BA Wages
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Wages
Hi Everyone,
I know this question has been asked many times before but i'd just like to know if it's really true that BA LHR Eurofleet Cabin Crew take home around £1500 a month?
The reason i'm asking this is I start with them on 23rd May and currently live 45 mins from LHR, once my proper wages start coming through later on in the year i'd like to move closer to the airport so am trying to budget my money.
Thanx 4 your help x
I know this question has been asked many times before but i'd just like to know if it's really true that BA LHR Eurofleet Cabin Crew take home around £1500 a month?
The reason i'm asking this is I start with them on 23rd May and currently live 45 mins from LHR, once my proper wages start coming through later on in the year i'd like to move closer to the airport so am trying to budget my money.
Thanx 4 your help x
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Hayley_20
I'm ex BA crew and was on eurofleet lhr 2yrs ago and yes, a pay packet of 1500 was a regular wage for me. The pay system can get complex with factors like how many trips you do, destination payments, CAT turnarounds, long day payments or starting before 7am and overtime (these payments are great
). I'm sure there are current crew on this forum who can verify this too.
For the 1st couple of months as someone has mentioned in another topic but related, is that for the 1st couple of months the wages are awful, but that's because there's no flight pay and a month in arrears.
I'm ex BA crew and was on eurofleet lhr 2yrs ago and yes, a pay packet of 1500 was a regular wage for me. The pay system can get complex with factors like how many trips you do, destination payments, CAT turnarounds, long day payments or starting before 7am and overtime (these payments are great
). I'm sure there are current crew on this forum who can verify this too.For the 1st couple of months as someone has mentioned in another topic but related, is that for the 1st couple of months the wages are awful, but that's because there's no flight pay and a month in arrears.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1000 net a week? I doubt that very much! Been shorthaul myself and still working for BA and NEVER have earned anything in the region of that!
And i dont think ANY wages should be pronounced on this forum!
And i dont think ANY wages should be pronounced on this forum!
!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said!! No need to talk or compare wages .... just be happy with the fact that thousands of people bust their b---s to work as CC, be grateful, and that stuffs private!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brighton
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurofleet Lhr does get paid more than Eurofleet Lgw , however that might change with Willie Walsh coming in and the Tax mans ongoing investigation as EF Lhr are not on an hourly rate at the moment whereas EF LGW are which was part of the merger between Cityflyer and Eurogatwick. This hourly rate has been rising steadily recently in the last few months.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyer55,
Willy Walsh CANNOT change the way we in the NSP are paid as it is linked DIRECTLY to our contract of employment, and as such, only our BASSA reps or us voluntarily (through a ballot) can change that. If he wanted to effect any changes to this (or any of our other agreements) he would have to sack all of us (at the last count, approx. 12,000 mainline NSP crew) and employ us on a new contract. Not going to happen! Anyway, managements proposal of an Elapsed Hourly Rate was formally rejected at the BASSA branch meeting in October last year and BA formally accepted this in writing. EHR is dead in the water.
And also, the tax man has been and gone and new levels of taxation have been decided upon. There is none of this '...ongoing investigation...' that you mention. It's all done and dusted.
Anyway I'm surprised that you, Flyer55, aren't aware of all this information as you are always on the BASSA crew forum and must be in reciept of the last few issues of "BASSA News" where these issues have been explained and discussed at length.
Tut, tut!
Willy Walsh CANNOT change the way we in the NSP are paid as it is linked DIRECTLY to our contract of employment, and as such, only our BASSA reps or us voluntarily (through a ballot) can change that. If he wanted to effect any changes to this (or any of our other agreements) he would have to sack all of us (at the last count, approx. 12,000 mainline NSP crew) and employ us on a new contract. Not going to happen! Anyway, managements proposal of an Elapsed Hourly Rate was formally rejected at the BASSA branch meeting in October last year and BA formally accepted this in writing. EHR is dead in the water.
