BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

[ChicoG]

He does seem a bit of a hothead, but that wasn't really my point. After all, for such a step to taken, it needs the approval of his peers.

[BetterByBoat]

Not sure how reissuing contracts will help - BA have a proportion of cabin crew who are disgruntled, embittered (not sure about what) and deluded. Reissuning new contracts will hardly help any of those matters. It would appear that the dispute is too far gone for rational thought as even the more moderate cabin crew who are for strike action seem to be living in a world of their own.

Posted by PC767 on the Cabin Crew thread - "And of course removing my little responsibility and authority is a consequence of reducing my t&cs and pay. The entire thread creep is a consequence of BA dispute and encouragement of war with it's cabin crew."

Sorry - but if this is representative of BA Cabin Crew then it is a sad state of ignorance ... can anyone explain to me when PC767 had their pay reduced? What terms and conditions have been affected? And wasn't it PC767s union leader (DH) who declared a "guerilla war" on BA after boasting of "No Negotiation"?

If the strike ballot is for strike action and it is deemed unprotected, then I can't see any other option other than sacking the strikers. It is the only way for the company to move forward in the face of a significant number of cabin crew who seem to be living in their own world ... as PC767 states in a later post:

"to my mind it highlighted the loss of CRM that is occurring at BA as a result of the dispute and the intensifying of the power battle between managers and crew"

That seems to sum up the problem with a percentage of BA cabin crew - they think they run the airline .. and they think they should be allowed to manage it. Just how big that percentage is will become apparent with the next strike ballot results.

[Diplome]

Duffus:

I'm sure what you say is true for you personally.

There are many who would quite strongly disagree with that rather dismissive approach to individuals who both perform operations critical to an airline's success.

Kudo's to someone who has managed to shock me with his lack of respect for others' work. It must be rather pleasant to live in a world where all is black and white and gray never enters to confuse the picture.

[ChicoG]

I do think PC767's indignation at some of the pilots' comments illustrates their state of mind though. All that was said was that the flight deck should be informed of a medical emergency in case they need to divert the aircraft.

PC767 immediately bristles and says that they shouldn't have to contact the captain to dish out a paracetamol.

I don't think anyone said that, and it's indicative of the straw-clutching BASSA mentality that they will distort a perfectly fair comment to try and illustrate that they are hard done by.

I'm sure most reasonable cabin crew are more than aware of the difference between a minor medical issue (needing a plaster or an analgesic) and a bloody serious medical problem, and can decide what needs to be reported upwards and what doesn't. I doubt this has ever changed.

I wish they'd stop acting like spoilt, whiny schoolkids.

[rethymnon]

The CC forum has waxed indignant that BA is (apparently) showing preference to the cabin crew who are not backing militant action.

at first sight, this may appear to have some justification. however, if it is 'fair' that BASSA and Unite can apply pressure to the employer (Strikes, working to rule, hot towels, window blinds etc), surely the employer has some justification for putting employees in place where they have shown responsibility and support for the employer.

it is easy to dismiss this as putting toadies and yes-men forward. that is not in the interests of the long term future of the business and BA have shown they are grown-up enough to avoid that. it would be up to the critics to show that the preferred candidates are unqualified in some respect before that suggestion could stick.

can someone remind me when we are likely to hear the outcome of the ballot please?

[ChicoG]

According to BA:

Unite has informed us of its decision to ballot BA cabin crew members for further strike action.

The ballot will run between 21 December and 21 January. If the ballot result is in favour of industrial action, the earliest the
crew could go on strike would be 28 January.

[MCOflyer]

Has anyone seen anything in the way of a statement from CC89 as to how their meeting went? With all they had to say recently they seem to have gone to ground.

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry ChicoG but I disagree with this - "straw-clutching BASSA mentality" ... I think it is indicative of the numbers of "straw clutching British Airways cabin crew". It is British Airways cabin crew that called for this strike action and British Airways cabin crew who can end it. They can't hide behind BASSA for everything.

The fact that PC767 seems to think there is a power struggle between cabin crew and management as to who runs the company speaks volumes of just how deluded significant numbers of British Airways cabin crew seem to be. Have they not realised that cabin crew work in the cabin (the name of the role sort of gives it away). Pilots sit at the front and, well, pilot the plane. And managers manage.

Just how long will it take for BA cabin crew to realise this?

[notlangley]

I only wish BA Press Office would publish a rebuttal in the same vain._________is the plea from Grt8ballsoffire.


This is the rebuttalHowever, in a statement responding to the survey, BA said it "utterly refutes Unite's claims".

"As a responsible company we do not tolerate the bullying or harassment of any of our 40,000 colleagues. The company has an established disciplinary process that is consistent across the airline, has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all of the airline's recognised trade unions, including Unite."

Reference:-__link (http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2011/01/bullying-is-rife-at-british-airways-union-survey-claims.htm)

[TopBunk]

Latest from CC89/Amicus branch of Unite following their small huddle on 10th January:

10th January 2011 - Unite CC89 Member Meeting Report Back



The following is an abbreviated account of what happened at the Unite Cabin Crew 89 Members meeting on 10th Jan 2010. All details are not included as this is published on an open website. Full details can be obtained directly from the committee.



The day started with a quick meeting for the reps.

The meeting then began with an update of recent events and the current situation.

We know from Unite office that 250 of our 1200 members claimed strike pay, rather than the 35 or 40 that has been rumoured, which is over 20% of our membership.



It included a statement that we have seismically moved the debate during the last few weeks, especially when we rejected the offer which received support many people across the community.



National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.



A discussion was had about the website and our future communications. An undertaking was given that we would continue to improve the service and a discussion was had about the cost of introducing a text service.

A discussion was had on the best way to handle the upcoming industrial action, whether it should be similar to past periods or not. A decision was taken.



A series of votes was then taken:



- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.

- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.

- support was given to the stand the committee had made and the publications we put out.

- the committee is required by the members to pursue a more vigorous approach to the dispute, and requested immediate dates for action when the ballot closed.

- the action should maximise the protected period

- reps must be allowed to attend the meetings.



A discussion was had and an explanation given about the significance of the Redeployment Agreement and Career-link, and the Employment Regs 2010 document, and the implications they have for us.



The members also asked that the close relationship with Bassa is furthered and continued for the good of the community as a whole. Recognition was given to the fact that Unite require a formal agreement for amalgamation and that is acceptable to the members, but every effort to retain a good deal of independence should be made. A vote and a positive result would be required under the CC89 constitution for this to go ahead.



Finally a reminder that . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.UniteBA.com) is the primary point for information. There is a new and improved email alert service and you can register for this on the website on the top right hand corner of the home page.



Once again a reminder that the emergency phone status has been downgraded and can be used to contact the reps for any and all enquiries from 09:00 - 18:00 for non emergency enquiries and 24 hours coverage for emergency operational calls.

[moses30u]

Baggers, you've competely missed my point. I was stating that I find the arguements on this thread a little tedious and you've replied with "he said, she said" arguement, about someone wearing pants! I'd say to you to try and rise above it, but it obviously bothers you.

I had every sympathy towards BA at the start of this strike when they were posting record losses.

However, I now think there's more to this than meets the eye. Look beyond the media coverage and there's some questions I find baffling.

BA have their much sought permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working conditions, with the introduction of a cheap labour resource with minimal employment rights. They appear to be back on the road to profit.

What, I can't get my head round is the continual bashing of cabin crew on here. Having worked off on the oil rigs, I understand the pressures involved with being away from family and believe me, it's no picnic (though the money softened the blow!).

What more do you people and your company want from the cabin crew? I reckon the majority of them are honest, decent and hard working people who take pride in their jobs. They're understandably concerned for their futures.

Protect the current crew from suffering too much future financial loss, big up the new crews hats, move on and enjoy the profits and dividends.

[Betty girl]

Well said Moses.

[Wirbelsturm]

Moses,

Protect the current crew from suffering too much future financial loss

Bizarrely enough, right back when, at the start of this mess, the company wasn't going to cut wages at all, new fleet was up for discussion between BASSA and the company and the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.

When BASSA refused, steadfastly, to negotiate, claimed ridiculous cost savings on a temporary basis and threw a hissy fit at having to share discussions with other CC Unions they refused to negotiate further, thus the company imposed changes that were required to implement an emergency business plan.

Throughout this it has been BASSA that have been intransigent, beligerent and childish, not the individual crew members, many of whom have been caught up in the cross fire.

BASSA are the problem, with their small minority of militant members with the loudest shout.

I remember the rigs well! Hated those landing pads in the night! Long live the bears.

[Diplome]

He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.




Does anyone remember what the last report of BASSA membership was before they removed it from their website? Does the 8975 represent further movement down?

I realize that the nature of Cabin Crew's employment makes tracking conduct more difficult than those in a static workplace but am truly surprised that CC89/Amicus have so little information regarding the number of their members that actually went on strike at this late date.

[Lord Bracken]

- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.

Interesting that they're still banging on about this when it has been proven in a court of law that
- BA have the right to impose changes to crewing levels as they do not form part of the contract of employment of cabin crew members
- the agreements themselves are in fact "Gentlemen's agreements" and are not enforceable in law.

[Diplome]

Lord Bracken:

I agree. The crewing level change is a done deal...yet its still being discussed. Rather disheartening regarding any prospect of progress.

It certainly looks like continued IA and the rhetoric coming out of Unite/BASSA doesn't seem to be promising for reasonable negotiations.

[Betty girl]

'the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.'

Wirbelstrum.

I am sorry but that was not all that was required by BA to integrate Mixed Fleet, even way back at the beginning.

Speaking as one who would have liked Bassa and Amicus to negotiate on our behalf at the time, instead of arguing between each other,I still feel I have to correct you because BA always wanted changes to our agreements as well as the crew changes.

You see the problem with everyone having their own take on all of this is that most of you lack the complete facts and tend to simplify a really complicated dispute.

There is NO good side and bad side in this dispute, mistakes have been made on both sides and continue to be made on both sides. Many cabin crew are stuck in the middle, like myself, and are completely powerless to do anything about it. I have left the union and did not strike. That's all I could do but even those that have built up a mistrust of BA and decided to strike, still feel trapped in between two sets of children and helpless to do anything to stop it all.

I understand full well why BA have felt the need to start Mixed Fleet but has it been brought in as promised with market rate plus 10% salaries? NO it has not. Has it been brought in in a non-confrontational way? No. So even people like me who have been loyal to BA are starting to question whether they actually want a settlement!!!!

[SwissRef]

for the CC89/Amicus above:
- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.

And so they very neatly put in the public domain a document linking the current ballot (and therefore any strike) to the original dispute. :ugh::ugh::ugh: (Or have I mis-interpreted the document?)

Surely someone in the Unions must realise that, despite it being obvious this is a continuation of the dispute, that they need to ensure they don't actually connect the two, hence making it possible to claim it is not connected. And by publicly stating they are connected, they are doing their members no favours at all.

They can't organise consecutive strikes without having a strategy to ensure they aren't connected, but think they can manage an airline....:confused:

[maintprog]

Does anyone remember what the last report of BASSA membership was before they removed it from their website? Does the 8975 represent further movement down?




Last displayed figures were 9278 on 09/09/2010.

[just an observer]

As I understand it, to have had new joiners integrated with existing CC, existing CC would have had to accept a reduction in the payments made for trips/allowances etc, more realistic 'disruption', days off away and at base and so on. This BASSA etc refused to consider.

That would presumably have involved some kind of overall pay cut, (with shares as a sweetener as with the pilots?) but the terms for new joiners may have been better as the same cake would be shared more equally?

Certainly the union could perhaps have realistically negotiated in an attempt to find an integrated solution, it's a little rich now to say how bad mixed fleet terms are, when, effectively, those looking out for existing CC could be said to have left MF to suffer in order to preserve existing CC terms. Ie the totally selfish option. (btw, this comment is not aimed at BG and the like, who I am sure would have negotiated if in a position to do so, more BASSA and it's latest ballot reasons, and various comments from existing crew I have seen on the BA section of cabincrew.com). Plus if they had at least tried negotiation, even if it failed, BA would be much more the PR loser.

The savings from IFCE are in two parts, 1) from existing CC by working less crew to an aircraft, but basically getting the same money as before, and 2) the lower pay of new joiners. Certainly I can't see any reason why existing CC should be immune from any budget savings just because new crew are coming in at a lower rate of pay. The rest of BA staff have had to live with the results of budget savings - largely the same way, same work, less people doing it - so should existing CC.

Just out of interest, how many crew on MF aircraft? If existing crew are working harder for keeping their higher salary, and the new crew are earning less anyway, there is an argument that they, MF, should either not work so hard, or, preferably, provide a better service to passengers, by having more crew on board. BA does keep going about MF offering better service, more crew per passenger might help achieve it.

[call100]

Seems some posts have been deleted.........Could someone have a fairy godmother/father in mod land??

[Wirbelsturm]

Sorry to correct you but:

I still feel I have to correct you because BA always wanted changes to our agreements as well as the crew changes.


Project Columbus was just that, a project. BASSA got wind of it and started screaming blue murder then the economic whirldwind hit. BASSA put 2 and 2 together and, as usual, came up with 5.

As part of the negotiations BA offered to shelve MF and discuss savings options with BASSA which were to include combined payments. BASSA, once again fearing it would primarily hit the core CSD's, refused point blank to negotiate and off the whole mess started.

Yes BA have made mistakes. Weak management, inneffective control of a beligerent Union and a point blank unwillingness to curb the control of BASSA in the past has led to such an Ivory tower that when a CEO has the balls to take it down the sheep bleat blue murder. It's been too long coming and the pain of the adjustment is, subsequently, harsh.

[Betty girl]

Wirbelstrum,

You agree then, they were asking for more than just reduced crewing levels.

That was the only thing BA implemented without agreement which caused Bassa to go mental and call for strikes but at the time discussions were about a whole raft of savings, as you say, some combined payments and working later for E/F on last day, only one senior rank on E/F etc etc.

[Sporran]

Betty Girl,

As I recall they were not being as specific about what changes were required.

The requirement was to save a sum of money, in the same way that all other departments were tasked with saving a set sum of money.

Other departments realised just how serious the financial climate was, after checking BAs figures with other sources, and then some of these departments engaged with their members to find out the preferences of the members. All these other departments engaged and negotiated - except one!!!!

I do not doubt that BA have made the 'initial' required savings, but NF is also about recovering the costs incurred by strike action. Why should all the other workers in BA suffer financial loss caused directly by the intransigence of bassa.

Alas, part-time being offered out of order is a direct consequence of bassa continuing their path to destruction. I am sure that I would also feel that it was unfair if I had been passed over for transfer onto a part-time contract, but while bassa continue with their present stance there is no direct contact between BA and the 'collective bargaining group'.

It may not appear the moral course, but I cannot blame BA for 'rewarding' workers who have demonstrated their loyalty over others who have shown such disregard for BA as a whole and their other 'colleagues' across the airline.

[Wirbelsturm]

In an unusual move by the company they gave each department a target based upon their relative productivity and told each department to come up with a way of saving that amount.

BASSA refused to agree anything, discuss anything or rationalise anything thus the change was imposed, 4 months after the deadline passed for all other departments.

As a result of the unwillingness of BASSA to negotiate and have a handle on whether MF was introduced or not, the dispute started. BASSA have made a complete pigs ear from start to finish of this entire IA. IMHO the company has been very patient dealing with BASSA but I'm sure that patience is wearing thin. The T's & C's origionally gifted BASSA and the CC in the 80's and only lightly ammended over the interim don't belong in this century. Every other department realised that and rationalised. Why should the CC be the same? Only because BASSA shout IA all the time?

Hasn't worked.

Time to change.

