]

Yes, you are missing something Vortex, the 900 hours refers to block hours only, that is the time spent in the air and it does not include pre- and post-flight duties, turnaround duties, stanbys etc.

[somewhereat1l]

and not forgetting time spent in recurrent training plus missing 2 or 3 night sleep every week.

Until you've flown as a career you have no idea how hard it is on the body.

[Yellow Pen]

I'm not particularly surprised that MF are being rostered one local night between trips at this stage. Anyone with any new start up experience in BA can reassure you that rostering is very variable while a fleet builds up to strength. There may be only one night off between trips now, but in some months time when the recruitment ramps up you may find yourself only working 6 days as the fleet is overstrength and hankering for the days when you had work and allowances. Unfortunately that is the reality of being the pioneers of a new fleet. There are naysayers, and I suspect BASSA plants, who will decry a single night off after long haul trips as dangerous and unhealthy. But lets remember that BA flight crew can fly these schedules safely, and in the long run BA can only fly crew 900 hours each year, and it makes no sense to flog all crew to within a few hours of their annual limit and let them sit at home on gardening leave for 3 months. Eventually it will smooth out and become a reasonable roster because reality dictates that the fantasy rosters an airline would wish for simply don't withstand real world restrictions, and the cost of getting it wrong outweighs the savings of working crew to the limits.

[Betty girl]

Hi Yellow Pen,
I don't think anyone has said they are only getting one local night.

Some of them are saying that they are getting one day off (which is two local nights) after a long haul sector but they thought they were told it would be a minimum of two days off.

One local night would be no days off and I don't think BA would do that although of course WW cabin crew do do back to back trips (which have no days off in the middle) and I know that pilots can bid to do that also.

[77]

One local night would be no days off and I don't think BA would do that although of course WW cabin crew do do back to back trips (which have no days off in the middle) and I know that pilots can bid to do that also.

And that is why it is so important that cabin crew have a better choice system for rostering, like bidline, that will give a much higher satisfaction level and lower sickness rate.
Most American airlines have bidline for cabin crew. The systems are there and could easily be imported into BA for new cabin crew.
This would mean that MF crew would be better able to tailor their roster regarding days off and an individual choice of the mix of long/shorthaul.
I know that it is often said that bidline is expensive to run. If that is the case why do all american airlines have the system for pilots and cabin crew?

[Juan Tugoh]

Cabin crew at BA have, in the past, had plenty of opportunity to have some form of bidding. A system of bidding is more costly to run and it would have to have been "bought", ie they would have to have given something up in order to allow the funding to be available to run the bidding system.

BASSA have never been willing to give anything up, even it would have to the benefit of their members. For a bidding system to work it also has to be transparent with all bids and awards available to be scrutinised and challenged - with the corruption involved in current CC rostering, there are many that would lose out and they have always been vocally opposed to bidding.

The Bidline System used by the pilots works on seniority, it is also reliant on many seniority sub-groups and needs "churn" or movement up through the seniority ladder. In times of stagnation, such as now, the whole system comes under pressure. Those at the bottom seeing no improvement in their lot, while those at the top sit there with their snouts in the trough getting everything they want. Within the CC community there too few seniority sub-groups and "churn" is too low. Furthermore a bidding system assumes that promotion is also based on seniority, which is not appropriate in the CC community.

So if a seniority based bidding system is not appropriate then a "satisfaction" based system is really the only remaining option. A system such as Carmen, which is employed at LGW.

Most CC have gained their understanding of bidding from their pilot colleagues, it is a Bidline system that they are talking about. With a system of this type crew would have to accept responsibility for their own MBTs - the system will allow minimum legal turn rounds, so it is quite possible to back to back an IAD trip with a BKK-SYD trip. Bidline has many traps and pitfalls, indeed the BALPA forum has a section dealing with the problems that arise from Bidline and the personal problems it can cause.

Bidding is brilliant but it does come at a cost both to the company and to the individual. What price is the CC community willing to pay to buy bidding?

[Betty girl]

As on E/F and LGW, Mixed Fleet do have a bidding system.

It allows you to show the system your preferences but does not show detailed lines of work like the pilot bid does.

It is not seniority led but works on a system that tries to give everyone at least a 60% satisfaction rate. You can put in a bid showing preferred days off, trip types and destinations. The more general your bid is the more successful you are, giving the computer more choice etc.

I think years ago cabin crew did try and get a bid system for WW cabin crew, along the lines of the bid line system used by a lot of American carriers and our pilots but the company said it was too expensive. There is a possibility of some kind of bid like E/F, LGW and Mixed Fleet have but I think it required the current system of MBT's(that WW cabin crew have) to be scrapped and apparently, according to the company, the union said NO without even asking the WW cabin crew what they thought.

No change there then!

The current bid that we have on all fleets except WW is a very general bid system, it would be hard to bid for trips and be specific about having two days off after. It works really well on E/F but I think it might be more tricky to use on Mixed Fleet or that seems to be the case due to the mix of long haul and short haul work.

Does anyone at LGW know if your bid is different to Mixed Fleet. Can you bid for only one day off after long haul work or does the system automatically give you at least two days.

It might be that Mixed Fleet crew are just not used to bidding and that might be why some have ended up with one day off after a long haul flight. I have heard that one Mixed Fleet crew member has got 4 long haul flights in a row on her roster for December and the first 3 have only got one day off after each. I don't think anyone would think that was going to be an easy roster to work. Good luck to her!

[Pontius]

Bagsy & MF,

What are the longhaul trips to which you refer? I'm not stirring, just interested if they are 3 day trips or 4 days +.

[Betty girl]

The two long haul destinations that Mixed Fleet have for December are Denver and Las Vegas. Both flights go daily and are night-stops for the cabin crew and would therefore be three day trips.

[TheKabaka]

Also as well as the other problems detailed with bidline, the real cost to the company is all work is not guaranteed to be covered. If people all avoid certain trips or working during particular times of the month (ie bank holidays/weekends) BA has a big problem. This is what causes "drafting" of crew-which is enormously unpopular. Going to your best friends wedding next week? Not any more see you for a 3 day MIA!!!!

[yellowdog]

Does anyone at LGW know if your bid is different to Mixed Fleet. Can you bid for only one day off after long haul work or does the system automatically give you at least two days.

From our MOA

A minimum of two days off will be planned after a longhaul trip which will count towards
the monthly days off entitlement.

therefore every longhal trip we bid for is guaranteed to have two days off after it. We also have two days off after a block of STBYS although, if we get called for LH during a block of STBY we can go down to the legal minimum of two local nights ie one day off.

With reference to bidding system, CARMEN, ours at LGW does work on seniority as it tries to give the most senior person up to 80% satisfaction and the least senior 40%. We all know, however, that it doesn't work that well in reality as, although people are different, they tend to want very similar work....ie the trips that pay the most money, and not the hard there and backs which pay little and mean coming to and from work every day.

It is nice though to have some say over our lifes.......not quite sure how WWLHR cope with little or no control.

My estimate of 900 hours in 8 or 9 months can have a couple of months shaved off of that.

Surely the Company can't want this to happen? It still needs to have the crew to cover the work and having a bigger workforce just to cover people who are sat at home, albeit earning no money, is just a false economy is it not?

I seem to remember a few years ago a LGW when all the main crew were reaching their 900hr limit, chaos ensued as we didn't have emough crew to cover everything and the Company had to pay us loads of extra cash to operate with less than agreed crewing levels.

But there again I'm just a lowly Cabin Manager and mine is not to reason why...........:\

[vctenderness]

With reference to cabin crew bidding BASSA have always denied BA crew this. When the 767/Midfleet operated they went all out to rubbish it even though, for the most part, it worked well.

Before anyone pops up and disputes this the flaw was the Purser rank: Shorthaul 767- 1 Purser. Longhaul 767- 3 Pursers the Purser rank on Midfleet had a preference for SH and therefore didn't achieve satisfaction.

BASSA reps are true Luddites any thing new is to be opposed at any cost even if it is beneficial to crew.

[Litebulbs]

Surely the Company can't want this to happen? It still needs to have the crew to cover the work and having a bigger workforce just to cover people who are sat at home, albeit earning no money, is just a false economy is it not?

It is the earning no money part that is interesting. Are we talking duty pay, or the whole package, with the short time working clause in the contract, as I understand it. Before I get rounded on by the usual suspects, it is just a question to anybody who has a better understanding of the contractual provision.

[Betty girl]

Thanks for that Yellowdog.

It makes me wonder if they have made a mistake in scheduling with regard days off for Mixed Fleet after a long haul flight because loads of them are really upset by these trips with only one day off and are saying that they were told differently on their training course.

I was under the impression that they were working to the same scheduling agreement as you guys and if that were the case they should trigger two days off min after a long haul flight.

Anyway like you I am only a lowly bod but was just shocked at the single day off for them. Hope it gets sorted out anyway. Thanks.

[3Greens]

"Also as well as the other problems detailed with bidline, the real cost to the company is all work is not guaranteed to be covered. "

Actually that couldn't be more wrong...the FUNDAMENTAL priciple of bidline is that the pilots undertake to ensure the flying programme is covered. That is pretty much page 1, rule 1 of the BALPA/BA/BIDLINE book. True, occasionally force draft has been used but that is actually within the rules, which guesss what?...is to cover the work!

There is NO way BA will pay for a cabin crew bidline system but they would probably be willing to give Carmen a go on WW. I bet the BASSA reps who have been using/abusing the derostering system wouldn't like to see it's introduction though. go figure :-/

[MrBernoulli]

.... we all expected two days off after longhaul, seems like it is 2 local nights we are getting - we are all sure that BA promised 2 days - the meeting with scheduling seems like ages ago now though and cant remember the exact words they used, ....MFCREW, there are some real contradictions here! Have you, or anyone else in a similar position, made the effort to contact your manager/rostering and query this? Have you checked your contract/MoA or any other documentation you recently acquired? Are you sure you weren't told their would be some 'disruption' to rostering until numbers of MF crew grew and stabilised?

You don't seem at all sure, but neither do you appear to have made efforts to positively find out the answers. We would all welcome an update once you have some detail.

[77]

There is NO way BA will pay for a cabin crew bidline system

All I have heard so far is negatives about giving cabin crew control of their lives and some job satisfaction. It can't work in BA etc. Well it seems to work very well in American airlines, perhaps just buying one of their systems off the shelf would be the way forward, not trying to re-invent the wheel and ending up with a square object.
We need to find some positives for all cabin crew and maybe an innovative rostering system for MF would be a start.
Think positive.

[MFCREW]

I didn't ask for, nor do I require condescending remarks from somebody like yourself and I suggest you keep them to yourself - I was responding to a posting by another Cabin Crew member on this the Cabin Crew forum, supercilious behaviour is not called for and is unwarranted.

I might be new to BA - however I have many years experience working in managerial positions elsewhere - I understand that when 'new' people join a large organisation there are often many processes and procedures for them to learn, flying has many more than that with the different Schemes and legalities - you sound like a great 'man manager' - rather then give helpful advice you speak down to people as if they are imbecilles.

