BA and Project Columbus II
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheKabaka, bait taken. Although you'd be very surprised at what a full-time longhaul CSD earns when they reach the top of their payscale.
Of course, this will be adrressed by Op Columbus.
Of course, this will be adrressed by Op Columbus.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charliepie wrote:
But the flight ops managers are regularly doing the same to us, suggesting we could maybe reduce some longer range trips without a third pilot.
But there's never any suggestion that because we have used discretion to extend our duty day during disruption, that we have 'de facto' agreed to change the industrially agreed planned trip length.
That would be a ridiculous argument, yet that's what Bassa are allowing people to believe.
The union belongs to its members not the other way round, and the sooner the membership start taking responsibility for their actions and not just acting as the child in the parent/child relationship with Bassa, the sooner Bassa will be respected by the company, and a more mature, effective and financially sound IFCE department will result.
(And without Op Columbus being necessary)
Classic, well the cabin crew certainly live in fear. Reducing the above routes to nightstops has been visited upon us before by a certain Martin Bridger in 1997 and Columbus will do the same.
But there's never any suggestion that because we have used discretion to extend our duty day during disruption, that we have 'de facto' agreed to change the industrially agreed planned trip length.
That would be a ridiculous argument, yet that's what Bassa are allowing people to believe.
The union belongs to its members not the other way round, and the sooner the membership start taking responsibility for their actions and not just acting as the child in the parent/child relationship with Bassa, the sooner Bassa will be respected by the company, and a more mature, effective and financially sound IFCE department will result.
(And without Op Columbus being necessary)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten West:
Firstly, there are many people that deserve tremendous thanks for all their
hardwork and the invaluable contribution they have made in keeping the operation alive.
Is the ability you have to decide how much commitment you give to the cause inherent in you position within ops? Did you have a choice?
You talk of our aircrews volunteering. Any examples?
Can you enlighten me? How does BA go about this? Are you talking about alleviations which are normally done on a per flight basis?
Did you read my post? I know who pays my wages and I know the union represents it's members not the other way around.
Flintstone, don't be so patronising. So you know how to apply Captain's Discretion, good for you. And good for your crew that they do the shopping.Your cabin crew obviously understand what's expected of them.
BA has circa 14000 crew so the company's expectations are contained in a written and signed agreement. It doesn't prevent any of us from getting the job done to a similar high and professional standard.
Da Dog, I can't answer your question except to say that both BA and BASSA are working to the agreement (see MRU diversion). It may be that alleviations aren't used to 'waive' parts of the agreement per se but, for example, to allow aircraft to depart 1 or 2 crew members down due to exceptional circumstances.
Incidentally, if you don't remember the power outage in 2003 as I do, were you there? I was.
You're on dodgy ground here my old chum! I've just this morning finished a working week consisting of 84 hours. That's 7 straight 12-hour shifts trying to sort out all the mess caused by this weather. All I've done in between is eat and sleep.
hardwork and the invaluable contribution they have made in keeping the operation alive.
Is the ability you have to decide how much commitment you give to the cause inherent in you position within ops? Did you have a choice?
You talk of our aircrews volunteering. Any examples?
I think you'll find that they can. They can volunteer to work if they want to.
The company can ask them if they're prepared to operate outside of union agreements too, they just can't force them to operate if they don't want to.
I think you need to look at your bank statements and see the name on the credit entry for your salary. Does it say BASSA or British Airways?
Unions work for YOU. Not the other way around.
The company can ask them if they're prepared to operate outside of union agreements too, they just can't force them to operate if they don't want to.
I think you need to look at your bank statements and see the name on the credit entry for your salary. Does it say BASSA or British Airways?
Unions work for YOU. Not the other way around.
Can you enlighten me? How does BA go about this? Are you talking about alleviations which are normally done on a per flight basis?
Did you read my post? I know who pays my wages and I know the union represents it's members not the other way around.
If that's too confusing for you then here are some examples.
...Are you getting the idea?
...Are you getting the idea?
BA has circa 14000 crew so the company's expectations are contained in a written and signed agreement. It doesn't prevent any of us from getting the job done to a similar high and professional standard.
Da Dog, I can't answer your question except to say that both BA and BASSA are working to the agreement (see MRU diversion). It may be that alleviations aren't used to 'waive' parts of the agreement per se but, for example, to allow aircraft to depart 1 or 2 crew members down due to exceptional circumstances.