And also, the tax man has been and gone and new levels of taxation have been decided upon. There is none of this '...ongoing investigation...' that you mention. It's all done and dusted.
Anyway I'm surprised that you, Flyer55, aren't aware of all this information as you are always on the BASSA crew forum and must be in reciept of the last few issues of "BASSA News" where these issues have been explained and discussed at length.
Tut, tut!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA boi.....You are so right.
All this chit chat of 'Oh look what Willie did to the Aer Lingus crews!'. What bollocks. Aer Lingus and BA are as different as chalk and cheese.
For a start.....after Sept 11 Aer Lingus was widely tipped as being the next Sabena or Swissair and go 'belly up'. It was losing millions every day. The crews knew that if they didn't give into management demands there would be no job to come back to next week. Willie had it easy to reduce their salaries and benefits as that was better than no job at all!
Now look at the BA situation. Soon to announce profits of £565million and officially to become the 'Worlds Most Profitable Airline' . Does anyone really believe in light of these figures that Willie will have much joy in convincing BASSA that further cuts are absolutely necessary? I think not!
And with the AMICUS/TGWU merger soon Cabin Crew 89 (and their handful of members) will be no more within BA as it has already been acknowledged by Amicus, TGWU and BA that BASSA will be the sole official Cabin crew trade union.
As already mentioned our allowence system and union negotiated terms and conditions form part of the mainline contract of employment. For BA to try and change any of these without the crews OK will be in effect breaking our contracts....and the law.
Things probably will change a little in preparation for our move to Terminal 5, but only if it is with a bit of 'give and take'. Not only money but other things need to be looked at as well:
- Our rubbish (in comparison to other UK airlines) travel concessions
- A decent bidding system for longhaul crew.
- Look at mixed flying (for those who want to volunteer to do it).
All this chit chat of 'Oh look what Willie did to the Aer Lingus crews!'. What bollocks. Aer Lingus and BA are as different as chalk and cheese.
For a start.....after Sept 11 Aer Lingus was widely tipped as being the next Sabena or Swissair and go 'belly up'. It was losing millions every day. The crews knew that if they didn't give into management demands there would be no job to come back to next week. Willie had it easy to reduce their salaries and benefits as that was better than no job at all!
Now look at the BA situation. Soon to announce profits of £565million and officially to become the 'Worlds Most Profitable Airline' . Does anyone really believe in light of these figures that Willie will have much joy in convincing BASSA that further cuts are absolutely necessary? I think not!
And with the AMICUS/TGWU merger soon Cabin Crew 89 (and their handful of members) will be no more within BA as it has already been acknowledged by Amicus, TGWU and BA that BASSA will be the sole official Cabin crew trade union.
As already mentioned our allowence system and union negotiated terms and conditions form part of the mainline contract of employment. For BA to try and change any of these without the crews OK will be in effect breaking our contracts....and the law.
Things probably will change a little in preparation for our move to Terminal 5, but only if it is with a bit of 'give and take'. Not only money but other things need to be looked at as well:
- Our rubbish (in comparison to other UK airlines) travel concessions
- A decent bidding system for longhaul crew.
- Look at mixed flying (for those who want to volunteer to do it).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Our rubbish (in comparison to other UK airlines) travel concessions
Your other proposals are all increasing in cost rather than cost neutral or negative - without that factor then good luck, but it won't happen.
Furthermore your contract is a civil contract so you have to sue them - they would not be breaking the law to breach the contract. They would simply be breaching the contract, unless it related to legal regulations or enshrined employment law.
BA may be profitable but it is precariously so due to its protected position at Heathrow - as restricted competition routes diminish, competition will rise and eat into profits. Any gains from the union will have to be matched with far more in productivity rises - you only have to ask other employee groups what they think of CC productivity.
Well, I just dont think its wise to speak about wages on a forum which ANYONE can look into. Crew always been seen as overpaid and underworked !