MFCREW, there are some real contradictions here!

I suggest you read again as I havent contradicted myself once

Have you, or anyone else in a similar position, made the effort to contact your manager/rostering and query this?

Yes

Have you checked your contract/MoA or any other documentation you recently acquired?

Yes

Are you sure you weren't told their would be some 'disruption' to rostering until numbers of MF crew grew and stabilised?

Yes I am quite sure we where told nothing about any 'disruption' to rostering until numbers of MF crew grew and stabilised

You don't seem at all sure, but neither do you appear to have made efforts to positively find out the answers.

Yes I have - how do you know what I have or havent done and who I have contacted since my last post?

We would all welcome an update once you have some detail.

What concern is it of yours? You are not Cabin Crew

[Juan Tugoh]

I'm happy to think positively about a bidding system for crew. I think it could and can work. BUT why should BA pay for another system to roster crew when they have one that provides (for BA) what they need. It covers the work.

If the CC community wants a bidding system they will have to change their relationship to work itself. As stated above the most basic thing of a bidding system is that all the work must be covered, therefore the crew community must make a guarantee to BA that this will happen. The crew community itself becomes responsible for work coverage. That means MBTs etc will disappear, you go back to legality - if it is legal you can bid for it, but if you bid for it and get it, you must fly it. To back this up must be trip assignment.

The upside is some choice the downside is that that not everyone gets their choice and still has to fly to places they do not want to go to at times they don't want to. Someone always loses out in a bidding system - someone is always the most junior.

None of that is insurmountable but it would take a massive change in attitude toward work by crew - no more of the charity Paris!

However, the most insurmountable problem is that it will cost BA more to buy and run. So what are crew prepared to give up in order to buy into a bidding system? It is all well and good for crew to say others have this system why will BA not buy it for us? In truth there has to a sound economic argument in order for BA to invest in such a system. When you get such a system, you get it warts and all, the good and the bad bits. You cannot cherry pick the good bits of what you have now and cherry pick the best bits of a bidding system.

[Pornpants1]

woody42

Strange no one else has picked up on Tonys departure in the new year, question is Jumped, Pushed (sacrificial lamb), or job done?

[Betty girl]

Pushed by the sound of it.

[Pornpants1]

Bettygirl

Pushed by the sound of it. sounds very authoritative, is your source reliable?

Would not suprise me, a friend at UNITE has always maintained that he was bought to BA for one reason alone, only time will tell;)

[Dave Bloke]

An impeccable source tells me he didn't leave through choice. Probably due to not grasping the BASSA nettle firmly enough. I bet Maria da Cuhna will take the hint. :oh:

[Betty girl]

Pornpants,

I have no source just that the wording in the email 'has decided not to accept a role within the new BA operating company' sounds similar to when our manager Joy Horden went after Willie Walsh took over. They never said she was pushed but we all knew that she was and they described it in a similar way then.

Of course he may well just hate the job and want to go. He has by all accounts had a horrid year.

I obviously don't know or have any inside information.

[77]

Bidline....However, the most insurmountable problem is that it will cost BA more to buy and run

Maybe, Maybe Not ........ but look at sickness levels in cabin crew compared with the sickness levels among flight crew on bidline fleets.
There could be a big cost saving if you don't need horrendous levels of standby cover.

[BlueUpGood]

My excellent source says definitely pushed.

[Juan Tugoh]

There could be a big cost saving if you don't need horrendous levels of standby cover.

You may be right but it is not me that you have to convince but both BA and your colleagues. If you truly believe it will save BA money, put together a Business Case and put it to them and if it does make financial sense they will think about it. Of course you will have to persuade BASSA of the advantages of a bidding system and they have a long history of resistance on this matter. It is also worthy of note that if the savings were self evident BA would be pushing for this too. They had the perfect opportunity to implement it with MF and they didn't which suggests the savings are not there for BA. BA are fully aware of the costs and benefits of bidding as they have had it for the pilots for years.

[highlifer]

Actually you're quite wrong, Juan - Mixed Fleet DO indeed have a bidding system!

[MrBernoulli]

MFCREWI didn't ask for, nor do I require condescending remarks from somebody like yourself and I suggest you keep them to yourself What concern is it of yours? You are not Cabin Crew Sorry, but this is a public forum, and this particular "thread is intended for use by people presently employed as airline staff" and to "discuss BA Cabin Crew industrial relations". Questions will occur, whether you approve of them or not, and they don't have to be made by Cabin Crew.

You were also openly discussing what you thought was a problem with your MF roster, MF being a new contracted group of cabin crew, a group which poses a very central problem to BASSA hardliners and, thus, the current BA industrial relations problem.

I suggest you read again as I havent contradicted myself onceAgain, sorry, but I have read it and I still see contradictions. You stated that you, and others in your group, ("we all") "expected" days off, and were "all sure that BA promised 2 days", but you "cant remember the exact words they used". 'Expected', and 'all sure' followed by 'can't remember' seems very contradictory.

Furthermore, you go on to say that you have consulted those 'in the know', and checked paperwork in your possession, and are quite sure that this isn't a blip in the rostering. Did that give you the certainty you seemed to be seeking about your roster? Will you get your 2 days off between long-haul trips, or will it just be 2 nights (one day)? I'm interested, which is why I asked in the first place.

[Juan Tugoh]

My apologies.

[64K]

So the new head of BA's HR department is a lawyer. I wonder whether this will influence the industrial relations situation, should this not be resolved before she starts?

:}

[MFCREW]

Again, sorry, but I have read it and I still see contradictions. You stated that you, and others in your group, ("we all") "expected" days off, and were "all sure that BA promised 2 days", but you "cant remember the exact words they used". 'Expected', and 'all sure' followed by 'can't remember' seems very contradictory.

Not contradictory at all when read in context - I see you really enjoy picking people's comments to pieces, however to satisfy your quite clear desire and passion - Another person from my course confirmed that in our scheduling 'chat' the schedulers did indeed state that we would have two days off after a longhaul trip - much as I had thought (but couldn't recall the 'exact' words used).

It now appears though that there is no onus on BA to provide 2 clear days off after a longhaul trip - the only onus is to provide 9 days off a month and providing Scheme is met - one colleague has three longhaul trips in a row with one day off after each.

As for you picking me up on not knowing everything verbatim after only 3 weeks in the job, again that's highly supportive, so thanks for that - Im sure every single current BA Crew Member knows their rostering arrangements inside out :bored:

[yellowdog]

If the CC community wants a bidding system they will have to change their relationship to work itself. As stated above the most basic thing of a bidding system is that all the work must be covered, therefore the crew community must make a guarantee to BA that this will happen. The crew community itself becomes responsible for work coverage. That means MBTs etc will disappear, you go back to legality

Juan,

To be fair all fleets except WWLHR do indeed have a bidding system. All the work is covered and we all cover it using our MOA's not legality.

In fact CARMEN even runs LGW flightcrew rosters and work.

Is this an example of certain fleets being blinkered to what goes on outside their own fleet? :confused:

[yellowdog]

As for you picking me up on not knowing everything verbatim after only 3 weeks in the job, again that's highly supportive, so thanks for that - Im sure every single current BA Crew Member knows their rostering arrangements inside out

MF, don't worry about it! even after 4 year of MFLGW I am flabbergasted how many crew don't knwo their agreements and let crewing get away with murder.

Although to be fair, even some of the crewing staff don't know one agreement from the other:{

Just make sure you know it inside out soon!

[Juan Tugoh]

Fair enough, in that case it must just be the cabin crew community themselves or their elected reps on LH that are set against the idea. If, as people here seem to suggest, the idea is so evidently beneficial for BA, the only bump in the road must be BASSA. It is obvious from the evidence presented that BA have no objection to CC bidding, so the obstacle must be the cabin crew themselves.

[Boondocker]

BA have good reason for making very little effort to introduce any kind of bidding system to LHR WW fleet. The costs of building such a sytem are/were prohibitive due to the complexity of the current WW agreement.
It would have required a custom built program not one off the shelf used by another airline.

BA has wanted rid of said agreement for years. Spending any kind money on something you don't want or need would be pointless.

Of course, if the current WW fleet provided the savings themselves to fund the project then that's a different matter.

[Betty girl]

Juan Tugoh,
I think it was a lot more complicated as because of the cost BA wanted large changes in return.

I wish the union had bothered to ask it's membership how it felt but they seem incapable of that.

Yellowdog,
I think the lack of knowledge about our agreements is because a lot of the posters on here are neither BA cabin crew or BA pilots, just interested parties.

MFCREW,
Please don't lose heart because I would put a bet on two days being brought in soon enough. After a block of six days on E/F I am often shattered and that is without any long haul time changes. I personally don't believe that kind of rostering is sustainable on a long term basis. We shall see. Good luck and I hope you enjoy your time in BA. You have joined at a strange time in BA history but it will eventually get sorted and then things will calm down.

[Juan Tugoh]

Sorry Betty Girl I was being sarcastic, the medium of a forum is perhaps not the best for expressing such subtleties.

The point is that with the current WW agreement there is no way that BA will pay out for a bidding system. Those who are trying to persuade themselves that it would be in BA's interests to make their lives easier without giving anything up are being foolish.

BA has a rostering system that works. If the cabin crew want a bid system for LH they will have to "buy" it by giving up something that will save BA an equivalent amount of money.

[keel beam]

MFCREW

Revisit your roster and check how many hours are between the flights you mention. Is it more than 48 hours? If so, I make that 2 days off.

With many workers in the airline industry doing shift work, time loses a bit of its meaning (well it does with me). I occasionaly wonder what day it is, is it the weekend, a public holiday etc. So if you are told you will have 2 days off, most peoples thinking is 2 DAYS 2 NIGHTS, but as I say, 48 hours is 2 days.

[Litebulbs]

But we tend not to cross too many times zones in the process.

[Human Factor]

Revisit your roster and check how many hours are between the flights you mention. Is it more than 48 hours? If so, I make that 2 days off.

The important issue is the "local night" and the trigger is normally two. I can't remember the exact times without digging the books out. Roughly speaking, if you have no duty between about 2300 and 0600 local, two nights in a row, you are legal. Basically, if you get back from a longhaul trip at 7am on Monday morning, you can legally depart on another longhaul trip on Wednesday morning without any other consideration (apart from total days off).

[MrBernoulli]

MFCREW

Thanks for the clarification, that answers that.

I thought that since you seemed concerned about the 'is it 1 or 2 days off?' thing, that you might have the answers closer to hand (seeing as you have just started) or you would be proactive in getting the clarification. Anyway, enough of that .....

Whatever happens, good luck with MF, and be certain that there are many in BA who welcome your collective arrival, and look forward to meeting you 'on the line'.

[Betty girl]

It is obviously legal, no one has said it is not.

Whether that makes it desirable or sustainable is another matter.

[who came first]

Basically, if you get back from a longhaul trip at 7am on Monday morning, you can legally depart on another longhaul trip on Wednesday morning

If you get back from a longhaul trip at 7pm on Tues you can too.