[Betty girl]

Wirbelstrum,
Just so we can be sure that BA were always wanting changes to our agreements and please note, I was in favour of Bassa negotiating some chganges but they were at the time refusing to sit in the same room as Amicus. I have copied for you a post made by Bill Fransis on 9th October 2009 well before the crew reductions were introduced, for you to see because I realise that you, not being cabin crew and not present at any of the meetings, may have got your information a bit mixed up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
9th October 2009
You are right I have had a change of heart re future crew, following the feedback from current crew.

The proposal to mix current crew and future crew together would have required significant changes to existing terms and conditions. You saw this in the proposal, examples being the reduction of nights downroute, the reduction in days off on Eurofleet, early day reports and changes to finishing times.

The feedback from crew clearly told me that none of these changes were acceptable to them, and so by changing back to a seperate fleet for any new recruits means that all of these changes can be avoided.

Thanks
Bill
__________________
Bill Francis
Head of InFlight Customer Experience (IFCE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you that Bassa have made a pigs ear of everything and made everything worse but your statement earlier that-

'new fleet was up for discussion between BASSA and the company and the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.'
is not correct.

[Lord Bracken]

Wasn't the deadline for efficiency savings from all departments 30 June 2009, over 4 months before the above commentary?

[Betty girl]

Yes but he is referring to the proposal he wanted to put through but Bassa would not talk and were shortly to call a strike because he went ahead and implemented the bit that did not need Bassa's agreement, the crew compliments.

[Wirbelsturm]

Betty Girl,

BA were willing to table new fleet well before Bill Franciss' memo above. The company were well aware of the contention that the project was causing and it offered, as part of the early negotiation, to bring MF and its inception/shelving to the table. BASSA refused to negotiate. The refused to sit in with the other Unions and they refused to believe/be briefed on the economic situation. Why should they bother with a little point of securing their members futures?

Dress it up in any way you wish but the initial imposition didn't hit anyone in the pocket anywhere near as hard as in many other departments.

[Betty girl]

Your right.

Though the real problem now is that very few cabin crew trust BA and particularly the strikers believe, that he wants to force them, in the future, onto Mixed Fleet terms and conditions.

I don't actually believe that this is in the plan but even I, that have been trusting of BA, get a bit jittery from time to time and worry about how I will afford my home if things change dramatically in the future.

Couple that with their feelings of being hard done by, by the removal of staff travel and I know that this was within BA's right to do, but it is this that feeds this strike action. Fear and mistrust I am afraid and those of us that are more moderate and have a more balanced view can't even chat about it to people because it is just not possible to have a conversation about anything like this at work, for fear of someone getting upset and therefore not being able to have a good working relationship with them.

[Colonel White]

Betty Girl

I would reckon that any cabin crew who signed the deal are OK for the next two years. Beyond that is pure crystal ball gazing, but that is not just BA. The airline industry is high risk. If you look at the number of carriers in Europe alone that have gone out of business in the past five years it is quite scary. I think some BA staff still have the mindset that existed prior to privatisation - namely that the company could not possibly fold - that the government would step in and prevent that from happening and really we all have jobs for as long as we want them. This just isn't true and hasn't been for at least 15 years. Airlines are highly susceptible to oil price changes, acts of aggression, terrorism, natural disasters, and that's before we start on regulatory approvals, government taxation and duty plus the global economic state. There is no such thing as a safe job and working for an airline is riskier than an awful lot of other jobs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, BA management could spin you a line that you had a job for life, but in doing so they would have to have their fingers crossed behind their backs, because it just isn't like that anymore. Instead I think that they have been reasonably upfront and provided some kind of reassurance for a timeframe that they can project against. To go beyond that is pure guesswork.

The other thing is that I feel there is a general attempt by cabin crew to personalise this whole affair. It's not personal. It's not Willie Walsh or Bill Francis having a pop at cabin crew. It's BA management seeking to do what is best for the airline. If they don't do that we are all out of work. The managers are paid to make the tough decisions. They are not automatons, they do appreciate that there are real people with mortgages and families to worry about out there who will bear the impact of their decisions. But if it is a choice between everyone working a bit harder or the risk that huge chunks of the company simply cease to exist, which would you rather they took ?

[Litebulbs]

British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.

However, I imagine that the T&C's of ALL would change.

This is my opinion of course, without any supporting evidence.

[Betty girl]

Why are those that signed only ok for two years.

You are making the mistake that Bassa supporters did. It was only the pay deal that was for two years. The deal we signed was for until it was amended through negotiation.
Quote from deal-
--------------------------------------------------------------

Assurances for you

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

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

So part of me feels safe in what BA says but the other bit of me just worries like all other crew do. It is hard to explain but constantly crew are telling each other that we will be forced onto Mixed Fleet and human nature makes you start to worry if you hear it often enough.

[iainar]

"British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed."

Although now a less often SLF, I've been following this and the other thread with interest but reading this post I'm begining to think that I must be on another planet!

-- I would suspect the IAG "British Airways" brand name will be around for as long as it suits the new IAG Corporate structure.

-- I doubt the British Government would be so foolish as to step in and maitain a private sector service company. More taxpayers money going into a 'bale out' following the banking nonsense? A half Spanish owned company? EU legislation, etc. etc.

-- How on earth could this airline 'bring the country to its knees'? What is BA's proportion of the country's GDP? My apologies but this one really has me giggling and I cannot believe it was written in earnest.

[MCOflyer]

If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.

I respect your opinions very much having followed this thread for many months. I worked for AA here in the states years ago and I don't think that would ever cross my mind no matter how bad things could get for an airline. I guess it's because there has never been an airline here owned by the government and so many here have been merged or gone out of business. Who knows though after Chrysler, GM and the banks. You may be right in both countries.

[notlangley]

Betty girl saidThough the real problem now is that very few cabin crew trust BA and particularly the strikers believe, that he wants to force them, in the future, onto Mixed Fleet terms and conditions.I ask six questions.

1. Will a Heritage Cabin Crew member be unhappy if forced onto MF T&C?

2. Are unhappy CC less able to radiate charm to cabin passengers?

3. Are not CC the interface with the passengers, the which enables passengers to subjectively choose the best airline?

4. Why should BA management adopt a strategy that diminishes the image and the profitability of BA?_ I could rephrase this and ask "In your opinion are BA management totally stupid?".

5. Is this rumour typical of those spread by certain persons who are no longer CC because they were found to be failing in their job?

6. Are there not several of these who are persons of influence in the BASSA inner circle?

To be realistic, BA management must include a range of people - if you like "Hardliners" and "Liberals"._ And decisions such as hats for MF was maybe made by a hardliner who is slightly out of tune with the Hymn that BA management is singing.

[Juan Tugoh]

If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen.

This would be illegal under EU law. The government will be unable to step in to bail out BA should it fail financially. This nonsense notion that BA has a fairy godmother in the government is both dangerous and naive. It flies against the evidence that is out there of what really happens when a national carrier fails within the EU.

That is not to say that there would not be some kind of national carrier emerge, possibly grafted onto an already existing company like VS or BMI, but it would not employ on BA T&Cs, nor would it employ the same numbers of people. Many people would lose their jobs, it would be disaster. There will be no miraculous BA2 with everybody still employed, all still on the same T&Cs that lead to a failed company. Those that got a job would be working the max allowed for the min possible pay.

This dangerous and frankly silly view has persisted within BA for many years, contrary to EU law, common sense and the example of Sabena. BA is not an asset of vital national interest, though many would like to believe that it is. There are many companies that will take up the slack and that will use the law to prevent the government from just stepping in to bail out BA should it fail.

[The Blu Riband]

British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.

Complete drivel!
Why do you think this, and why would you even say it , when you know it would never happen?

[Dawdler]

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

I see that from their statement that 80% of their membership did not join the earlier strikes. Somewhat different to the "overwhelming support" claimed by the unions for the IA.

We should be grateful however for CC89 throwing some light on the membership figure of BASSA which since the counter was removed from the BASSA website, has resolutely stated "around 10,000" is now revealed as below 9,000. The actual figure given is 8975 which is getting on for 2,000 less than fourteen months ago.

[Joao da Silva]

This would be illegal under EU lawNot necessarily.

timesofmalta.com - EU allows ?52m loan to keep Air Malta flying (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101115/local/eu-authorises-52m-loan-facility-for-air-malta)

Let me add quickly that I know very little about Malta and the special circumstances that lead to the EU approval, but post the article to show that the situation is not black and white.

[Juan Tugoh]

Agreed the situation is not black and white, they seldom are. What is clear from the article is that there are strings attached, that this loan is part of a re-structuring process including the import of "foreign" experts to put the business back on a sound economic footing.

The same would happen IF such government assistance were to be allowed. It would certainly not happen automatically and the government would have to ask permission from the EU to help.

The situation in Malta seems to be entirely different, there is essentially only one carrier whereas there are other carriers here that could and would take up the reins. Either way, the restructuring package would change the airline forever, the naive conceit that everything would be as it was before is both dangerous and stupid.

[Litebulbs]

Your opinion is not one that I agree with.

[Hipennine]

I would venture to suggest that as a direct result of BASSA's skilled PR over this dispute (all the stuff in the Sun, etc.), that public support for a govt bail-out might not be entirely sympathetic, and therefore more politically unacceptable than a bank bail-out. I can just see the headlines "Taxpayers suffer so Trolley Dollies can continue to swan it up in Rio" etc, etc. Yet another example of how other BA employees may be directly adversely impacted in the future by Bassa's conduct now !

[Betty girl]

Thanks notlangley,

Most of the time I think like that. It's only every now and again I have a little wobble and worry.

I think you are right.


With regard to the union figures, I think the figure for membership maybe even lower because a few crew who have left the union received ballot papers. I did not but I personally know of some that did.

[LD12986]

We don't have the money to bailout BA!

If BA went bust there would be no need for Government intervention. There would be plenty of willing purchasers to buy the slots/assets.

[LD12986]

On numbers, why on earth is CC89 pressing for more strike action, when by its own admission, only approximately 20% of its members actually went on strike?!

[call100]

On numbers, why on earth is CC89 pressing for more strike action, when by its own admission, only approximately 20% of its members actually went on strike?!

Perhaps if those 80% had actually voted not to strike the situation would have been different. Maybe they'll get off their apathetic backsides and vote this time.

[BetterByBoat]

But equally, why did so many BA cabin crew vote for strike action in support of their union leaders and then not go on strike? This IA is not the result of BASSA \ CC89. It is the result of the majority of BA cabin crew voting for it in 2010. BASSA \ CC89 are powerless without the continued support of BA cabin crew.

PC767 hits the nail on the head on the CC forum when discussing an on-going "power struggle" ... there seem to far too many cabin crew who don't seem to have grasped that their role is to ensure the safety and well being of passengers on a flight (not a role that I am belittling as it is extremely important). But cabin crew do not (any longer) run the airline.

Out of interest - why do so few crew trust management? Can you give concrete examples of why? Especially as it seems to be a trait that no other departments in BA have to such a degree.

Is it just that BA cabin crew don't trust management because they no longer have the management in their pocket. Managers are now trying to manage and that means crew having less power ... back to PC767 ..

The results of this strike ballot will be interesting ... just how many cabin crew still support their union who voted for "no negotiation" and then vowed to wage "a guerilla campaign" against their employer. Hmm ... with employees like that, perhaps it is no wonder that management and so many others in BA mistrust cabin crew. It would also explain why so many VCC have come forward from other departments to help ensure that striking cabin crew don't get to continue their bullying of the rest of the company.

It is going to be a long and difficult road back but the first step is for striking cabin crew to realise that negotiation and not confrontation is the way forward. Many BA cabin crew have lost a lot due to their actions and further strikes might see them lose a whole lot more.

[Haymaker]

"Why did so many BA cabin crew vote for strike action in support of their union leaders and then not go on strike?"

Good question. Maybe it's because they were answering the call to "send Willie a message". Well, he got the message, rolled it into a ball and lobbed it into the waste paper basket. There should be no excuse for such illusions next time round. "Are you prepared to take industrial action?" means exactly that.

[Dairyground]

CC89 seem to be on very thin ice regarding protected status for any IA resulting from the current ballot. In their newsletter they say


any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.


To my mind, untutored in legal niceties, this seems to be strong evidence that any action this time will be a continuation of the last action, which is well past its protected life.

[Colonel White]

Interesting that CC89 have publicly stepped up the rhetoric. No such move seems to come from the BASSA camp. The big problem the union faces is voter apathy. The dispute has dragged on for so long without resolution. In reality BA don't need to do anything. Even if there is a mandate for strike action, how many cabin crew really want to lose more pay for no real benefit ? I think that the action will fizzle out. Working the numbers. Assume that there are 6000 votes for strike action. If the last ballot and walkout figures were applied this would mean around 3000 would go on strike. There are still some cabin crew members of Unite who didn't go on strike yet are still union members. At this point they may well feel inclined to leave. Anyone know the point at which a union can be derecognised ? From here on on it's a law of diminishing returns,

[Juan Tugoh]

What is certain is that unless UNITE can mobilise more people to take strike action than they did last time, any strike is doomed to failure. BA could do nothing and let the strikers wither on the vine.

The whole ethos of IA is that it will prevent the company from trading, the last strike failed to do that. Should there be more IA it has to achieve more than the last time. As IA continues the evidence from previous strikes in the UK is that support wanes.

Should BA do nothing and ignore the IA except to stop strikers pay, what could UNITE do about it? The strikers would quickly lose the ability to pay the mortgage etc and would have to return to work.

Given the weak and ambivalent support at the last strike I wonder what UNITE feel they can achieve with more IA?

[MPN11]

Given the weak and ambivalent support at the last strike I wonder what UNITE feel they can achieve with more IA?

More leverage with the Labour Party, when the Govt is a fragile coalition?

Please let us think whether the Union leadership really care about the workers, or whether they seek 'power' for themselves.
How many Trades Union leaders sit [occasionally] in the House of Lords?
How did Lord Prescott overcome his abhorrence of that institution to become "ennobled"? :yuk:

Those who believe that their TU Leaders actually care about "Fred/Ethel at t' workplace" really need a reality check. It's just a different career path for different people who are busy climbing a greasy pole of their own, with no actual consideration for those who pay the dues that subsidise their lifestyles.

[Colonel White]

Think that believing that the Unite leadership want this strike is a slight simplification of things. The people formulating the reason for striking are the branch executives and the people who have the power to determine whether those reasons are a load of tosh or not are the members. It's up to cabin crew who are still members of Unite to say whether they want to strike. Of course it behoves the branch executive to ensure that they have spelled out what the potential effect of striking will be - loss of pay, possible loss of perks, likelihood of being sacked - otherwise they are leading the membership up the garden path. Don't know if the union can be sued for issuing incorrect legal advice.

I don't see cabin crew making particularly good sacrificial lambs. As a workforce they are reasonably middle class and the cause is not going to set the comrades in the wider union's hearts aflame with indignation. However, it does allow the union to test the water around the legal angles on strike action without seriously discomforting the bulk of the members. So whilst I don't believe that the leadership will instigate a strike, I don't think they will stand in the way of the branches want to have a go. After all, what have they got to lose. BASSA membership is dropping and it is patently clear that MF cabin crew will not join it in its present guise. I can see that when this dispute eventually ends Unite may wish to set up a new branch (or radically overhaul the BASSA/CC89 set up, possibly merging the two to form a single branch with a new name) which will have none of the baggage of the past, to represent cabin crew.

[Dawdler]

On the CC forum there is an interesting video about a strike weapon used by Alaska Airways flight attendants. Basically wildcat strikes. The question is asked could BASSA adopt similar methods with BA.

