BALPA save BA money!

[Charlie Pop]

Come on SEPLA reps, stop being awkward with Iberia and follow the lead of your colleagues in BALPA! In a fine example of the spirit of collaborative working, BA and BALPA have agreed to sacrifice all the ongoing holiday pay that BALPA spent millions of pounds of members money on legal fees to win, and replace it with a single, communist-inspired wealth redistribution program which will remove up to £1000 per year from the income of those pilots who work to their contracted 900 hours per year, and instead use it to fund those who don't feel like working so hard, including managers and BA BALPA reps.

In addition, this conveniently removes the remote risk BA faced in being pursued by individual pilot employees for operating a payment scheme in breach of EU law, to the cost of BALPA members.

Our colleagues in SEPLA should wise up and see how it is done. Don't waste your time letting members vote on it, simply sign up to the deal and tell your members they agreed to it when they voted on an entirely different matter several months ago! Should any Spanish union counterparts need further advice they can currently find Il Duce and the rest of his BA Captains Council holed up in the BALPA HQ bunker in London desperately avoiding any questions from a hostile membership. For more information send an email to BALPA and make the subject: JPT (Judkins' Poll Tax).

[heavy_landing]

To clarify your headline, how much money is this saving BA?

[Charlie Pop]

Ooo, trainers NCP, ongoing holiday commitment, potentially discriminatory pro-rating of PTW pilots, legal risk of future challenges. I reckon that's worth quite a bit over the next 20 years. Jolly nice of Il Duce and the clowns to arbitrarily redistribute the earnings of their members too, BA must be laughing into their lattes at those mugs doing their dirty work for them. It looks like there'll be a few less members too.

[Shaka Zulu]

CP, kinda disgusted that you can talk about people like that. People that do work incredibly hard for us.
Put your own name forward if you think that you can do so much better.

Why don't you post it like this on the BALPA forum and let's have a name to the crap that you waffle.

Fair enough not agreeing with something, it's a democracy. No need to lower yourself to vile insults.

[Charlie Pop]

If that's what hard work brings then it's clear the team at the top need a long holiday. Preferably a permanent one. And where was the democratic vote on this particular daylight robbery? Slipped into the bmi vote deal? What a joke!

[73addict]

Tosh to the whole thing!

[Callsign Kilo]

BALPA are an effective tool in helping to make airline managers look intelligent

[wiggy]

SZ

Fair enough not agreeing with something, it's a democracy.

I hope you're right, and I hope Charlie Pop takes the opportunity to post his/her thoughts on the BALPA forum - assuming he/she is a member of course.

IMHO possibly the only silver lining I can find in this apparent debacle is that elsewhere we've got a sometimes heated but civilised, vaguely rational debate going on, and above all it's one that is most definitely not being controlled or censored by senior association reps.

[lemmiwink]

WTF
Is going on?

[wiggy]

WTF
Is going on?


Well, long story short, it started with a long newsletter went out last night to BA BALPA members which started by saying:

As part of the agreement to secure the integration of bmi into BA, which BA members approved by ballot in January 2012, it was agreed that a
mechanism would be introduced to remove any future liability resulting
from a settlement to the BALPA Holiday Pay Claim.

Without going into too much detail about the subsequent text it appears that the "mechanism" being proposed by the Company Council Reps would have seen many individuals (but not all) taking a significant pay cut - which generated a just a tiny :eek: bit of traffic on the BA BALPA Forum. Charlie Pop's choice of words is a bit extreme but he certainly gives you an fairly accurate idea of the thoughts being expressed by some "in that place"....it's the closest I've seen that site come to melt down in a long long time...........

Fortunately (IMHO of course) we heard a few minutes ago that it seems those involved in negotiations have appreciated the membership's concerns, have taken a step back and decided to reconsider the proposed mechanism.

[Charlie Pop]

Yes ain't that queer! After an outpouring of criticism the BACC have managed to get BA management to reconsider their position. Which is interesting, as a managerial source has suggested that BA were not happy with this solution in the first place and it was, in actuality, being pushed by the BACC. Now given the historical positions of BA wishing to preserve some form of incentive pay, and the BACC wishing to remove it, it does seem a curious volte-face for both parties. Has anyone ever seen the BACC override the 'firm legal advice' apparently given to both parties that only a fixed FPA would be legally robust? That would be a first. Something doesn't add up.

[wiggy]

Something doesn't add up.

I know what you mean, it is all a bit odd.