[Litebulbs]

The race to the bottom is something that we can be proud of in the UK?

[Nutjob]

If you get back from a longhaul trip at 7pm on Tues you can too.

Not if you're to have TWO local nights you can't. 7pm Monday arrival, 7am Wednesday departure, you CAN do.

[keel beam]

But we tend not to cross too many times zones in the process.


And that is the added problem.

You may leave an overseas station at midday and have an eight hour day, but at your home base it is midnight and you are effectively working "nights"

Not being CC, I would guess time off between flights, and in what time zone you last flew, are factored in to what time off you have at home base.

[411A]

The race to the bottom is something that we can be proud of in the UK?Not likely to stop, either.
Big Airways CC go on strike in the UK...with the recent merger with Iberia, how long do you think it might be for cheaper Spanish CC to show up for duty?

[Beagle9]

Just an addition to the bidding debate:

The only group of BA cabin crew who DON'T have a bidding system is WW LHR.

EF LHR, MF LHR and SF LGW all have a version of the Carmen preferential bidding system, which is not based on seniority, but by allocating points indicating which trip type or destination you want most.

The EF LHR version, for example, works well because there's no clear "popular trips". Some crew like earlies, anathma to others. Some people like 3 day trips, others "there and backs". Some like long days like Moscows to maximise flying hours in a block, some like Southern Europe, others domestics, Scandanavia etc. etc. There's no great financial penalty whichever destination or trip type you choose, as the meal allowances (the biggest allowance type on EF) is mainly Euros or £ and evens up over a month. In other words you don't have everyone bidding for the same things, so the work generally speaking gets covered, yet people mainly get a roster they are happy with.

The reason BA has not been able to reach agreement with the unions over a similar system for WW LHR, is because Longhaul have very clear "popular trips" because of the allowance system ie. everyone wants SIN, BKK, HKG NRT and nobody wants anything in Africa. Unless you change the allowance system, EFs system on WW would not work. In fact a bidding system was suggested by the company, as one of the benefits of moving to an hourly rate, when we had that debate a few years ago. SF LGW have an hourly rate, hence it works.

Unfortunately the hourly rate deal on the table then will never be back on the table - it was too good to repeat. In fact it was described even by CC89 reps at the time as a "no - brainer for WW crew, less so for EF" and recommended by them, yet was rejected by BASSA. That can be seen as a huge mistake by them now, as, not only would WW have bidding, but which routes are transfered to MF would be of much less importance.

[617sqn]

411A
Are you sure that Iberia CC are cheaper?

[Betty girl]

Beagle,
What you say is so right.

The hourly rate, on offer back then, would have been great for WW but not so good for E/F crew unless you only did three day trips.

411A,
Iberia cabin crew are paid more that BA crew.

If you compare BA cabin crew wages (especially those of crew that joined after 97 but also all others) many of the other European 'Flag' carriers cabin crew earn more than BA cabin crew.

[Litebulbs]

411A
Are you sure that Iberia CC are cheaper?

I think it could possibly be mixed fleet going the other way -

Iberia’s costly crew will be the focus of attention for Willie Walsh - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6916635.ece)

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Nutjob,
2 local nights is not a legal issue, but an industrial limit. This is how cc do back to backs - industrially agreed for a payment, not illegal.

[Betty girl]

Thanks for reminding us of that article Litebulbs.

Note the average for BA cabin crew of 29K. The average wage in the London area is 28K. This average, of course, includes all the crew on pre 97 contracts, so as these more expensive crew leave, the BA average would come down as well and probably already has, as since that article many took severance. Post 97 cabin crew already have a much lower average.

My point is that crew that joined after 97 are actually not on particularly high salaries now already. I really do believe that the new Mixed fleet salaries of £11k and less remuneration than our current Gatwick crew, will result in good new M/F crew leaving because they will find it very difficult to live in, the very expensive, LHR area or commute from elsewhere.

I want BA to survive and I did not think striking was a good thing to do but I also want BA to continue to give good customer service. In my personal view, crew that are badly paid and tired will ultimately not be happy crew and it is a happy and well motivated crew that serves our customers best.

I know that all our new Mixed Fleet crew are very keen and will be great crew so I hope BA sees sense and improves their agreements because I want our airline to continue to be one of the best.

That is of course my own personal opinion.

[Litebulbs]

Nutjob,
2 local nights is not a legal issue, but an industrial limit. This is how cc do back to backs - industrially agreed for a payment, not illegal.

Taken from CAP371 -

Wherever possible and if required by the crew member, days off should be taken in the home environment.

A single day off shall include 2 local nights, and shall be of at least 34 hours duration. A planned rest period may be included as part of a day off. Crew members shall:

a) not be on duty more than 7 consecutive days between days off, but may be positioned to the usual operating base on the eighth day, provided they are then allocated at least 2 consecutive days off, and
b) have 2 consecutive days off in any consecutive 14 days following the previous 2 consecutive days off, and
c) have a minimum of 7 days off in any consecutive 4 weeks, and
d) have an average of at least 8 days off in each consecutive 4 week period, averaged over 3 such periods.

Rules Relating to Cabin Crew

The requirements detailed in this paragraph are applicable to all cabin crew employed as crew members, and are not intended to apply only to those cabin crew carried to meet the provisions of the Air Navigation Order.

The limitations applied to cabin crew are those applicable to flight crew members contained in paragraphs 6 to 23, but with the following differences:

a) A flying duty period is 1 hour longer than that permitted for flight crew. The FDP and limits set on early starts for cabin crew will be based on the time at which the flight crew report for their flying duty period, but that FDP will start at the report time of the cabin crew.
b) For cabin crew the minimum rest period which will be provided before undertaking a flying duty period shall be:
i) at least as long as the preceding duty period less 1 hour; or ii) 11 hours; whichever is the greater.
c) The combined sum of standby time and subsequent FDP will be 1 hour longer than that permitted to flight crew.
d) The maximum duty hours for cabin crew will not exceed:
60 hours in any 7 consecutive days, but can be increased to 65 hours under similar circumstances applicable to flight crew
105 hours in any 14 consecutive days
210 hours in any 28 consecutive days.

Note the single day off explanation in this document that comes from The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, which makes it legal.

[Right Engine]

I think the MF crew will find their solution in the annual crew hours limits of 900 hours p.a. Unless of course the new European FTL limits are brought in soon....

[Litebulbs]

That may be the case, but will they be then laid off?

[MFCREW]

This is now our worry - no wonder BA put a lay off clause in our contracts!

If we go over our limits and cant fly - they can lay us off with no pay

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Litebulbs - BA cc legal limits are the BA scheme, which is based on CAP 371, and approved by the CAA. There are often subtle differences.

Even with those CAP 371 limits, it is legally possible to operate 2 b2b trips, as most longhaul trips are 3 days. Longer trips will usually have 2 local nights off downroute, so even they comply.

As alluded to above, the 900 hr limit is reached very quickly if rosters are designed this way. Most full time ww cc reach the 900 hr limit, even with generous MTB provision, so this is most likely to be teething troubles with the setup of MF, very similar to what happened at SFLGW.

I very much doubt that BA will roster MF to 900 hrs in 8 months then terminate. BA see MF as the future. How many crew would they recruit with practices like that?

What this does show is that in the real world, there are few absolute guarantees and protections. Maybe it will show a few old contract hardliners how good their deal still is.

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs,

you are quoting CAP 371, which is not the relevant document for BA crew, rather you need to look at JPM 1.16. However, I doubt there is little difference in this particular case and I cannot be bothered to look it up. Despite that, you are confusing min rest and a rostered day off. There is no legal requirement to have a rostered day off post a LH trip.

The min rest would be for CC 11 hours or the length of the preceeding duty minus one hour if trhe preceeding duty exceeded12 duty hours. So if the preceeding duty was 13:30 then min rest is 12:30 for CC. A Rostered day off is something else entirely - it is a day clear of duty and must include two locla nights - again there is a definition of a local night that I cannot be bothered to look up but is something like a night with no duty after 22:00 or before 06:00. I am sure someone here will provide chapter and verse on definitions.

There is no legal restriction requiring a day off between LH flights. As Betty Girl has stated this may be legal but as to whether it is desirable is another matter.

[Litebulbs]

Juan and P-T -

I was quoting the CAA scheme to highlight the day off definition. That is the minimum requirement with regard to the law. It doesn't matter what agreement BA have, as long as its minimum position does not fall below the Working Time Regulations.

As to the comment on termination; I was not suggesting that. I am sure I read a contract provision for a layoff without pay, which is not a termination.

[ottergirl]

This is now our worry - no wonder BA put a lay off clause in our contracts!

If we go over our limits and cant fly - they can lay us off with no pay

MF Crew, you are in uncharted territory here because BA have never had the option of 'standing people down' so it has never happened before. You will have a strength in numbers eventually so your priority is to get enough of you together to approach Unite for your own NSP branch and start negotiating. You will also need some means of negotiating future pay deals, etc so a collective bargaining group is inevitable. Might also be worth looking at EU legislation to see whether it is acceptable to treat full-time permanent workers in such a careless fashion.

On the plus side your new employer doesn't like to be seen as a baddy so tends to play quite fair IMHO (as the BASSA faithful fall about laughing!) It wouldn't look good for a profit making full-service carrier to have it's cabin crew claiming Income support so don't assume the worse.

Took over from some of your colleagues the other day and chatted awhile. Please spread the word that we don't bite and are really happy to meet you. Some of the MF crew looked scared to death! Welcome to BA!

[Betty girl]

I have just heard through the grapevine that recruiters at LHR are finding it really hard to fill the new CSM positions on Mixed Fleet.

Apparently they have plenty of young people wanting to be main crew or Future Talent but getting people from other airlines to apply for the CSM position is proving very hard. The applicants have to have had previous 'In charge' experience and as well as that, external applicants need to have had 'in charge experience' with an airline that operates long haul flights.

Apparently, they had thought more current BA cabin crew might have applied but a lot of current crew either don't want to work on Mixed Fleet terms and conditions or don't have previous 'in charge' experience, which the CAA are insisting on, due to it being a new fleet.

The actual CSM pay does not compare that well to other airline SCCMs pay and also has a lot of other administrative duties which requires the CSMs to live close to LHR as some duties involve working in the CRC at LHR.

The bizarre part of all of this is that they currently have too many CSDs on E/F which is a result of the 757 going and the shrinking of E/F because of Mixed Fleet taking some of the routes.

You just couldn't make it up!!

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs,

you are not quite right in the statement that It doesn't matter what agreement BA have as the BA scheme is approved by the regulating authority - the CAA. There are differences between CAP 371 and the BA scheme, generally they are subtle and not major, but that does not mean that CAP371 applies to BA crew.

The day off definition is fair enough, but it does not mean that it is applicable in the situation that you are suggesting it should be used. The BA definition of a day off is as follows:

DAYS OFF'
Periods available for leisure and relaxation free of all duties. A single
day off shall include two local nights. Consecutive days off shall include
a further local night for each additional consecutive day off. A rest
period may be included as part of a day off.