Incidentally, if you don't remember the power outage in 2003 as I do, were you there? I was.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there's never any suggestion that because we have used discretion to extend our duty day during disruption, that we have 'de facto' agreed to change the industrially agreed planned trip length.
IMO it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that if this requirement were removed from the disruption agreement then BA would argue the case for it to be applied across the board.
Martin Bridger proposed that both LAX and SFO should become nightstops based on the argument that both destinations were on the west coast the same as SEA and YVR and that the duty day was only slighltly longer.
I don't necessarily disagree with your comments regarding BASSA. Something needs to change. I do fear the worst. Cabin crew are in for a right and royal shafting much to the delight of some posters.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charliepie wrote:
Well according to one of our senior managers this week, there's only a small amount to be saved from Flt Ops as we benchmark well against our competitors.
Miami is on the border of 2/3 man flights, so half the year it is a 2 man flight.
I think the problem with going beyond your agreement stems from your starting point. We know that the company wouldn't reduce our manpower or downroute rest, just because during disruption we were prepared to go the extra mile for the sake of the customers. We know that because if they used that argument, we wouldn't apply discretion and the company would be far worse off! (How much must IFCE's intransigence have cost the company this week?)
Bassa will not entertain discussing with the company extending duty days for one simple reason: Cabin crew gain significant financial benefit from applying the letter of the agreement. Bassa uses the 'thin end of the wedge' argument as a smokescreen.
BA regularly ask for volunteers during disruption. Do they then tell those volunteers that as they are prepared to work in such circumstances, they can expect similar conditions in their day to day work? No!
Just think how this all looks to outside observers.
Classic, never say never. How much more productive can you guys be? Does a 3 crew MIA bechmark against other carriers?. The principal behind all our long-range sectors is that 2 local nights rest must be achieved before operating another sect
Miami is on the border of 2/3 man flights, so half the year it is a 2 man flight.
I think the problem with going beyond your agreement stems from your starting point. We know that the company wouldn't reduce our manpower or downroute rest, just because during disruption we were prepared to go the extra mile for the sake of the customers. We know that because if they used that argument, we wouldn't apply discretion and the company would be far worse off! (How much must IFCE's intransigence have cost the company this week?)
Bassa will not entertain discussing with the company extending duty days for one simple reason: Cabin crew gain significant financial benefit from applying the letter of the agreement. Bassa uses the 'thin end of the wedge' argument as a smokescreen.
BA regularly ask for volunteers during disruption. Do they then tell those volunteers that as they are prepared to work in such circumstances, they can expect similar conditions in their day to day work? No!
Just think how this all looks to outside observers.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da Dog, I can't answer your question except to say that both BA and BASSA are working to the agreement (see MRU diversion). It may be that alleviations aren't used to 'waive' parts of the agreement per se but, for example, to allow aircraft to depart 1 or 2 crew members down due to exceptional circumstances.
. What was different this week?
Incidentally, if you don't remember the power outage in 2003 as I do, were you there? I was.
Different people see FACTS in different ways.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that we are in danger of losing the big picture(s) here:
(1) It doesn't matter what we think/discuss. BA will have their agenda that BASSA will have to debate/say no to.
(2) What happens to Flight Crew in the forthcoming debate will be totally independent and separate from the CC discussions.
(3) WW is all too aware of the intransigence of BASSA and the bottom line costs of the current agreements re disruption (think BKK [where cabin crew postitioned 3 sectors out of 4 between LHR-BKK/SIN-SYD-BKK/SIN-LHR] and snow).
Anyone a member of BASSA foolish enough to delude themselves that nothing will change is out of touch with reality. You will not strike over this and BA will force through the changes they require, as outlined in Columbus.
I say this not in glee, but in reflection of the reality of 2009 and the world.
The question is, will BASSA realise this, and how far will they be prepared to go to minimise the affects.
By this I mean the rate of route transfer to the new fleet re disruption agreements, box payments, etc.
BASSA members get what they vote for, but by the same token, the company get the managers that they employ, and both are so far out of touch with reality that they should all be sacked.
(1) It doesn't matter what we think/discuss. BA will have their agenda that BASSA will have to debate/say no to.
(2) What happens to Flight Crew in the forthcoming debate will be totally independent and separate from the CC discussions.
(3) WW is all too aware of the intransigence of BASSA and the bottom line costs of the current agreements re disruption (think BKK [where cabin crew postitioned 3 sectors out of 4 between LHR-BKK/SIN-SYD-BKK/SIN-LHR] and snow).
Anyone a member of BASSA foolish enough to delude themselves that nothing will change is out of touch with reality. You will not strike over this and BA will force through the changes they require, as outlined in Columbus.