The whole episode (which has lasted barely 24 hours) has all been a bit strange to say the least.....the only saving grace is that it seems the BACC actually listened to the members concerns, though it does seem the volume had to be cranked up to 11 to get a result :E.....

[Charlie Pop]

Best we get down to New Road with some branches. I think someone might need to cover their tracks!

[FL370 Officeboy]

Why would you go to New Road?

[Charlie Pop]

Make that Bath Road then. Or just follow the truck carrying lots of cans of whitewash.:ok:

"Nothing to see here, move along now."

[Juan Tugoh]

Seems BALPA are having a bad week. Another mis-step from them joining with UNITE to try to stop non-union members from receiving holiday pay. It's either a right or it's not, if it's not a right then hand back the money you won, don't try to keep it from others.

The concept should be familiar to the unions, things like equal pay for women - just because the union led the fight, should only union members get equal pay.

This is petty and beyond contempt.

[Flap33]

I understand the feelings here, I am affected by this as well. Can I suggest that we keep this to our own BALPA forum... Dirty washing, public, etc.....

[Jockster]

Juan. Just submit a small claims court application for the holiday pay amount quoting the 1984 employment act regarding "unequal treatment". You can't reward or punish employees doing the same job or guilty of the same misdemeanour unequally. You don't have to prove the validity of the holiday pay claim just that you have been treated differently from another employee. The court will be even more sympathetic because you are being victimised for not joining a union - all that closed shop stuff.
I'm going to do it once the pay is awarded, can't do anything before that.

[rod_1986]

It's all alright though, because post-Ewing, BALPA are all open and honest and transparent and cuddly. Couldn't possibly be any dodgy backroom deals being done.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[gorter]

Just for my own curiosity. How exactly are BALPA trying to stop non members getting the holiday pay (or whatever the final settlement ends up being?)

[Juan Tugoh]

BALPA have co-written, with UNITE, a letter to BA urging them not to pay Holiday Pay (HP) to anyone that was not in the union. This after trying to cut pay without consultation in order to remove the cost liability of HP from BA - only this would apply to all pilots. So screwing over the non-union pilots. It gets worse, by allying themselves with UNITE, the mother union of BASSA, they are helping to screw over any cabin crew that left the union during the dispute with BA.

[gorter]

Is it the whole holiday pay or the back pay element?

[Watersidewonker]

JT, as many of your colleagues have posted, let's move on together. It's time to heal the wounds and move forward working together like all trade unions should. I applaud their joint statement. Just as you are annoyed 'BA backers' won't be included, I'm equally annoyed our decent pilots who left BALPA won't be.
There's nothing to stop them taking a claim out in their own names and they'll probably win it, but why should others benefit from a claim they haven't financially contributed to?

[Juan Tugoh]

I suppose Wonker that you are also against Universal suffrage or any other right won by a small group. A right is a right and this petty union posturing is vile and unworthy.

Unions cannot have it both ways, If they want to negotiate pay and T&Cs for everyone, the price has always been that non-members also get the benefits. When the union stoops to actively trying to stoops to this sort of behaviour it demeans ALL their members by turning them into petty, childish and small-minded.

This is not about "moving-on" something you seem desperate for people to do yet you continue to harp on about at every opportunity. This is about fairness for all, not just union members. It has nothing to do with your obsession.

[Watersidewonker]

Unions cannot have it both ways, If they want to negotiate pay and T&Cs for everyone, the price has always been that non-members also get the benefits
So why do I pay my membership fees? For others who don't?
Get real JT - we're not talking about a broke, impoverished group!

[gorter]

Unions cannot have it both ways, If they want to negotiate pay and T&Cs for everyone, the price has always been that non-members also get the benefits.

Leaving this specific letter writing aside.

Whilst I'm not a BA pilot, I am a long time BALPA member. Surely you have that the wrong way round! If you want the benefits of membership you need to be a member and not hang on to the coat tails of those who are willing to stump up 1% of their gross salary.

BALPA took a risk spending money I have given to them by going to the courts. Sometimes they win like in the holiday pay case, sometimes they lose like in open skies. It's a risk you take going to court. It's a risk I'm happy to support just as BALPA takes risks in my airline which I hope the members in BA are willing to support.

But why on earth should I risk my subs on someone who isn't willing to pay his or her fair share?

And as to negotiating T's and C's, I'm pretty sure in the current BALPA BA agreement there's a clause that states that any pilot is free to negotiate their own terms and conditions. If you're not happy with what balpa's doing on your behalf (without you paying for the service) feel free to negotiate your salary, per diems, rostering agreement, loss of licence, health care, pension etc yourself.