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed travel benefits to not form any part of our contract. But perhaps if BA were prepared to offer us a (much) better deal if might allow them to reduce monetary incentives to adopt new working practices. Our concessions are typical of BA. Thought up by someone sat in an office that suits someone sat in an office. I mean, how ridiculous that your cannot take your 'travel companion' of a flight that you are operating as they are not considered 'accompanied'.
As for BA's 'protected position' at LHR, what tosh! It is no more protected at LHR than LH is at FRA, IB is at MAD or AF is at CDG. In fact BA has less percentage of slots at LHR than LH, AF or IB do at their repective hubs. And none of those airlines have the likes of BMI or Virgin to compete with. I find it difficult to think of many routes at LHR that BA does not directly or indirectly compete with other carriers on. BA's results are more likely down to the hard work and consistent service that its 'protected position'.
Just check out the 'passenger opinion' pages at airlinequality.com to see what our passengers think of us.
A bidding system and mixed flying would definitely save BA money. Nearly every other airline in europe with a mixed long/shorthaul operation offers mixed flying. How can you think it does not save money? I am guessing you are NOT cabin crew and have pretty much no idea what you are talking about.
A scenario: BA is short of long-haul crew to operate a 767 flight to Tel Aviv. There are short-haul crew, sat at home on 'available' also trained on EXACTLY the same aircraft but cannot operate the flight, even though they are happy to do so. That person will stay at home and maybe not get called. The TLV might have to be cancelled. With mixed flying a scenario like that would not happen. Or on the flipside, BA is short of shorthaul crew to operate a 767 flight to Rome, but has longhaul 767 crew in the hotel on QRS (and volunteers to operate shorthaul flights). But as the system is now, BA has to use shorthaul crew on overtime and pay them £17 per hour plus allowences so the flight can operate.
As for a longhaul bidding system, sickness rates would be dramatically reduced if longhaul crew had some control over their mbt days (days off at base) and the odd preferred destination to fly to.
As for BA breaking our contracts they are indeed breaking European employment law. BASSA would immediately raise an industrial tribunal and BA would be found at fault. I could just picture it. 12,000 cabin crew would strike in a flash and indeed you are right, BA's profitable airline crown would indeed evaporate very quickly.
Perhaps a better place for Willie to start with his cost cutting is to get rid of Waterside offices, where no matter what time of day, the numerous 'coffee shops' in the lush water featured atrium seem to be full of office 'workers'. I mean BA is an 'airline'. What is essential to its operation is the pilots, cabin crew, check in staff, and ops staff. If I was at waterside I would be more worried about my pay and conditions that I am as cabin crew.
As for BA's 'protected position' at LHR, what tosh! It is no more protected at LHR than LH is at FRA, IB is at MAD or AF is at CDG. In fact BA has less percentage of slots at LHR than LH, AF or IB do at their repective hubs. And none of those airlines have the likes of BMI or Virgin to compete with. I find it difficult to think of many routes at LHR that BA does not directly or indirectly compete with other carriers on. BA's results are more likely down to the hard work and consistent service that its 'protected position'.
Just check out the 'passenger opinion' pages at airlinequality.com to see what our passengers think of us.
A bidding system and mixed flying would definitely save BA money. Nearly every other airline in europe with a mixed long/shorthaul operation offers mixed flying. How can you think it does not save money? I am guessing you are NOT cabin crew and have pretty much no idea what you are talking about.
A scenario: BA is short of long-haul crew to operate a 767 flight to Tel Aviv. There are short-haul crew, sat at home on 'available' also trained on EXACTLY the same aircraft but cannot operate the flight, even though they are happy to do so. That person will stay at home and maybe not get called. The TLV might have to be cancelled. With mixed flying a scenario like that would not happen. Or on the flipside, BA is short of shorthaul crew to operate a 767 flight to Rome, but has longhaul 767 crew in the hotel on QRS (and volunteers to operate shorthaul flights). But as the system is now, BA has to use shorthaul crew on overtime and pay them £17 per hour plus allowences so the flight can operate.
