BA and Project Columbus II
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shadows
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact people dont want to move isnt relevent, the point is that there are comparable T+Cs around. The senior dead wood in the cabin crew community would never be able to get anywhere near the same conditions elsewhere.
I think youd be suprised how many pilots lose their job in BA through poor performance in Sims etc. Theres at least 20 ex LGW capts on the -400 in the RHS by choice.
I think youd be suprised how many pilots lose their job in BA through poor performance in Sims etc. Theres at least 20 ex LGW capts on the -400 in the RHS by choice.
I know pilots loose their jobs at BA for various reasons (some of them nothing to do with being "bad operators"), and that some Captains choose to be RHS on LH instead of staying as Captains at LGW.
I also don't deal in galley FM and get my facts from the people who were there (namely the FO's sitting in the RH seat). LGW is a small base and nothing stays secret, especially when two Captains turn up with one less stripe on their cuffs.
Carnage...If I was defending them I'd challenge the word "suitable" and argue that they are (under CAA rules), just not "elidgeable" (under BA rules). Hey presto transfer achieved.
Hotel Mode
You've edited your posts now (which is a shame as it shows strength of character to admit you may have been wrong), I'm guessing due to someone informing you that saying "there are no demoted Captains flying on the -400 fleet" is simply incorrect. There are...Fact (and on the 777 fleet).
As you say...Back to the thread.
As a union BASSA (weather you love or loathe them) have a duty to do the best for their membership and ensure any cuts or savings are fair and across the board, and not a raid on T&Cs. Not to do so would be remiss of them. Similarly one would hope they will negotiate first, exploring every possible avenue, and vote to strike as a last resort. Not to do so would be remiss of them (but lets be honest, maybe not out of character).
I would hope any pilot would expect the same behaviour from BALPA.
Time will tell...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC 767,
No, not if they are demoted. There have been examples of where qualified Captains have been 'forced' from LHS short haul to RHS long haul. In that case they will retain their command pay. Generally that scenario is used when there is a fleet draw down and not enough places on another fleet. Last used when LGW sent some 737 skippers to LHR but no places were available at the time on the 'Bus. They went to RHS 744 for a bit.
There can be many reasons for downgrading, not all of them based upon poor performance. Medical, age and personal wishes are all reasons for the move.
No, not if they are demoted. There have been examples of where qualified Captains have been 'forced' from LHS short haul to RHS long haul. In that case they will retain their command pay. Generally that scenario is used when there is a fleet draw down and not enough places on another fleet. Last used when LGW sent some 737 skippers to LHR but no places were available at the time on the 'Bus. They went to RHS 744 for a bit.
There can be many reasons for downgrading, not all of them based upon poor performance. Medical, age and personal wishes are all reasons for the move.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to wobble's post:
Captains who are forced to move to the RHS due to a fleet wind down (no command vacancies) and retain their Captains pay are required to bid for every LHR command and also every LGW command (assuming they were previously based there) every year if they want to retain the command pay and can expect to be moved if a command vacancy appears - even if it's not on a fleet of their choice. Fair enough IMHO as it ensures they still want to be Captains and if not, they revert to the appropriate FO pay.
Sure, the money is very good compared to an FO but it doesn't necessarily give a huge amount of stability.
Captains who are forced to move to the RHS due to a fleet wind down (no command vacancies) and retain their Captains pay are required to bid for every LHR command and also every LGW command (assuming they were previously based there) every year if they want to retain the command pay and can expect to be moved if a command vacancy appears - even if it's not on a fleet of their choice. Fair enough IMHO as it ensures they still want to be Captains and if not, they revert to the appropriate FO pay.
Sure, the money is very good compared to an FO but it doesn't necessarily give a huge amount of stability.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shadows
Of course, that is their main purpose in life.
Why should cuts be across the board, fair yes, but why should it be the usual one-size-fits-all? That is what is going to be different with this round of cuts. BASSA have got wind of the fact that BA want to target cuts according to the relative fitness for function of the various areas. This means that some areas with more fat will feel more (overdue) pain than other departments. That fact will mean that BASSA's long term intransigence and refusal to hold constructive dialogue with BA is probably about to come home to roost.
My thoughts are that ALL groups involved should engage in constructive dialogue to try to reach a compromise position. The alternative is one of imposition which will almost certainly be not what you would wish for.
I can see already that BASSA are lining up the toys in the pram.
As a union BASSA ... have a duty to do the best for their membership
.... and ensure any cuts or savings are fair and across the board.
My thoughts are that ALL groups involved should engage in constructive dialogue to try to reach a compromise position. The alternative is one of imposition which will almost certainly be not what you would wish for.
I can see already that BASSA are lining up the toys in the pram.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
How many of you actually have anything to do with BASSA? How many of you are subject to chinese whispers?
I've spoken to BASSA reps recently and they are not refusing to negotiate until all departments as subject to the same level of cuts. They have asked for some transparency though to ensure that the cuts required are for the long term survival of the company and not opportunistic.