[Watersidewonker]

I wouldn't worry gorter, JT just sees red mist when I post then quickly posts some irrational response to try and get 'one over', without thinking of the ridiculous statement he's just made.
If you're employed and want support and protection a union provides, then you jolly well contribute towards it - we're not a charity!

[gorter]

WW,

You don't get to play that game. You take any opportunity you can to have a pop at BA pilots and BALPA. We may agree on this one issue but in general I find your stance towards your fellow union members to be left wanting.

[stiglet]

Wonker you've summed it up there. BALPA does more than just negotiate T&C, it provides support and protection amongst other things. For those who don't want that they are carried along with the T&C negotiated. It's up to the individual to choose if the price of membership is worth the subs to them. Morals apart - if you're OK with someone else paying to which you receive a benefit without contributing.

Gorter I'm not sure you're correct in believing that a company will negotiate with an individual. I think that most will only negotiate with the agreed union if there is one.

[Wirbelsturm]

It's totally irrelevant if you are a member of BALPA or not when it comes to holiday pay. BALPA set the precedent and campaigned for the payment using members subs but each and every case was brought as an individual case citing the persons name.

Once the precedent in law has been set it is then up to the individual as to whether he/she wishes to pursue the company through the courts for the back payment of holiday pay.

It is not the remit of the Union, Unite or BALPA, to decide who should and shouldn't get paid, the remit of the Union is to represent its members, nothing more.

Those outside of the Union should have received holiday pay from the company over the same period, they didn't, thus, as now encapsulated in law, they should be free to take legal action as they see fit.

What Unite and BALPA are doing is disingenuous to say the least.

The fallout from this and the BMI deal will affect ALL pilots and Cabin Crew, those who are members and those who are not. If the company ran two sets of T's & C's, one for members and one for non members, then I could see the point. The company doesn't.

[Juan Tugoh]

So why do I pay my membership fees? For others who don't?
Get real JT - we're not talking about a broke, impoverished group!

Leaving aside the personal insults, Unite have not yet been to an ET except to have judgment stayed, waiting the result of the BALPA case. So in reality NO group of employees has a case with BA to expect HP except for those pilots that were part of the claim. Unless the case was to prove a point of law, which it did. The case proved that BA crew with a highly variable pay have a right to an element of that pay while on holiday. With that right established in law, it is offensive when a union then urges an company not to honour that right for non-union members from it's own staff group let alone another one.

My objection is with my union joining forces with UNITE to urge BA not to pay pilots AND cabin crew any HP unless they are part of the union. I think that this is despicable. Pilots unions should not be involved in what a company pays it's cabin crew at all. Indeed until now BALPA has remained neutral - whether Wonker and his ilk will admit it BALPA did not either support or work against BASSA in the strike. Individuals acted but not the union.

So when you say that we are not talking about a broke, impoverished group we are talking about cabin crew. I don't care a fig whether UNITE wants to call for it's non-members to be screwed over, but i do object when my union decides to do so. It is not the place of BALPA to do so any more than it is the place of UNITE to call for pilots not to get their rightful HP.

This is not about someone riding on the coat tails of a union, we all get what we pay for from our respective unions, but about a couple of unions BALPA and UNITE joining forces to try to deny someone their rightful pay - just because the union won that right does not mean they get to decide to whom that right applies. It applies across the board or not at all.

[8029848s]

As a non union pilot in BA I have already pointed out to our management that failure to pay non members would constitute discrimination under current legislation, and with the precedent already set, they would lose any further case.

Might have to get the lawyer to write to the company but I cannot see how they can avoid paying.

Either way I will not fund the life style of our BALPA reps....period!

Whilst not anti union per se, they are largely self serving cartels, that have never been able to protect the long term condition in any industry.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Either way I will not fund the life style of our BALPA reps....period!

But you are quite happy for all the BA balpa members to fund the court case on your behalf.

[Shaman]

Our BALPA reps are fellow pilots who are prepared to give up their time - and their family time - to represent us to the best of their ability. Can't we just let them got on with it instead of constantly barracking them?

[Watersidewonker]

I think that this is despicable. Pilots unions should not be involved in what a company pays it's cabin crew at all.
:8:8:8 Haven't stopped laughing!!!! At least we agree on something JT!!
Unfortunately it was your unions members who helped set up a low paid CC unit at LHR.