As for a longhaul bidding system, sickness rates would be dramatically reduced if longhaul crew had some control over their mbt days (days off at base) and the odd preferred destination to fly to.
As for BA breaking our contracts they are indeed breaking European employment law. BASSA would immediately raise an industrial tribunal and BA would be found at fault. I could just picture it. 12,000 cabin crew would strike in a flash and indeed you are right, BA's profitable airline crown would indeed evaporate very quickly.
Perhaps a better place for Willie to start with his cost cutting is to get rid of Waterside offices, where no matter what time of day, the numerous 'coffee shops' in the lush water featured atrium seem to be full of office 'workers'. I mean BA is an 'airline'. What is essential to its operation is the pilots, cabin crew, check in staff, and ops staff. If I was at waterside I would be more worried about my pay and conditions that I am as cabin crew.
Last edited by keeperboy; 24th Apr 2005 at 22:05.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for BA's 'protected position' at LHR, what tosh! It is no more protected at LHR than LH is at FRA, IB is at MAD or AF is at CDG. In fact BA has less percentage of slots at LHR than LH, AF or IB do at their repective hubs."
You are wrong there. BA is heavily protected as a result of Bermuda II , the treaty which limits the number of carriers that can fly from LHR to the US. At LHR, only UA, AA, VS and BA fly to the US, and BA hands down has the most flights and more destinations, in part due to the heavy slot restrictions. At FRA and CDG, AF, LH, DL, AA, CO, US, UA and NW all fly to the US and are allowed to operate to any destinations, eg Cincinatti, that cannot be operated from LHR. Because LHR is so heavily restricted (slot wise), VS cannot compete that effectively with BA - I mean BA operates about 7 flights to JFK daily, VS, only has 2/3!
Also, remember that when the US-EU sign an 'Open Skies' agreement (which I know seems ages away, BUT will happen), BA will have to be in even more of a robust position than it currently is, because it will be almost inevitable that LHR will have the following operators to the US: BA, VS, BD, CO, UA, AA, NW, US and even possible some European carriers like LH and AF!
So, BA should not be complacent...the next few years will see the Airline industry change rapidy, and BA must get its house in order even further if it wants a long term future. Of course BA has done brilliantly recently, but it needs to think long-term, and I think WW and BA management know this.
You are wrong there. BA is heavily protected as a result of Bermuda II , the treaty which limits the number of carriers that can fly from LHR to the US. At LHR, only UA, AA, VS and BA fly to the US, and BA hands down has the most flights and more destinations, in part due to the heavy slot restrictions. At FRA and CDG, AF, LH, DL, AA, CO, US, UA and NW all fly to the US and are allowed to operate to any destinations, eg Cincinatti, that cannot be operated from LHR. Because LHR is so heavily restricted (slot wise), VS cannot compete that effectively with BA - I mean BA operates about 7 flights to JFK daily, VS, only has 2/3!
Also, remember that when the US-EU sign an 'Open Skies' agreement (which I know seems ages away, BUT will happen), BA will have to be in even more of a robust position than it currently is, because it will be almost inevitable that LHR will have the following operators to the US: BA, VS, BD, CO, UA, AA, NW, US and even possible some European carriers like LH and AF!
So, BA should not be complacent...the next few years will see the Airline industry change rapidy, and BA must get its house in order even further if it wants a long term future. Of course BA has done brilliantly recently, but it needs to think long-term, and I think WW and BA management know this.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concorde, you are right. NO AIRLINE can afford to be complacent these days. As for BA's 'protected position' the only point I was making is that BA is no more protected in their home market than most other flag carriers.
Bermuda II that you mention covers only one country that BA serves. Yes, it has more flights from the UK - the US than any other airline. But so does Air France from France, and Lufthansa from Germany. Many other countries are also covered by bi-lateral agreements with the US (such as australia and loads others). And bi-lateral agreements also apply between other countries all over the world.