They have been told the department budget, the cost savings required, the company proposal and now have been asked to prepare their own proposal to achieve the savings. Which they are doing. They meet again with BA management this friday.
Seems amicable and open to me. No toys being lined up, no strolls to Waterside planned and no thoughts of high court appeals. Just negotiations.
I've spoken to BASSA reps recently and they are not refusing to negotiate until all departments as subject to the same level of cuts. They have asked for some transparency though to ensure that the cuts required are for the long term survival of the company and not opportunistic.
They have been told the department budget, the cost savings required, the company proposal and now have been asked to prepare their own proposal to achieve the savings. Which they are doing. They meet again with BA management this friday.
Seems amicable and open to me. No toys being lined up, no strolls to Waterside planned and no thoughts of high court appeals. Just negotiations.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC
Sincerely, I am glad to hear it. It would be nice to think that we all have a job this time next year on conditions that are acceptable to all in the current climate.
Just negotiations.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you think its right for BA to raid as much as possible from the cabin crew just because their pay is more than the rest of the industry? I ve heard the flight crew community have been told not to increase their costs for the next 2 years. I hope this is not true, as quite clearly it does not seem to contribute to the cost cutting spirit for the long term survival as BA likes to call it! If BA wants our genuine support, then they ll have to genuinely convince their employees of the true reasons why they should give up part of their salaries!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you think its right for BA to raid as much as possible from the cabin crew just because their pay is more than the rest of the industry? I ve heard the flight crew community have been told not to increase their costs for the next 2 years. I hope this is not true, as quite clearly it does not seem to contribute to the cost cutting spirit for the long term survival as BA likes to call it! If BA wants our genuine support, then they ll have to genuinely convince their employees of the true reasons why they should give up part of their salaries!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you think its right for BA to raid as much as possible from the cabin crew just because their pay is more than the rest of the industry?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then if that's right for BA, to raid t's and c' s with their usual opportunistic attitude of grabbing as much as possible then it will be right for BASSA to ballot for industrial action.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it will be right for BASSA to capitulate like they did on the last two occasions. (Don't forget to call the strike ballot on a show of hands of 200 union militants at a local football club!)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do indeed remember the 96.1%. And how many of them actually thought they never have to strike and bottled it as the big day approached? Perhaps thats the reason the reps merely shuffled the deckchairs on the Titanic and walked away with one less purser on the jumbo and an entirely self funded 'pay rise'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CarnageMatey, what exactly are you prepared to give up? Its easy to agree when you got nothing to lose ( yet) though I am sure you wouldnt have the same attitude if your pay was at stake?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it was. Why do you think that was? Because BA were scared of BASSAs actions, or because BASSA knew their support was crumbling away? I flew with countless crew who said they weren't actually prepared to strike. BASSA knew the strike would break them and thats why they ended up walking away with peanuts and dressing it up as a victory. If they knew the suport was strong and they were going to win why not go for a better deal at a time that BA was financially strong and making good profits?
newbagr - has anyone actually asked you to give up pay yet? How about binning some of those restrictive work practices instead? That'll save a few bob. My productivity has increased by nearly 50% over the last 6 years, which is why my departments targets are different from yours.
newbagr - has anyone actually asked you to give up pay yet? How about binning some of those restrictive work practices instead? That'll save a few bob. My productivity has increased by nearly 50% over the last 6 years, which is why my departments targets are different from yours.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the Air
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have read/heard/seen it is not just IFCE/IFS/MSNNBC or whatever it is called now that is being asked to curb costs.
I'm not sure that I agree with the principal that every department should have to cut the same percentage from its budget, as this is far too simplistic, as the company will have to really look at where cost saving is achievable in a way that will not to be to the detriment of safety or customer experience.
I think it highly important that we take a realistic view at all of this - despite some views (even some of mine) so far BASSA haven't been too predictably resistant to some sort of discussion and for this reason I will reserve any comments on their actions until such time as there is something to comment on.
I remain unhappy about some of the Union's recent politically motivated moves but I hope that they will take the current situation as seriously and as realistically as it needs to be.
Dozens of airlines (some small granted) have ceased to exist in the past 12 months - the moment we (or our Union) takes the view that this will never happen to us is the moment we become in real danger - thankfully WW (love or hate him) is not going to let this happen on his watch and on that, we need to plan and make adjustments - maybe painful ones - but would you rather work harder or sign on - and it REALLY could come to that with the status quo unchallenged.
BA in the past 9 months has lost nearly half a million dollars every day. That quite simply is unsustainable whatever people tell you - lets not "strike" ourselves into oblivion.
I'm not sure that I agree with the principal that every department should have to cut the same percentage from its budget, as this is far too simplistic, as the company will have to really look at where cost saving is achievable in a way that will not to be to the detriment of safety or customer experience.