As I see it there are several fundamental differences. In the example it was the company refusing to negotiate, Unannounced wild cat strikes were declared legal in the US courts. Alaska Airways were apparently initially trying to cut pay and benefits of their employees, All seem to be reciprocals of the situation in the UK.

It does however show the power of mass protest and indeed it only required twelve individuals to actually go on strike. It was interesting that the action succeeded in almost doubling the salary levels and almost bankrupting the company. The resulting settlement was based on adopting wholesale the contracts of another completely separate company, which paid more than Alaska Airways.

Who knows what would be the effect of such action if BASSA tried it in this dispute? But it founders on the premise that in Alaska, the employees seemed to have a good case ..... Another difference perhaps?

[call100]

That would take balls, conviction, commitment, belief, principle etc......You see the problem?

[LD12986]

You need only look at the response of both BA and the Unite leadership to see that any hint of unofficial industrial action would be stamped on immediately.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Colonal White

Anyone know the point at which a union can be derecognised

I believe it to be less than 40% of the workforce.

[Snas]

No, it's 50% minus one employee, but, there is quite a lot more to it than that.

If you really want a long day reading about this stuff you could start here: - http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1084264512&lang=en&r.i=1074439033&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1074436102&r.l3=1074436131&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1084264512&lang=en&r.i=1074439033&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1074436102&r.l3=1074436131&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES)

[jimd-f]

i have not seen anything posted by their members for a while on this dispute.
i would have thought that they might have still been trying to influence any floating voters, and trying to increase their numbers by posting on here.
have they now got enough members that they can try for recognition if the strike vote is no, or any strike quickly fails.
i know that BA advised that Unite could have bargaining rights for NF, but has the PCCC made any attempts at recruitment among these staff.
it just seems very strange that there was a lot of activity earlier this year, but it has all gone very quiet over this latest stage of the dispute.

[Betty girl]

Well they are posting on their own sight and speaking to their members.

I don't think there is much that any of us outside Bassa can do but watch this unfold.
I do post my personal opinions and I hope maybe others might agree but the vast majority of cabin crew don't go pprune as it is predominantly a pilot forum foremost and a lot will not have heard of it I'm afraid.

[LD12986]

Worth highlighting that another strike has been stopped by the High Court because of technical failures in the ballot process.

BBC News - Two-day strike on DLR halted by High Court injunction (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12227596)

[rethymnon]

as an outsider, can someone please explain to me why lala lady's leaving a personal roster around should be so significant to the point that it may incur dismissal?

[LD12986]

Dismissal may be a bit far fetched, but she should have not posted a crew roster on the Internet. It probably breaches the Data Protection Act and there is an obvious personal security risk in posting an individual crew roster online.

[Colonel White]

It's actually not that clever. To start with, the offending document details not just one peson, but several people's work arrangements, so from a purely personal safety angle it means that anyone looking at the roster details would know when these staff would be out of the country.
Secondly, the information in question is personal to the individuals concerned, consequently it would probably fall within the remit of the data protection act.

Now you could argue that leaving this around on a photocopier was slack, but there is a degree of trust that one has to have with colleagues. Whoever decided to put this information on a public forum clearly is not worthy of such trust.

Put it another way. If a member of the cabin crew scheduling team were to publish the rosters of the BASSA reps, the union would be baying for blood and expect the instant dismissal of the offender. So how is this action any different ?

[pcat160]

Speculation on the CC thread is that between 3000 and 4000 will vote yes for IA. The high end of this range represents 31% of the total of 13,000 CC. While there are varying views the consensus seems to be that this number will carry the vote. We know not all who vote for IA will actually go on strike. If BA takes a hard line as to the consequences of striking, such as termination of employment, the number who would actually strike could be as few as 2000. I assume that there are arguments to suggest that the strike will be “unprotected”. It really does not matter if those arguments would eventually prevail. The mere fact that BA’s position is that the strike is unprotected should discourage all but the most foolish. Would Unite allow a strike to proceed knowing the total lack of any chance of success? If Unite does allow a strike to proceed would it be to once and for all bring BASSA in line. After a failed strike CC may be more willing to accept an offer from BA. Unite has previously told CC members the current offer is the best that can currently be achieved.

[ChicoG]

I don't think it matters what Unite does, nor what the ballot says.

BA have not only weathered the tedious, but ultimately effete BASSA "storm", but they've probably achieved far more savings than they could have imagined thanks to the petulant and highly distracting footstomping and squealing of Dunkin, LaLa, etc.

IF there is a strike (and from what we've seen so far, the ballot numbers will have no bearing on the action), I for one hope that any striker is summarily dismissed.

The misery guts that permeate BA cabin crew are there for the taking. Once gone, the airline could once again be a pleasant one to fly.

Oh, and I noticed this little gem from BASSA: "To those who have not voted - If things do not change, your future career prospects are poor and will remain so unless you play your part by voting immediately to secure it. There will not be another opportunity, and there will not even be a strong union if you don't, just an ever expanding mixed fleet and 3 months notice... "

To those that have not voted.... get in there and vote NO to IA for the love of God. Send these hapless reps the message that they are screwing with your livelihoods and - nota bene - not their own.

Roll on Friday.

[Mariner9]

Roll on Friday indeed.

The 3-4000 former ST losers will almost certainly vote for IA. (It seems to me they see it as their only chance to fight their hated employer BA in revenge for being hugely outmanoevered by BA up to to this point.)

The question is what proportion of the remaining say 5-7000 members will vote no (or bother voting at all :ugh:).

All will be revealed tomorrow.

[notlangley]

Boeing 747-436 G-BNLO operating BA247 London Heathrow - Sao Paolo - Buenos Aires diverted to Lisbon._ The aircraft landed in Lisbon around 3.5 hours after departure from London indicating that it turned back into the Atlantic crossing._ As crew would go out of hours if continuing passengers were accommodated in Lisbon and the aircraft will continue on 20th.
Reference:-__link (http://www.thebasource.com/)

[west lakes]

Caused by a fatality on-board so I don't think it is anything to do with IA

[Neptunus Rex]

The misery guts that permeate BA cabin crew are there for the taking. Once gone, the airline could once again be a pleasant one to fly.If a strike goes ahead, it will not be the "misery guts" who go on strike and get fired, it will be the front-line cannon fodder. The smart hard-liners will have booked leave or medical appointments for the first run of strike days.

Then, of course, we shall see DH, who has nothing to lose, egging them all on. The real winners will be the stallholders at Bedfont, vending their beer, burgers, Quiche and Pimm's.

It is all so predictable, and so very sad.

[BetterByBoat]

Depending on how the courts interpret any potential strike, the really big winner could be BA. They might be able to get rid of a significant number of militant crew and get Unite to pay for the privilege.

[MPN11]

I agree entirely, NR.

It's a complete tragedy for the CC who are not thinking this through, thanks to the vitriol being poured out by BASSA and 'friends' in the SWP.

However, we can only guess at outcomes. My shiny sixpence is on a lot of individuals saying "OMG, I didn't expect that to happen" as they collect their P45s.

As always, the "Union Barons" will march off into the sunset, waving a flag with Keir Hardie's cap on it ... and hoping for a return to a Labour Govt to collect their duty peerages.

[Neptunus Rex]

MPN 11
... and hoping for a return to a Labour Govt to collect their duty peerages.Quite so, Sir. Lord Jobless of Bedfont, perhaps?

[LD12986]

The result (is it due tomorrow or Monday?) will be interesting. The history of ballot results previously posted on here showed that about 7,500 voted to strike last time. With 10,000 ballot papers issued this time, BASSA will need a turnout of 90% and a Yes vote of over 80% to match that. In BASSA's favour there are 4,000 odd crew with nothing to lose by voting Yes and Mixed Fleet is now here with no union agreement. On the flipside some non-union members say they have received ballot papers and a lot of momentum may have been lost given the last strike ballot was nearly a year ago.

If there is a sizeable Yes vote I fear BA may start to play hardball. I think Tony Woodley reneging on putting the last offer to members has blown any hope on the part of the company of a negotiated settlement through a ballot of members.

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry MPN but the tragedy will be if a small group of extremists continue to think they can hold the rest of the company to ransom. I don't buy into the idea that striking cabin crew are too stupid to know what they are doing - the "lemmings led by liars" explanation is getting a bit repetitive given that cabin crew have such a vital and responsible job in the cabin. Striking cabin crew are isolated within the company, and other departments in BA are queuing up as VCC, for a very simple reason.

Ultimately, it is likely the courts will decide the way forward - always something of a lottery. But if the right numbers come up then don't be surprised to see BA use this as an opportunity to dispense with the services of those cabin crew who continue to go on strike. Previous CEO's have given in and pandered to CC as they knew that any IA would potentially be long and bitter.

As WW said a couple of days ago - "Nonetheless, during a question-and-answer session following the speech he said such labor actions are "always best avoided," but BA has decided to "take a stand" against "inefficiencies" and "unreasonable, bad union behavior."

I can't see why BA will change tack now, even with a new CEO.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Colonal White

Now you could argue that leaving this around on a photocopier was slack, but there is a degree of trust that one has to have with colleagues. Whoever decided to put this information on a public forum clearly is not worthy of such trust.



I spoke to a friend of mine who is a CSM on mixed fleet who says they are pretty sure that one of the crews name on the roster is a 30+ year retired veteran who 'gave' the roster to Bassa. Sounds like the truth to me. Bassa would hardly say a mixed fleet crew member had given it to them would they?

[Betty girl]

Juan Tripp,

The name of the person who that roster belonged to would have been at the top of the roster. The list of names under each trip are the crew that join them on each trip. So the name of the owner of the roster is not on the roster so it can't be this veterans roster if he is among the list of crew shown under one of the destinations.

So this so called veteran, I take it you mean someone who has retired and then rejoined on Mixed Fleet, must have given them someone else's roster. Or it is just someone on Mixed fleet also spreading rumours about one of their own colleagues.

[Hotel Mode]

The list of names under each trip are the crew that join them on each trip.

AFAIK the rosters include the crew members name in the crew list as well.

If the name of the roster owner isnt included then mixed fleet are flying some very high crew complements!

[Betty girl]

OK fair enough, but I don't think you can make assumptions either way about how they obtained it, not very fair on that person.

It is in my view unlikely that if your name is repeated over and over again after each trip as you say it is, that you would ok it being posted on websites for all to see.

Well having had a look, this crew member is in team M3 and her name begins with J. You can clearly see her full name but whether she is the veteran your friend knows or not, she could still just be someone that accidentally left her roster lying around. I personally don't think it's very fair to surmise how they got it.

JT. Thanks for your post on the other thread. Yep it is stressful.

[Diplome]

BetterbyBoat:

I will agree that you do have a point.

At this point in time its hard for any member of BA Cabin Crew to be able to say "I just don't know what to do?" or for others to use the excuse that they are being mislead by BASSA.

Initially I believe that the argument could have been made that many Cabin Crew were simply caught up in the storm but enough time has passed for all Cabin Crew to have had the opportunity to do the research and understand exactly what the repercussions of their actions may be.

I expect a vote in favor of strike action and more cries for BA to come back to the table to "negotiate". Will be watching with interest how BA responds to the militant demands. Its not as if Unite/Amicus/BASSA have given them much to work with. Part of me, the non business side, almost hopes they don't bother with negotiations and simply forge ahead until the Cabin Crew submit more realistic proposals.

[ninja-lewis]

Any indication when the ballot will be announced yet?

[LD12986]

It should be due any minute now. The ballot closed at midday. Unless the expected yes vote announcement has been delayed by "heated" discussions between Mssrs McCluskey and Holley over whether to call a strike.

[SwissRef]

According to Bloomberg vote is in favour of strikes. No details yet.

edit: reported as 78.5% of those polled vote for strikes

[SwissRef]

from bloomberg:


By Alan Jones
January 21 (Press Association) -- British Airways was
facing the threat of a fresh wave of strikes by its cabin crew
tonight after they voted heavily in favour of more walkouts in
their bitter dispute with the airline.
Unite said its members voted by 5,751 to 1,579 to take
further industrial action following 22 days of strikes last
year which cost the airline more than £150 million.
The union pulled back from naming strike dates and will
have to give seven days' notice of any action.
Unite's new leader, Len McCluskey, said: "For the fourth
time in 13 months, British Airways cabin crew have voted
overwhelmingly in support of their union and expressed their
dissatisfaction with management behaviour. Indeed, the turnout
and the majority on this occasion are much greater than in the
last ballot.
"Surely BA management must now wake up and listen to the
voice of their skilled and dedicated employees.
"This dispute will be resolved by negotiation, not
litigation or confrontation, and it is to negotiation that BA management should now apply itself. We are ready."
News of the voting figures was revealed as the company
completed its merger with Spanish carrier Iberia to create a
new holding company, International Consolidated Airlines Group
(IAG).
The bitter dispute started more than a year ago over cost-
cutting but now centres on the removal of travel concessions
from workers who went on strike, and disciplinary action taken
against Unite members.

-0- Jan/21/2011 16:17 GMT

[BetterByBoat]

So in terms of numbers - fewer voted for strike action this time than last - just happens that the numbers only add up to 7300 so a lot of members have gone awol or didn't vote.

[SwissRef]

Another story on Bloomberg says they had a 75% turnout.

But their numbers are 7,330 out of 10,220 voted = 71.7% Great Maths!

But 56% of those who got papers voted for action.

[notlangley]

0.0 _ Invalid vote (conducted by UNITE?) 16 November - 14 December 2009

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers 12780__ 9514 ___770____2______2494
Percentages__________100%_-_74.0%__6.0%__0.01%___19.5%



1.0 _ Valid vote (conducted by the Electoral Reform Service) 25 January - 22 February 2010

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11691_ 7482 __1789___11______2409
Percentages__________100%_-_64.0%_15.3%__0.1%___20.6%


2.0 _ New Contract offered by BA. reported by the Electoral Reform Service on 20 July 2010

_____________________Total___Yes___No___Spoiled_Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11311__1686__3419___3______6203
Percentages__________ 100%_-15.0%_30.2%_-0.03%__54.8%

3.0 _ Strike Ballot 21 December 2010 - 21 January 2011

_____________________Total___Yes___No___Spoiled_Not returned
Number of ballot papers_10220__5751__1579___5______2885
Percentages__________ 100%_-56.3%_15.5%_-0.05%__28.2%


References
0.1 _ paragraph 4 of:-___link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3541.html)

0.2 _Total number of ballot paper is stated in:-___ link (http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/913485/p_and_e_update_employment_04_feb_2010.pdf)

1.1 _ paragraph 8 of:-___link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/669.html)

2.1 _ link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf)

3.1 _-link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/british_airways_cabin_crew_bal.aspx)

[Diplome]

Thank you for those figures notlangley.

[Shack37]

So, the dispute continues, therefore no elections for new BASSA reps, therefore friends Malone and Holley etc continue as union officials.

As per a phrase often used here "You couldn't make it up".

:rolleyes:

[notlangley]

There are cabin crew who are not members of Unite._ How many are they?
It seems to me that those who voted to strike (i.e. 5751) are now for the first time less than half of the working group.

[Papillon]

No two ways about it though, that is a pretty large number of yes votes. Sure, it might well be only half of all cabin crew, but the fact remains that after everything that's happened over the last year, nearly 6,000 cabin crew voted for further industrial action.

Astonishing really.

[maeboyce]

Hi everyone

First time poster although long time lurker. Really surprised but more sadened at this result. Like most others, I expected a vote for IA but at the end of the day, more than 7500 cabin crew feel strongly enough about what is happening to vote to strike against their company. There have to be a LOT of intelligent, committed crew amongst this number.