Note it also talks about a rest period in there, which is defined as:

'REST PERIOD'
A period of time before starting a flying duty period which is designed
to give crew members adequate opportunity to rest before a flight.

They are different things and a day off is not legally required after a long haul duty. CAP371 does not require a day off after a long haul duty either.

[Betty girl]

Juan Tugoh,

No one at any time has said that the rostering on Mixed Fleet is illegal or that they have to have a day off and that includes Litebulbs.

What has been said is that a lot of Mixed Fleet crew had been led to believe that they would get two days off after a long haul flight, like LGW crew do.

Also, many people think that doing a run of long haul sectors with only one day off afterwards would be tiring.

[Litebulbs]

They are different things and a day off is not legally required after a long haul duty. CAP371 does not require a day off after a long haul duty either.

It does depending on destination, sector length and acclimatisation etc.

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs - I'll take your word for it, as I said, it is not a relevant document for BA crews.

[Yellow Pen]

I have just heard through the grapevine that recruiters at LHR are finding it really hard to fill the new CSM positions on Mixed Fleet.

Apparently they have plenty of young people wanting to be main crew or Future Talent but getting people from other airlines to apply for the CSM position is proving very hard.

Which is interesting because my normally reliable source tells me it's the exact opposite - plenty of interest in CSM, not so much in main crew. I'm inclined to believe the latter simply because CSM offers a competitive package compared to bmi and Virgin with better job security.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs - I'll take your word for it, as I said, it is not a relevant document for BA crews.

I should hope that it is not relevant, as it is the minimum position.

[Hotel Mode]

It does depending on destination, sector length and acclimatisation etc.

No it doesnt. There is no "local nights" restriction except with regards to days off. Which may of course be taken downroute not at home.

It never requires more than the mimimum rest for the preceding sector. IF it falls in the 18-30hrs rest the max succeeding duty may be reduced below that required, but if that rest was kept below 18hrs the same duty as after 30hrs would be allowable. ie 12 hrs rest gives the same allowable duty as 31.

Can we leave the speculation on CAP371 to those who use it every day please?

[yellowdog]

Litebulbs - I'll take your word for it, as I said, it is not a relevant document for BA crews.

Forgive my question but are MF working to CAP371 minimums or to BA FTL scheme?

[Beagle9]

In no particular order the following:

To save you looking it up, a "local Night" is a period of 8 hours, falling between 22.00 and 08.00 local time. ie 22.00 to 06.00 is a local night, as is 23.00 to 07.00 and 00.00 to 08.00. Therefore, for rest purposes, if you are off duty at 00.01, a local night can't be acheived.

In the early days of Mid Fleet, we had minimum one day off after a longhaul trip (10 days off per month), however that was quickly changed to 2 min.

Lay off after reaching 900 hours. Unlikely in my opinion, but like all things with MF, at the moment, you have nobody to represent you for collective bargaining, despite BA offering Unite the opportunity. I suspect this has even caught BA by surprise. I imagine that when they originally drew up plans for MF under Columbus, that they thought there would be a union branch representing their interest that would "negociate up" from the starting point of the plan. Since this hasn't happened, BA are probably going to "suck it and see" with the minimum they can get away with re pay, hours, days off etc. until a representative group can be formed. If I was on MF I'd be making some urgent moves to get, if not unite, some other union interested in supporting a MF CC branch.

Also, everything is market rate driven. BA will be asking "What is the minimum we need offer to still acheive superior Customer Service? They are unlikely to be nieve enough to think that treating people like slaves and laying them off without pay for periods will suffice.

[oh-oh]

Hi Litebulbs.

It is not necessarily the minimum;
from the CAA website -
Flight Time Limitations (FTLs)

The ANO requires AOC holders in most circumstances to operate only in accordance with the provisions of an FTL scheme approved by the CAA.
Schemes compliant with CAP 371 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=22)22 - "The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews" will be approved although alternative schemes may also be approved if the CAA is satisfied that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved.

Link at Preparing an Application | Flight Operations | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1196&pagetype=90&pageid=8254)

[Litebulbs]

Can we leave the speculation on CAP371 to those who use it every day please?

Pleasant as ever. If I choose to speculate about CAP371, which is in the public arena, I will. No doubt if I breach the forum rules, my posts will be moderated.

[yellowdog]

Can we leave the speculation on CAP371 to those who use it every day please?

is there any "speculation" around CAP 371? Is it not the legal minimums in black and white; not varying levels of grey?

I always understood CAP371 to be the document on which all UK airlines have to base their FTL "scheme".

That being the case most of us work to our own Company's rules which are based around CAP371, but which may differ to varying degrees.

Not sure why anyone in their "flying" role would use it everyday?

[yellowdog]

Beagle9,

EF LHR, MF LHR and SF LGW all have a version of the Carmen preferential bidding system, which is not based on seniority, but by allocating points indicating which trip type or destination you want most.

To let you know ours at LGW is seniority based.

[Juan Tugoh]

Not sure why anyone in their "flying" role would use it everyday?

You have obviously never worked for a charter company where scheme was very relevant every time you went to work.

[Litebulbs]

You are right to correct my understanding. The Act flows to the SI and is then applied by the regulating body. The CAA FTL scheme will comply with the working time regulation, which satisfies the ANO.

If an AOC holder can convince the regulator that a different scheme complies with the The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, then no doubt it will be approved.

[yellowdog]

You have obviously never worked for a charter company where scheme was very relevant every time you went to work.

and you know that how? Please look at my username:rolleyes:

I was alluding to the fact that each airline has to use their own FTL scheme, not CAP371, which is the legal minimum, on which their "scheme" is based.....and yes we all use our "scheme" everday but in all my years of flying I have never even looked at CAP371!

Have you?

[Hubert Davenport]

Lightbulbs
This is now our worry - no wonder BA put a lay off clause in our contracts!

If we go over our limits and cant fly - they can lay us off with no pay


I think you may be able to work on the ground if you reach the 900hr limit.

Have a check of your contract I did hear that was the case, I could be wrong but worth a look.

[Betty girl]

Yellowdog,
Yesterday you said that LGW bid was preference bidding with a satisfaction factor in favor of seniority. You said that the system tried to achieve 80% satisfaction for senior crew and 40% for more junior. So it is still the same preference system but with different satisfaction levels. Ours is 60% across the board for E/F.

I don't think it is a system based on seniority like the pilots is. I would still consider it a preference system.

[Juan Tugoh]

As an aside to all this, CAP371 is based on a lot of research into Fatigue in Aircrew which was initiated by the Bader Committee in the 70s. The resultant rules regarding local nights and maximum FDP etc are the result of that scientific study and subsequent experience.

The proposed changes that are likely to come into force as a result of the change of the regulatory body from the CAA to EASA are anything but based in scientific research. The bigger battle that we should all be engaged in should not be about 2 days off after a long haul trip but to prevent this nightmare piece of legislation from being allowed to proceed.

[yellowdog]

Yesterday you said that LGW bid was preference bidding with a satisfaction factor in favor of seniority. You said that the system tried to achieve 80% satisfaction for senior crew and 40% for more junior. So it is still the same preference system but with different satisfaction levels. Ours is 60% across the board for E/F.

I don't think it is a system based on seniority like the pilots is. I would still consider it a preference system.

Thanks for that perspective.......I have never thought of it like that:O

It was sold to us as a fleet as a "seniority" based system, and all of us still think of it like that, and it still works like that (mostly). The more senior you are the more likely you are of achieveing your preferences.

I suppose it is a preference system, with a seniority filter!

[essessdeedee]

so your priority is to get enough of you together to approach Unite for your own NSP branch and start negotiating.
Looking at the current state of unite and its inability to stick with a negotiated position, you may want to think of a more effective union.:uhoh:

[Betty girl]

Yellowdog,

I did find it interesting to know that you had different satisfaction levels at LGW. I don't think many of us at LHR new that. Thanks.

I am however pleased that at LHR it is the same for everyone, much fairer.
I would actually benefit from it if it were seniority led but I wouldn't feel it was fair on the more junior crew and as we are never going to get new crew again on E/F at LHR, they will be the most junior for ever!!!!

[Beagle9]

Yellowdog

Thanks for that. I must admit after I posted that, I did have a nagging doubt about LGW Carmen, but I asked my ex EF LGW wife and she thought it wasn't seniority based. Hey ho!

Anyway, point still stands that the main thing standing in the way of Carmen bidding working for LHR WW is current allowance system, which makes the same trips popular for most people.

[Caribbean Boy]

It's my understanding that BA has had difficulty in recruiting enough CSMs. Part of the problem may be the salary of about £26,500. (I can get the actual amount but I'd have to be back in the office to do so.)

I'm quite relaxed about this. If the pay is too low, then BA will have to raise it - it is a competitive market after all.

It should also be realised that BA really needs to meet recruitment targets. If MF is to grow, then there must a certain number of CSMs to manage the cabin crew. Let me pull some figures out of the air just for illustration. Say that MF has a target ratio of 1:10 for CSM:cabin crew. (It is not going to be 1:172 as we can have for existing fleets.) So, to recruit and manage 1,000 cabin crew means that 100 CSMs are required. A shortage of CSMs will therefore severely hinder the growth of MF.

As for under-employed EF CSDs: some may be suitable for the CSM position but none will apply because BA is not going to stump up an annual pay differential of £10,000-£30,000 to preserve their income.

[Litebulbs]

As to rates of pay, whatever happened to market rate +10%. Surely if the wages were actually in line with the statement, then existing crew would be applying in droves. Also, if you took the 10% off of the MF salary, you would be getting dangerously close to the glass floor of the minimum wage. Does that mean market rate is the minimum wage?

[Betty girl]

You are right in what you say Carabean boy.

I believe the basic salary for Mixed Fleet CSM is 24K.

I think savings could have been made with an integrated approach because it seems mad to have CSDs (and for that matter Pursers) on E/F without work but being paid and then take on CSMs to do the same work that the CSDs could have done had new entrants been taken onto current fleets. However we have the Bassa union to blame for not negotiating on that.

Of course I do fully understand all the other reasons, new ethos, be outstanding etc etc, but I still question whether a low paid and tired workforce will, as time goes on, be all these things.

Time will tell.

If BA can't get as many CSMs as they want, as fast as they want, the result will be that some current crew will just have to wait longer before being offered the promised part time, that's all. Mixed fleet could just grow a bit slower and use it's own Future talent crews which would at least be good for them.

[Beagle9]

Litebulbs,

If you are already earning market rate plus 50%+, why would market rate plus 10% look attractive? Even Bill Francis has said that he wouldn't envisage MF being attractive to many existing BA cabin crew. It only makes sense if you are very junior and are able to fast track yourself straight to CSM. That's exactly what's happened.

As for rumours of it being difficult to recruit from outside at the rates being offered? Who knows if it's true, but as a previous posted noted, if it's not possible to attract enough of the right people at the current rates and T&Cs, then they WILL improve. Simple economics of supply and demand. I think BA already knows this and they are just seeing if they can achieve what they want to achieve on the base level they started with (and expected to have been negociated up from, had there been representation).