[Shaka Zulu]

WW. God, you are like a broken record. One minute you say: we have to move on and the next you take another pop shot. How can you trust anyone who continually changes his tune to suit his/her own agenda. Have some backbone and move on, I dare you.
(As we all know 50% of your own members all worked through the strike and so did every other department)

Sadistic pleasure because we are an easy target? Self reflect and learn from your mistakes. Wallowing in anger has gotten you this far and legacy crew is f***** due to your actions.

Be brave, apologise to your membership that you gambled with Willy and you lost, not expecting such a turn out by your own members.
Then, we can move forward.

[Juan Tugoh]

Wonker try to stay on topic for once

[Bengerman]

As a non union pilot in BA I have already pointed out to our management that failure to pay non members would constitute discrimination under current legislation, and with the precedent already set, they would lose any further case.

Might have to get the lawyer to write to the company but I cannot see how they can avoid paying.

Either way I will not fund the life style of our BALPA reps....period!

Whilst not anti union per se, they are largely self serving cartels, that have never been able to protect the long term condition in any industry.

Yeah! But you are quite happy to line your own pockets through the financial efforts of others whilst you just sat on your arse with your union dues tucked away in that same pocket.

A little humility might be in order as well as noting that the "self serving cartel" has just secured a huge win for its members, and just maybe any other parasites who want to come along for the ride.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

I don't work for BA but am a BALPA member elsewhere. I was also a TGWU (now UNITE) member in a past life, albeit under duress as I had no choice. There are some people on here who want all the protections and perks of Union membership but want other people to pay for it. I have zero sympathy for them frankly.

I think, however, it is ill-advised of BALPA and UNITE to actively ask their management not to give HP to non-members. It opens the door to a 'benevolent' act (divide and conquer?) from management to go against their request and give it out anyway. Furthermore, it is inconsistent in that the unions always negotiate pay rises for the whole workforce and not just their members. Finally, it has an ugly air about it that will only cause unnecessary offense. All-in-all, a very unwise move.

[captplaystation]

When your "management", and your "Union", are members of the same "club" what do you expect ?

Been there done that (British Midland) believe you have the same "virus" :rolleyes:

[yotty]

Quote from WW. "Haven't stopped laughing!!!! At least we agree on something JT!!
Unfortunately it was your unions members who helped set up a low paid CC unit at LHR." But wasn't it BASSA that helped set up a low paid CC unit at LGW? :hmm:

[Count Niemantznarr]

Of course those pilots and cabin crew who may be shut out of the Holiday Pay settlement, are now trying to play the discrimination card. They want their cake and eat it. Sorry that doesn't wash.

There must be a benefit and even an advantage for those paying fees to a professional body, who negotiates with an employer on their behalf. This is where there is conflict in the psyche of pilots. Most are right wing Tories who do not believe in unions, and even denigrate achievement by calling organised labour, or institutions like BALPA a " self serving cartel".

[GS-Alpha]

8029848s

You may well be right when you suggest it would be wrong for the company to pay union members and non-union members differently going forwards. I'd be surprised if that applies to the back pay though. Union members had to have their names updated every three months throughout the legal process, in order to be legally entitled to back pay of more than three months. The unions' point with this letter, is that if they pay any more than the legal minimum, they'll be taking the Michael when they then come along cap in hand for further cost savings in the near future. I think it is all a bit hypocritical when you consider that they negotiated a non-legal minimum payout for the ex-BMI pilots within BA though, so I'm expecting the full back pay for all. I'm sure the company likes to consider itself a fair and law abiding company. It has been legally determined that the company should have been paying this money. Whether they are legally forced to provide back pay or not, a fair employer would, and that's why I think BA will. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, BA is a very fair employer.

[Jockster]

The company has agreed a holiday payment for the former BMI pilots (as non-claimants). Are all of these pilots BALPA members? If not then queue 'unequal treatment' claim by non union BA pilots :)

[wiggy]

Jockster:

The company has agreed a holiday payment for the former BMI pilots (as non-claimants). Are all of these pilots BALPA members? If not then queue 'unequal treatment' claim by non union BA pilots

Holiday pay "going forward": BA do have to treat them all equally from the settlement date, in a union or not.

"Back Holiday Pay": As GS-Alpha has said there is is no requirement in law to pay "back holiday pay" to non members covering the period from the start of the legal proceedings until the settlement, since those pilots were not involved in those proceedings - they were not named as claimants.

GS-Alpha

Whether they are legally forced to provide back pay or not, a fair employer would, and that's why I think BA will. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, BA is a very fair employer.