I say this not in glee, but in reflection of the reality of 2009 and the world.
The question is, will BASSA realise this, and how far will they be prepared to go to minimise the affects.
By this I mean the rate of route transfer to the new fleet re disruption agreements, box payments, etc.
BASSA members get what they vote for, but by the same token, the company get the managers that they employ, and both are so far out of touch with reality that they should all be sacked.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by charliepie
Flintstone, don't be so patronising.
Originally Posted by charliepie
So you know how to apply Captain's Discretion, good for you. And good for your crew that they do the shopping.Your cabin crew obviously understand what's expected of them.
Originally Posted by charliepie
BA has circa 14000 crew so the company's expectations are contained in a written and signed agreement. It doesn't prevent any of us from getting the job done to a similar high and professional standard.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13,
In reference to your comment, I was on soft drinks on the night in question (still water, actually), as I'm not willing to risk my job for a glass of whatever.
I observed "all" the awful behaviour from crew due to having a quick bite to eat, as we hadn't had a hot meal all day, and I couldn't go to bed hungry.
In regards to the whole disruption issue, I wish crew could think for themselves sometimes. Would it have been so difficult to call the Doms and say you're willing to operate the flight back the next day as long as you get another day off? Negotiate. It's possible, I've done it a few times myself, and it does work. It hasn't changed my t&c's one bit.
The whole FOC (Focus on Cost/Colombus) thing is getting lost here though (yes, I know I diverted from the subject too). What you have to remember is that NO proposal has been put forward. The issues we've been discussing are from a draft that was "leaked".
Someone was writing about taking a 40% pay cut with FOC. Who said that was in the pipelines? Has it been confirmed? No.
Change will happen, whether you like it or not. I reckon that if crew stopped moaning so much and posting what can be construed as aggressively and ostrich-like, we would get a lot more friendly attitude back. There is no point in saying "you know nothing about our t&c's" to someone, just because you don't agree with them. I have friends in several airlines and bases, and I wouldn't dream of speaking out if I had no clue of what I'm talking about (yes, some details may be wrong, but you get the gist of it).
Attacking posters because they have a different view than you will not make you clever.
Why not admit that you've got a very good set of t&c's and that you feel priviledged for having those? I understand that you're scared of the future, but this is the time to change what you can change about your life. Mortgage really high? Talk to a financial advisor to try to change your rate. Got a gas-guzzler of a car? Change it to a smaller one. Buy only the essentials and try to save a few bob here and there (if I can do it, anyone can). I'm not trivialising anybody's situation here, but you have to realise that other people (with or without families) live on far less income than you and survive.
Yes, I know management messed up. Fines, bonuses, baggage issues, T5, the list is as long as a bad year. However, we need to look to the future. There's no point talking about what happened in '79, '85 or '97. Our issue is the future and whether we're going to have an airline to work for. How about asking SAS and Finnair crew how they are feeling at the moment? Please don't be the Alitalia-style crew of the UK. It won't do you any favours.
Think of a few items in your t&c's you'd be willing to negotiate and to what level. Tell your friends to do the same. Tell the union. At least then you'll feel you have some say in the issue. Also, please don't take the union's word as gospel. Cut away the emotive language, and ask questions in the office. Yes, management lies, but so does unions (mainly to get support). I have experience in that field, so I'm not making it up, whatever you believe.
Gg
(sorry for long post and spelling mistakes)
In reference to your comment, I was on soft drinks on the night in question (still water, actually), as I'm not willing to risk my job for a glass of whatever.
I observed "all" the awful behaviour from crew due to having a quick bite to eat, as we hadn't had a hot meal all day, and I couldn't go to bed hungry.
In regards to the whole disruption issue, I wish crew could think for themselves sometimes. Would it have been so difficult to call the Doms and say you're willing to operate the flight back the next day as long as you get another day off? Negotiate. It's possible, I've done it a few times myself, and it does work. It hasn't changed my t&c's one bit.
The whole FOC (Focus on Cost/Colombus) thing is getting lost here though (yes, I know I diverted from the subject too). What you have to remember is that NO proposal has been put forward. The issues we've been discussing are from a draft that was "leaked".
Someone was writing about taking a 40% pay cut with FOC. Who said that was in the pipelines? Has it been confirmed? No.