If it's true they can't get enough people, you will see the salary go up. If it's rumour control doing it's usual, then you won't. Watch and wait.

[Litebulbs]

I didn't think the market rate +10% was aimed at existing crew, hence the alleged recruitment problems. In my opinion and viewed as an outsider, it appears that the current T&C's are just to see what could be got away with. Posters are already suggesting representation to help negotiating T&C's upwards.

However, if you look at Virgin Engineering who have recently voted to reject union recognition, employers can give reward that employees are happy with, outside of negotiation.

[spin_doctor]

The bigger battle that we should all be engaged in should not be about 2 days off after a long haul trip but to prevent this nightmare piece of legislation from being allowed to proceed

Tying up union resources in a pointless battle over necessary cost savings means BASSA/Unite is utterly unprepared for the next major challenge to hit its members. Once again they have completely failed to see what's coming, and that it's not BA they need to be standing up to.

[bagsybtmbunk]

That may be all well and good for the engineers but the cc and pilots most definitely think very differently. They're both about to enter into pay talks shortly. After having pay frozen for the last 3 years, it should be interesting to watch what happens there.

[Litebulbs]

That may be all well and good for the engineers but the cc and pilots most definitely think very differently.

It is strange.

[Colonel White]

Dunno about Virgin pilots, but the cabin crew got pretty short shrift from the cuddly Mr B when they last threatened strike action. He stated '"For some of you, more pay than Virgin Atlantic can afford may be critical to your lifestyle and if that is the case you should consider working elsewhere,"' The cabin crew settled in 2008 for the two-year deal - a 4.8% pay increase, followed by a rise in line with inflation.

BA's current offer of 5.9% across two years looks pretty good by comparison.

[Litebulbs]

It does, unless you are a newbe.

[Dingbaticus]

Given the number of grievances by cabin crew, mentioned in court at the recent imposition appeal, Mr William’s appointment of a top lawyer to Mr McCarthy’s position appears a shrewd move to me.

I don’t personally bear Mr Walsh any malice; he does what it says on the tin. He was brought in to restructure and although we still have a Union, I believe we have all learnt lessons and the members will be more engaged in it’s running in the future.

The agreement to implement the disruption agreement this week has angered the ‘Bassa mentalists’ as the imposition hearing did confirm that the DA is contractual - there are still those who wish to continue with the old 70’s style Unionism. Fortunately Lizanne and Duncan have both supported it’s implementation and I hope this bodes well for peace talks at ACAS this Monday.

It’s true the dispute became personal. Being vilified by the press then having a wall erected in our own head office where fellow workers scrawled obscene graffiti, which even made it on to the BBC news, made it personal.

There are fresh faces in town and a new year ahead. Negotiation is achievable after which we must all focus on rebuilding shattered relationships and put the customer back at the heart of our business.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[bagsybtmbunk]

Colonel - just to keep the record straight VS reneged on their 2 year pay deal in 2008 for CC as financially strapped *yawn yawn*. Only part-one was paid in 2008 so in effect by the time the 2011 pay talks start there would not have a been an increase for 3 years for CC.

You are absolutely correct in saying that Sir RB did offer the alternative in writing 'like it or walk'.

There are serious murmurings within the CC ranks to get anyone who's not a Unite member to join as the general consensus is that Unite can help to iron out the pay issues there.

I wish them all luck.

[IvorBiggun]

Dingbaticus

The agreement to implement the disruption agreement this week has angered the ‘Bassa mentalists’ as the imposition hearing did confirm that the DA is contractual - there are still those who wish to continue with the old 70’s style Unionism. Fortunately Lizanne and Duncan have both supported it’s implementation and I hope this bodes well for peace talks at ACAS this Monday.Well with all due respect you can dream!

BA does not reward "good behaviour" it expects it, and merely attempts to punish/exploit bad behaviour.

I know there are many of my colleagues who acted as VCC who now expect some special treatment from BA over agreements/pay etc.

I can tell you with some certainty that if they do truly expect this they will be very disappointed notwithstanding anyone's persoanl reason for volunteering.

[Human Factor]

BA does reward good behaviour. However, it's definition is probably a little different. If bad behaviour is considered to be striking or taking industrial action, good behaviour by default is not striking or taking industrial action. Therefore the reward for good behaviour is not being punished for bad behaviour. i.e. You will be paid and treated normally.

Semantics I know, but that is how it always works.

[IvorBiggun]

HF

Yes and agreeing to the implementation of the Disruption Agreement during er disruption will not carry any brownie points.

Going way back it this is one of the more fundamental facets when it comes to dealing with BASSA or indeed any TU.

It was said to me the Company simply cannot accept having to ask permission from the BASSA chair to implement disruption plans.

And the straw that broke the camels back was that shambles of 2 local nights 2 years ago in Prestwick (if memory serves me correctly).

Such actions placed Willie and Tony's microscope firmly on such behaviour and the rest is history, because as we all know this is not only about financial savings but (in the eyes of BA) re-affirming the right to manage.

I can say with some confidence if Lizanne and Duncan (I'm still not sure what he has to do with anything anymore, strange constitution they have. Still the money's good I hear) had not agreed to the DA being implemented BA would have just done it anyway. BA know that and they know BASSA know that are would be powerless to do anything about it.

Once you have made yourself irrelevant it is one hell of a job to make yourself relevant again.

[Pornpants1]

The agreement to implement the disruption agreement this week has angered the ‘Bassa mentalists’ as the imposition hearing did confirm that the DA is contractual - there are still those who wish to continue with the old 70’s style Unionism. Fortunately Lizanne and Duncan have both supported it’s implementation and I hope this bodes well for peace talks at ACAS this Monday.


Dingbaticus, a study of recent history will show this is not the case, as someone has pointed out BASSA have become an irrelevance. Do you not remember last January when the snow struck for the 2nd time? Within hours of BASSA trying to remind crew to work to their industrial agreement, they were served via courier a solicitors letter from BA which clearly said that any attempt to "encourage" crew to work to rule would be interpreted as "unofficial industrial action". This time around is no different hence BASSA have acquiesced rather than get egg on their face:ok:

[IvorBiggun]

Pornpants

I agree with your recollection.

I also recall BASSA having to issue an official repudiation over an instruction not to comply with requests to close window blinds for fear of a charge of unofficial IA.

[Caribbean Boy]

Actually it was Unite - in the form of Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley - who had to stamp on BASSA.

Our ref: IA/BA’10/100805.REP

5 August 2010


Dear Colleague

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC

This Notice is given in accordance with the requirements imposed upon the Union by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Only the Executive Council can authorise industrial action and it can only do so after a secret postal ballot.

On 2 August 2010 a posting was published on the BASSA website entitled ‘Closing Window Blinds at the End of Your Flight’. The posting asked cabin crew not to agree to close the window blinds at the end of each flight. This posting could be taken as a call to take industrial action. Cabin crew should ignore this posting and should close the window blinds at the end of each flight as instructed and work normally.

The Executive Council has not authorised any industrial action by Unite the Union members employed by the above company and this Notice relates to all and any calls, or threats of, such action.

On Thursday, 5 August 2010 the Executive Council repudiates all and any calls for, or threats of, such action and is obliged by statute to give notice of that repudiation in the following terms:

"Your Union has repudiated the call (or calls) for industrial action to which this Notice relates and will give no support to unofficial industrial action taken in response to it (or them). If you are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal."

If you fail to work normally, you will be taking part in unofficial action. Members who are dismissed while taking part in unofficial action will not be able to apply to an Employment Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal and nor will the Union be able to take any action in support of their re-engagement.

If members wish to take industrial action at any time in the future they should only do so when the action has been authorised by the Executive Council following a secret postal ballot.

Yours fraternally


DEREK SIMPSON TONY WOODLEY
Joint General Secretary Joint General Secretary

[IvorBiggun]

Another gem from our Dunc.

Clearly too many tomatoes.

[Dingbaticus]

I do not expect any ‘reward’ for the implementation of the disruption agreement.

What it does do is give me hope that the future brings an era of co-operation between my Union and my Company.

I agree that past mistakes such as Prestwickgate and Hot towelgate have instigated the fight by my employer to have the right to manage the business and I believe hard lessons have been learned.

I find it ironic some of you see your own Union as more of an Association and you dismiss my Union as irrelevant, yet I see the Mixed Fleet crew being advised to seek Union recognition from the Company.

Dismiss my Union if you wish but I believe it is still relevant and talks commence on Monday.

The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions

[IvorBiggun]

Dingbat

if only it were just "Prestwickgate" or "towelgate".

Unfortunately for your now irrelevant union it goes years and years deeper than that as many of us who are Captains in BA can testify to from painful personal experience of know alls, bickering and militancy when all I (or my colleagues) wanted to do was get our passengers home/away. I have seen it so many times. That is BASSA's legacy, even under the previous Chairman who I had respect for (unlike this one, or the "Branch Secretary", whatever that is now. Still good money eh Dunc?)

I quote

"BA don't run this operation Darling, BASSA do". From a SH CSD a few years ago.

Yes the vast majority of CSD's I fly with are onside and a credit to BA, but the militant (and I say that before this dispute) minority and unfortunately your union branch who have let you down so badly over the 20 years (that I have seen) have screwed you up maybe terminally.

No way back now IMO and that is a shame for the great crew.

Actually I am livid with BASSA because they have empowered the management to an extent no-one could have predicted.

We will all suffer because of the egos of the arrogant bunch that lead a generally great community of cabin crew.

And managment take their blame in that as well, but BASSA mostly.

[Litebulbs]

Who do you credit with making some of the current cabin crew as the best paid in the country?

[Buter]

New fleet, LGW crew, Manchester crew, Glasgow crew...

[Abbey Road]

Who do you credit with making some of the current cabin crew as the best paid in the country?Might I suggest the lily-livered, weak former management, for making some of the current cabin crew as the most overpaid in the country?

[Litebulbs]

Thats an interesting point Abbey. How far back do you go with the management in question. I left over a decade ago, but the relative rates of pay were still excellent back then.

[IvorBiggun]

BASSA have historically protected LHR and particularly LH. When you circle the waggons too tightly you have nowhere else to go.

Good luck to people who earn good money as cabin crew. I have no issue with that and if BASSA has played a part in that in the past fair enough. However it comes now at what price?

[vctenderness]

Who do you credit with making some of the current cabin crew as the best paid in the country?

Very definitely NOT BASSA!!

They refused to sign the Long Range Agreement which was one of the best deals ever for cabin crew. They also tried to trash the consolidation deal that gave crew a huge boost in pensionable pay.

It was CC89 (old version) that did all of the deals that improved crew conditions.

[Litebulbs]

As somebody from the Amicus side, I would like for that to be completely true, but as the sections name suggests, they could have only started to influence BA from 1989.

[vctenderness]

As somebody from the Amicus side, I would like for that to be completely true, but as the sections name suggests, they could have only started to influence BA from 1989.

Errr...No! The original founders of CC89 were the Longhaul BASSA reps who had been responsible for many good agreements before the breakaway in 1989.