I'd agree that in some areas BA are more fair than many people give them credit for, but the board has a duty to shareholders and a bottom line to consider. They are now facing a very large bill (tens of millions STG) and if they can still legally avoid paying some of it......though tactically it might suit them to pay everybody and then plead broke when it comes to the annual pay round :rolleyes:

[GS-Alpha]

Jockster, the ex-BMI guys were claimants so you'll have to think of another cunning plan.

My post above, was simply about the amount of settlement for ex-BMI guys. The BALPA members among them were all claimants. The actual value of the backpay has been settled out of court so is not necessarily what would have been achieved through the courts. My point was that I suspect the BMI claimants would have got slightly less had it gone to court, but then so might the rest of the BA pilots. Such is the nature of an out of court settlement though. I do not believe BA are 'legally required' to backpay non-claimants, and a claim started right now, can only demand up to three months of back pay.

Wiggy

tactically it might suit them to pay everybody and then plead broke when it comes to the annual pay round
Yes indeed. This is precisely what the second thing to upset a lot of BA BALPA members this week, was all about.

[4468]

Count:
Of course those pilots and cabin crew who may be shut out of the Holiday Pay settlement, are now trying to play the discrimination card. They want their cake and eat it. Sorry that doesn't wash.
Must be a bitter disappointment to you (and BALPA!) that the employer has decided to settle with ALL EMPLOYEES. Meaning all the cabin crew that left BASSA and supported BA during the failed IA will receive the payout too!

Happy days!

[Wessexdriver72]

Well done to this company for deciding to apply the holiday pay ruling to ALL.

I think this is a good thing. Yes, I pay my 1% to a union, but in the spirit of tolerance and understanding, I have no problem whatsoever in wanting ALL of the workforce to benefit from an allowances system which has been proved to be unfair in a court.

BALPA, and other unions do a great deal of good for their members...

Legal Advice & Representation
Industrial Support
Employment issues advice
Free initial personal legal advice
Access to BALPA Financial Solutions
Access to BALPA website and forums
Bi-monthly Log Magazine!!

Lots of advice and support on offer. But some individuals have different circumstances and attitudes and don't feel that they need this support. Or maybe they have their own support networks and don't feel that they can justify the cost of this added 'insurance'. That's fine! There's no right or wrong answer.

As for negotiating Ts&Cs with an employer, if you go it alone it may be difficult or impossible to effect a change. The company may not negotiate with an individual. You'll just have to accept what's been given.

Whereas I know that I have a team of capable chaps who will fight the battles for me. Yes, they sometimes get it wrong, or misread the sentiments of their members, or are boxed into a 'poor' settlement by the company, but by and large I have the security of knowing that they are on my side, and personally speaking they remove a level of anxiety from my life.

So whilst I understand that the union's job is to look after its members, I certainly do not begrudge ANY of those who benefit from its collective bargaining power.

[Sporran]

wessexdriver72 - (ps.. is that your age!!!)

I am a BA BALPA member too and initially was a bit disappointed that those who were not willing to contribute to the fight will still gain. However, I understand that the legal advice probably meant that BA had no choice and have therefore tried to 'dress it up' as a gift from a caring employer!!! They are an excellent employer, but not a favourite uncle!!!

However, I am very pleased that the back-pay will go to those people who had the courage of their convictions to leave bassa. It would have been VERY harsh if they had missed out.

[Watersidewonker]

those people who had the courage of their convictions to leave bassa
Not to mention the brave ones who left BALPA!
A little birdie tells me 380 rejoined BASSA in the past few weeks. Wonder if they'll leave now :rolleyes:

[Wirbelsturm]

A little birdie tells me 380 rejoined BASSA in the past few weeks. Wonder if they'll leave now

Given BASSA's history with numbers that'll be about 7 in reality I would expect.

Nice to see BASSA, once again, tugging on the coat tails of BALPA's proactive stance. Bit like the pensions deal and the HMRC deal, oops, forgot, BASSA said you couldn't negotiate with the tax man and went it alone. Losing their members money.
:ugh:

[Watersidewonker]

Nice to see BASSA, once again, tugging on the coat tails of BALPA's proactive stance
Like it or not Wirby boy - we're moving closer together. Your union's trying to find a spine for the final showdown that's about to hit us.:p

[Megaton]

Presumably if BALPA is trying to find a spine, BASSA must be trying to find a brain?

