BA and Project Columbus II

[TightSlot]

BA and Project Columbus Discussion

[charliepie]

Classic wrote:

One crewmember who says that's what they wanted to do, and didn't feel the need for 2 nights is being lectured that if they don't take those 2 nights in every case, then BA will start planning LAs, SFOs, JNBs etc with only one night stop!
..................
That's why the pilots, who have very similar industrial agreements take min rest then fly. And without the fear that the company would use such exceptional circumstances as a precedent to impose changes on our agreement. We still have 2 nights in LA and SFO!

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.

I don't trust BA one iota. Without trust, clarity and honesty there is no buy-in. Without a buy-in employees become disengaged and lack motivation and morale. In these circumstances change is almost impossible to achieve.
BA need to urgently address these issues and they could start by removing the barely disguised contempt in which cabin crew are held.

[Flintstone]

Tiger. The term I used was 'aghast'. Online dictionaries will help you with the definition but none of them will say "Annoyed or not in best frame of mind". I'm far from annoyed about this, it has no bearing or effect on my situation. Bemused from afar would be more accurate. Maybe I've been spoiled by working with professionals who always go the extra mile as a matter of course rather than the blinkered, (career) suicidal jobsworths described in some instances here.

The point, which I know you got so let's not digress, is that the unions of that era were led by people with the same self serving attitude displayed by the dinosaurs leading this dispute. Neither I nor any of the outsiders commenting need to be inside BA to see what's happening. It's obvious.

The posters here castigating the CC who are prepared to forego two nights on a diversion in the interests of customer service fall into the same camp as those looking (myopically) to milk the system when there's no reasonable justification. To tell someone it's not their place to offer to work after 'only' one night smacks of Kite-ism and bullying. In my branch of the industry such initiative is rewarded and appreciated. The jobsworths seem to disappear.

[PC767]

Flintstone. Your post alludes to the fact that you are not part of BA and see matters from afar. You therefore have no real independant idea of BA politics nor the characters, union or management, who are involved. Should the tables ever be turned then I'm sure you would not wished your company or situation to be judged on propaganda or biased opinion.

So, thank you for taking the time to post and for making your observations known, but they are utterly irrelevant.

Can I also point out that the two local nights rule applies only to long range flights, not all long haul flights. And long range flights are often where, if this is really relevant, our flight crew colleagues have an additional nights rest down route. Beijing being an example. The inflexibility also kicks in after the duty exceeds 19hrs 15mins, which I'm sure most would agree is a long time. And of course that time is only officially until 30 mins after chocks away from base. During this disruption crew (flight and cabin) continued looking after passengers on the ground whilst arrangements and decisions were made.

A final point, for now, is that in all my time at Britannia Airways I never operated long haul with heavy crew. Granted we did not operate for 12hrs plus in the air but I operated many times to Florida, Mexico and Kenya for instance with juist two pilots. At BA a minimum of three are carried on the majority of these routes - not all - but the majority. If only two pilots then the pilots have an extra local night down route. My point, I'm happy for the flight crew and it really is neither none of my buisness nor bothers me. But if BA is really looking to work to the fundamental rules of the JAA, and to save money then when Walsh has finished with us he will not just stop and be satisfied. Cabin crew t&cs belong to cabin crew and flight crew t&cs belong to them.

[Flintstone]

Irrelevant? How wrong can you be? You also make the assumption* that I know nothing of the internal workings of BA when this is a small industry and we all know people in other companies. You also know nothing of my background in this industry.

The common complaint from BA cabin crew is that they are sick of being told by the union what they will and will not do especially when they choose to be flexible in the spirit of getting the job done.

Originally Posted by PC767

But of most importance is the loss of good will.

I wonder how that came about?





*Assumption=most dangerous thing in aviation.

[Ten West]

Originally Posted by Snowbound

Mate,, Why don't you Stick to Thomson Air ( That is what they call you these days, isn't it??? ) You know very little of what is and has been going on within BA for a long time now. I'm been ivolved in it for the last 11 years now and although there are 0NE or TWO outdated agreements, we are not the over-paid primadonnas everyone on this thread thinks we are. I challenge ANYONE to accept a 40 % pay cut any not be shouting and screaming about it!!!!