[Betty girl]

Vctenderness,

You are completely right. CC89 and the reps that started CC89, who were longhaul Bassa reps before, are the ones that negotiated everything.

Sad thing is that most of them are now retired.

[JUAN TRIPP]

VCtenderness and Bettygirl. I can confirm what you have said is true.

Here is the latest from Bassa

You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.





Yesterday, the possibility of further industrial a_ction came a step closer
as Unite announced an intention to shortly ballot cabin crew.
The controversial last offer is now a thing of the past, its time has been
and gone. A fresh perspective is needed. However, a solution still needs
to be found and one that will be acceptable to you, and one that we feel
positive in recommending and that you will feel positive in accepting.
This will be Lenny McCluskey's first challenge and one that we intend to
fully support him in achieving a successful conclusion.

We understand how easy it is to become disillusioned with things; our
struggle has been going on for a long time - a year to be exact - we are
all human after all and your reps are only human too. It does require
patience, strength, determination, but above all "sticking together".
This can sometimes be easier said than done!
It is only natural that there are a wide range of opinions on what should
have happened and when, or what should be done next.
When we were considering putting the last offer to you for ballot and
asking for your input, we received emails from members threatening to resign "if we dared to send out such an insulting offer" yet also from members who "couldn't believe that we would dare to NOT ask their opinion in a ballot" - in other words we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't!
However, that is now in the past, the challenge now is in what lies ahead.
There is still a willingness from this union to resolve matters but this
will not be on our knees. The time available must now be spent in agreeing an offer that could prevent further disruption to British Airways staff and customers; they must spend the time doing exactly that, not preparing for a strike. Any future offer must also be one that a trade union can, in good faith, put forward with our whole-hearted recommendation. If it isn't then the outcome will be strike action.

Everybody is an expert and everybody would do this or that differently; in the end we must keep it simple and do what we feel is the right thing to do. It is also only right to give you the opportunity to make up your own mind on whether you wish to take industrial action.
The bottom line is what this means for you; we now have a culture of
rampant fear within IFCE, people are genuinely frightened when they come to work, scared if they say the wrong thing they will be suspended. All pretence of management honouring our agreements is gone, mixed fleet is already here; it's sink or swim time now for the remaining years of your career. We urge, not for the first time, British Airways leadership team to come to their senses and to also do the right thing. Recognise that bullying and intimidation do not work; we are a strong and determined community and we will never give up this fight until we have won our respect back, no matter how long it takes.

Existing cabin crew are in a "fight for our own survival" we have no
alternative but to carry on with this fight until our future is secure,
otherwise we simply do not have one.
This is not a time for ill thought out sensationalism or opportunist
"politicking", but for clear heads and clearer thought. What is important is what can be achieved, what it will mean, and to not lose sight of what is still important; this is NOT just about staff travel, it is ALL about safeguarding your future - it's where it began and it will end when, and only when this has been achieved.

We need to be concise and clear. The areas of concern that must be
addressed in any future offer are listed below and MUST be the foundationfor any future settlement.

1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want
confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.


2. Mixed fleet is here, it will grow, routes will transfer into it -
this is your working life-blood. NO routes = NO work. There has to be an agreement on how this would happen. British Airways want to move routes to mixed fleet purely based on their "commercial needs". No consideration of the type of work being moved or its impact on current crew (length of trips, type of trips, days off, earnings) would be factored into this.


These things must be taken into consideration; so far this has been
refused.


3. Top up payment - we asked all along this to be classed as "lifetime" and/or "contractual", again thus far this has been refused.


4. Proposed changes to the employment policy must not simply be to allow British Airways to introduce changes that will be worse for you and make it easier for people to be sacked, a harsher sickness policy, a reduction to only one appeal (currently two) if subject to a disciplinary.


These will only be the tip of the iceberg; there is also a whole raft of
other proposed changes that could adversely affect you. No trade union should accept this.


5. Redeployment agreement - British Airways is trying to remove this cornerstone of security; if your area is closed or has no work, your historic pay protections and right to redeploy on protected conditions must be maintained.


6. This dispute has led to many injustices, if these are allowed to
remain, BritishAirways - and indeed any other UK employer that followed their example -could set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers the right to punishpeople for taking lawful industrial action. To concede that staff travel may be removed at any time that management wish or that it is acceptable to lose basis pay for days when people were sick during industrial action and even for days when no industrial action even occurred is plainly wrong. These go against all the principles of trade unionism, let alone basic human rights.


7. This dispute started because long-standing agreements were broken. We need assurances that this would not carry on into the future.
Agreements need to be worth the paper they are written on, otherwise what "agreement" would be next? Without trust and respect you have nothing, and at the moment cabin crew has neither.


8. We all want a better way of working together, but the planned
changes to the facilities agreement - the very foundation of how your union represents you - must not be a thinly disguised mechanism for management to dismantle every right that your union has, a charter for management to do what they want, when they want. Our offices have been closed down and our reps refused access to meetings for nearly a year: it's time this wrong was put right.


9. ACAS involvement in dispute related cases is positive but there are no guarantees as to the outcome. Good people have been sacked for trivia; this is not right, these are our friends and colleagues, they deserve better. We will not leave them behind, as you wouldn't wish to be if it was you. Honour is priceless but fragile.


10. Last but by no means least - we must bring about a "true peace". Any "deal" must not simply be a means to dismantle and disarm cabin crew resistance, resulting in everybody being fair game to the bullying and fear that pervades too many flights; where people can no longer speak their mind, laugh or joke, let alone be the diverse and colourful community that we once were, so somehow we need to find a lasting and sincere ceasefire, or our fight will go on...

At the end of the day, we are a trade union and we make no apologies forthat; we are not a branch of management and never will be, nor are we trying to portray ourselves to be what we are not. We are here to try andmake your life better, not worse; we have been clear with our message ofwhat will bring peace to the cabin crew community, it's time for British Airways leadership to do the same.


What planet are they on - not this one for sure. Still think THEY are in charge.

As an aside, my wife received a letter from Unite today to ask if her address and other details were correct for the upcoming ballot. She left Unite 6 months ago:ugh: I'm sure I'll get mine on monday.


Also a friend of mine did SEP recently and when the CS trainer went through the uniform regs with the crew, the toys were thrown out of the pram by a number of crew. My friend said it was all done in an unassuming and professional way, yet these crew thought it was ALL pathetic:ugh:


What I find very interesting in all of this is how lots of crew love to play the 'victim' card. I flew with a lovely young girl a couple of years ago who had worked for a LoCo for a time. She couldn't believe this culture in BA where some crew tried their utmost to get out of anything that THEY perceived as hard work or something that was unjust in THEIR eyes. She said they would last no more than a week at Ryanair or EasyJet. When I asked her why she thought this was, she replied that in BA there was NO FEAR. No fear of a manager, SCCM, scheduling etc. She made it VERY clear that she didn't mean 'managing' by fear like eg. a lot of charter and Middle East airlines do. She just said these people felt they could do anything on their agenda as if any problems arose, then Bassa would sort it. She was so right.

With the bad weather this week, it reminds us all of the watershed moment when a couple of years ago Bassa demanded that all the crew who had diverted on longhaul have their 48hrs off, throwing everything into chaos. Now i fully realise that this was the 'negotiated' agreement from MANY years ago. The simple fact was that NOW neither BA nor the crew wanted it, yet Bassa INSISTED that it remain in place. It would no doubt have remained so to this day any beyond if things hadn't changed. So, thanks Bassa for ruining it for ALL of us. If only they had got real, who knows where we could be now

[Litebulbs]

Errr...No! The original founders of CC89 were the Longhaul BASSA reps who had been responsible for many good agreements before the breakaway in 1989.

OK, so it wasn't true, it was Bassa then.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Litebulbs - whether it was Bassa in name, who cares? The less militant Bassa reps as we know moved on to form CC89. All I know, is if CC89 in their old guise had been 'negotiating' all of this present stuff, I know 100% it will have been sorted out months ago, and NOT to the detriment of us 'legacy' crew

[Beagle9]

Litebulbs

The reason that the pay and conditions for crew like me of 30 years seniority are what they are, is that in the era they were negociated, they were MARKET RATE. There were no low cost operators to speak of, just traditional, national carriers, many government owned. BASSA at the time weren't asking for the world, so they negociating these deals were relatively easy.

The first major change to pay for new crew back in 1997, was due to this starting to change, with players like Virgin lowering the "market rate" for UK crew. (BASSA opposed these changes, CC89 negociated a deal that was accepted by their membership and the wolves were kept from the door for a few years)

Now, with shorthaul low cost operators, pushing fares in Europe down to levels of 10 years ago and carriers like Emirates, Singapore, Etiad etc doing the same to longhaul, the "market rate" makes the deal for even for post 1997 crews look too generous to continue.

The choice legacy airlines like BA face now is (as in 1997, but with a need to be more radical), do we reduce the pay and contitions to existing crew to nearer market rate, or do we employ all new crew at substancially closer to market rates. BA (as has, I believe Qantas ) chosen the latter, maybe because they thought it fairer, but also probably more likely, easier, both legally and industrially (!!!)

That BASSA has spun this whole thing out of all proportion, is not so much down to percieving a threat to is members, but a threat to it's future membership levels and income.

I note from BASSA's misive above that they are still spinning the old "you'll be sat at home with no work because all the work will be transfered to MF" mantra. When will people see that that is absurd from a financial perspective for the company. Maybe that's the intelligence BASSA/Amicus/Unite credits it's members and maybe why I left.

[Betty girl]

Well said Beagle9.

[Litebulbs]

Can't argue with any of your post. Very well put.

[vctenderness]

OK, so it wasn't true, it was Bassa then.


Litebulbs I think you are being a tad pedantic here!

The Longhaul BASSA committee of 1989 were responsible for a whole chunk of the current agreements. They broke away, as a committee, 100% to form CC89 who then went on to agree a whole range of deals now held as sacrosant by all, including the current BASSA.

The current BASSA militants refuse to negotiate on anything and have turned down more offers (prior to this dispute) than you could shake a stick at.

Just as a little aside to how poor they can represent crew. When the Arora was being built both unions were involved in the facilities. The BASSA rep on the team insisted on a large number of rooms having single beds. CC89 objected and said crew prefer to sleep in doubles and that we often refused rooms in hotels if they had singles. BASSA continued their line. When asked why, in private, they said that they often shared a room, for free, with a mate who was on B to B's and wouldn't want to sleep in a double!!!!! Self interest or what!

BA agreed with CC89 and the Arora only has doubles.

[Litebulbs]

The pedantic point that I am trying to make, badly, is that somebody or a body, negotiated to get to the current T&C's. Obviously this negotiation (sorry socialism/negative attitude), has worked for the majority of BA crew, as the majority of BA crew are at LHR.

If you want to talk about fairness, then that would be going even further down the socialist route; one deal for all brothers.

[Wirbelsturm]

Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want
confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.