While I also feel like most posters on this thread about the current situation, I expected that so much good information and advice about what is really happening has been available to cc from so many sources, I cannot believe so many of them still feel so strongly that only their union is telling them the whole truth. Used to work for BA (not cc) and found them a fantastic employer so perhaps why feel so sad today.

Oops sorry 7500 should be 5700 - dyslexia rules ko - sorry.

[Mariner9]

I remain amazed that such a high proportion (over 25%!) of what I had previously considered to be a reasonably intelligent workforce apparently lack the werewithal to have a say in their own futures.

One point worthy of note - if the assumption is made that the ballot papers were sent to bona-fide union members only, then between the January '10 vote and this one the union has 1,471 fewer members.

Even if these members had all remained in the union and voted no, Yes would still have been the majority. Don't underestimate the strength of feeling that Malone, Holley & Co have managed to instill in more than half their members. Impressive feat whatever you may think of them.

[Mariner9]

Hi maeboyce, welcome to the forum.

One point about your post you might like to revisit:

more than 7500 cabin crew feel strongly enough about what is happening to vote to strike against their company.

Not quite correct, 5,751 CC voted for strike action. Still a significant number though that does not change the point you made in your post.

[Diplome]

Mariner9:

Agreed, though if there is one thing we have learned through this dispute its that Cabin Crew will vote "yes" and then come to work.

Voting "yes" is obviously viewed to some as a no cost way of protest.

Let's see how BA respond. My hope is that they simply leave Mr. Holley and others to complain amongst themselves for a while.

BA needs to readdress their approach on Mixed Fleet in some ways and start weeding out in whatever reasonable way possible those that will never be satisified.

[Shackeng]

Not having seen the ballot paper, can anyone comment on the actual wording? In other words, will a strke, if called, be legal. Secondly, if a legal strike is called, will the long game, which BA has obviously been playing, pay off, and allow them to get rid of the hardliners?

[BetterByBoat]

maeboyce - "more than 7500 cabin crew feel strongly enough about what is happening to vote to strike against their company"

.... where did you get these numbers from. It was 5751 who voted for strike action out of over 10000 balloted ... approx 1700 less votes for strike action now than in Feb 2010 and precisely what was achieved last time? Especially as BA now have Mixed Fleet \ New Fleet as well as a lot more, much better trained VCC. BA will be aware of just how many are likely to support the strike when dates are announced and crew make themselves available or not. And I suspect they will play a waiting game until then.

Mariner 9 - "I remain amazed that such a high proportion (over 25%!) of what I had previously considered to be a reasonably intelligent workforce apparently lack the werewithal to have a say in their own futures."

Betty Girl makes the point on the CC thread that she thinks that a lot of these had left the Union and hence didn't vote. But I think it would be a fair guess that very few of the non-voting cabin crew will actually go on strike.

[fincastle84]

I expected a vote for IA but at the end of the day, more than 7500 cabin crew feel strongly enough about what is happening to vote to strike against their company.

I'm not sure from where you get your figures. As I read it 5751 CC out of a total workforce of 13,000 have voted for IA. I make that 44% of the total workforce, hardly an overwhelming majority!

By all means go on strike. BA & it's pax will hardly notice the difference.

[MPN11]

On the basis that we flew during the May strikes, and apart from a bit of rescheduling, we went to the USA and back again ... I really don't see a future problem for the SLF.

How the 'activist' CC regard this is, of course entirely up to them. Frankly, I actually don't care. Teddy has long since departed the cot.

[TopBunk]

Another way to look at the numbers from the first ballot to this one:

First Ballot 12780 ballot papers; 9514 votes yes

Latest ballot 10220 ballot papers; 5751 votes yes

So, an admitted 2560 fewer ballot papers (membership down 20%) and 40% fewer voting yes.

Doesn't look good for BASSA, I predict BA do very little - the next move is for Unite/BASSA and for BA to yawn.

[MPN11]

I predict BA do very little - the next move is for Unite/BASSA and for BA to yawn.

And, I dare to predict, the SLF as well. They won't be crunching numbers to 4 decimal places, but I earnestly hope they realise that the last round of strike-lets didn't actually impact on them.

Me, I really don't care.
If there are really 5,000 ....arrogant, aggressive, petulant, dissatisfied, over-paid, legacy, inflexible, sub-standard CC ... out there [please note you are only allowed to slect a maximum of 2 perjorative adjectives] I would be surprised.

My shiny sixpence would go on there being <1,000 militants and c. 4,000 really silly, gullible, people who believe everything BASSA says.

Why does BA employ silly, gullible people? Discuss at your leisure.

[Sporran]

I certainly hope that BA 'adjust' cabin crew rosters when they are advised of strike dates. If they can ensure that the militant trouble makers are in the firing line, rather than the 'lemmings', then they will hopefully be able to sack strikers this time.

It is completely obvious that this ballot was called for almost exactly the same reasons as the last time. That means the strikers will not be protected and BA can sack them this time. It may seem harsh to those of you reading this, but the vast majority of BA staff have accepted the need for change and are doing their best to keep BA flying.

Hopefully the 'legal' lot (who are now in charge of ''''negotiations'''') will use a stick this time - rather than a feather from before!!

[MPN11]

We sing from the same song-sheet, Sporran. :ok:

[maeboyce]

Mariner9, BetterByBoat and Fincastle84

A million apologies. I have edited my post to show the correct figures. A case of fingers thinking faster than brain (nothing new there) So, now you know that not only am I am new here, you also realise that I am a complete dumpling as well - but hopefully nice with it!!! :p

Mariner9 thanks for the warm welcome to the forum.

[BetterByBoat]

Welcome along maeboyce - thought you were a BASSA spin merchant somehow juggling 5751 into 7500 ... :)

Hopefully CC can see light at the end of the tunnel. With BA better prepared than ever and the number of strike votes reducing by 2000 on each ballot, there is nothing much to do other than look for some good deals flying BA.

[maeboyce]

Me - a BASSA spin merchant - how very dare you:p

Wondered why some of the posters seemed a touch cross with me - the only figures I can ever spin are housekeeping ones. Honestly, just a former BA staff member who hoped BASSA might have got a bloody nose this time round with far fewer yes votes. Admittedly, there are far fewer this time round but I had hoped for less yesses.

[notlangley]

My attention has been drawn to the Abilene paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox).

[BetterByBoat]

Potentially this is worse for BASSA \ Unite than a no vote. A no vote would have been embarressing but no more.

They now have little room for manuever other than to call a strike (especially as they seem to think that 78% of CC voted for strike action :ugh:). Given that BA flew through the last strike and this time there are:
- fewer voting for strike action
- less strikers (I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't already been on strike to start now)
- mixed fleet
- more and better trained VCC

I would not expect BA to do too much in the short term and just let BASSA \ Unite play their hand. If things fall well for BA (e.g. succesful court action against the Unions) then they will hold all the cards and can decide then how best to play them.

At worst, BA will just see out this round of strikes like the last.

[OSAGYEFO2]

What do BA do now?

My advice is to speak softly but carry big stick

and when the time is right use it.

This could result in the pied piper (Red Len) leading the BASSA faithful on a march to the Job Centre.

[TopBunk]

I would not expect BA to do too much in the short term and just let BASSA \ Unite play their hand. If things fall well for BA (e.g. succesful court action against the Unions) then they will hold all the cards and can decide then how best to play them.


Much as I suggested in post #1598.

Except that I do not expect BA to go to court, but merely to tell Unite that they believe the strikes related and therefore unprotected and leave Unite with the problem.

If they then strike BA can suspend any strikers and choose what to do at their leisure while running a full service at LGW, LCY and LHR LH. The strike will very quickly collapse as BASSA members hear that strikers are all being suspended.

BASSA have offered up on a plate the dream solution to BA at every opportunity, one could not imagine a more incompetent set of union leaders (sorry wrong word), representatives.

They have replaced the Australian cricket team in my view in the joke:

Q. what do you call a BASSA rep with a stock cube

A. A laughing stock

[west lakes]

At the end of the day BA do not have to go to court for anything! They can simply deal with strikers and wait for industrial tribunals some years down the line to defend themselves on the basis that they believed the strike was unprotected!

[MPN11]

@ Top Bunk .. a neat summary.

Time to find out how stupid BASSA/Unite/Militant CC can be.

As a pre-booked pax, I have no concerns. BA will deliver, and the Union[s] will look ever more stupid as their efforts achieve zilch.

Sadly, I do find it difficult to smile at BA CC these days. However, they have brought that on themselves, whether or not they are actually activists or just stupid. I pay their wages through my fares, so I really don't care very much ... just do what you're supposed to do, and I'll complain to BA [with personal details] if you don't. Regardless of whether you're a potential striker or not ....
... And YOU have made me feel like that ... pirrocks.

[BetterByBoat]

The reason why BA (I think) will go to court is to sue Unite for losses incurred on the basis that this strike is related to the last. And I think they will do this first before they take any action against striking cabin crew.

It doesn't close any doors to them with regard to dealing with strikers but it does mean that if they win against Unite then they know that they have all options open to them in dealing with the strikers with little chance of any future action against BA being successful.

And I think it will be less damaging to the company to take the Union to court rather than to immediately sack strikers. But if the strike is deemed "illegal" (ie the strikes are linked), I suspect any public fallout from sacking strikers after that would be less. Just personal opinion.

BA could potentially have their cake and eat it - having Unite fund the removal of the strikers from BA.

[MPN11]

Indeed ... unhappy days ahead.

I still retain a small degree of sympathy for the lemmings, though. Are these the people who are 'primarily or our safety' ? Scary.:=

[baggersup]

I dunno, BBB. Mr. Walsh has often said he has no problems working with Unite--only with BASSA.

As an industrial relations consultant, I would never advise a client like BA to destroy its working relationship with Unite just to end a problem with their sub-group BASSA.

If Mr. Walsh damaged Unite badly with a law suit for damages, he in effect would be damaging his own employees and taking their money they paid in dues, thousands of whom belong to Unite as part of their other negotiating groups (who have all reached agreement with BA on their own staff and pay reductions.)

That wouldn't do BA any good, nor solve the BASSA problem....

BA has a problem with a number of its cabin crew employees and BASSA. So they will probably focus on that problem. Not punishing the parent organization who did its best to come to an agreement--which BASSA reps refused to present to their membership for a vote (as did CC89.)

Mr. Walsh knows that BASSA also called the strike last time when Unite had not done so, seemingly behind their backs. If I recall BASSA called the strike, which I believe they have a legal right to do on their own, even though Unite was trying to do further negotiating at the time and did not sanction it at that moment.

So in a way Unite has done what it seems is in their purview so far. But BASSA/CC89 are the recalcitrants.

[BetterByBoat]

Not so sure with Unite - the relationship was with TW, not LM. And TW has ultimately failed to deliver anyway. I think TW shaking hands and then washing them has already done the damage.

Hitting Unite would help solve the BASSA problem as the follow up of sacking strikers would mean BASSA getting close to derecognition. And it might make Unite take a greater interest in BASSAs activities.

All conjecture. Sad day for all at BA. Good luck to Betty Girl et al who want to work for the company.

[MPN11]

I concur ...
Not so sure with Unite - the relationship was with TW, not LM. And TW has ultimately failed to deliver anyway. I think TW shaking hands and then washing them has already done the damage.

Is there any relationship at all, now?

It seems to me, from reading assorted Boards, that WW has been royally shafted by the TUs at ever step. Agreements suddenly rejected, that sort of thing? Is it any wonder that he really doesn't care what the TU "Barons" say any more?

I sincerely hope there are some low-level discussions going on to try and save this ridiculous situation.

[baggersup]

All true, BBB.

But the gist of my concern was that by hitting Unite financially for damages, no matter how valid, BA hits the pockets and the union of thousands of its employees who have supported BA as volunteers during IA and also by coming to new agreements that saved BA money.

BA might be seen punishing its other Unite employees and for that matter all Unite employees from all companies as well as BA, for the actions of a few at BA--the subgroup BASSA. And they need to keep their other employees onside at present as they may go into another disruption.

That's all.

Though a nicely worded letter from BA's lawyers saying they will take "reasonable" actions in court if necessary to recover damages might be enough to do it, without actually going to court and costing innocent Unite members their hard earned dues contributions.

By the way, I loved the way Mr. Walsh straight talked calling BASSA "dysfunctional." Like they are the awful relative at the holiday dinner table. :)

[Diplome]

MPN11:

An interesting post. I presume part of it was just SLF venting, but it speaks volumes regarding our role in this adventure.

As customers we see, every time this drama spins up, Cabin Crew defined in the press as the coarse image of a woman walking around with men's undergarments and Mr. Walsh's image on the seat, raging, screaming faces....threats of 12 days of Christmas, strikes over the Wedding, Easter...

And we are told constantly "Don't judge us all on that basis". "We are not all like that". You wouldn't know it from the message that is being sent. The Cabin Crew members that will stand up and be counted for SLF are few and far between in the media.

From a customer approach it is rather blatant regarding which section has the greater voice. It may be through intimidation, bullying, or whatever, but they are still the "face" of BA.

[fincastle84]

you also realise that I am a complete dumpling as well - but hopefully nice with it!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

.......................does that comment refer to your shape?

Welcome to PPrune, your sense of humour & self deprecation is most refreshing.

Good to see that MPN11 has awoken from his winter hibernation.:ok:

[baggersup]

That's interesting, Diplome.

It got me thinking about who we might be meeting when we are on WW (my major routes, not so much Europe or Gatwick.)

How many CC are WorldWide? We know that Gatwick has been supportive of BA, so it is likely that they were not a large part of this yes vote of 5700+.

If there are, say, 9000 that make up WW fleet (just a number for discussion here), then a cabin crew member we meet on board might have more than a 50 percent chance of being one who voted for this mess.

The point being we pax might be more likely to meet a "militant" on a WW route than anywhere else. The chance perhaps being higher?

My recent flights seemed to bear out the notion of how inconsistent WW can be due to perhaps the CSD or the crew they are trying to lead.

The flight ex-IAD was just vague and disconnected crew, obviously going through the motions, disappeared for the entire flight after the meal service until the last 1.5 hours for the next light meal. Never heard from the CSD except at the first when he announced rather haughtily, "my cabin crew and I will be taking you to London today." Really? Nobody in the cockpit then? Gee, that's a worry. Then after that two other female cabin crew made the required announcements, until he made a very short one minutes before landing. I never saw him during the flight (I was in CW).

Then on the way back, a superb, friendly attitude, crew regularly coming through the CW cabin to just check discreetly if we needed anything. Several drinks top ups during lunch, etc.

The CSD worked the cabin and was a very charming woman who projected a great deal of aplomb and gracious authority. Her crew were upbeat and friendly and ready to make a charming comment. They couldn't take our coats fast enough upon boarding. A male crew member even rushed over to help a rather short passenger across the aisle from me I was trying to assist in getting her modest carryon into the overhead.

I thanked the CSD when I passed by her in the luggage retrieval area for a wonderful flight. It just seemed that the crew probably responded to her very gracious and authoritative demeanor and performed accordingly. But who knows.

Fortunately, it was one of the many flights during which I was asked to fill out one of those onboard surveys, so was able to give credit where credit was due on all accounts. And included her name in the written comments section as hers being one of the best flights with BA in a long while.

I have no idea why the outbound flight was the way it was, nor the inbound flight. But it just points out BA's issues with inconsistency on board. If that was the CSD's role in making it superb, then they clearly need some new CSDs among the ranks who may not be performing either for militant reasons as they try passisve resistence on board in order to harm their employer, or just that they are no longer interested in good performance for themselves.

But one always wonders now if a poor on board experience just MIGHT be part of the militant issues...

The strike saga just gets some of us pax pondering these things, as the on board inconsistencies seem to have accelerated in the past two years or so.