My apologies for having the temerity to post my "two cents".
I was under the impression that this thread was open for contributions from any PPRuNe member. I didn't realise that it was purely for BA Cabin Crew. Perhaps you might like to get it moved to a BA private forum to prevent any future occurrences of "Unpalatable truths".
I don't recall ever describing you or your colleagues as "Over-paid primadonnas". I do recall saying that it would be your inflexibility and confrontational manner that would do for you in the end more than the financial burden on the company.
If you have such a bad deal at BA then why are crew from other operators posting on here telling you how good you've got it?

Just curious.

Originally Posted by Tiger

If BA does "sack the lot of them" your be paying for them though your tax as unemployment benefit!

Not at all. Using "selective quoting" may be good for generating strong feelings, but it does nothing to further this debate.
Re-applying for your old job under new terms and conditions is a common practice in the world away from the airline community. It's happened to me and to many people I know.
The applications are considered on individual merit. Those who have consistently taken a "Big picture" view and showed flexibility and an operationally-minded attitude have fared consistently better than those applicants with an "I'm alright Jack" mentality.

It won't just be me paying for their unemployment benefit through my income taxes. It'll be people like Glamgirl paying for it from hers as well.

Blah Blah 1970`s British Leyland, Coal Mines etc
You may have been annoyed or not in the best frame of mind, but the industrial unrest during this period is slightly more than the unions fault.

There were many factors involved in the demise of British industry, that's true. This probably isn't the time or place to get into all that, but one consistent thread that ran throughout the whole period was the attitude of the trade unions and their perpetual nay-saying to even the merest suggestion of change. Look where it ultimately got them.

Coal Mines. You wanna try that for a job? The strikes were due to the closure of the mines during the 80`s.

...Which were hastened by militant industrial action taken in a King Canute style attempt to prevent progress towards creating a more modern and competitive industry.

Something now days perhaps in hindsight should have stayed open (with talk of UK power supplies in a fine balance).

Indeed. I fully agree with you there. We could have still had a coal industry if everyone had adapted and changed rather than trying to preserve the status quo by throwing bricks at coppers under the leadership of Arthur Scargill.

Whilst modernisation would not have been a bad thing perhaps the ways it was done was.
Maggie closed anything with a union during the 80`s. Hence way there is so little manufacturing in the UK.

I'm no fan of Maggie, but the fact that she did is one of the main reasons behind there being ANY manufacturing left in the UK. Do you think Nissan would have come to Sunderland for example if things had been left as they were? Your Mini would have been made in Munich instead of Cowley.

One surving thing was the railways, although little was spent on it. Private railways a good thing?

When were the railways most efficient? When they were private companies, back in the days of LNER, LMS, etc. Before the nationalisation and the creation of "British Rail".
By the time "British Rail" was established the rot had well and truly set in.
The demise of the railways however can be laid firmly at the door of Dr Beeching rather than the unions. I can't see the relevance to this discussion I'm afraid.

Are you saying that you'd rather merge every operator into one big airline for the whole of the UK subsidised by the taxpayer?

IF and only if in years to come what has happen in the last year or so it comes out that the 1980`s policys have help fuel the Global mess with Banker greed will you be blaming them?

Blaming whom? Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at with this this bit.

[charliepie]

The common complaint from BA cabin crew is that they are sick of being told by the union what they will and will not do especially when they choose to be flexible in the spirit of getting the job done.

There isn't any flexibility with the current agreements unless it is enshrined within the agreement itself e.g the Disruption Agreement, or an alleviation is agreed between Unite and BA.

Cabin crew cannot pick and choose which parts of it they want to work to on an adhoc basis in the name of being flexible. Both the Union and BA will agree on that. After all, how does any crew decide what they are prepared or not to do? Everybody needs a point of reference throughout the operation.
Agreements are there for good reason. There is no doubt that some of it needs attention and that's currently up for negotiation.
WW can , in the meantime, bus his diverted crews to LHR which will go a long way to improving morale.