[Count Niemantznarr]

There will be an exodus of BA pilots out of BALPA as soon as the Holiday Pay is coughed up. That is all many are waiting for.

Hardly much "spine" there for when Willie comes knocking on your door.

Perhaps Wirblesturm can inform us how the alleged superior intellect of BA's pilots, through elegant and intelligent negotiations with BA, have ended up on an hourly rate paid in Sterling? Against a range of currencies throughout the world, the UK Pound has collapsed, but BASSA has retained allowances locally and uplifted whenever the Pound drops. :D

[wiggy]

There will be an exodus of BA pilots out of BALPA as soon as the Holiday Pay is coughed up. That is all many are waiting for.


I very much doubt it. Would you care to put a number (even a rough guess) on the size of that "exodus", or are you going to be deliberately vague?

[Wirbelsturm]

Perhaps Wirblesturm can inform us how the alleged superior intellect of BA's pilots, through elegant and intelligent negotiations with BA, have ended up on an hourly rate paid in Sterling? Against a range of currencies throughout the world, the UK Pound has collapsed, but BASSA has retained allowances locally and uplifted whenever the Pound drops. :D

Perhaps you could explain why the CC who have a lean month or a leave month or a month with lots of unused airport standbys (because their colleagues don't have a problem pulling a sickie or doing a 'Duncan') complain and worry so much as their variable pay makes up such a large proportion of their non pensionable pay? The look of shock when a disruption affects their next trip and that wonderful 'non sterling' linked box payment disappears into another 'available'. The annoyance of a 'lean' month when the pay packet won't cover the lifestyle. Or the inability to get specific destinations unless they are a request trip as the seniors always do them for the box payments.

Obviously the long term financial benefits of an increased, more stable, accountable basic pay and a reduced variable pay removing the 'cherry trips' and basing your roster on lifestyle choices was such a stupid move against the vagaries of the financial money markets, how could we have entertained it. Sterling only ever drops doesn't it Count, it never climbs does it, imagine a bizarre world where the £ buys $2.20, unimaginable. The increase in basic makes paying the bills easier and more reliable, it benefits the BARP members and allows free choice of destination not just the 'big payers' for the senior crew. You know like the ones that the BASSA council members were buying off the allocator who was dismissed? Surely you remember, you used him to deliver your strike mandate? Oh the 'fairness' of it all, BA Senior Stewards Association at it's best.

[Count Niemantznarr]

I am afraid Wibblestime that the B of E will be rolling those QE printing presses for a long time to come, and the chances of U$2.20 to the Pound may not occur for a decade or more. Parity with the Dollar is more likely. How does that fit in with your budget?

You conveniently forget your own departments problems with regard to favoured trips when the hourly rate was introduced. I remember a BALPA rep having to promise the company the problem of sickness on the NRT route was being addressed. All of a sudden that became a very junior trip. So no lectures please about cabin crew attendance.

As for Mixed Fleet reducing IFCE costs, the fleet has just had a pay rise and they can potentially earn more than Gatwick based cabin crew. I suppose the turnover was just too high to sustain? Over 1,000 MF crew now belong to UNITE and with the Legacy Purser name change, it cannot be long before there is a full merger.

You know it makes sense.

[Wirbelsturm]

As for Mixed Fleet reducing IFCS costs, the fleet has just had a pay rise and they can potentially earn more than Gatwick based cabin crew

That was always the plan with Mixed Fleet. The contract was written to be flexible and adapt as needs arose. Flexibility? BASSA didn't even know what that word meant hence their demise.

Irrespective of how many CC join BASSA/Unite the BASSA of old is no more, they have no teeth anymore and most of the members would be vary wary of following the drivel from the head seat/ Branch Secretary again before leaping into ludicrous, destructive IA. The CC need representation, I have always believed that, they just didn't need the old BASSA. In fact no one did.

How does that fit in with your budget?


It doesn't need to, that's the point. :ugh:

As for QE, I think we will see that change when the prime aim of the B of E becomes growth not inflation capping. The gains of having allowances paid in local currency pale into insignificance as soon as a trip is dropped or lost. What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. I would rather have the increase in pensionable basic thank you.

Bank of England governor outvoted in bid to launch fresh QE boost

and...

Those opposing further QE said the Bank had already given a "substantial" stimulus to the economy and expressed concern that QE was becoming less effective. With inflation already above target, there was a risk further asset purchases would send the wrong signal to the public.

The new Canadian chap is not a fan of QE and opposed it fully in Canada. I don't think we'll see parity with the $ Count. Not in our lifetime. $1.50 - $1.65 is a good export figure.