[MCOflyer]

I agree that hitting Unite would be a bad move on BA's part. It seems that there is a lot of good will between the other Unite members and the company they are trying to save. I don't think BA leadership will risk angering the rest of the Unite members with legal action against the parent union.

I believe the public, especially the SLF like myself, will accept punitive action directed toward the two branches much better. I think anyone that has followed this at all knows where the real problem lies.

[Betty girl]

baggersup,

The CSD or SCCM does set the tone of a crew very much so.

On you flight out of IAD it could have been the last sector of a back to back trip. These are trips where the crew do 4 sectors back and forth to the States in 5 or 6 days, not going home when they get to LHR in the middle of the trip. It is no excuse but likely why they may have lacked luster.

Hopefully you will get a good CSD next time and more likely, if you fly on a strike day because a lot of the best keen ones came in to work.

[Diplome]

baggersup:

The CSD worked the cabin and was a very charming woman who projected a great deal of aplomb and gracious authority. Her crew were upbeat and friendly and ready to make a charming comment.

What a wonderful phrase.."gracious authority".

And how unfortunate is it that for many of us here in the "I just have a ticket" land that we assume that anyone that has that approach is a non-striker. But that is the public face that the strikers have given their customers.

At a recent social evening I was sitting with my husband and three or four senior individuals with different entities with ties to my husband's business. One from the States was discussing his difficulties on his latest travel to London. I mentioned the great word of mouth I had heard, though I have not experienced it personally, regarding BA's service from New York to London City. When the gentleman said "But what about BA's strike issue?" it was met with laughter by three of the individuals present. Unfortunately one stated "You won't meet the socialists on that route..its really wonderful.".

I'm not sure if the BA Cabin Crew as a whole have realized how they have let their image be diminished by the BASSA militants...and when do they say "Enough is enough".

[west lakes]

regarding BA's service from New York to London City
All the cabin crew are LGW based

[MCOflyer]

I had a very similar experience as Baggersup on a recent ATL-LHR return. After the dinner service the flight crew just disappeared until breakfast. I had to go track down someone to get a cup of coffee.

On the return leg the crew was very attentive and took very good care of us. I was in CW both ways. If I had similar experiences both ways I would start looking for a seat on Virgin for my next ride.

Edited to make font readable = Verdana / 2

[Jarvy]

I too have had a flight where the cabin crew just couldn't have cared less and if it wasn't for the fact that in the past we have had such good service we would be using Virgin by now.
It was LHR-BOS and after the meal service the cabin crew vanished into the crew rest area (747 at the back) to return 4 hours later.

[Goprdon]

This is what I wrote on this thread on 22nd Dec. 2010 , Post 1298. The post was copied , also on 22nd Dec. , to the CC industrial relations thread , with a few improvements , as Post 1928 :

I think we can all see that a NO vote to the strike call means that BA, the Company, wins and so do the staff. However the malcontents remain.
So what about a YES vote to the strike call. It only needs a majority of voters not a majority of CC. There may not be many voters so perhaps only 3000-3500 possible strikers.
I suggest that BA might ignore the strike call. The Company might say that it has taken legal advice and believes that this proposed strike is a continuation of the previous strike and the strikers are not protected in the same way from dismissal.
BA does not instigate any Court action.
BA advises the strikers that it contemplates dismissing them.
BA now has sufficient trained staff to crew the cabins on a very large number, perhaps as much as 90%, of its flights and 100% of the higher revenue earning flights.
The strike goes ahead, probably poorly supported. BA dismisses the strikers. The strikers have to take action against the Company.
The company refuses to re-employ the strikers. BA offers a modest sum to each striker. This will hardly matter to the Company as expensive Legacy CC have been replaced by cheaper MF CC. Will Unite fund the striker's legal action? I doubt it.
The malcontents are gone . The cabin is a nicer place.
If someone who is allowed to post on the 'BA CC Industrial relations forum' would like to copy this post or part of it across to that Forum please so do.

A month and a ballot later I see no reason to change my forecast.

[Betty girl]

MCO

That's sad. I hope your future experiences are better.

By the way I had to put on glasses to read your posts!!!!

You all live in the USA I see. That's a shame because I wish you could try EuroFleet and be on one of my flights.

[baggersup]

Thanks BG. The more information pax have about that's going on behind the scenes, the better we can interpret our onboard experiences.

If I ran into an exhausted crew on their last leg (no pun intended), then hopefully BA will address this as the scheduling management issue it is and not an onboard performance issue from crew.

If they consistently get onboard surveys back on these particular flights with the kinds of comments I made on here about the outbound flight, but with the same CSD as they had on a day flight who obtained outstanding reviews, then they will see it's their scheduling that needs to be changed. Not a CSD who needs to be addressed.

Many of us on here have dealt with large groups we've had to manage in various types of situations and companies. So, we are not quick to tar everyone with the same brush, nor make silly blanket assumptions. We'd not have lasted long as managers if were were inclined that way.

I keep an open mind on every flight. But just observe because I'm interested to see how things transpire. From a mangement point of view as well as a pax.

[baggersup]

I do use Eurofleet sometimes. That is if Eurofleet is the one that services LHR to CDG. It's hard to judge though, because more often than one would like, you arrive at LHR to find on your LHR-CDG sector you have been downgraded to economy because they've changed the flight to eliminate Club Europe.

Also, the only thing you can reasonably enjoy on a 45 minute flight....is your better seat! Not time for much service. Though I always appreciate the cabin crew at the front who immediately confront with a smile the back of the plane denizens who try to stash their capacious reticules in the first CE overhead bin they encounter upon embarking and heading to the back! :)

That's service!

[Joao da Silva]

you arrive at LHR to find on your LHR-CDG sector you have been downgraded to economy because they've changed the flight to eliminate Club Europe.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: When?

[Jarvy]

At the moment we are in the US but for many years Mrs J used Eurofleet weekly (in fact she became gold just on Eurofleet alone). As I said earlier we have stayed with BA because of the service we normally receive.

[MCOflyer]

I do connect at LHR to both EDI and GLA so I would assume that would be Eurofleet. Although those flights are only around 1 hour I find the crews to be delightful and attentive. A much better atmosphere altogether than on the trans Atlantic routes.

I hope this font is better for your eyes.

[Betty girl]

Thanks, that's much better.

Don't know why that happened on that Paris flight, that is not normal. You usually get a meal at the front. Just did a flight to Brussels, same as a Paris in length and had an Air Canada crew position with us and they could not believe how we did a meal in club and drinks at the back for 90 pax on a 45 min flight with just three cabin crew.

Anyway off to bed soon. Well I am going to try and sleep. A bit hard at the moment with all this worrying to do.

[Dawdler]

I see on the other thread that the prospect of phoney strikes has been raised. This where a strike is called but not carried out, causing some disruption to the company in making alternative arrangements which of course is the intention in the first place.

One possible weapon that perhaps could be considered to mitigate the effects of this is for non union members and non strikers to register their intention to carry on working with the company. Then if a strike is announced and the "strikers" suddenly turn up for work, the company would be able to say that as they had indicated they were going on strike, alternative cover has been arranged, so they are no longer required for that flight. Send 'em home!

Simplistic I know, but would/could it work?

[LD12986]

I see on the other thread that the prospect of phoney strikes has been raised. This where a strike is called but not carried out, causing some disruption to the company in making alternative arrangements which of course is the intention in the first place.


This has be a complete non-starter, surely?

As BA monitors all electronic communications like a hawk, it would have be kept very secret to stop it leaking online. A true last minute call off of a strike would cause as much confusion amongst crew (including the many to commute from far afield) as it would anyone else.

[Shack37]

As BA monitors all electronic communications like a hawk, it would have be kept very secret to stop it leaking online. A true last minute call off of a strike would cause as much confusion amongst crew (including the many to commute from far afield) as it would anyone else.


Especially if, as with ballot papers, the message was also sent to the many ex union members.

[Diplome]

"All live in the U.S.???"

Not quite.

Very Cumbrian, and quite proud of that fact. I may spend time in London and other parts, but my heart, offcomer though I be, lies in Cumbria.

[notlangley]

I see that there are members of Unite the Union within Mixed Fleet:-__link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_result_21jan2011.pdf)

[ChicoG]

Time to change the thread title to "ICAG strike".

;)

[hellsbrink]

I see that there are members of Unite the Union within Mixed Fleet:-__link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_result_21jan2011.pdf)

That doesn't necessarily mean a "conflict of interest" as surely someone could be in Unite but not in Bassa.

Would be interesting to see how many who signed the MF contract voted "Yes" to a strike though, and then to see how many actually walk out...............

[Juan Tugoh]

UNITE and BASSA have no collective bargaining rights for MF. Any CC member from MF that strikes would be totally unprotected and would be carrying out Wildcat sympathy action. BA could summarily dismiss them and indeed would be highly likely to.

You can be a member of a union in a workgroup without the union having any rights to speak for that workgroup. Indeed that is how many unions build membership to the point that recognition can be forced.

[hellsbrink]

Posted on the CC thread

Work to rule or 'guerilla action'? If they call a strike, could they make their members turn up, but then let them "change their minds" after they have checked in for work? It would initially cause havoc

I think we all know what would happen to anyone who did that.

[Hipennine]

While we are on about the difference between EF and WW crews, etc., this may be entirely coincidental, but the worst examples I have experienced of poor service, downright rudeness, and total PSR/CSD disinterest have been to and from NRT (apart from the Japanese crew members). Given that despite BA's best efforts so far, NRT trips still seem to get crewed by certain "connected" BASSA types (allegedly) to earn the big money, this would seem to point very specifically at where the performance issues lie within the CC community.

[Betty girl]

Not Langley,

There are some Unite members in Mixed Fleet because some current crew moved over there. Bassa and unite does not have a right to negotiate on their behalf although it was offered this in the agreements but it will be a totally separate negotiating process to WW and E/F much like Gatwick is at present.

Incidentally there are a number of people that striked working as CSMs on Mixed Fleet, that went over to get promotion but of course as mentioned they wont be able to strike this time! I think they changed their minds about striking, maybe tempted by a doubling of their basic!!!!! Or maybe they just realised how silly this strike is!!

[baggersup]

There was a simliar suggestion, Hipennine, on Flyertalk sometime ago, with regular pax of the Singapore and Narita routes saying they are the absolute worst BA experiences to be had anywhere. Being in the know about who reportedly gets first dibs on those routes, they were surmising a similar reason. But who knows.

A few said that after some appalling trips, they kept BA for all of their other regular travel to keep their Gold and Silver status, but went to other carriers for those two routes.

p.s. BG, you present a thorny imponderable. What if those Unite or BASSA members who have transferred to mixed fleet received a ballot and voted by mistake? Oh dear! That should give BA's lawyers something to do on Monday.

[Betty girl]

I know all these examples sound bad but you do need to bear in mind that usually only disaffected people post on forums. Those that are happy just don't bother.

On a brighter note BA just won an award for being best business shorthaul airline, second time this year that shorthaul has won an award, so that made me feel proud.

[baggersup]

Flyertalk isn't all curmudgeons. It runs the gamut. There are compliments and positive postings, too. I seem to recall the ones who complained about those two routes were regulars and had all sorts of postings. They just said those two stood out as real losers for BA in the service department.

But the 10,000th thread of "why can't i choose my seat when i bought my ticket" does wear me out sometimes. Not to mention the "can i take a baby into the upper deck" to which the regulars will scream in horror and abuse the poor parent to entertain themselves a bit. :eek:

But they do not seem in the least concerned over there about the current strike ballot. Most of us didn't experience much disruption during the last strikes. A changed flight time on the same day, maybe, not much more.

Only the newbies to BA will fret this time. Or those taking a complicated trip of a lifetime--it's hardest on them.

[Betty girl]

I honestly feel that BA will keep it's promise and ALL longhaul will go and only a few E/F cancellations on routes that we have a high frequency. per day.

[notlangley]

Betty Girl saidIncidentally there are a number of people that striked working as CSMs on Mixed Fleet_ However from another source I get thisThe CSMs are "BA managers who fly". As a grade 3 manager we sit right alongside other managers in the airline and our career path is expected to take us out of flying eventually into other senior positions. We will have a team of fifteen crew who we recruit, train and manage through their whole time with us. _Surely if CSMs in Mixed Fleet are grade3 managers they are not elligible to belong to a cabin crew local unit of Unite (such as BASSA or cc89)._ Does this not mean that ultimately in Mixed Crew there would be some who belong to a BASSA type local unit of Unite, and some who belong to a BACSM local unit of Unite?

If so this is a good thing because Mixed Crew CSMs will not become Chairman, Secretary etc of BASSA or BASSA2.

[Betty girl]

Well I don't know if that is true or not but some did strike and they were in Bassa. The majority of them did not strike and have left Bassa or came from other airlines.

From what I hear they are really busy ALL the time either flying or managing their crew so I really think Unite put that on that letter for effect in reality because they haven't yet come to any agreement with BA about Mixed Fleet.

[Hipennine]

Baggersup,

interesting what you say about the Singapore. I haven't flown that route with BA, but my son has and says the same. In fact his only experience of BA longhaul is on those two routes, and this has totally coloured his view of BA and travelling anywhere with them.

[Snas]

On a brighter note BA just won an award for being best business shorthaul airline, second time this year that shorthaul has won an award, so that made me feel proud.


…and so you should, well done.

It is unfortunately my experience that the WW service is more often than not the poor relation to that experienced on SH. My brother, who spends a couple of hundred thousand pounds per year on LH flights, reacts most violently when I suggest he uses BA. Work really is needed to bring LH up to the required standard consistently.

Mystery shoppers and consequences for poor performance, I fear nothing else is going to achieve it.

It saddens me as a firm believer in unions that I think the sooner that the element, large or small, of crew dragging BA down are removed the better.

I’m further bothered by the fact that further IA may turn out to be the best way to achieve it also.

It’s all rather terrible.

[AV Flyer]

Betty Girl wrote on the CC thread:

"I will admit that the version that the Union has to sign has bits about not taking BA to court and re-working the way they deal with BA and I think this is the sticking point and NOT what BA is offering us crew as safeguards because they are as good as they have ever been before. I think you will agree that BA have always been a good employer."

From a personal view, adding clauses in the Unite/BA Settlement Agreement to the effect of not taking BA to court in the future, etc. which are not in BA's current Employment Agreement offer seems offensive and unfair and appears to have caused a sticking point as BG has pointed out.

However, it is very important to understand that clauses of this nature are always written into Settlement Agreements between two entities otherwise the Agreement simply cannot happen. There will be similar counter clauses that BA cannot sue Unite in the future either and the clauses will contain language restricting them to those matters that relate to the terms of the Settlement Agreement only. Otherwise, how could two parties be deemed to have agreed to settle if one can sue the other over the very same issues again the next day?

Unfortunately, as has often happened in this dispute, the Union personalises everything and fails to see the bigger corporate picture in these matters. Something that it must learn to develop a more professional skill set over if it is to better represent its members in future - starting with taking down the picture of WW with red eyes on its public website home page!

With a corporate, rather than a personal, understanding of the above I agree with BG that BA's current Employment offer to its employees and further that its Settlement offer to Unite are indeed very good Agreements for all.

AVF

[Richard228]

It seems to me that we're now at the end of this dispute from a passengers perspective.

The improtant details to me are:
2560 members have left BASSA/Unite since BA asked for the CSD to work harder.
A minority of cabin crew now support industrial action
Only a fraction of those who vote yes ever actually strike
many more will not want to lose Staff travel etc and will work
VCC's are trained and ready to go
Mixed fleet is up, running, and expanding
The public knows only a small number of shorthaul flights at LHR will be affected
The public knows in the unlikely event of a cancellation they will get re-booked onto other servicesFor all the huff and puff of the union, this is a non event, and I'm no longer concerned about how industrial action will affect my travel plans..