As for cabin crew complaining, well tell me something I don't know. They will complain about anything and everthing at great and irritating length.

If anybody doesn't like/appreciate what their elected union representatives are doing on their behalf then they can get off their lazy backsides and do something about it instead of whingeing and moaning.

The bottom line is that flexibilty in the spirit of getting the job done, if it takes you outside your contracted agreement, is not acceptable unless otherwise agreed by BA Ops or the Doms in conjunction with the Union.

Does anybody remember the power outage on the eastern seaboard 2003?
Imagine, Manhattan gridlock , no hotel rooms anywhere, passengers stranded sleeping in the terminals. One BA crew slept on the aircraft and were asked in the morning, by the captain via the CSD, if they would operate home. How flexible do you want to be?

[Ten West]

Charliepie:

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.

It wasn't what I signed up for. But am I complaining? No.

Because my colleagues in ground ops and our aircrews also volunteered to make the effort and go above and beyond the call, people are now on their holidays rather than sleeping on a departure lounge floor or emailing "Watchdog".
Hopefully they'll now choose us as their carrier again next year too.

Air travel, by its very nature, will always be prone to disruptions. There needs to be flexibility to accomodate this.

When you have powerful forces acting against an inflexible object then something will eventually give.

Do you think it will be BA?

[Da Dog]

Charliepie

There isn't any flexibility with the current agreements unless it is enshrined within the agreement itself e.g the Disruption Agreement, or an alleviation is agreed between Unite and BA.

So seeing as BA had very little control over the situation why did BASSA decide to dig its heals in and offer no alleviation? Costing the company £££££ at a time that they don't have any ££££ and inconveniencing 1000s of passengers to boot?

Everybody needs a point of reference throughout the operation.
Agreements are there for good reason. There is no doubt that some of it needs attention and that's currently up for negotiation.

At this rate you might be lucky if there is any negotiation

WW can , in the meantime, bus his diverted crews to LHR which will go a long way to improving morale.

Well I heard it was because there was no room on the shuttles, due to the fact that all the CPT passengers in PIK were offered them first.

Does anybody remember the power outage on the eastern seaboard 2003?
Imagine, Manhattan gridlock , no hotel rooms anywhere, passengers stranded sleeping in the terminals. One BA crew slept on the aircraft and were asked in the morning, by the captain via the CSD, if they would operate home. How flexible do you want to be?

I remember it well, but my memory of it is different to yours

[Flintstone]

Originally Posted by charliepie

How flexible do you want to be?

I am as flexible as I feel like being at any given time and will go as far as I need to resolve a problem within the bounds of safety, the regulations and my contract. If that's too confusing for you then here are some examples.

I will exercise captain's discretion where appropriate, legal and with the full agreement of the rest of the crew.

I/we will reduce our rest period where appropriate, legal and with the full agrement of the rest of the crew.

I will join the rest of my crew in doing whatever (within reason) we need to do, even during our 'off' time, to ensure that a flight is conducted in a professional manner and to exceptionally high standards. It is completely normal for bizjet CC to shop for stock or prepare for a trip on their days off. Anyone not happy with this knows they are free to leave, no union rep will tell them what they can and cannot do.

Are you getting the idea? We do what needs to be done to achieve an objective and keep our passengers happy which compares markedly with the 'but-my-contract-says' argument being put forward by some of you. Why is it such a bad thing if some crew members wish to make the extra effort? Why do the militant element feel so threatened by them? Could it be that their (more) professional attituder shows the intransigents petulant behaviour for what it is?

As I said before none of it will make an iota of difference to my job but I don't like lazy bullies. Unfortunately their behaviour will drag down their more decent colleagues. At least they'll have shown the management though, eh? Shown them they're not to be messed with. All the way to the job centre

[Ten West]

Originally Posted by Charliepie

There isn't any flexibility with the current agreements unless it is enshrined within the agreement itself e.g the Disruption Agreement, or an alleviation is agreed between Unite and BA.