Here is one reason for the death of this agreement before it starts. The only reason pay deals have been 'corporate' in the past was because all the Unions and the company agreed to it. The travesties seen in the past have led to a large proportion of various Union members to call for an end to the 'corporate one size fits all' negotiations.

If BASSA/Unite believe that their negotiating skills are so weak that they cannot achieve, alone, a fitting result for their members then why should the rest of the workforce be dragged down to their common denominator?

so far this has been refused

Quite rightly. I for one will strenously oppose my Unions negotiating team being hobbled in pay negotiations by something like this if agreed. Irrespective of your department this is, once again, BASSA showing that they have no concern about anything except for themselves. In that case BASSA can negotiate their own pay deals by themselves in the future.

[crew74]

WB I am bemused by your comment, maybe I am not intellectually equipped to deal with such sophisticated reasoning.In one sentence you say :

"If BASSA/Unite believe that their negotiating skills are so weak that they cannot achieve, alone, a fitting result for their members then why should the rest of the workforce be dragged down to their common denominator?"

Then you go on to say :
"Irrespective of your department this is, once again, BASSA showing that they have no concern about anything except for themselves."

With that last sentence in mind I can safely come to the conclusion that Bassa members and other union members are not that different ...After all isn't being concerned with one's T&C's and addressing these concerns collectively the very point of a union?

[donaldson]

For reference, is anybody able to post for me a copy of the contract that was offered to non union cabin crew last summer.

[MrBunker]

Crew74,

I don't presume to speak for the person to whom you address your question but in my mind, the answer to you would be no. A union cannot solely exist in a bubble. It has to be cognisant of the world around it, the market within which it operates and the company of which it represents a portion of the workforce.

One cannot blindly continue down the road of the BASSA style representation where no due is given to the fluidity of the industry or the present day (take a look at the latest Unite stance which now purports to argue that no change is necessary as we are no longer in a fight for survival - neatly sidestepping their own intransigence over the last 24 plus months).

It puts me in mind of the latter stages of 1984. "Do it to Julia"

MrB

[Wirbelsturm]

Crew74,

BASSA have jumped on the negotiating bandwagon by riding the coat tails of other Unions who are more skilled at negotiation than they are. Then they cast disparaging comments about how 'ill suited' the deal was and how they 'fought' to represent the CC. The pensions dispute, the pay negotiations were all conducted under 'we'll have whatever the others got'. As long as other Unions achieved an 'acceptable deal' under the umbrella of the corporate pay deal BASSA were always grumblingly happy to tag along.

Now we have seen cost cutting based upon productivity and worth why should we accept the one fits all mantra again? Surely we should all be using the cost savings benchmark as a starting point for pay negotiation and thus the 'one fits all' system won't work.

BASSA want a backstop in trying to enforce a rule where, no matter how bad their representation, no matter how bad their negotiating skills and no matter how few times they actually turn up for meaningful discussion they are guaranteed to achieve at least whatever the most successful negotiations for whatever department have achieved.

BASSA are trying to force all the other Unions in BA to negotiate for their OWN Union and the BASSA members ONLY. If a corporate agreement is called for I would strenuously resist it. Let BASSA fight their own corner. They don't need the rest of us, as BASSA have stated THEY are BA and thus the rest of us are ancillary.

[MIDLGW]

I'm surprised nobody seems to have picked up on this: in the union "comms" (posted here by JT, post 1705), the author claims they've had threats from their members and go on about "damned if we do, damned if we don't".

However, they still refuse to believe that suspended/sacked crew have behaved in a bullying wayand intimidated anyone.

Considering some crew members are "happy" to threated their own union, to me that shows they could easily do this to colleagues as well.

[Lib Dem]

Mr Woodley and Mr Simpson came out of a long negotiation with ACAS and BA with a deal that was acceptable and "the best deal available in the curent climate".
The Bassa Branch Secretary rejects it because he wasn't allowed in the room this time and then tells people how to vote on it (this the same guy that forced a Bassa re-ballot when the last outgoing Branch Secretary told members not to vote for him but support the other candidate instead?)
Then the new boss of Untie, Mr McCLuskey, is elected with 17% of the vote, rejects the offer on four points of difference without consulting the membership as promised.
Then the Bassa Branch Secretariat, without consultation with members, now gives BA TEN points of dispute.
During this time BA have sat back and done absolutely nothing to antagonise them.
I'm still getting a ballot, by the looks of things, so I will vote NO to IA and see how they spin this one again.
Will Bassa's top table ever recognise that we have absolutely no faith in their bullyboy tactics and propoganda, especially after we found out in the high courts that Bassa had lied to us about BA's refusal to negotiate before our first ballot was sent.?
Whilst a small misled minority are enjoying samosas and tomatoes at Bedfont, the rest of us will be keeping this airline going !

[JUAN TRIPP]

Can I ask you a simple question. I interpret by your post that you are still in Bassa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are, WHY? I don't personally understand anyone who is so against them still wanting to be a member. The forthcoming ballot IMO is for the 'idiots' who want another futile strike. Why vote NO? Its surely not 'our' business any more. Please understand this is a genuine question as I'm totally bemused by crew who state what you have said, yet are still a member of this (dis)organistion.

[GS-Alpha]

I find it incredible that the CC89 reps can claim to represent the views of their members when only 40 of their members actually went on strike. (I assume this figure is correct).

I also find it difficult to understand that union reps can say that the members do not want to accept the latest offer when they have not actually been given the chance to vote? "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" does not sound so clear cut to me.

Bring on the strike ballot. I'm very curious to see just how many people still want to fight this battle.

[Wirbelsturm]

hmm, now the engineering pay offer is out in the open, i feel bassa may start throwing their toys out of the pram again..


Why? Don't forget that one of DH's many new demands is that BASSA members get, automatically, at LEAST the same as the engineers if not more but never, ever less irrespective of the cuts, manpower losses and extra roles covered by the engineers and their department over the past financial mess. Doesn't the sheer audacity of the demand shine through now?

Defies belief doesn't it.

[Noonday Gunn]

Juann I left BASSA more than a year ago but I still get everything from them. I even got an email from the silver card holder that can't keep his nose out of it. Who knows where he got my private email from?

From: Mamad Kashani <[email protected]>
Date: 29 November 2010 1:50:24 AEDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER FROM MAMAD KASHANI AKHAVAN TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF UNITE THE UNION



Dear Mr McCluskey,
I am writing to congratulate you on becoming the new General Secretary of Unite the Union.
As you are aware, I have published open letters arguing that the quality of BA’s professional and experienced cabin crew is one of the few advantages left in flying with British Airways. Because of these letters and my subsequent involvements, I have witnessed first-hand the passion and enthusiasm of the cabin crew against a management that were trying to destroy the premium airline so loved by the crew.
However, I hope you would agree that Unite should and could have done better to help and represent the cabin crew in their dispute with BA’s management. It is undeniable that Unite’s badly organised campaign to convince the public that the cabin crew had no choice but to strike, has been most ineffective. Against a well managed and efficient BA publicity machine, Unite’s attempts looked amateurish.
Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management. More importantly, Unite have lost important grounds to BA management during their negotiations probably because they lacked the benefit of competent professional and business advisors that BA had the support of.
I have read with interest your recent comments in the Financial Times. You stated that in your experience there is no such thing as an “irresponsible strike”. However, in modern day Britain there are many better ways than striking to protect the interest of your members . For example, in the case of British Airways, there was a golden opportunity for your Union to persuade BA’s large shareholders that contrary to what BA management were telling them, it made financial sense for BA to agree a fair settlement with the cabin crew long before there was a need to strike.
I hope you do not mind me writing this open letter criticizing the performance of your Union and agree that it is good to receive constructive criticism from an outsider with no vested interest.

Yours sincerely,
Mamad Kashani Akhavan

[Lib Dem]

Don't worry Juan, I still get all the gash through my letterbox, including the latest letter from Len McC, so I reckon I'll get a ballot paper too.
If so, I will vote NO to any form of IA.
I do not pass any money to them anymore but they still haven't updated all their membership details, should make interesting reading for the ERBS when BA make their next injubction ! Anything I can do to help.....

[Sporran]

Looks like Mr Kashani is a paid-up member of bassa.

What a load of tosh he spouts ...... sounds like some gobby branch sec!

[binsleepen]

From Unite at BA faces court hearing on policy of dismissing Hong Kong cabin crew at 45 (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/ba_faces_court_hearing_on_poli.aspx)


BA faces court hearing on policy of dismissing Hong Kong cabin crew at 45

7 December 2010
British Airways is facing a crunch court of appeal hearing this week into its policy of dismissing its female Hong Kong cabin crew at 45 – and denying them a pension.
Unite, the largest union in the country, will be arguing that the airline must apply UK law to its Hong Kong-based female cabin crew.
The case, which affects 24 of the Hong Kong female workforce, will be held at the court of appeal in London later this week.
Unite will say that BA’s failure to reach an agreement is a shameful attempt to continue to discriminate against its employees on both age and race grounds.
In January this year, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld an employment tribunal 2008 ruling that the airline was wrong to claim that the women's Hong Kong nationality excluded them from the jurisdiction of UK employment law.
Unite urged BA then to respect that judgement and move swiftly to end the discriminatory practices, however the airline said it would contest the EAT ruling at the court of appeal.
Unite national officer for Civil Aviation, Brendan Gold, said: "BA’s mistreatment of these women is a stain on the reputation of a leading and iconic British company which has allowed such discriminatory practices to continue into the 21st century.
"We will be asking the court of appeal to uphold the tribunal's wishes that these workers are covered by UK employment law and as such must not be discriminated against on any grounds, including their race or age.
"By continuing with its intransigence, BA is treating a group of its workers as second class employees. It should not be allowed to sack female workers at 45. BA’s position is further undermined by the anti-age discrimination introduced in the UK in 2006."
Unite took the case to the EAT on behalf of one stewardess, Eliza Mak, and 16 colleagues. Eliza received her dismissal letter from BA when she turned 45, despite having worked for the airline since 1988.
BA dismisses its female Hong Kong crew when they turn 45 and denies them a pension, claiming its UK employment provisions do not apply to this workforce.
Unlike their counterparts in the UK who retire with a pension at 60, the Hong Kong crew women are forced out of their jobs 15 years early and with only a one-off payment of a few thousand pounds on which to support themselves and their families.
Unite has been pushing for BA to accept that all its employees, wherever they may reside, should be covered by the company's employment agreements, including retirement age and pension rights. The January EAT ruling - if upheld by the court of appeal - would allow those crew dismissed at 45 by BA to have their claims for discrimination heard in the UK courts.

Regards

[TorC]

Hmmm .... so would Unite also be arguing then that UK based employees of foreign airlines, and indeed ALL foreign companies, should be covered by the agreements, T&Cs and laws applicable in each carriers/companies homeland? I would certainly hope not!

Back in the 80's, I worked here in the UK for a foreign state airline. The Government owners of that airline, involved in a lengthy civil war, imposed a 10% War Levy on all employees in the home nation, and tried to also impose it on all employees of the airline, worldwide. It was very quickly pointed-out to them that UK employees worked under UK agreements, T&Cs and laws.