And if BASSA play "guerilla" and threaten a strike, but then dont strike, then my travel plans are equally not affected.. would be more of a "monkey action" than "guerillla action" from my point of view.

This Game is over BASSA... you have nowhere else to go.

The only two questions now left are:
How much longer it takes BASSA to realise they have lost, and
How BA chooses to deal with this militant residue.... I know what I would do...

[Diplome]

While the rhetoric from Unite is all about the percentages BA quietly respond with a sobering message (from Sky News):


A BA spokesperson said the strike showed Unite did not have the support of the majority of cabin crew.
"Of our 13,500 crew, only 43 per cent voted in favour of strike action in this ballot.
"Unite has lost about 2,500 cabin crew members since this dispute started, as crew have voted with their feet.
"Even with a smaller membership, the proportion of Unite members supporting disruption continues to fall, contrary to the union's claims.


Any guesses on how many of those who voted "Yes" will actually risk their jobs by striking??? What can Unite do to save this situation when faced with an intransigent and extremist BASSA and Amicus leadership?

...and how sorry does anyone feel for Mr. Len McCluskey that the political events of the day made his blustering a non-event?

[notlangley]

Richard228 said 2560 members have left BASSA/Unite since BA asked for the CSD to work harder I wonder if I might correct you._ Actually the number is 1557._ The extra 1003 were cabin crew who took early retirement (the package was called voluntary redundancy).

Diplome quotes Sky News quoting BA spokeperson who makes the same claim, exaggerating the 1557 number by about 1000Unite has lost about 2,500 cabin crew members since this dispute started, as crew have voted with their feet.

[ChicoG]

It's not BA, it's ICAG.

BA shares are no longer trading. Shares in the new company start trading on Monday.

I wonder how long the press will take to catch up.

[MPN11]

I wonder if I might correct you._ Actually the number is 1557._ The extra 1003 were cabin crew who took early retirement (the package was called voluntary redundancy).

Indeed, not union resignations.
However the fact remains they have chosen to leave BA.

[Chuchinchow]

It's not BA, it's ICAG.

BA shares are no longer trading. Shares in the new company start trading on Monday.

I wonder how long the press will take to catch up.

A truly superb example of hair-splitting!

[Shack37]

A truly superb example of hair-splitting!


BA = BA
Iberia - Iberia
IAG = BA + Iberia

I'd say that was a pretty thick hair to split.

[MPN11]

Not an accusation that could ever be levelled at you, CCC ... I trust you're well?

[Chuchinchow]

Never better, thank you.

Just off to Fort Regent to get rid of some "excess baggage"!

[BetterByBoat]

If we are playing the pedantic game then I'm sorry NotLangley but this statement is 100% correct - "2560 members have left BASSA/Unite ..... ".

1557 have stayed with BA and another 1003 have left BA but they have all left BASSA \ Unite. :ok:

OK, enough pedantary - with membership down and if BG is correct in "assuming" that most of the non-voters didn't vote because they left the union then numbers are rapidly approaching de-recognition levels.

I think Richard sums it up well and sadly, judging by the postings by MissyM and Moderately Militant (2 x MMs - are they related?), they still seem totally vague and \ or confused in explaining what they are striking about. Lets hope they see sense sooner rather than later.

[Richard228]

I wonder if I might correct you._ Actually the number is 1557._ The extra 1003 were cabin crew who took early retirement (the package was called voluntary redundancy).My post is correct.

ballot 14/12/2009 = 12780 members
ballot 21/1/2011 = 10220 members

People may have left for different reasons, I'm sure there's illness, death and a whole host of other reasons for the lower number, including a large amount from redundancy.

But that was not the point made in the post. My point is that there are 2560 fewer cabin crew in BASSA, which means their ability to affect the rest of the company is diminishing... fast

It is of course also heartening to see the support for industrial action within the union drop from 74% in 2009 to 56.3% of union members in 2011, whilst at the same time the No vote has more than doubled, and the amount of apathy from non voters continues also to rise.

From a passengers point of view this is now a non event. From a passengers point of view this industrial action is now irrelevant. Game over BASSA.

[Betty girl]

BBB,
Not sure I said all, maybe some.

Hear are the figures from BA.

Total no of cabin crew 13500

2500 definitely not in union
1579 voted NO
2885 Abstained or did not vote because they were not in the union.
____
6964 Did not vote yes

5751 Voted YES

Less than 50%

Rest are probably on Mixed Fleet so not in voting figures.

Quite a lot have left since the strikes started. Upset and disillusioned, our churn rate at the moment is up, mostly due to the strike, this must be making BA happy because Mixed Fleet growing faster because of this.

[MPN11]

From a passengers point of view this is now a non event. From a passengers point of view this industrial action is now irrelevant. Game over BASSA.

It was a non-event by the time we reached 'Strike 2 of 4' last Spring, IMO. A moderate amount of bu66eration factor, including re-scheduling and re-booking, but I suspect the great majority of pax went A>B and back again.

We flew outbound TATL during 'Strike 3', and back during 'Strike 4'. A few re-bookings were necessary, as aircraft/crews came back on-line. No real problems, just a bit of inconvenience.
On the plus side, we flew LHR-IAD on a 744 with just over 20 pax :ok:

All credit to BA, the VCC and the loyal staff who made it happen ... as I'm sure they will again.

[glad rag]

Whilst I originally was 100% for BA, the truth of the matter is this whole charade has gone on far too long.
Those fair paying passengers, who have stayed loyal so far, may well throw in the towel to avoid the hassle and extra expense of supporting BA any longer.

[LD12986]

Quite a lot have left since the strikes started. Upset and disillusioned, our churn rate at the moment is up, mostly due to the strike, this must be making BA happy because Mixed Fleet growing faster because of this.

Sadly, I know of some very good crew (long-haul) members who did not support the strikes but have left the company because of the behaviour of BASSA supporters onboard and downroute.

[MPN11]

Whilst I originally was 100% for BA, the truth of the matter is this whole charade has gone on far too long.
Those fair paying passengers, who have stayed loyal so far, may well throw in the towel to avoid the hassle and extra expense of supporting BA any longer.

Why should we??
Where's the extra expense??
Why can't you spell fare?? :)

BA flies me wherever I need to go, at a decent price and with reasonable service. And it has done that consistently, despite BASSA's tantrums.
The fact that there's a bit of aggravation makes no difference to me/us/my company. I/we fly BA.

[Shack37]

Why should we??
Where's the extra expense??
Why can't you spell fare?? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


How do you know those paying passengers were not fair?

[glad rag]

:ugh: fair cop.

[Diplome]

Short haul during a time of disruption may be a bit of a bother, but I'm certainly not going to worry too much about long haul in the big scheme of my travel choices.

I'm very fare that way ;)

glad rag..its all meant in good fun. We don't do too much spell checking here. If we did I would have the vast majority of mine mocked.

[fincastle84]

Whilst I originally was 100% for BA, the truth of the matter is this whole charade has gone on far too long.
Those fair paying passengers, who have stayed loyal so far, may well throw in the towel to avoid the hassle and extra expense of supporting BA any longer

We only use BA for long haul leisure flights & throughout last year's turmoil BA gave us 110% satisfaction. We have 3 such flights booked for '11 covering the next 9 months & have no concerns that they won't operate to schedule.

We're backing BA.

PS Don't you ever go to bed Diplome?

[BetterByBoat]

I did post some time ago that I didn't buy into the "Lemmings led by liars" argument with regards to striking crew but now I'm not so sure. Mildy Militant (yet somehow, totally deluded) has managed to post this up on the cabin crew page without the slightest hint of irony:

"Are these acceptable and progressive 21st century industrial relations?
Does it signal a willingness to settle and move on?"

This coming from someone who went on strike over "No negotiation" and has continued to vote for strike action to "show a willingness to move on.".

[Betty girl]

He is probably a union rep.!!!

[PleasureFlyer]

I'm another fare paying pax with several BA flights booked over the next 6 months.

Am I worried I won't get to where I need to be? No.
Will I be bothered if the onboard service is not up to par because of VCC? No, because it is perfectly understandable as they do not do the job day in day out.

I am however another one who has given up with BA on the Japan/Singapore routes as the on board experience is just so hit and miss. Some fights are absolutely brilliant, but too many are just average to below average. For the money I have to pay in fares it has to be 'very good'.

Otherwise on every other single flight I take with BA I have never had any cause for complaint.

[Diplome]

fincastle:


Don't you ever sleep diplome?


Sometimes it feels like I don't, last night being one of them.

I have business interests in the States and unfortunately my property manager refuses to operate on Cumbrian time. Sometimes it means late nights, not too often, but often enough. Its why I use that i.v. drip of strong coffee in the morning :)

[Betty girl]

I wonder if it is because both thoes flights have very late evening departures out of the UK. Not an excuse at all but just an observation.

[Chuchinchow]

I wonder if it is because both thoes flights have very late evening departures out of the UK. Not an excuse at all but just an observation.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

[BetterByBoat]

Just a thought ... after all, have they ever been seen in the same room together? There seems to have been a very convenient arrangement where by DH stays in charge at BASSA while not working for BA. And if you look at what WW has been able to achieve with DHs assistance in terms of the introduction of New Fleet and significantly reduced BASSA membership then I'm starting to get suspicious.

Perhaps the final confirmation is from BGs "rumour" on the CC thread that DH has said that if you didn't vote for strike action then you should leave BASSA. Hmmm ... with only 5700 members, it would be possible to de-recognise BASSA .... I think your secret is out Duncan .... just wonder what BASSA did to you to make you so desperate to destroy it :ugh:

[Chuchinchow]

As with so many other issues, BASSA - the cabin crew union - appears to have something of a yearning for its past days of glory when it comes to its website.

See: http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/downloads/bassaapplicationform.pdf.

I am more than willing to be corrected - nay, castigated -by the faithful disciples but surely the T&G was subsumed into Untied rather more than a year past?

NB: Perhaps the BASSA website manager might usefully use a spellchecker if and when corrections are made to this page; see:For most benefits members must have been paid up for at least 39 weeks and be less than six weeks in areas.

Those comedians appear unfit to run a chip shop - let alone to play a crucial part in the lives and livings of their benighted members!

[AlpineSkier]

Well they certainly need to chop the bit about taking part in meetings with Rod Eddington !

But then again, perhaps that's the reason they aren't making any progress in their negotiations :E

[Haymaker]

On the "airline staff only" thread the following statement is attributed to Duncan Holley:

"I would like to send this message to everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose."

This is bizarre for the reasons given by posters on that thread, but does it also mean that the union is unilaterally removing the restriction that only those who had left the union at the time of the offer can accept it?

Would anyone in BA care to raise this question, maybe on that thread, on PCCC or any other forum or even with BA management?

[vanHorck]

Someone must have have some record somewhere of how many people went on strike last time as a % of those who voted for the previous strike.

This should give an indication as to the expected striking numbers next time around

[LD12986]

Last time, 7482 crew voted to strike. BA claims that 4,900 crew went on strike and about 600 of those returned to work during the strike period.

[rethymnon]

... that short of an injunction or terminating employment, BA stopped deducting union subs from pay for BASSA members?

with the apathy we've witnessed in the ballot and the invitation to leave if you voted 'NO', how many CC would take the initiative to fill in a direct debit or standing order?

they only need to cite computer problems or discrepancies in the paper work......

[BetterByBoat]

BA have no reason to get bogged down in such silliness - leave the playground antics to the strikers.

Judging by how they have played this so far, I suspect they will play a waiting game and let BASSA \ striking cabin crew make as many of their own mistakes as possible. I certainly don't think BA will go for an injunction. It wouldn't benefit them to drag this out any longer. If strike action does take place I would suspect:

a) Sue Unite for losses on basis that strike is related to previous strike. This approach is a gamble with the courts but victory would mean it would be "easier" to sack whichever strikers they wished on the basis the Court would have ruled that the strike was "not valid". Allows sackings to be due to Union incompetence rather than BA bullying. As others have said, this will greatly sour the relationship with Unite but BA would then have room to make some compromises and build bridges directly with Unite if BASSA can be sidelined.

Or

b) See how how the strike goes. If it is poorly supported then just see it out, perhaps with targetted sackings of the "ring leaders". This is a gamble as sackings could be seen as bullying by BA rather than due to Union incompetence. Personally, I don't see BA taking this option as it potentially drags the dispute out for another 3 months and \ or opens them up to a heap of bad publicity.

It might well be Unite can somehow pull themselves back from abyss but with BASSA pushing everyone ever closer and TW having shown a complete lack of balls so far (will LM really be any better), lets hope that those cabin crew who voted for strike action are aware of the potential consequences.

[ZimmerFly]

The BA Tokyo flight departs at a very sociable 12:35...so NO excuse there..:}

[Betty girl]

OK, long time ago since I did one, over a decade!!
That's sad that you don't have a good experience. So sorry.

[JUAN TRIPP]

CCC

Thanks so much for that download.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bassa.co.uk%2FBASSA%2Fdownloads%2Fbassa applicationform.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpassengers-slf-self-loading-freight%2F429571-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iii-85.html

I've literally wet myself reading what wonderful stuff the Bassa reps do and have done in the past. Its so obvious its all been written by the greatest fictional writer since Hans Christian Anderson, the one and only DH

[Dawdler]

I've literally wet myself reading what wonderful stuff the Bassa reps do and have done in the past. Its so obvious its all been written by the greatest fictional writer since Hans Christian Anderson, the one and only DH

And so long ago too. I wonder what an up-to-date lealfet could truthfully say?

[Litebulbs]

I really am dreading this next passage in the history of trade unionism. I believe that this situation will lead to a change in legislation. I actually think that it is needed, but not how I believe the current coalition will act.

If there was meaningful consultation around the right to strike, then adjusting the figures around more than 50%+1 and the mandate of the complete workforce, rather than members, would be a compromise worth exploring.

However, this dispute has not aided the process in any favour other than business.

I shall now put on my hard hat and await incoming:ouch:

[west lakes]

If not a change in legislation it has led to the unions walking on egg shells to comply strictly with the law.

The personalising of the dispute by the unite branch rather than deal with the issues in a professional manner has caused the biggest threat to unions for many years

[Chuchinchow]

CCC

Thanks so much for that download.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X4874...ns-iii-85.html

Only too pleased to oblige!

BTW, the proprietor of my local chippie has told me in the most forceful of terms that he wants no truck with any employee or representative of BASSA, now or at any time in the future.

He says he has enough slippery fish to deal with.

[Betty girl]

West lakes,
I think Unite have not acted that badly after all they did agree an offer with BA and ask Bassa to put it to the membership.

It is Bassa and Amicus that have behaved badly and let down Unite particularly just before the first Christmas by springing strike dates on Woodly and Simpson and recently by not giving crew the chance to vote on the actual offer.

I agree it is a very sad day for unions because if DH continues like this us cabin crew will have NO representation at all.

[LD12986]

I shall now put on my hard hat and await incominghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/shiner.gif

No need to Litebulbs.

[Litebulbs]

Absolutely and the Clive Anderson radio programme underlined that reality.

I hope that those who plan union strategy are looking forward, rather than to the past too. Much was made of the word partnership, by Amicus over the last decade. That appears to have been at least called to question, but more likely, disregarded because of this dispute. There is a reason Mr Walsh is paid what he is and he has earn't it well. The branch in question has lost many of it's officers. Those are the facts.

I just cannot see any successful outcome because of the numbers returned and that the new contract is already in place. I really hope that the current reps are better and brighter than me, because I have no idea what I would do now, if I was in their shoes. Keep the faith is a massive statement.