VIRGIN, UNITED AND AMERICAN ARE JUST AS 'PROTECTED' BY BERMUDA II AS ba IS, AND ALL BENEFIT HUGELY. Also Continental who codeshares with Virgin ex LHR. It isn't just BA's private party! Virgin may only have 2 or 3 flights a day to New York as you mention but this has nothing to do with BA's 'protected position'. It is entitled to use it's slots as it pleases and if Branson wanted to match BA's 7 daily new york flights he is more than welcome to.
As you already mention many european countries have 'open skies' agreements with the US. And yet, their flag carriers continue to dominate the route, despite it being open to anyone. Their flag carriers and their partners completely dominate them....AF/DL at CDG, LH/UA at FRA, KL/NW at AMS There is no 'Virgin' or 'bmi' equivelant in France or Germany. This is down to supply and demand. Just because anyone can fly a route doesn't mean that you can all of a sudden fill more planes.
We are constantly being told at BA that we have to benchmark ourselves against our competitors and that we are so much more expensive compared to Virgin or bmi crews. But how about benchmarking us to AF or IB crews? Maybe then BA would see they don't have it QUITE so bad.
Just out of curiousity concorde, what sort of things do you think BA needs to change for it's cabin crew to 'get it's house in order'? Are you suggesting less money for same amount of work? More work for more money? More work for LESS money? Just curious.....
Bermuda II that you mention covers only one country that BA serves. Yes, it has more flights from the UK - the US than any other airline. But so does Air France from France, and Lufthansa from Germany. Many other countries are also covered by bi-lateral agreements with the US (such as australia and loads others). And bi-lateral agreements also apply between other countries all over the world.
VIRGIN, UNITED AND AMERICAN ARE JUST AS 'PROTECTED' BY BERMUDA II AS ba IS, AND ALL BENEFIT HUGELY. Also Continental who codeshares with Virgin ex LHR. It isn't just BA's private party! Virgin may only have 2 or 3 flights a day to New York as you mention but this has nothing to do with BA's 'protected position'. It is entitled to use it's slots as it pleases and if Branson wanted to match BA's 7 daily new york flights he is more than welcome to.
As you already mention many european countries have 'open skies' agreements with the US. And yet, their flag carriers continue to dominate the route, despite it being open to anyone. Their flag carriers and their partners completely dominate them....AF/DL at CDG, LH/UA at FRA, KL/NW at AMS There is no 'Virgin' or 'bmi' equivelant in France or Germany. This is down to supply and demand. Just because anyone can fly a route doesn't mean that you can all of a sudden fill more planes.
We are constantly being told at BA that we have to benchmark ourselves against our competitors and that we are so much more expensive compared to Virgin or bmi crews. But how about benchmarking us to AF or IB crews? Maybe then BA would see they don't have it QUITE so bad.
Just out of curiousity concorde, what sort of things do you think BA needs to change for it's cabin crew to 'get it's house in order'? Are you suggesting less money for same amount of work? More work for more money? More work for LESS money? Just curious.....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread tells me that once again we at BA are becoming complacent. The attitude that WW can do nothing to me as I am part of the NJC is part correct. Surely we should be asking ourselves how we can change and improve things. As for B2 agreements and the like many of those airlines mentioned as our competitors have made vast inroads into our earnings as have the LC. Why do we at BA always have to go on the defensive and appear militant. Whereas BA & CC individuals may be financially content I doubt our shareholders share the same views or any financial satisfaction.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123 I hear what you are saying and definitely agree in part. I am in no way complacent about BA's financial position nor am I particularly militant. I am, however concerned with the 'give give give' stance that BA management seems to take, when it should be more like 'Consultation - then give AND take'. And again I will stress, I am NOT just talking in monetary terms here. There are SO many other areas within Inflight Services that BA can make crews lives a hell of a lot nicer, such as a proper bidding system for longhaul, some mixed flying for short haul and better staff travel concessions for all.