Cabin crew cannot pick and choose which parts of it they want to work to on an adhoc basis in the name of being flexible. Both the Union and BA will agree on that.

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.

[snowbound]

My apologies for having the temerity to post my "two cents".
I was under the impression that this thread was open for contributions from any PPRuNe member. I didn't realise that it was purely for BA Cabin Crew.

It's not! I just don't think you're in a position to know what is going on within OUR company, simple!!

I don't recall ever describing you or your colleagues as "Over-paid primadonnas".

I never said you did. What I did say is that seems to be the inaccurate perception!!

If you have such a bad deal at BA then why are crew from other operators posting on here telling you how good you've got it?

Just curious.

Envy..... basically!!

There were many factors involved in the demise of British industry, that's true. This probably isn't the time or place to get into all that, but one consistent thread that ran throughout the whole period was the attitude of the trade unions and their perpetual nay-saying to even the merest suggestion of change. Look where it ultimately got them.

Our problem is not that change is a non-starter. It's the fact that we are being used at the moment as an excuse any time financial problems arise!!!! The appaling opening performance of T5, the ongoing baggage debacle and the £350m fine anyone?....Anyone!

Air travel, by its very nature, will always be prone to disruptions. There needs to be flexibility to accomodate this

Most of the restrictions that are placed on us as crew at the moment are from the CAA and not our union.

I could go on and on but I'm getting bored now!! As I said you do not know the intracies of what is going on at BA at the moment. blah, blah blah!!!

[Juan Tugoh]

The 2 local nights rest post long range which is, at the moment, the cause of such disgust during this disruption, forcing BA to strand passengers and operate empty aircraft, is not a legal restriction put in place by the CAA, it is a union agreement enforced inappropriately by BASSA. As has already been mentioned the legal restrictions governing Flight Crew are ALWAYS more restrictive. Hiding behind restrictions on duty hours imposed by an industrial agreement, during times of disruption is a red herring - if the pilots can LEGALLY do it so can the cabin crew. The rest is just about how little you care about pissing off passengers.

You can operate with less than 2 nights post long range - the 122MRU service that diverted into NCE did just that. The boys and girls bussing back from PIK because they insisted on their 2 nights did not. Ultimately the Union should be about protecting you from the excesses of the company - not dictating to the company how and when it can fly its aeroplanes.

It is not any reduction in cost of cabin crew that will be the main benefit that BA will reap from OP Colombus, but flexibility from one of its most industrially intransigent groups of staff. BA is losing about £2.7 million a day and do not need to incur additional losses and costs because any group of staff is overly inflexible when things go wrong. The more inflexible and awkward you are at a time like this will make BA even more determined to push ahead with reform.

Get a grip guys you will regret it in the long term if you don't. When BAs cash reserves are gone there will be no more old contract or new contract or box payments etc. Anything that emerges from the wreckage will pay less and work all its crew to CAA rules and nobody wants that.

[Ten West]

I could go on and on but I'm getting bored now!! As I said you do not know the intracies of what is going on at BA at the moment. blah, blah blah!!!

Yeah, it's nice to know we're dealing with intelligent professionals, isn't it?

Well, I shan't take up any more of your time then, except to take issue with this:

Most of the restrictions that are placed on us as crew at the moment are from the CAA and not our union.

Balderdash. Pure and simple.

Show me one entry in CAP371 that specifies that "The above requirement shall apply only to crews operating for British Airways"

EVERY airline in the UK operates to CAP371 or they don't operate.
Anything over and above that is an agreed nicety and not a legal requirement.

I just don't think you're in a position to know what is going on within OUR company, simple!!

I just don't think you're in a position to know what you're talking about when it comes to the difference between legality and union agreements. Equally simple.