[Pontius]

Eliza received her dismissal letter from BA when she turned 45, despite having worked for the airline since 1988.

I would think I'm on a pretty safe bet assuming that, since they don't receive a pension, these crew don't make pension contributions. If the court rules in Unite's favour, Eliza is going to have to front up with 22 years worth of contributions. I wonder if she's considered this or whether she thinks BA will pay them for her? Perhaps Unite would like to do it instead!

Anyway, nice bit of distraction from the main event. I wonder what happened on the stage while people were looking at the sideshow?

[Copenhagen]

What about all those 21,000 workers working for Tesco in China? Are Unite demanding that Tesco employ them on UK Terms & Conditions? I think not. What about Tesco workers in markets with stronger Terms than what the UK gives?

The precedence of this case could bankrupt UK based global companies.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Let's not forget these crew members have already won an employment tribunal, so they appear to have the law on their side.

Anything that gives rights to overseas employees of airlines is good news AFAIAC, because it makes it harder for our jobs to be outsourced.

[Juan Tugoh]

How difficult is it for a company to move its headquarters and basing to another country? If BA were to move its headquarters to say Spain would that change things?

[Wirbelsturm]

Possibly we could all demand the Iberia Terms and Conditions?

That REALLY would throw the cat amongst the Staff Travel Pigeons. Date of joining based loading? I think not.

It seems very odd to me that Unite will pick headline grabbing causes without considering the further legal/financial ramifications.

[anotherthing]

As BASSA are so bent on using military analogies and likening themselves to Generals, the above is interesting considering how HMG treats the Gurkhas...

Like it or not, the Hong Kong Cabin Crew signed up knowing fully what they were entitled to. Companies all over the World employ people on different contracts even if they are doing the same job, depending where they live.

[Abbey Road]

Anything that gives rights to overseas employees of airlines is good news AFAIAC, because it makes it harder for our jobs to be outsourced.Hmm, not so sure about that. Could it not lead to:

1. The UK company moving it's HQ to another country, as well as opening offices in other (several) countries such that those employees based in those countries are on 'local' Ts & Cs, more restrictive than those they currently have?

or:

2. The UK company just stops hiring foreign nationals?

There are losses, either way .

[Hubert Davenport]

Looks like Mr Kashani is a paid-up member of bassa.

What a load of tosh he spouts ...... sounds like some gobby branch sec!

I doubt he needs to be paid by BASSA.

Mohammad (Mamad) Kashani Akhavan - Google Profile (http://www.google.com/profiles/glfinance2)

No other opinions welcome:ugh:

[MrBunker]

Don't have an opinion either way about the gentleman's involvement in the dispute but I would note that his profile linked above appears to be self-written.

MrB

[GayGourmet]

I do understand the points that some of you have made about the HKG ICC crew. Yes, they signed the contract and yes, they are employed overseas.

However. They work on a British registered aircraft, spend time training in London and work albeit briefly in UK airspace. They also spend much if not all their downroute (ie "work") time in London.

Moreover, forget the laws and the contracts and everything else for the moment and ask yourself - is this fair?

For once, Unite are supporting an ethical issue, and I for one wish the HKG crew the best of luck.

Meanwhile, at LHR sadly, its a completely different story.

[PC767]

Having spoken often to HK based BA cabin crew about thius issue, I can tell you it isn't about pension rights.

The main issue is the right to continue in employment, they make their own pension arrangements. Only BA continue the practice of sacking female crew because they turn fourty years old among our competitors out of HK.

I find the discrimination desperately outdated and shameful for a blue chip british company.

[Betty girl]

I completely agree with you.

It wasn't so long ago that British Airways made female uk based cabin crew retire at 35 or when they got married but male cabin crew were allowed to carry on until retirement.

This practice only stopped when the law was changed.

I am shocked that BA still think it is ok, in this day and age, to discriminate like this, even if these HK girls did know about it before they joined.

Doesn't make it right. They should be able to retire at the normal retirement age.

[gr8tballsoffire]

On the face of it, it seems unfair and discriminatory and I agree with others that it is morally wrong.

The question is, is it legally justified or not? Do other airlines with HKG based crew have the same policy?

[TorC]

As wrong as the treatment of HKG CC may/may not be, surely this is an issue that should be taken-up with whatever body it is that oversees and governs employment issues in HKG, not a UK union via a UK Court?

Meanwhile, it seems CC89 have been left out in the cold ..... again:

8th December 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE: Meetings With BA


It is our understanding that a meeting was held yesterday between Unite and British Airways. However, we were only made aware of this late on Monday evening. In spite of the serious nature of these discussions, the company refused to offline anyone from AMICUS to attend.
We have yet to receive any feedback from anyone on the progress of these talks, and we believe that another meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, with a meeting of all reps to be organised at some point very soon.
In the meantime, we have no reason to believe that the imminent ballot of industrial action will not be underway as planned.

(uniteba.com)

[Sporran]

Can someone please explain to the over-inflated egos of the buffoons in bassa and cc89 that they are 'branches'. Furthermore, as very explicitly explained by Judge Holland, the two branches behaved liked primary kids the first time round - so I do not believe for one second that their collective behaviour, petulence, idiocy etc etc will have changed.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

While I feel rather sorry for the majority of bassa members, even although they voted these clowns into power, I hope that BA stick to their guns and do not give in to the bully-boy tactics of these union branches.

If they vote for strike action again - please let the 'new' people department (now run by a scheming lawyer) run matters. Hopefully they will deal with the bassamentals in the good old-fashioned way - gloves off, knuckledusters on and give them a right good kicking. After all, that used to be the way that militant union members behaved, so it is about time they got a taste of their own medicine.

After all the angst, nastiness and general misery that the militant clowns have put us all through I believe ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

[essessdeedee]

Moreover, forget the laws and the contracts and everything else for the moment and ask yourself - is this fair?
If you signed a 'fair' contract. Is it then right that, at the end of that contract, you start screaming that it is no longer fair? What if it was the other way around and the employer demands that you must stay on for 20 more years?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I'm really curious why being cabin crew is a hard life?

Yes, you are missing something Vortex, the 900 hours refers to block hours only, that is the time spent in the air and it does not include pre- and post-flight duties, turnaround duties, stanbys etc.

I get up at 0630 in the morning, if I'm not showered by 0650 and on the road to the train station and so London by 0700 I cannot make my office by 0900. If not I might lose my job.

I then work until 1730. Not allowed to leave earlier for various reasons.

I then head off for the train station heading home. If I miss the early one it means I have to take the slow one, adds an hour to my travel time.

I get home at 2100 if I get the slow one, 2030 if I get the early one. Just enough time to eat, take in the news and go to bed, and so we begin again.

Some of us work much longer hours, start adding the numbers up and wind your arrogant neck in.

You wonder why you have no public support?

[GayGourmet]

Essessdeedee wrote:

If you signed a 'fair' contract. Is it then right that, at the end of that contract, you start screaming that it is no longer fair? What may have been "fair" when the contract was signed is clearly not fair now. Not to me anyway.

If nobody challenges these things, they do not change. I think this worth challenging.

What if it was the other way around and the employer demands that you must stay on for 20 more years?What if you say "no"? ;)

[Juan Tugoh]

I'm no supporter of BASSA, but with all due respect VWO you are talking about something of which you know nothing. You do not regularly work throughout the night. You do not suffer the long term effects of jetlag, dehydrating atmospheres and increased radiation levels. You, like millions of people work hard, well so do cabin crew.

If you work a 40 hour week and work for 48 weeks a year you work for 1920 hours per year. Crew duty hours - remember the 900 number is flying hours only - are limited by law to 190 in a 28 day period. Take off 6 weeks leave and this is 1985 hours a year = effectively the same amount of duty as the 40 hour per week person without the additional environmental stressors that cabin crew have to deal with.

So perhaps you would like to do the maths - I have deliberately left out the commute to work as we all have to deal with that, you are not unique there. We all choose where we live and how close that is to work. Your inclusion of your travel plans is irrelevant to the argument, many people commute long distances to work, cabin crew included.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Mr/Mrs Vortex is having a week off to think about the rules he/she signed up to when joining this website.

CC Forum Moderators

[Juan Tugoh]

With all due respect, why is it that anyone that disagrees with an assertion does not live in the real world? Is it because a trite, snappy, soundbite response excuses one of having to argue one's points logically?

[Beagle9]

Actually VWO, a rather more useful figure is the annual DUTY HOURS max for cabin crew of 2000. This includes report times before the FLYING DUTY (to which the 900 hours refers) starts, and the clear time after any flying duty finishes, as well as any pure ground duties performed, such as training.

In other words an exact comparison to your annual 9 - 5.30 working hours total. ie Almost identical.

Oh, and regarding your comment about not leaving early for any reason? I can assure you, once our flying duty period begins, we don't leave early for any reason either!!;)

[One annoyed realist]

I'm no supporter of BASSA, but with all due respect VWO you are talking about something of which you know nothing. You do not regularly work throughout the night. You do not suffer the long term effects of jetlag, dehydrating atmospheres and increased radiation levels. You, like millions of people work hard, well so do cabin crew.

If you work a 40 hour week and work for 48 weeks a year you work for 1920 hours per year. Crew duty hours - remember the 900 number is flying hours only - are limited by law to 190 in a 28 day period. Take off 6 weeks leave and this is 1985 hours a year = effectively the same amount of duty as the 40 hour per week person without the additional environmental stressors that cabin crew have to deal with.

So perhaps you would like to do the maths - I have deliberately left out the commute to work as we all have to deal with that, you are not unique there. We all choose where we live and how close that is to work. Your inclusion of your travel plans is irrelevant to the argument, many people commute long distances to work, cabin crew included.

We all take jobs based on travel and work time. Lots of people work hard, Cabin Crew are nothing special. If you don't like it, get another job!! It's what the rest of us do.

[Juan Tugoh]

We all take jobs based on travel and work time. Lots of people work hard, Cabin Crew are nothing special

Yup, that was my point. Cabin crew, like workers everywhere, work hard in a job they chose. Trying to pretend they somehow have a easy time at work based on them only working for 900 hours a year was erroneous and needed to be addressed.

Cabin crew are special; it takes a special type of person to do that job well, for a career. It also takes someone special to be a good stockbroker or chef or oil rig worker or air traffic controller. Being special does not imply that you are in some way a better person, merely that you have a particular skill set or personality type, that you are different from the herd. Cabin crew are special, not better, if they aren't they do not last in the job.

Perhaps we could all stick to the issues, this is not about crew as individuals but about them as an industrial grouping.

[One annoyed realist]

Quote:
We all take jobs based on travel and work time. Lots of people work hard, Cabin Crew are nothing special
Yup, that was my point. Cabin crew, like workers everywhere, work hard in a job they chose. Trying to pretend they somehow have a easy time at work based on them only working for 900 hours a year was erroneous and needed to be addressed.

Indeed, if the average worker put in 8 hours a day for 21 days a month they would do 168 hours a month or 2000+ hours a year. Slave labour!