Jcdcon

Well, who would have thought it?

Brian Boyd it seems wanted conditions to remain in HIS solution to the pay deal - the Company decided to remove most of the conditions and offer the crew a better deal.

If ever there was an indication that it the Company who are on the side of the crew, not the Union and Mr Boyd (who seems to forget when talking to the Press that the Crew rejected HIS recommendation) then I think we have it.

The company has been accused of being under-hand, secretive, falsifying details and being non-crew friendly. The letter above appears to indicate that they have been nothing short of straight forward and the Union have been up to dirty tricks.

I know which one I think walks away from this mess with some integrity.

vs_lhr

I was still laughing at Boyd's assertion that Unite had "a clear mandate" after securing a vote from less than 30% of the workforce, so it's unsurprising to me that the rest of his letter is full of holes.

Unite - and Boyd in particular - have bungled the negotiations from day one, and LS's letter only confirms that.

VCCM

Ah yes, now the willy measuring in public begins. Who knows who is and is not telling the truth but the propaganda war continues, more mud slinging than the US elections to be expected, ending in a round of my dad is bigger than yours and a playground punch up.

As the crew have not received the update by snail mail, how hid LS know to compose a reply ? Could it be that management are keeping a close eye on our discussions here ? Hello now back to work please.

Jcdcon

VCCM

The B Boyd letter was published on the Union website.

scoobydooo

VCCM the letter was posted to the union website.

Hey, no longer is Hatton and Mayweather the big fight of the weekend, Its Strambi and Boyd , ladies and Gents perhaps we should just get the two
in the ring at the MGM to warm the crowd before the big event let them settle this the old fashioned way

I note

So he doesnt deny it then.

vs_lhr

Interestingly he doesn't, does he? Although it does seem odd that VS would have offered cash to break a strike before a strike has actually been called. Has anyone on here been offered, or heard of this offer? How would it work - money offered to those on the picket lines to get back to work? Not sure I follow this. That's something I'd love to know more about.

The flip side of the coin is it's a perfectly understandable comment from LS. Virgin will do absolutely everything they can to protect their business. They are not going to take industrial action lying down, so expect any and all possible reactions if this goes to strike.

Boyd, on the other had, seems way out of his depth here. Everything about his handling of negotiations has been amateur. Unite, and the ineffectual Brian Boyd, need to be shown the door and a better-equipped union found for the task.

JBfly

I have just flown with a training captain who told us how the company are going to break any strike, he was confident that the information was correct as it had apparently come from the new crewing manager. The company are going to train up a huge number of office staff with the very minimum training and use them to replace any striking crew.

As long as the union do odd days rather than blocks, they are confident that they can keep flights going. However, it seems a number of pilots are aware of this and are alarmed at the prospect of having to fly with crew with minimum training and no experience to the point where they will be writing to the CAA and newspapers to warn them the dangers of such a situation.

Would the company seriously risk lives to keep flights going through a strike? How can a PA operate a defib? How can someone from marketing organise a restraint? What about a major fire on-board?

If they are going to put profit before safety then our managment are worse than we first thought.

Litebulbs

I am sorry Tightslot, but post 138 by KO is hardly polite.

Please do not be selective.

vs_lhr

And galley FM re-tunes again...

A friend of a friend of my sister's cleaner swears she saw Elvis on the bus.

I'd say the chance of using office-based staff to crew flights is extremely unlikely. Firstly, they aren't about to do anything which would raise an eyebrow at the CAA while the union can jump all over them; and secondly, office based staff have jobs to do too, and even minimum training is going to take them away from functions that keep the airline ticking. If they weren't needed in the office, why are they being employed?

A more realistic scenario is that during strike action, Virgin will pay bonuses to non-strikers who are prepared to cover on their days off. This may be the 'strike breaker' payments that the union is bandying about.

Jcdcon

Before that last post gets out of hand, there are a few things which should be pointed out. Yet another case of my mate told me, and he heard it from x etc.

Many of the people who are on the ground are seconded crew - it would be they who are called upon, and they have extensive experience as crew - a quick refreshers course, or recency exam and off they go. Many of them fly regularly anyway - CPM's, Training Instructors, Service Delivery etc.

Anybody else from another department would operate as non-required crew, therefore there is no legal reason for the CAA to become involved.

Remember the company are doing this to ensure minimum disruption for our passengers - a welcome move.

Jcdcon

vs-lhr - there are no incentive payments offered to non-striking crew. It just is not happening.

And it will make more sense to keep the airline afloat by using office staff on secondments as crew, as opposed to keeping them on the ground, say training - whats the point of training new crew or those on promotion courses if there is irreparable damage to the airline.

JBfly

The person who gave us this information is in the know or he should be as one of the A340 management guys.

.... and are you seriously saying that they could crew 30 flights a day with 15 CPM's who dont have a clue and 20 or 30 trainers?

Jcdcon

JbFly

Thats exactly what I am saying - firstly there are a lot more seconded crew than the figures you have provided.

Secondly, there are a lot of crew who are non-union members, and based on the posts on here, there are a lot of Union members who will elect to fly should a strike take place. between all of that, there will be little or no disruption.