[hellsbrink]

I really hope that the current reps are better and brighter than me, because I have no idea what I would do now, if I was in their shoes.

Ah, but would you have let this sort of situation develop in the first place?

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

No need for the hard hat...not at all.

You know that I am far from anti-union and to be honest my interest in this situation lies in the rather (in my opinion) inane actions of BASSA, and observing how BA and Unite react.

It is disheartening as BASSA are branding "UNIONS" as unreasonable and Unite have not taken the bull by the horns...at a cost which they may soon feel.

As someone with a relatively good command of the Queen's English I can only say that BASSA has backed themselves into an honest to good mess. Mr. Holley can spin, but this is even at this point a loss considering what was offered previously...and most here know that Holley and Malone DO NOT speak for all Unions.

So take the hat off :)

[Litebulbs]

Ah, but would you have let this sort of situation develop in the first place?

Who knows. Only the people sitting round the negotiating table will actually be in a position to tell the truth on Columbus.

[Litebulbs]

We do have different views, but that is what they are, views. Mine have changed throughout this saga, but it has taught me to become more educated (hopefully) about the correct way to do business.

Change is airlines and it is about taking a reasonable approach to the constant development.

There are two possibilities as it stands today, the current offer or the new contract. Tomorrow, there may only be one. You cannot guarantee the future and it is an almost impossible request. Would I be fearful of maintaining my position if I was on a pre 97 contract? Yes 100%. What would I be looking for if I was on it? Protection against 90 days notice. BA cannot replace 8000 plus crew overnight and they are not going to want these crew sitting at home, unless they are paid more than the whole of the salary of the new contract deal in allowances.

Principles do not make mortgage payments.

[baggersup]

Reading Mr. Holley's latest missive elsewhere exhorting the "no" voters to leave the union made me wonder (as others are on the thread) why on earth he would suggest a move that might get BASSA derecognized through low membership. On the face of it it sounds utterly barmy.

But for a sec putting myself in Mr. Holley's shoes, perhaps I'd do the same at this point. He may be smart enough now to see what's ahead.

So, given how wrapped up his ego and life are in this "mission" he has as the leader....does he sit by, let natural forces already in motion take place, another failed strike, more leaving the union in a trickle, until his tenure is up. At which point, perhaps a smart, vital and strong leader comes to the fore, leading BASSA into the future with success and wisdom--doing a 180 degrees and everybody hailing this success in his/her cooperation with BA and ehancing members' working lives?

At that point the collective saying everywhere, "thank gawd that DH guy is gone! What a complete shower HE was!" Something tells me DH does not want that legacy. Is he capable of destroying the organization altogether to keep this from happening? Does he feel that BASSA is so much his own baby that if he goes...it has to go?

Or....does DH think, given all is pretty much lost at this point, let's move as quickly as possible to get BASSA derecognized by BA with mass resignations, so I can reign over the end of BASSA and paint it as the fault of BA, demonize the airline to the nth degree on the way down, and everybody will always remember that BA destroyed BASSA, not me.

If I were DH at this point, I'd certainly be going for the latter scenario, not the former, if I had his mindset.

The simple silliness of telling more than 1500 dues paying members to leave your union now otherwise doesn't make much sense.

[Chuchinchow]

until his tenure is up

As I understand this sorry, pathetic, farrago, only Comrade Holley can decide when his term of service as branch secretary will end.

It's a little like the situation in North Korea: BASSA's (in)Glorious Leader.

[LD12986]

baggersup, I don't think he has thought anything through. He is he'll bent on getting back on BA and will not tolerate dissent. Witness the latest posts from the BASSA forum on the cabin crew thread.

[pcat160]

Duncan’s missives of the past generally began by informing the faithful as to how many gin and tonics he had consumed. I would be surprised if the latest ramblings were not partially inspired by the magic of alcohol. I think his obvious frustration with the fact that 42% of those balloted chose not to affirm the strike proposal is further warping his judgment.

[baggersup]

Too true, all.

Perhaps the aforementioned's strategy is of the type Blackadder would ruminate upon, scratching his chin and muttering to Baldrick..."i have a cunning plan...."

It just occurred to me after that barmy message he wrote that he might have a union strategy that is akin to the spurned lover: "If I can't have you...nobody can!" Kaboom. :D

p.s. reading some of the messages copied to the other thread from members who are now questioning things, it does seem among some that the dime has finally dropped....which is good news for pax and BA staff.

[Jipperty]

In the light of the news that BASSA have voted for further IA and having just booked club world flights to South America between 17th & 24th Feb can I please request to the BASSA leadership that these dates are included in the planned strike action.

The 3 strike days I flew on last year were the best of all my trips ever on BA. There was a real sense of team spirit and siege mentality with all parties pulling to achieve the same objective. The strike breaking CC & VCC were superb and the banter was great.

In contrast I flew back from SIN just before Xmas and was served by 3 very miserable and matronly CC who appeared to be long past their sell by date. Might I say whilst a bit of grey hair visible on the flight deck serves to inspire confidence it does not achieve the same effect in the cabin.

The impact of IA 1, 2 & 3 was negligible and decreasing to long haul and for IA 4 I expect it will not be noticed.

Some I have spoken to tell me that the Yes vote was added to by those with no intention to strike but with a desire to expose the small minority of hard core so BA can deliver their medicine accurately.

It will be interesting to watch this closely now as the end game looks to be very near.

[ninja-lewis]

Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to
everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not
voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you
have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away
because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.
Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight
your fight for you. That is cowardice, you have made your bed and now you
must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.

Am I right in thinking that the individual offer includes a condition such that if BA were to negotiate a better offer with the union, the individual offer would automatically match the agreed terms and conditions, putting anyone who signs it in a win-win position? If so, Holley's "you've made your bed, now lie in" rhetoric rather backfires I'd say.

[Litebulbs]

Do any of the posters on this thread believe that individual members may have taken a view that they do not believe their employer, regardless of what the union brass say?

[Dawdler]

Perhaps the aforementioned's strategy is of the type Blackadder would ruminate upon, scratching his chin and muttering to Baldrick..."i have a cunning plan...."

Is it not the case that it was Baldrick who always had the cunning plan? Which of course alway failed miserably. If TW is Blackadder perhaps DH would be Baldrick

[pcat160]

It would be naïve to think that BASSA’s endorsement of Red Len for General Secretary came without conditions. Duncan’s (Safety Concerns) posting on this forum stated that the question of balloting for IA would be resolved with the results of the General Secretary election. Was this a “quid pro quo” or something more specific? Will Unite initiate a strike with no chance of success to placate Duncan and a handful of militants? While I do not think Unite should call a strike I actually hope they will. Assuming the strike is “legal” Unite has no big financial downside. The pain will be for the strikers. If BA take the position that the strike is “unprotected” the pain may include loss of employment. Only BA know if the airline can be operated without the services of two or three thousand current CC. If their analysis is that they can continue to operate on a reasonable basis while these employees are replaced I for one hope that strikers are terminated. BA really need to move on.

[notlangley]

DH is a reincarnation of Samson - his last great act is to pull down the temple.

In the Twentieth Century did not Adolf say that the German people were not worthy of such a great leader as he - he said this while Berlin was being overrun from all sides.

Custer’s last stand.

Some leaders survived to become legends - such as
The Earl of Cardigan (The Charge of the Light Brigade).

King Pyrrhusreplied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders.

Ned LuddOther accounts offer the less dramatic explanation that Lud was told by his father, who was a framework-knitter, to 'square his needles'; Lud took a hammer and "beat them into a heap".

We do not to know who is to blame for Pickett’s Charge, or the Battle of Somosierra.

[Joao da Silva]

Do any of the posters on this thread believe that individual members may have taken a view that they do not believe their employer, regardless of what the union brass say?When 78% of the population polled vote for strike action, I would reflect that this suggests a major problem with industrial relations within that group of employees.

When that group of employees is about 15% of the total company workforce, that amplifies the problem, at least in my eyes.

However, this will not be a popular view on this thread, which seems to be oriented to villify one individual, who is the secretary of one of the branches of Unite, who does not even get to meet the BA team in negotiations.

[Wirbelsturm]

However, this will not be a popular view on this thread, which seems to be oriented to villify one individual, who is the secretary of one of the branches of Unite, who does not even get to meet the BA team in negotiations.

A former employee who thought he could do what he wished and dump his rostered, contracted work onto his peers as he felt his Union work was more important. An individual who advised his Union members to refuse to negotiate with the company thus removing himself from the negotiating process. An individual who has managed along with the BASSA heirarchy, over many years, to persuede his members that the Union is the ONLY source of true information and that ANYTHING from any other source are fabrications of the truth designed only to destroy the Union. One individual who, through ill thought out missives, unsubstantiated personal attacks and inconsequential whispered rumours has even managed to get up the nose of his own Union paymasters. An individual who has an agenda against the company that sacked him and seems to reach a dead end when this conflict is over thus has a vested interest in prolonging the dispute despite the damage to his members.

I'm not surprised at the result given the reasons above. The company hasn't covered itself in glory over the past decade and a big olive branch is needed. However that cannot and will not happen while the cancer that is BASSA is still there wanting to control the company. For those on the outside as passengers it is very difficult to comprehend just how difficult BASSA can be. For those of us who have been rolling eyes at the intransigence of BASSA and the abject inconvienience they have caused over the years to our passengers through petty squabbles and outdated working agreements (disruption agreement 2 local nights rest for CC when FC can operate after 12 hours?) the removal of BASSA as a 'power' within the company simply cannot come soon enough.

[Joao da Silva]

A former employee who thought he could do what he wished and dump his rostered, contracted work onto his peers as he felt his Union work was more important. An individual who advised his Union members to refuse to negotiate with the company thus removing himself from the negotiating process. An individual who has managed along with the BASSA heirarchy, over many years, to persuede his members that the Union is the ONLY source of true information and that ANYTHING from any other source are fabrications of the truth designed only to destroy the Union. One individual who, through ill thought out missives, unsubstantiated personal attacks and inconsequential whispered rumours has even managed to get up the nose of his own Union paymasters. An individual who has an agenda against the company that sacked him and seems to reach a dead end when this conflict is over thus has a vested interest in prolonging the dispute despite the damage to his members.If this man is such a Svengali, why is he not in a position of major importance, e.g. a senior politician?

Research shows that most employees consider their line manager to be the be the most accurate source of information about their company (even if they do not like the information.)

So why should BA cabin crew be different?

Litebulbs makes a very good point, which I quote below

Do any of the posters on this thread believe that individual members may have taken a view that they do not believe their employer, regardless of what the union brass say?

The evidence supports at least a few thousand taking this view.

[LD12986]

Research shows that most employees consider their line manager to be the be the most accurate source of information about their company (even if they do not like the information.)

So why should BA cabin crew be different?


Is this the nub of this dispute, with one workgroup doggedly following its union against vehement opposition from all workgroups in the rest of the company?

How many BA cabin crew actually know who their line manager is? And if so when did they last have contact with them? Isn't the source of BASSA's dominance the fact that BA has left a void where a large, remote, and mobile workforce have not been actively managed and BASSA has taken over many aspects if the traditional employer-employee relationship. Ergo, when BASSA
say jump...

[moses30u]

Blimey, what's it like to be in this BA bubble? To suggest the impact of this ballot is negligible and that people will still book with BA, shows a remarkable narrow mind in your loyalty to all things BA. And for BA to spin that those who didn't vote, somehow voted no to strike action baffles me.

I'm out with the London catchment area, so would need a flight to Heathrow or Gatwick for my onward journeys. Given what happened during the last strikes, it's extremely unlikely my short haul flight would leave. Why would I bother going to Heathrow with another airline and have the hassle of a transfer to get to T5 for a long haul flight that may or may not go? I go through Paris or Schiphol.

Nobody in my office is booking with BA right now.

And the stupid thing is? Walsh and BA have their permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working terms and conditions. He's brought in a cheap labour resource, paying minimal wages with crap working rights.

I can see why the current crew voted for a strike so emphatically.

[Mariner9]

The thing is Litebulbs is that if the 5,000-odd who voted yes (and perhaps some who couldn't be bothered with having a say in their own futures) dont believe or trust anything their employer says then no agreement BA propose would ever be satisfactory. Even reinstatement of the sacked, return of ST, and allowing CSD's to put their feet up again on their current agreement will not be satisfactory if they don't trust BA not to change things in future.

If this lack of trust is genuine at CC level rather than just posturing by the union, then the only solution is for the CC concerned to go and find an employer elsewhere that they do trust. Or be booted out (with assistance from BASSA if they do go ahead with what BA will say is an illegal strike) if they won't take the initiative and leave

Tough maybe when they've got a mortgage to pay, but what is the alternative?

[Juan Tugoh]

The working rights of the the MF CC are the same as they are for the heritage CC.

The rest of what you say has some truth, those that need to connect into LHR are more likely to be affected by the strike than those starting a LH journey from LHR. I think that BA is looking to a longer term game than just the days of the strike. BA must ensure that they run and manage the business rather than one group of employees determining how the business should be run for the benefit of them alone.

[Betty girl]

JT,

Mixed Fleet crew are working to very different agreements to current crew, so their working rights are different. They can achieve less time off after trips and trips where current cabin crew and PILOTS would trigger 2 nights down route, like Las Vegus and Hanenda, they only get one night. So they can go into a destination with one set of pilots and leave with a different set because their first set of pilots is having a second night's rest, while they are not.

[moses30u]

Come off it Juan!

Isn't it true that this new fleet can be binned if they're off sick for a few months? Can't they be binned if the company decides they have no use for them? All this for a paltry 11 grand a year and two pounds forty pence an hour.

Off sick once (in an area of work where you're at high risk of contacting all sorts of bugs, viruses) and you'll miss out on pay (call it a bonus if you want).

I was under the impression that this was written into their contracts? Dunno about you but I'd say that they were pretty crap conditions myself.

[Fly380]

Wouldn't it be simpler if pilots and cabin crew worked to similar agreements as was the case in B.Cal. I remember moving up to Heathrow after the merger and operating 6 consecutive sectors with 5 different sets of cabin crew.:confused:

[moses30u]

I always thought they upmanned the flight crew, to share the flying, if they're flying to destinations like Singapore, Narita and so on? Why would they need extra time off?

[Mariner9]

Moses - you are asking the question the wrong way round.

Mixed Fleet currently get less time off between flights than both pilots and "heritage" cabin crew however the rest time must comply with legal minimums. It does.

Whether that (and the other terms and conditions you describe as "pretty crap") is sustainable in the long term remains to be seen, but commercial reality says will largely depend upon market forces. If enough people of sufficient quality are prepared to work on such contracts there will likely be little change.

[moses30u]

Mariner - I'm not doubting that BA are meeting the bare minimum legal requirements for the new cheap fleet.

"....commercial reality says will largely depend upon market forces". I think it's you who has it the wrong way round.

Market forces, particularly labour markets, can be and often are exploited and manipulated by business. BA set the heights in terms or previous T&C's. They've now set the lows.

[Betty girl]

Moses
They don't need extra time off, in the pilots and current cabin crew agreements some trips trigger a two night stop, because of time change and length of duty.

All I was saying was that Mixed Fleet crew are different. I only mentioned the fact that pilots at the moment get the same days down route to current cabin crew on these flights, so that you could see that it was not just current cabin crew that have this time off.

Yes Fly380, we are often on different itineraries to the flight crew because different departments roster itineraries differently but in general our downroute rest is similar, sometimes longer, sometimes less but on these long range flights we both get two nights whereas Mixed fleet will not.