I think it highly important that we take a realistic view at all of this - despite some views (even some of mine) so far BASSA haven't been too predictably resistant to some sort of discussion and for this reason I will reserve any comments on their actions until such time as there is something to comment on.
I remain unhappy about some of the Union's recent politically motivated moves but I hope that they will take the current situation as seriously and as realistically as it needs to be.
Dozens of airlines (some small granted) have ceased to exist in the past 12 months - the moment we (or our Union) takes the view that this will never happen to us is the moment we become in real danger - thankfully WW (love or hate him) is not going to let this happen on his watch and on that, we need to plan and make adjustments - maybe painful ones - but would you rather work harder or sign on - and it REALLY could come to that with the status quo unchallenged.
BA in the past 9 months has lost nearly half a million dollars every day. That quite simply is unsustainable whatever people tell you - lets not "strike" ourselves into oblivion.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Carnage Matey.
Give it a rest. I'm under the impression that you really don't care about cabin crew t&cs. You care about winding cabin crew up, sorry, not care, just enjoy.
And, whilst it may have been 200 militants who voted for a strike ballot, it was 96.1% of cabin crew in BASSA (9000+ members out of 14,000 crew)who voted for a strike. The return of papers was in the 90% range, (if I'm not mistaken). This equates to considerably more than 200 crew who were hacked off. For reference, I was one of the 3.9% who cautiously voted no. However I acknowledge the strength of the yes vote and exactly what those voters stood for.
Who actually knows what would have happened come the day of a strike. I'm glad it didn't but I don't believe it would have been the end of BASSA.
Give it a rest. I'm under the impression that you really don't care about cabin crew t&cs. You care about winding cabin crew up, sorry, not care, just enjoy.
And, whilst it may have been 200 militants who voted for a strike ballot, it was 96.1% of cabin crew in BASSA (9000+ members out of 14,000 crew)who voted for a strike. The return of papers was in the 90% range, (if I'm not mistaken). This equates to considerably more than 200 crew who were hacked off. For reference, I was one of the 3.9% who cautiously voted no. However I acknowledge the strength of the yes vote and exactly what those voters stood for.
Who actually knows what would have happened come the day of a strike. I'm glad it didn't but I don't believe it would have been the end of BASSA.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the Air
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just to add before someone says it, this is not a situation (financially globally or however you wish to put it) that we have seen before and survived. To quote our prime minister (again love him or hate him) the current global financial crisis is "unprecedented" .
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having followed this thread with interest I have to say, you guys make me laugh.
Can't say I'm a by-stander in all of this however the attitude some display is simply staggering.
What I do know:
Is that an unbelievable amount of money has been squandered on a couple of complete failures and illegal activities. That makes me mad with anger but doesn't solve BA's position in the current climate. Businesses are going tits up, left right and centre. And BA's ability to react to the market is diminishing rapidly especially if we can't re-finance our debt at some stage.
Cash is King, so cash preservation is a natural call from the company.
The future for airline travel is not fantastic. I can see this recession lasting another year and a half and when the economy picks up the requirement for oil is going to go through the roof all over the world. The days of $200 a barrel are certainly yet to come.
Every department will have it's own cost targets. Anyone stupid enough to think that it needs to be done otherwise needs a reality check.
The ''I'm alright Jack'' attitude doesn't wash. There are a HUGE amount of inefficiencies in our current business, and rightly so BA needs to get rid of them.
They are remnants of a state run airline that have no place in todays fast moving world.
Question yourself, is being 3 hours late on a day of snow really worth on average around £300 a crew member? Meaning that on a longhaul flight we are £3500 down already. No wonder the crew WANTS me to fly slower or be late. The next box payment is waiting for them.
All I can say is that, if you think cost savings are required seeing the carnage around you then you know what is right
Can't say I'm a by-stander in all of this however the attitude some display is simply staggering.
What I do know:
Is that an unbelievable amount of money has been squandered on a couple of complete failures and illegal activities. That makes me mad with anger but doesn't solve BA's position in the current climate. Businesses are going tits up, left right and centre. And BA's ability to react to the market is diminishing rapidly especially if we can't re-finance our debt at some stage.
Cash is King, so cash preservation is a natural call from the company.
The future for airline travel is not fantastic. I can see this recession lasting another year and a half and when the economy picks up the requirement for oil is going to go through the roof all over the world. The days of $200 a barrel are certainly yet to come.
Every department will have it's own cost targets. Anyone stupid enough to think that it needs to be done otherwise needs a reality check.
The ''I'm alright Jack'' attitude doesn't wash. There are a HUGE amount of inefficiencies in our current business, and rightly so BA needs to get rid of them.
They are remnants of a state run airline that have no place in todays fast moving world.
Question yourself, is being 3 hours late on a day of snow really worth on average around £300 a crew member? Meaning that on a longhaul flight we are £3500 down already. No wonder the crew WANTS me to fly slower or be late. The next box payment is waiting for them.
All I can say is that, if you think cost savings are required seeing the carnage around you then you know what is right