BA and Project Columbus
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've told plenty of crews not to operate back from diversions for 2 local nights (despite the majority of crew wanting to get home). Which has resulted in around 15 aircraft returning to LHR empty whilst their passengers are stranded. In 1 case an additional flight has been sent from LHR-SNN to rescue a 747s passengers whilst the crew remain in the hotel.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the agreement is two local nights?
The agreement is/should be a planning tool, not a case for ruining 1000s of peoples plans when disruption occurs. There is no legal requirement for 2 nights rest. BASSA is there to protect your interests long term, they are not there to destroy BAs ability to recover from disruption. Some BA crew seem to have a child/parent relationship with BASSA, it almost like they believe BASSA is the employer. Have you ever seen a pilot ringing BALPA to find out what to do?
We had crew local to our diversion airport ringing BASSA for permission to go home the other day. The Capt, BA and CSD were happy but BASSA had to confirm...
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if thats the agreement then thats the agreement. You dont make agreements as you go unfortunately.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no disrespect Hotelmode, BA remains our employer though do not forget that BASSA represents over 12000 members. You cannot ignore that! Willie can work and negotiate with the trade unions to both sides best interests but cannot impose. Unfortunately, there will be much industrial unrest if there is to be any impositions and new practises without proper consultations.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The agreement is/should be a planning tool, not a case for ruining 1000s of peoples plans when disruption occurs.....
You'd be hard pressed to exceed these limitations without having to answer some serious questions.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTLs are for safety. BASSAs industrial agreements are not.
Whats most worrying about this whole situation is that some BA cabin crew on here can't even see what's wrong with their behaviour.
Whats most worrying about this whole situation is that some BA cabin crew on here can't even see what's wrong with their behaviour.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on the 18th December Ozzie O writes in a question for Carnage Matey
on the 18th December Ozzie O writes in a reply to Carnage Matey
today Ozzie o writes
So what is it Ozzie O?
BASSA have cost BA a fortune over the last couple of days by insisting the Cabin Crew need 2 local nights rest in places like Prestwick, Shannon and Newcastle.
BASSA have forced the closure of 1st Class Cabins by refusing to allow Flights to leave one down.
I could fill these pages 10 times over with the details, now can people see where BA are coming from with Project Columbus.
Newbagr, keep your head firmly in the sand, I'm quite looking forward to the industrial unrest
Willie Walsh can't control the weather, but maybe he could persuade the long haul cabin crew not to demand two local nights off when their aircraft diverts to Cardiff because of weather delays at Heathrow?
Where did you get that little gem from?
Where did you get that little gem from?
CM - That 2 night local stop was scrapped a few years ago.
But the agreement is two local nights?
BASSA have cost BA a fortune over the last couple of days by insisting the Cabin Crew need 2 local nights rest in places like Prestwick, Shannon and Newcastle.
BASSA have forced the closure of 1st Class Cabins by refusing to allow Flights to leave one down.
I could fill these pages 10 times over with the details, now can people see where BA are coming from with Project Columbus.
Newbagr, keep your head firmly in the sand, I'm quite looking forward to the industrial unrest
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting ridiculous now. Just get the aircraft home with pax. Operate that short flight back asap. Obviously have say 18 hours rest (depending how long previous duty was). But partying it up in a hotel somewhere because the union tells you to, is outrageous! It makes me ashamed, to be honest!
Yes, I'm fully aware that not everyone is partying, a lot want to go home. Then go home. As long as doors are covered, you can go with minimum crew. It's not like you're going to do a cabin service, is it?
I was in a hotel in Europe the other night, and there were 3 extra crew there (2 x ww, 1x ef). They were drinking all day, relishing in about how much extra money they'll earn because of the disruption.
My crew and myself got a glamorous 10,5 hours rest due to the disruption, but we still took the aircraft and pax back. We had minimum crew, but filled the aircraft to the max, as it's about getting pax where they need to be asap. More than half the aircraft was LHR pax, in some ways annoyed, in other ways grateful.
As you can probably gather, I am very angry and disappointed about some crew's behaviour, but even more so with Bassa. Bassa deserves everything that's coming to them.
For those who think that an agreement is an agreement and we can't make it up on the day, have you ever heard of "due to operational requirements"?
I reckon crew were quite happy to stay stuck down route to grab all the money they could. Selfish and unforgettable. Our pax will not forget this for a LONG time. Thanks to those people for ruining our reputation that we've been desperately trying to build back up.
Rant over.
Gg (wearing helmet and full body armour)
Yes, I'm fully aware that not everyone is partying, a lot want to go home. Then go home. As long as doors are covered, you can go with minimum crew. It's not like you're going to do a cabin service, is it?
I was in a hotel in Europe the other night, and there were 3 extra crew there (2 x ww, 1x ef). They were drinking all day, relishing in about how much extra money they'll earn because of the disruption.
My crew and myself got a glamorous 10,5 hours rest due to the disruption, but we still took the aircraft and pax back. We had minimum crew, but filled the aircraft to the max, as it's about getting pax where they need to be asap. More than half the aircraft was LHR pax, in some ways annoyed, in other ways grateful.
As you can probably gather, I am very angry and disappointed about some crew's behaviour, but even more so with Bassa. Bassa deserves everything that's coming to them.
For those who think that an agreement is an agreement and we can't make it up on the day, have you ever heard of "due to operational requirements"?
I reckon crew were quite happy to stay stuck down route to grab all the money they could. Selfish and unforgettable. Our pax will not forget this for a LONG time. Thanks to those people for ruining our reputation that we've been desperately trying to build back up.