We all know there are areas where BA can be more efficient, whether it be in long or shorthaul and can all make inroads to help make things work better.
BASSA has its good points and bad points, but on the whole it is an effective lobby for cabin crew. Just have a read of the Qantas Cabin Crew forum on the LHR base . Qantas used to have fantastic working conditions and were the envy of the industry. Now they are treated like peasants and are gradually having work taken away from them. And just read what sort of problems, especially in the likes of CRM that it is causing them. A lot of this is due to the ineffectiveness of their union. I don't want to see conditions at BA going down the same path and totally acknowledge that we have to be a bit more flexible and have a bit more of a 'give and take' mentality.
There is however something I will never, ever agree to and would happily strike over......I would never agree to taking a pay cut. I am happy to be more flexible, look at roster patterns etc etc, but a cut in pay, either directly or indirectly (ie by setting up cheap foreign bases a la QF LHR base), no way.
Our competitors, as you mention may have made inroads into our profits. However we are still coming out on top. We are shortly to announce our biggest profit since 1997. And what about our UK competitors? Virgin makes modest profits, but as it is not a public company it can pretty much report what it likes. As for bmi....even with their cheaper than chips cuts, they have only made single digit profits this year after four years of losses. And our competitors across the pond? Well one is bankrupt and the other not far from it.
We all know there are areas where BA can be more efficient, whether it be in long or shorthaul and can all make inroads to help make things work better.
BASSA has its good points and bad points, but on the whole it is an effective lobby for cabin crew. Just have a read of the Qantas Cabin Crew forum on the LHR base . Qantas used to have fantastic working conditions and were the envy of the industry. Now they are treated like peasants and are gradually having work taken away from them. And just read what sort of problems, especially in the likes of CRM that it is causing them. A lot of this is due to the ineffectiveness of their union. I don't want to see conditions at BA going down the same path and totally acknowledge that we have to be a bit more flexible and have a bit more of a 'give and take' mentality.
There is however something I will never, ever agree to and would happily strike over......I would never agree to taking a pay cut. I am happy to be more flexible, look at roster patterns etc etc, but a cut in pay, either directly or indirectly (ie by setting up cheap foreign bases a la QF LHR base), no way.
Our competitors, as you mention may have made inroads into our profits. However we are still coming out on top. We are shortly to announce our biggest profit since 1997. And what about our UK competitors? Virgin makes modest profits, but as it is not a public company it can pretty much report what it likes. As for bmi....even with their cheaper than chips cuts, they have only made single digit profits this year after four years of losses. And our competitors across the pond? Well one is bankrupt and the other not far from it.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeperboy, I note your balanced comments, but I have a few questions and comments. Do you really think a strike would happen?... and if so do CC care that it may bring the Airline either down or cripple it, either way I think the result would be for BA to draw up new contracts for all staff, not just crew which would really hurt everyone. I do see money being thrown at CC but the CAT payments for example are where CC allowances could easily be reigned in. I just wonder what a strike will achieve in the long run, but personally, I think CC will see sense, that, in general the CC are looked after better than most and the thought of a new contract - 'take it or leave it option' will focus many minds.
Just a thought....
Just a thought....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Keeperboy,
Can I just ask what the problem is with staff travel concessions? Are they the same as Customer Service Agents at LHR, or do crew get a different package? From what you have said, they don't seem t be very good.....do you have a limit on how many you are allowed?
I think you have a valid point when you suggest BA could provide better benefits to its crew.
Can I just ask what the problem is with staff travel concessions? Are they the same as Customer Service Agents at LHR, or do crew get a different package? From what you have said, they don't seem t be very good.....do you have a limit on how many you are allowed?
I think you have a valid point when you suggest BA could provide better benefits to its crew.