[Juan Tugoh]

For every small decrease in the pound versus overseas currency the cost to BA of WW and EF operating it becomes greater eroding that route's profitability. Put another way it makes MF more desirable in that route. There are an additional 1000 MF coming on line this year - why and where will they fly to?

BASSA has never thought beyond the immediate, their "thinkers" are purely tactical not strategic. Enjoy the currency changes while they work in your favour.

On a separate point. What will happen to box payments and other variable pay for cabin crew when the legal ramifications of HP are worked through. A fixed payment each month perhaps?

[wiggy]

Count

I remember a BALPA rep having to promise the company the problem of sickness on the NRT route was being addressed. All of a sudden that became a very junior trip. So no lectures please about cabin crew attendance.

FWIW I was on the fleet involved at the time, and yes there were lots of scare stories about work coverage.... Did this Rep tell you how he/she/BALPA intended to carry through on this "promise"?

FWIW I did plenty of NRTs after the allowances change and I certainly don't recall any tweaks being offered, e.g. a Destination Payment :ok:, in order to make NRT more attractive. Whilst the trip did indeed "go junior" the names that turned up at briefing at LHR were normally those that had been "in the frame" at roster publication several weeks before report. I certainly didn't see any evidence of an attendance problem.

[Count Niemantznarr]

There was an 'understanding' with the Company that if attendance became a problem on certain identified routes which had previously paid high allowances, BALPA would have to deal with it. NRT became a weak link when the hourly rate was introduced. Previously allowances were so lucrative for BA flight crew flying to NRT and other Japanese destinations, some senior F/O's had even turned down promotion in order to cherry pick the route. One eventually became a Samurai! He only managed 300 trips to Japan.


The hourly rate did seem a good wheeze at the time, but with their usual lack of pragmatism, BA flight crew failed to see the possibility what a debased Pound would have on their downroute purchasing power. Now of course jealous pilots accuse the cabin crew of eroding profitability, but are not aware that far more damage is caused to a routes viability by a weak Pound on fuel and leasing costs, plus the associated inflationary pressures on UK imports that feed through to wage demands.

Yes a meal at Fatties with a few beers, is a costly experience these days for BA pilots.

[cessnapete]

Thats why Syd going to MF in Sept.
Huge decrease in crew costs, and one local night less in Sin, which with the imminent introduction of the 777 will hopefully help make the route viable again.

[Count Niemantznarr]

So what savings have BA flight crew offered on the LHR - SYD route?

Do you really need two Captains on the LHR - SIN - LHR sectors?

What about the two Club seats 60A/B that have to remain unsold just in case one of you wants to watch a film?

Two 747 flights to SIN every night, four Club seats that can't be sold each way. 1460 Club pax denied a seat with a fare of £2500 (BA.com fares for June) average each both sectors = £7,300,000 potential loss of revenue annually. And the flight Crew have bunks as well. This loss of revenue is just so that they can choose to watch a film or not!

Not only does it look bad having staff sitting in passenger seats, many customers would prefer to sit in those seats.

This is where the breathtaking arrogance of BA pilots on this forum, who criticise other employees for not cutting their pay or getting to market rate, is exposed. Pilots act as strikebreakers, yet their own union agreements as illustrated here over Club rest seats, is costing BA millions in lost revenue.

[Wirbelsturm]

What about the two Club seats 60A/B that have to remain unsold just in case one of you wants to watch a film? Two flights to SIN every night, four Club seats that can't be sold. 730 Club pax denied a seat with a fare of £3500 average each way = £2,555,000 each year lost by BA.


Could say the same about all the cabin crew rest seats on all the flights across the network. Including all the two flight crew sectors.

Careful what you wish for.

[Count Niemantznarr]

Wibblestim, you are being untruthful. The cabin crew rest seats are not saleable seats, but in an overhead rest area not accessed by passengers on both aircraft types.

The Club seats allocated for Flight Crew rest on the 747-400 and four class 777-200ER's could be sold. In fact more often than not you do not even use them.They are just empty.

[Wirbelsturm]

The cabin crew rest seats are not saleable seats, but in an overhead rest area not accessed by passengers on both aircraft types.


Not true, there are crew rest seats at the back of economy on the 777-200 and usually non sold economy seats even on the 300 series.

If there are overhead rest areas available on the 777 then there are no seats in the cabin for flight crew either. The only time cabin rest seats are available (normally 11k) for flight crew are if there is a 'dog box' at the back of first class. Cabin seats are only allocated for specific sectors as labelled in the FCN.