Rant over.
Gg (wearing helmet and full body armour)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have read here and elsewhere, I am firmly in the camp that BASSA (that is the union, not the individual members) deserve EVERYTHING that is coming their way.
Yes, it is the remit of a union to represent and get the best for its members, but not to the extent that it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. There has to be some flexibility.
To that extent, BASSA members get what they vote for, but do they really want to vote for a bunch of militant tw@ts with ideals based in communist USSR, that would rather see them out of a job than recognise the 21st Century?
And yes, I agree that the company have agreed to the agreements, but that they are outdated are surely beyond dispute.
And yes, I agree that the company are equally culpable in their intransigence at times ... and WTF are the DOM's doing - it seems as if they are employed by BASSA and not BA, in which case why are they needed?
Bring it on Willie - about 15 years overdue!
Yes, it is the remit of a union to represent and get the best for its members, but not to the extent that it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. There has to be some flexibility.
To that extent, BASSA members get what they vote for, but do they really want to vote for a bunch of militant tw@ts with ideals based in communist USSR, that would rather see them out of a job than recognise the 21st Century?
And yes, I agree that the company have agreed to the agreements, but that they are outdated are surely beyond dispute.
And yes, I agree that the company are equally culpable in their intransigence at times ... and WTF are the DOM's doing - it seems as if they are employed by BASSA and not BA, in which case why are they needed?
Bring it on Willie - about 15 years overdue!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is too easy to just blame BASSA.
Blame the weak minded crew who won't stand up to their reps and go along with these outrageous agreements.
It would encourage many crew to become more self-sufficient and aware, rather than just doing whatever BASSA says.
They really do deserve the worst BA can do to them.
Blame the weak minded crew who won't stand up to their reps and go along with these outrageous agreements.
It would encourage many crew to become more self-sufficient and aware, rather than just doing whatever BASSA says.
They really do deserve the worst BA can do to them.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is really making me think. Why should anybody give up the terms and conditions that they currently enjoy? When I was at BA, I thought that crew were vastly overpaid, but I could have changed job, applied for crew and been vastly overpaid too.
Do BA want to reduces crew cost, increase flexibility or both? The crew can become more flexible, which will reduce cost, but in return claw back a percentage of this saving into their pay. That is negotiation.
BA will be in the black again and some people somewhere will be making loads of cash, so why should the employees miss out.
Do BA want to reduces crew cost, increase flexibility or both? The crew can become more flexible, which will reduce cost, but in return claw back a percentage of this saving into their pay. That is negotiation.
BA will be in the black again and some people somewhere will be making loads of cash, so why should the employees miss out.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
The disruption agreement has been in place since monday and will be reviewed tonight. The agreement allows for MBTs to be flexed and aircraft to go short of crew among other things.
I haven't heard of any problems between bassa and ba, in fact the opposite. The spirit of cooperation between crew and the company has even been commented upon by the new head of ICE.
Are people trying to stir up problems here to satisfy their own arguments?
One small point. Of the problems I am aware of, it would appear to have been our flight deck colleagues running out of hours which has caused cancellations. This is not a personal attack on flight deck crew - just a note about adherance to the rules. Also ground staff who went home when their shifts ended, and a continuation of the over time ban. Whose rules are inflexible?
I haven't heard of any problems between bassa and ba, in fact the opposite. The spirit of cooperation between crew and the company has even been commented upon by the new head of ICE.
Are people trying to stir up problems here to satisfy their own arguments?
One small point. Of the problems I am aware of, it would appear to have been our flight deck colleagues running out of hours which has caused cancellations. This is not a personal attack on flight deck crew - just a note about adherance to the rules. Also ground staff who went home when their shifts ended, and a continuation of the over time ban. Whose rules are inflexible?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLAMGIRL...... good post.
Makes me so annoyed reading the crew forum. crew demanding closure of zones, phoning BASSA, complaining of being brought back to base too early.
I'm on WW, 11 month contract and 1 flight left before my contract ends. I wish some BA crew would realise how lucky they are to be in the position they are and all this business of the WTP towels, what a joke!
I for one am hoping for some sort of announcement on friday re Columbus. Then all us temps that have appreciated our last 11 months can perphaps carry on working for BA.
Makes me so annoyed reading the crew forum. crew demanding closure of zones, phoning BASSA, complaining of being brought back to base too early.
I'm on WW, 11 month contract and 1 flight left before my contract ends. I wish some BA crew would realise how lucky they are to be in the position they are and all this business of the WTP towels, what a joke!
I for one am hoping for some sort of announcement on friday re Columbus. Then all us temps that have appreciated our last 11 months can perphaps carry on working for BA.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl wrote
Glamgirl, I'm sorry to disappoint, but you can't make it up on the day. What you may be willing to do others may not. So who makes the final decision about going the 'extra mile.' Certainly not you. Indeed, even you will have a limit to what you believe is reasonable.
Operational requirement is as vague as it sounds and is used and abused as any grey area might be by BA but it can't be used to justify making it up on the day.
Agreements are there for very good reason and I'm not saying that some changes aren't urgently needed. However, ignore your working agreements at your peril.
For those who think that an agreement is an agreement and we can't make it up on the day, have you ever heard of "due to operational requirements"?
Operational requirement is as vague as it sounds and is used and abused as any grey area might be by BA but it can't be used to justify making it up on the day.
Agreements are there for very good reason and I'm not saying that some changes aren't urgently needed. However, ignore your working agreements at your peril.