Your source was correct in some ways ie ground staff working as crew - it was the details that were wrong

JBfly

OK, you think the company can rely on seconded crew, you do the maths.

30 flights a day with an average of 15 crew - 450 crew or with minimum crew 300 a day! Now say we strike for 3 consecutive days (even Brian Boyd wont be stupid enough just to do one day), to keep the operation going you would need 1000 crew min.

Your view that non members will come to work is just fantasy, they will go sick. The majority of them want more money and will go along with it rather than break a strike.

The only way to get close to a figure of 1000 even relying on that huge army of seconded crew (Cant be more than at the most another 20) the company will be training up office workers to fill crew positions.

Not sure if you a managment or FD, but if you have a feeling for what is going on at the moment you will know they feeling amongst the crew and dont be surprised if this result will revert back to the 90% yes to strike with a high turnout

Jcdcon

You figures are based on everyone striking - that is ill-informed and delusional. It is not going to happen.

29% of total crew said no to the last deal. That in itself suggests that strike action is a minority driven outcome. When I speak to my colleagues (am a CSS) many of them, and many of those who post on here, are more than willing to work.

And quickly doing the maths there are more than 2000 crew who are not union members who will be required to work with minimum rest to ensure flights are crewed - based on your example, you do the maths.

It seems you have your logic for this, and I have mine. Lets leave it at that.

scoobydooo

The maths, using the figures of the last vote as example;

Let us assume 3000 crew and imagine a strike ballot is carried by the minimum percentage, e.g. 51%.
Let us also assume only 69% of ballot papers returned as per last vote. (2070 votes)
Let us assume that of the 51% (1055) that vote for industrial action that 50% (527) of them actually carry it through or are scheduled to operate on the days of industrial action (or the return flights)


(I believe these figures are all extreme LOW examples)


I do not honestly believe the company could muster up 527 people. Of those trainers for example some of those crew who are in ground roles are also members of the union and could take part in industrial action.

Quote:

and based on the posts on here, there are a lot of Union members who will elect to fly should a strike take place. between all of that, there will be little or no disruption.

I would say that the majority of posts on here have supported the last pay offer and to accept it, yet 60% of 2070 said No to the last vote so perhaps post opinion here is not a true representation of cabin crew feeling. Also "to state that between all of that there will be little or no disruption" I understand the company has to portray a positive image to passengers but one has to be realistic too, look what happened when Air France said there will be little or no disruption last month - Carnage ! (yes situation was different but the expectation of business as usual is the same as yours JD)

Jcdcon

Yet again - you are assuming all strikers will be rostered a flight that day. Flights will continue with minimum crew - which can be covered easily with the non-union members, those who volunteer to work on days off (which there have been many on here and cc.com offering to do) and suitable ground based crew.

Not once did I imply it was business as usual - I stated that they would endeavour to minimise disruption, which I believe is achievable. Air France had a much stronger Union representation.

Am bored of all of this now - think I will take a leaf out of your book Scooby and let the ballot decide, so until then...BYE!!

Ps hope I last longer away than the day or two you did! lol

JBfly

To pick up your point on numbers our union reps are stating there are 3100 union members and 900 non-union members - not 2000.

You are missing the point. A training captain has stated infront of a group of us including both his FO concerns, recounting in detail how the company are going to circumnavigate normal standard operating procedures to the point where he would refuse to operate under these conditions. These sought of comments do not normally come from someone who's job it is to ensure the safe operation of the airline.

I am an FSM and I would not be happy operating with 11 office staff who have done 3 days SEP training! Would you?

scoobydooo

Quote:

Yet again - you are assuming all strikers will be rostered a flight that day.

no I didn't. that was accounted for in this statement

Quote:

that 50% (527) of them actually carry it through or are scheduled to operate on the days of industrial action (or the return flights)

Quote:

Not once did I imply it was business as usual

sorry that was my mistake, my interpretation of your comment

Quote:

between all of that, there will be little or no disruption.

We both agree that we are bored of it though, I hope I can stay away too, I dont think I even managed 2 days. It's difficult when ones passion is so high about such an emotive subject as our jobs and terms and conditions continually being nibbled at by the company, everyone has a different breaking point, unfortunately this camels back went a while ago.
Lets leave Strambi and Boyd to spar

vs_lhr

Scooby - the maths is easier to figure out if you base it on how many people Virgin need on a single day to operate flights, rather than how many of the total workforce you'd be down regardless of whether they are scheduled to operate or not.

Depending on the day of the week, there's probably 28-ish return flights per day, with an average of 16 crew on each leg. That's about 900 people needed to cover one days' flights.

If, as you suggest, about 1000 crew are taking part in industrial action, that leaves 3000 to cover the schedules. Management will clearly do what they can to ensure as many non-striking staff are available for work as possible, and will schedule accordingly. Add to that the seconded crew outlined by Jcdcon, and it's a workable situation for Virgin.

Being 25% down on the workforce will be a pain; and I can quite easily envisage delays to flights because of the chaos of scheduling. But it could work, and if the strikes are limited to single days here and there, the company will ride through this.