Do try and keep up Count.

[wiggy]

There was an 'understanding' with the Company that if attendance became a problem on certain identified routes which had previously paid high allowances, BALPA would have to deal with it. NRT became a weak link when the hourly rate was introduced.

Yep, I well remember all the dire warnings from certain senior folks (perhaps with vested interests?) about the dangers of the hourly rate and the "unattractive" destinations. Nevertheless I don't remember NRT becoming such a "weak link" that BALPA or BA had to "deal with it". As you correctly said in your earlier post it simply went "junior".

The cabin crew rest seats are not saleable seats, but in an overhead rest area not accessed by passengers on both aircraft types.

As Wirble. has pointed out that's not true on the 777-200's.

[Count Niemantznarr]

Wubblestrim,you are still trying to muddy the water. The
GE 777-200's to be specific, are not long range aircraft, so do not fly to SIN. There is no dedicated overhead rest area on those aircraft so a curtained off area with one row of three seats is allocated. Flight crew frequently upgrade themselves from the 11K Club seat on three man pilot sectors, to a First class seat.

Currently on non stop flights to SIN and back, on both 747's the flight crew compliment is four, two Captains and two F/O's. These sectors could easily be accomplished with just one Captain and two F/O's. This alone would save BA at least £3m a year on the SIN/LHR sectors. Giving up the two Club seats as well would give a total saving of around £5.5m a year. More than four times the amount BA may save by replacing Legacy cabin crew on the route.

BA has been held to ransom for too long over these costly flight crew perks, profitability on routes should not be subject to archaic union diktats.

[Hand Solo]

It can't be done with one Captain and two FO's any more than it can be done with 12 cabin crew. Or are you volunteering that?

Now, where did you get the precise breakdown of actual passenger loads and ticket prices to determine BA could have sold those rest seats for £2.5M? Or did you just pluck that number out of thin air?

I'll tell you what would save money though: giving the cabin crew 7 sets of eyeshades from the washbags rather than hundreds of pounds when the lights in the bunks won't go out.

[Sir Richard]

Comrade Count,

I hope the foot is getting better?

Flight crew frequently upgrade themselves from the 11K Club seat on three man pilot sectors, to a First class seat.

ONLY if a First seat remains unsold, leaving 11K for the CSD?

profitability on routes should not be subject to archaic union diktats.

Maybe both feet need attention after being shot so many times?

[Atropos1]

For goodness sake guys, I've just read through this drivel and after getting over the laughter I'm asking myself: 'why on earth are you bothering?'. It looks like a silly internal spat between BA emplyees, even though some of them no longer are BA employees!

Please let them whine their way into the obscurity they deserve and stop feeding them the oxygen they need to believe they actually matter.

[Airclues]

Count

Without wanting to get into the cabin/flight crew politics, I was interested in your statement that the LHR-SIN-LHR trip could be flown with three pilots. Having looked at CAP371 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF I cannot see how this could be achieved. Would you be so kind as to explain your calculations?

PS...of course the new EASA regulations could change that when they come into force?

[Charlie Pop]

And the results are in! Following some not so subtle pressure by some individuals the skivers charter has been accepted! Feel a little sniffle coming on? Don't bother coming into work, just phone in sick and somebody else will do the work you get paid for. Oh, they've been force drafted because there's so much sickness? Never mind sucker, you should have had some dependents or union days you could swing to avoid the draft. And when EASA up the annual flying hours you'll be giving your employer 100 more hours of your time for nothing (did you really think they would be able to 'afford' to renegotiate the fixed payment?).

Congratulations to the British Airways Captains Council, possibly the fastest ever turnaround between winning something for the members and handing it straight back to BA with nobs on!

[Chris Griffin]

So, just for clarity, which way did you vote Charlie?

Suggest you try the balpa forum and avoid trolling here. Laundry, public etc...

[Juan Tugoh]

That's the trouble with democracy, it's a bitch when your rhetoric does not win the argument and the vote goes against you. At least there is Pprune to come to, where you can whine about the unfairness of it all.

[no sponsor]

Turnout was disappointing. Again. The most frustrating aspect is flying with people who say they didn't like either option, and didn't like the way the BACC handled it, so they didn't vote.

I do think that BALPA have shot us all by claiming a victory in the holiday pay, only to then find the legal implication of actually winning the case has meant many regular line pilots will lose over the long term.