Just pointing out that they are working to different agreements. Don't really want to get into a detailed discussion about rostering rules because it is a long and complicated subject and you really need the relavant book in front of you to hope to understand the subject.

[call100]

Mariner - I'm not doubting that BA are meeting the bare minimum legal requirements for the new cheap fleet.

"....commercial reality says will largely depend upon market forces". I think it's you who has it the wrong way round.

Market forces, particularly labour markets, can be and often are exploited and manipulated by business. BA set the heights in terms or previous T&C's. They've now set the lows.
You won't get anywhere here with that, although I agree entirely, a majority of the posters think that workforces are there to be exploited. This is regardless of the BA dispute.
Nothing changes the fact that people in their thousands are unhappy. The popular train of thought here is that they have been bamboozled. I don't believe that to be the case.
BASSA may have gone about things in entirely the wrong way, but, it would seem that a large amount of people have experienced the down side of the company.
There is also the assumption that those who moved are happy and satisfied rather than scared or financially forced.

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry Moses30u - it is BASSAs refusal to negotiate on existing T&Cs that has caused the rapid growth in Mixed Fleet. Yes, it would have come over time but mature discussion rather than "NO NEGOTIATION" would have achieved a lot more.

Lets face it, why has not other department at BA got the same problem?

Why does no other department mistrust WW so much?

Why is there such a queue of VCC from every other department out to break this strike?

And if Mixed Fleet is so poorly paid in relation to the competition, why are there thousands going through the application process at the moment?

Every other department at BA worked with the Senior Mangement (WW if we want to personalise it) to achieve a consensus. God forbid - even Unite have worked with WW to achieve agreement over pensions. Sadly much of this dispute is BASSA and Cabin Crew wanting control over the company. The right to tell everyone else how they will work. And that is why EVERY other department in BA is lined up against them. Just take a look at PC767 on the cabin crew thread talking about a power struggle as to who runs the company ... and PC767 is cabin crew who seems to think it is their job.

"And the stupid thing is? Walsh and BA have their permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working terms and conditions. He's brought in a cheap labour resource, paying minimal wages with crap working rights."

As I mention, thousands are going through the application process so I guess it isn't quite as bad as you make out. But you also ignore the fact that BASSA refused to negotiate so BA went ahead without them. You ignore (conveniently forget?) that every other department talked and achieved agreement in a mature adult way. BASSA and their cabin crew supporters took the childish decision to hold on to their toys and not talk maturely. And like a 3 year old, they have now lost those toys and are screaming how unfair everything is and they want their toys back and everything to back as it used to be ... with BASSA running the show. It isn't going to happen. One of the reasons that BASSA held the controls for so long is that previous CEOs didn't want this type of dispute and as such pandered to the BASSA brigade. WW hasn't come this far to hand back to BASSA everything that they have thrown out of their own pram.

[Chuchinchow]

Why does no other department mistrust WW so much?

The ins and out of the dispute between BASSA and British Airways have kept PPRuNe readers amused/appalled/annoyed/incensed/educated/informed (you choose whichever word applies best) for the last couple of years, at least.

But has anyone noticed that there have been an infinitesimal number of complaints against British Airways by any other sector of the airline's work force - on PPRuNe, at least? Are they all happy and satisfied with their lot?

[Mariner9]

Market forces, particularly labour markets, can be and often are exploited and manipulated by business. BA set the heights in terms or previous T&C's. They've now set the lows.

As BA are perfectly entitled to do.

The strategy will work if quality staff can be attracted/retained.
It will have to be changed if they can't.

[moses30u]

“BASSAs refusal to negotiate on existing T&Cs that has caused the rapid growth in Mixed Fleet”. Errmm, I don’t think so! Nobody except BA are responsible for setting up the new cheap fleet. They also set the pace. Unless you’re saying that BA are punishing the strikers for daring go against them, in which case, I’d question any business strategy based on rash decisions, which seek to punish a group of employees.

“Lets face it, why has not other department at BA got the same problem?”. Weren’t BALPA calling for a strike a few years ago, due to a cheap fleet of pilots arriving? BA staff going on wild cat strikes during the Gate Gourmet dispute? There are probably others, I can’t be bothered to Google.

“Why does no other department mistrust WW so much?” Does any other staff employee group in BA have a condition of employment written into their contract, which states they can be binned for commercial reasons or sickness? Has any other department been told they must work alongside a cheap labour resource?

Why is there such a queue of VCC from every other department out to break this strike? Greed, management pressure and a jolly. Do the VCC’s get £2.40 an hour for being away BetterbyBoat?

Tell me BetterbyBoat - what else do you want from the cabin crew? A further pound of flesh?

[Betty girl]

There is always a temptation on here for people to simplify things too much.

This dispute is very complicated and there have been faults on BOTH sides.

There are many many different reasons why the vote went the way it did.

Here are a few:-

Some crew don't trust BA to be fair in the future with route allocation.

Some crew have read the agreement are ARE happy with it and do trust BA.

Some have not even read it but have relied on misinformation from Bassa.

Some are happy with the agreement but upset about losing staff travel.

Some are unhappy about the suspensions and sackings.

Some have been persuaded by the union that they will be redeployed if they sign the agreement.

Some are just putting their heads in the sand and hoping it will just go away because they can't cope with all this anymore.

You only have to read what DH said to those crew he wants to leave the union to understand why they are all confused.

As I said the only thing that is certain is that both sides have handled it wrongly at times and that this strike will have hardly any impact on BA because in the end the majority of crew will come to work.

[Chuchinchow]

From moses30u, 11 January 2011:

Ermm..

....I'm an outsider to BA and the aviation industry (I'm in the oil).

[moses30u]

And your point is Churchinchow?

Ahhhh, I see. Because I don't buy the BA spin, toe the line on here and slag off the cabin crew, I must be a union member or cabin crew?

[Mariner9]

Tell me BetterbyBoat - what else do you want from the cabin crew? A further pound of flesh

I cant speak for BbB, but what I would want for cabin crew is:

A rise in basic pay
A promise that route transfers to cheaper fleets will be done fairly.
As a further safeguard to the route transfer, a system that guarantees allowances at current levels if change of routes means allowance earning is reduced from current levels.

BA have offered all the above and it has been rejected by the union without even putting the offer to their members.

Can I ask you Moses what you would want for the cabin crew? (PS Personal insults will get you banned from here pretty quickly so you may like to edit your last post)

[moses30u]

Thanks for the headsup Mariner, duly edited.

You’ve lost me a bit about the transfers.

However, from what you’ve stated, there’s a lot of management promises in that offer. Given the bitterness of this dispute, I’m not so sure I’d trust these promises right now.

This basic pay rise has got to be a management gimmick right?! Certainly is a headline grabber.

[Ancient Observer]

I would like to restore a little bit of balance here.

Whilst DH is behaving just like the Popes during the counter-reformation, and the believers are doing what they are told, as they did back then, there is a fact that thousands of staff voted to strike, and thousands of staff will go on strike. (Two thirds of those that voted to strike will strike).

This remains a very serious management issue.

The "pope" cannot "lead" without followers. There are thousands of followers, and thousands of strikers. It's not just DH and a bunch of cardinals, it is thousands of people.

What the hell are the BA managers doing? In any other industry, the managers would be out there talking to the staff and finding and fixing the problems.

The longer this goes on the worse the line managers appear to be.

[Mariner9]

One promise - fairness in route transfers.

Even if one would trust BA to act so unfairly in this process as to reduce their heritage CC's allowances to zero, they still have the new system that pays them the equivalent of current rates, so they are no worse off*

As for the payrise, I'm sure BA would happily drop that part of the offer if Union members feel its only a gimmick.

*As an average group, they would be no worse off. However we are told on the other thread that BASSA members manipulate routes so that "favoured" senior BASSA members get the lions share of high earning routes. Thus these senior BASSA members would lose some money, while the less senior CC would gain. The cynics on here (and I admit to being one of them) would say the prolonging of this dispute is a clear example of the BASSA reps/senior members attempting to continue the feathering of their own nests at the expense of their junior members.

[Betty girl]

Ancient Observer,

You have hit upon the big problem for BA, it is not like most companies because the workforce are spread all over the world and report at different times of the day.

The managers do try and phone crew at home ( but I have to say that many crew will not take their call) and walk-in sessions are open for crew to chat to managers, in fact at this moment, but hardly any will go in and talk.

Most main crew and a large proportions of WW pursers do not even know who their manager is because our working life is predominantly on an aircraft. Crew arrive just before their flight briefing starts and then on their return go straight home, particularily the WW crew.

[BetterByBoat]

Moses30u ... I think pilots fly without the need to go as VCC ... and I think they are better paid at the front of the plane than in the cabin. Other VCC fly because they want to end the BASSA control of the company. If you need further examples of BASSAs negotiating skills, take a look at DH discussing the way forward with his own union members .... negotiation is not an option even here with people who pay his wages. It is DHs way or the highway.

You say about "Weren’t BALPA calling for a strike a few years ago, due to a cheap fleet of pilots arriving?" Why didn't it happen. Negotiation occured. Notice the difference.

Gate Gourmet? Get real - Gate Gourment sacked their own employees 5 and a half years ago - it was nothing to do with issues with BA management. It was BA empoloyees "supporting" their friends \ family at Gate Gourmet at Union insistence.

Cheap labour - well, we can agree to disagree on that. It is certainly cheaper labour than current T & C s but that is the same throughout the airline and country. New employees almost everywhere are on new T & Cs including the removal of final salary pension schemes. Mixed Fleet will only work if cabin crew stay and can live on the wage. That is the same with any job. From bus driver to pilot. From banker to bank clerk. But are you seriously suggesting that current crew are so thoughtful and considerate that they were voting to strike over someone elses wages and not their own. How noble ;-)

Even Betty Girl - which of the points you mention were the original cause of this dispute? I accept things have moved on ... but the actual causes of this dispute ... can you confirm that Unite and BA had agreed in principal an agreement as far back as Dec 2009 which BASSA scuppered?

Mariner 9 - I agree totally. And perhaps strikers could post back what they want to end this dispute.

Ancient Observer (and this is where I would agree with Moses). I don't believe BA have gone through 14 months of this to hand back everything now (and I think that is what the strikers want). Other departments felt WW went quite far enough even handing back ST (even with loss of seniority) after it was withdrawn. It is a now (I believe) a dispute about who runs the airline and it isn't one that BASSA can win.

Sadly BASSA have backed themselves into a corner. And BA don't need them anymore. Ultimately it is the cabin crew that will suffer.

[Betty girl]

Mariner,
I personally think it is the sackings and suspensions and BA's requirement that the arrangements between the union and BA are modernised, that drives the reps on.

They are just using misinformation to the cabin crew as a way of getting them all on side. I am sure that the reps know that this deal is actually quite good. They are just totally embittered because some of their colleagues, in their eyes, have been unfairly and harshly treated plus the removal of staff travel seniority.

That's what drives this strike on.

[Snas]

Most main crew and a large proportions of WW pursers do not even know who their manager is because our working life is predominantly on an aircraft. Crew arrive just before their flight briefing starts and then on their return go straight home, particularily the WW crew.

Whilst generally correct my partner, WW PSR, knows her manager very well and enjoyes regular contact and communication with her. She [partner] made the effort to do so and there is nothing preventing any other cabin crew member from doing the same thing.

After being invoved in a serious incident on a flight recently she recieved a call from her manager checking that she was ok and offering various services and support. I know some crew would accuse that manager of harressing them at home by phoning..!

Bottom line, staff / management relations is a two way street.

Any CC member that doesnt know their managers name must have applied zero effort in finding it out, it's all published after all. So manager AND CC fail equally in that example.

[Betty girl]

Well I totally agree with you Snas.

I like your partner have a great and wonderful relationship with mine. I have a chat with her whenever I see her sitting at her desk but that is not the case for most main crew and WW Pursers. I also notice that only a few WW managers work in the CRC with most opting to work at Waterside. However on E/F the majority choose to work at the CRC which is great for me because I enjoy having the ear of my manager.

Our managers come and go but I like your partner always seek out mine when she/he changes but I don't think I and your partner are the norm I am afraid.

I was really just trying to show AC how difficult it is for BA because each manager has about 300 crew I believe.

[just an observer]

It does seem to be true that for most crew, the crewing levels, the original strike reason, have been accepted.

As mariner9 said, what they would want is


A rise in basic pay
A promise that route transfers to cheaper fleets will be done fairly.
As a further safeguard to the route transfer, a system that guarantees allowances at current levels if change of routes means allowance earning is reduced from current levels


All this was offered 8 or 9 days before the original strike, and was obviously acceptable to Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson. They asked BA for more time before the 7 day 'strike dates' deadline to ballot members on it and BA agreed provided no dates were announced, as that would cost BA cancellations etc. So what happened? BASSA and mouthpiece Len McLuskey go ahead and announce strike dates! Thus scuppering the deal and costing their members pay and staff travel etc. To me that is a huge act of betrayal by a union of its members. If CC had rejected it, so be it, but they should have had the chance to vote, with a fair appraisal of what it offered, not the rhetoric/maybe this and maybe that scaremongering that BASSA subsequently justified themselves with.

Following on from that, I can't believe the strike, for BASSA leadership, is anything other than a power play within BA for control of IFCE and BA have to win or they may as well forget any bank backing for new aircraft etc.

Edit to add, I agree with BG above, this is also a likely reason the sackings and suspensions and BA's requirement that the arrangements between the union and BA are modernised, that drives the reps on.

However I do believe BA should have offered back staff travel with seniority immediately on coming to an agreement, or perhaps in April 2011. It would have been a goodwill gesture that cost nothing. Perhaps that is one thing the new CEO could do without losing face, as it was Mr Walsh that was so specific about it.

[BetterByBoat]

I guess there are really 2 disputes going on here:

1) With Cabin Crew which I suspect would never have started, or at least been resolved by now, if they were represented by TW \ Unite without BASSA involvement. I hate to say it but Cabin Crew are, I think, now irrelevant to this dispute.

2) With BASSA - and this is now the key dispute. Sadly the cabin crew strikers caught in the middle are cannon fodder and saddest of all, their Union (at least in the guise of DH) has no interest in their views or futures. Hopefully Cabin Crew will see his latest rant as proof that he is only interested in those that agree with him. And you can't live life like that, no matter who you are. BA can't, and after 14 months, won't let BASSA "win" - that should be obvious no matter what your views. Just an oberver - surely you can see that the unconditional return of staff travel is a corner stone to that.

Enough from me .... hopefully cabin crew will see that they are only of interest to DH while they support him in his quest.

BG and everyone else at BA that help keep the airline flying - keep up the good work.

[Betty girl]

JanO and BBB,

I think you both sum it up.

Unfortunately Willie Walsh has specifically put it on notice, that he will continue to be dealing with this issue. So no change there. DH continues at Bassa and he is in fact the main culprit. So no change there either.

So for people like me, it feels like a never ending circle and apart from hoping that I can persuade others with my opinions, I am powerless to do anything!!

[Juan Tugoh]

You saidpaying minimal wages with crap working rights.


This I strongly disagreed with as all workers in the UK have the same RIGHTS, their individual terms are different and whether they are c**p or not is a matter for debate. They are certainly different but no-one is forcing people to sign the new contract.

If the conditions are so poor (can we use poor rather than the unnecessary scatalogical reference?) then people will not stay very long. That perhaps is the point of this contract, that people will not stay forever but leave after a few years.

Your reply of:
Dunno about you but I'd say that they were pretty crap conditions myself.

focused on the terms (the conditions in which they work are the same as the heritage crew) to which I made no reference or comment.

I just wish people would use the words they mean and understand those words, it makes the debate so much more reasoned and less emotional. Please try to read what people write and respond to that rather than getting angry about what you think they have written.