Change will happen, whether you like it or not. I reckon that if crew stopped moaning so much and posting what can be construed as aggressively and ostrich-like, we would get a lot more friendly attitude back. There is no point in saying "you know nothing about our t&c's" to someone, just because you don't agree with them. I have friends in several airlines and bases, and I wouldn't dream of speaking out if I had no clue of what I'm talking about (yes, some details may be wrong, but you get the gist of it).
Attacking posters because they have a different view than you will not make you clever.
Why not admit that you've got a very good set of t&c's and that you feel priviledged for having those? I understand that you're scared of the future, but this is the time to change what you can change about your life. Mortgage really high? Talk to a financial advisor to try to change your rate. Got a gas-guzzler of a car? Change it to a smaller one. Buy only the essentials and try to save a few bob here and there (if I can do it, anyone can). I'm not trivialising anybody's situation here, but you have to realise that other people (with or without families) live on far less income than you and survive.
Yes, I know management messed up. Fines, bonuses, baggage issues, T5, the list is as long as a bad year. However, we need to look to the future. There's no point talking about what happened in '79, '85 or '97. Our issue is the future and whether we're going to have an airline to work for. How about asking SAS and Finnair crew how they are feeling at the moment? Please don't be the Alitalia-style crew of the UK. It won't do you any favours.
Think of a few items in your t&c's you'd be willing to negotiate and to what level. Tell your friends to do the same. Tell the union. At least then you'll feel you have some say in the issue. Also, please don't take the union's word as gospel. Cut away the emotive language, and ask questions in the office. Yes, management lies, but so does unions (mainly to get support). I have experience in that field, so I'm not making it up, whatever you believe.
Gg
(sorry for long post and spelling mistakes)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: job centre
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA lowers the bar
Well, I am ashamed to say that BASSA are currently running an online poll asking its members whether they think a 'Name and Shame' policy is a good idea. Based on a CSD 'thinking for himself ' and deciding that a single night in PIK after diverting en route NRT LHR was sufficient rest for him at least. He and he alone was the single cabin crew member taking an empty jet back to LHR with the flight deck.
I am not ashamed to say that the large majority of forum posters totally disagree and some are threatening to withdraw their membership should this act of lunacy go ahead. The poll itself is currently in favour.
For those PPRuNe posters on this thread that talk of BASSA's intransigence amongst other qualities, your case now rests.
I am not ashamed to say that the large majority of forum posters totally disagree and some are threatening to withdraw their membership should this act of lunacy go ahead. The poll itself is currently in favour.
For those PPRuNe posters on this thread that talk of BASSA's intransigence amongst other qualities, your case now rests.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand how so many are in favour in the poll, yet so many posters are so against it, some are even threatening to leave the union.
A bad move by Bassa, as they can neither expel nor fine their members. This poll serves only to split the membership and strengthen the resolve of members happy to go against some of the more unreasonable aspects of their agreement. If the idea was to isolate those who didn't follow Bassa's instructions, it has only shown them there's no sanction to be applied to them, and that they are not alone.
Bad strategy.
A bad move by Bassa, as they can neither expel nor fine their members. This poll serves only to split the membership and strengthen the resolve of members happy to go against some of the more unreasonable aspects of their agreement. If the idea was to isolate those who didn't follow Bassa's instructions, it has only shown them there's no sanction to be applied to them, and that they are not alone.
Bad strategy.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mate of mine has just forwarded me the email, who wants to be part of a union that does this? What next? Thumbscrews??
A shame BASSA don't fall under BAs' bullying and harassment policy. Reading some of their rhetoric reminds me of some 1930s dictators
A name and shame policy.......... disgusting
Ask yourselves who is going to be next for this "focus on hate"
A shame BASSA don't fall under BAs' bullying and harassment policy. Reading some of their rhetoric reminds me of some 1930s dictators
A name and shame policy.......... disgusting
Ask yourselves who is going to be next for this "focus on hate"
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I am ashamed to say that BASSA are currently running an online poll asking its members whether they think a 'Name and Shame' policy is a good idea.
It seems like they know the party's over and this is the last dance.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect you will find that BASSA never really intended to introduce "Name And Shame" its just a tactic to get the crew community talking about the agreements being broken.
Seems to have done the trick on both the BASSA and crewforum sites and in fact this one as well!
Seems to have done the trick on both the BASSA and crewforum sites and in fact this one as well!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't rule it out Ozzie but I get the impression it's alienated a lot of BASSA members who know how the world really works and ultimately won't do any good. If BALPA tried something like that, I have a feeling there would be a short pause followed by a new set of Reps.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand how so many are in favour in the poll, yet so many posters are so against it, some are even threatening to leave the union.