[NigelOnDraft]

alfamatt

Having been caught up in the snow/delays, I was once again asked by my Captain to work out our (cabin crews that is) hours. The outcome was that even with a 4 man flt. crew, the cabin crew had more flexibility & the ability to go longer than our tech crew, even using full Captains discretion.

Now PLEASE don't take this as an attack on my tech crew colleagues. They have their terms/conditions/rules/regulations to work to, & I fully support them.

Also, come about midnight on Sunday, when we were trying to get out of LHR, after about 3+ hrs of waiting, we were informed that now the tug drivers/bus drivers & other ground staffs shift had finished & we were effectively down to a "skeleton shift". This caused much frustration to my Captain, who was doing everything possible to keep things moving.
So then, in timeline order, so to speak, first the ground staff went home, then the tech crew woulde have been next on their limits, & LASTLY the cabin crew would have gone out of hours.

Just to re-state, the purpose of my post is NOT to have a pop at other depts, but rather to highlight the fact that cabin crews working practises & agreements are nowhere near as restrictive as some here believe.

There is nothing incorrect in your post... The Flt Crew were working to legal rules, and in general, for the same Flight/Rest, Flt Crew will always be "legal" for 1 hour less than CC. That's the law, and you saw it above... And BASSA industrial rules are not normally very restrictive ex-Base.

The debate(s) are concerning after a LR sector, when the Law (FC & CC) requires, say, 15 hours off (1 hour less for CC). FC, despite their industrial agreements entitling them to 2 LNs (say 48 hours) off, would work to 15hrs. The CC, often only after consulting with IFS and BASSA demanded 48hrs+.

It is this division between scheme and industrial that is being highlighted - or rather application of industrial... The FC choose to ignore where sensisble, the CC did not - or rather the CC "system" of their Mgmt and Union would not, leaving the CC to get blamed

NoD

[wiggy]

It's no good blaming "BASSA"...I have a great deal of respect for our Cabin Crew colleagues as individuals, I really do. In the main I enjoy their Company and I know the majority are honestly interested in the welfare of our passengers, but they vote in the Reps, it's their Union. If the 'two local nights rule" causes the shambles that seems to have happened recently it's fairly and squarely down to the electorate.

[PC767]

Juan.

The MRU flight you mention is currently a bone of contention. The crew did operate home after 1 local night expecting their entitled local night to be credited to them later. At present the company are saying no to. In effect the crew worked home on their day off, and at present are being told they are not entitled to it back on a later roster.

This is the problem with breaking agreements. If you happen to be cabin crew it only works one way. So, should such distrubtion occur again, BA now have another 15 cabin crew who will demand what was agreed originally with the company.

[wiggy]

PC767


"In effect the crew worked home on their day off"

Yep, as, probably did the Flight Crew ( who certainly are not entitled to a day of in lieu) and I think you'll find a lot of folks on the ground were working days off this week.

[overstress]

In effect the crew worked home on their day off, and at present are being told they are not entitled to it back on a later roster.

The very fact that there are many BA crew with attitudes similar to that quoted leads me to believe that they are in for an almighty shock.

PC767 - I think you'll find that the crew didn't consult DoMs or BASSA, they decided like adults that they would be better off getting home. Then they simply operated without fuss.

Some BA crew don't seem to realise they are in the airline industry, they give the impression that they work 3hr shifts in a restaurant with bunks which magically reaches its destination all by itself. "Are you 'flight deck' coming back with us?"

I fear there will be tears in parts of Richmond and Windsor very soon

PS: The vast majority of BA crew are sensible people who realise which side their bread is (thickly) buttered. Then there are some who expect a day off after disruption as if it's their employer's fault there's poor weather...

[charliepie]

PC767- I think you'll find that there is no bone of contention. There is an addendum to the worlwide agreement regarding diversions into non-long range stations. MRU-NCE non-long range, one local night or minimum rest, operate NCE-LHR. End of story.

Overstress- It would have been remiss of the operating CSD not to liase with the DOMS as a matter of course. As for decisions made with the minmum of fuss, I doubt that very much. Unless the cabin crew let the Captain and the CSD get on with it.