BA and Project Columbus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot imagine anything worse than being kept in a city where there is a risk to one's health just because a trade union refuses to allow a temporary change to the time off at an out station. Surely they should have some concern for the health of their members.
Any sensible person can see that BA are concerned for the welfare of their crews and would not use this as a precedent to implimant permanent changes for time off at out stations. The union in my opinion is irresponsible by dictating that their members must stay in a city that could be a threat to their health. It it unbelievale this is the case.
On the subject of the union fining their members , they cannot. Who would stay in a union after they had been fined? It would be an intersting topic if they did try to fine a member because collecting the fine would an impossible task if not illegal. How could they force a member to pay up, by taking them to the small claims court?
Any sensible person can see that BA are concerned for the welfare of their crews and would not use this as a precedent to implimant permanent changes for time off at out stations. The union in my opinion is irresponsible by dictating that their members must stay in a city that could be a threat to their health. It it unbelievale this is the case.
On the subject of the union fining their members , they cannot. Who would stay in a union after they had been fined? It would be an intersting topic if they did try to fine a member because collecting the fine would an impossible task if not illegal. How could they force a member to pay up, by taking them to the small claims court?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that requires the approval of CC management, who in turn risk the wrath of the BASSA Reps ................
Thread Starter
Twrecks
"Here we go, including the usual BASSA bash****ing and posturing about Cabin Crew:"
Haven't heard much bashing, but many of us are somewhat confused as to the BASSA line. Usually BASSA are criticised for being overly protective of it's members ( e.g. the infamous two nights off after a Long Range). In this case the Company wants to reduce the exposure of it's employees to possible Health Issues in MEX, indeed there may be "Duty of Care" implications here. On the other hand BASSA are insisting the slip remains unchanged...so what's the explanation? BASSA are going to look pretty darn culpable in the unlikely event one it's members does go down with this illness.
Haven't heard much bashing, but many of us are somewhat confused as to the BASSA line. Usually BASSA are criticised for being overly protective of it's members ( e.g. the infamous two nights off after a Long Range). In this case the Company wants to reduce the exposure of it's employees to possible Health Issues in MEX, indeed there may be "Duty of Care" implications here. On the other hand BASSA are insisting the slip remains unchanged...so what's the explanation? BASSA are going to look pretty darn culpable in the unlikely event one it's members does go down with this illness.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are they suppose to introduce 24 hour slips when it's not even a daily service?
I would think BASSA is only worried that if they agree on shortening the length of the layover in MEX is that BA will continue to keep that length even when things go back to normal.
I would think BASSA is only worried that if they agree on shortening the length of the layover in MEX is that BA will continue to keep that length even when things go back to normal.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand that the C/C TU might be worried that BA would implement shorter lay overs permanently after the health scare is over but they would be foolish to do so without proper negotiations and therefore are most unlikely to do that. I am surprised anyone with any common sense could think that under the current circumstances.
Are the pilots also worried that thier TU might do the same to them? I think probably not.
Sensible negotiations are called for when the health and welfare of crew is at stake, nothing is more important.
I was c/c for 35 years+ and in all that time I never saw anything implemented as a result of a one off concession even for commercial reasons that were for the benefit of the airline. This particular issue is about the health and well being of the crew and is obviously for no other reason. I would have thought the crew would be pleased to get out of MEX as soon as possible at the moment.
Let us hope none of the crew become sick as a result of this.
Are the pilots also worried that thier TU might do the same to them? I think probably not.
Sensible negotiations are called for when the health and welfare of crew is at stake, nothing is more important.
I was c/c for 35 years+ and in all that time I never saw anything implemented as a result of a one off concession even for commercial reasons that were for the benefit of the airline. This particular issue is about the health and well being of the crew and is obviously for no other reason. I would have thought the crew would be pleased to get out of MEX as soon as possible at the moment.
Let us hope none of the crew become sick as a result of this.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information from Bassa states they offered an alleviation for operating outbound cabin crew to position straight home on the inbound aircraft,therefore spending no time in mexico,or setting up a shuttle operation to,from mexico city,again preventing crew from having to stay in mexico,both proposals were rejected by the management.The union was intent on the crew spending no time in mexico,the company proposed a 1 night stay instead of 2,hardly reducing the risk of infection by any great ammount.The union claims the management are porporting to have crews welfare at heart,yet reject proposals to prevent staying in mexico,on grounds of cost !!The union has issued a statement to BA management,due to the fact that the company have attempted to blame the union for failing to ensure the welfare of its members,when the real story is somewhat different.Just highlights the appaling state of relations between management and unions at the moment.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information from Bassa states they offered an alleviation for operating outbound cabin crew to position straight home on the inbound aircraft,therefore spending no time in mexico,or setting up a shuttle operation to,from mexico city,again preventing crew from having to stay in mexico,both proposals were rejected by the management
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good point made by 747-436. If the union wanted the crew to position back on the same a/c they operated out on; that would have been fine on the first occasion because there would have been a crew in MEX to operate the return sector. How did the union think the next service would be crewed for the return sector as there would not have been a crew in Mexico?
Perhaps that is why BA rejected that idea, just a thought.
We are hearing two side of the story now.
Perhaps that is why BA rejected that idea, just a thought.
We are hearing two side of the story now.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the shuttle proposal was the best option,but rejected on grounds of cost.Perhaps this swine flu is another red herring,just like bird flu that was going to see us all off,dont hear anything about that do we !Dominates the news and takes all our minds off the state of the economy,unemployment,collapse of manufacturing industry and mp's fiddling their expenses.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSAs proposals were designed to force BA to cancel services to Mexico completely. When BA pointed out that they run the airline, not BASSA, toys were thrown out of the pram and now the crew stay in MEX for the full slip.
The shuttle options BASSA presented suggest they haven't a very clear idea of where MEX is in relation to the rest of the world!
The shuttle options BASSA presented suggest they haven't a very clear idea of where MEX is in relation to the rest of the world!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was c/c for 35 years+ and in all that time I never saw anything implemented as a result of a one off concession even for commercial reasons that were for the benefit of the airline.
Hi JL,
Were you not around when the BA CC Unions agreed to 'help' the airline by temporarily removing a crew member from all services worldwide just after 9/11? That crew member was never re-instated even when loads returned to pre 9/11 levels.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the loads never returned to pre 9/11 days. Capacity on the 747 shrank from almost 400 to 351 to 337 to 299 pax. Could 16 crew including 5 supervisory grades ever really be justified in light of that?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly did not return to the original loads!
Some longhaul flights (day flight CPT, MIA and MRU for instance) do have 16 cabin crew. Is there really a need for an additional crew member on all B747 flights? Not in my opinion!
Why should there be an additional crew member in WT when that cabin is all ready covered with 5 cabin crew? A four corner service is done very easily with the purser organising the galley. Look at most airlines and you will see that the crew complement is usually like this.
I suppose with an additional crew member the service can be completed quicker and crew rest will be longer. Please do not shoot me down for this but this is the case on many flights.
Some longhaul flights (day flight CPT, MIA and MRU for instance) do have 16 cabin crew. Is there really a need for an additional crew member on all B747 flights? Not in my opinion!
Why should there be an additional crew member in WT when that cabin is all ready covered with 5 cabin crew? A four corner service is done very easily with the purser organising the galley. Look at most airlines and you will see that the crew complement is usually like this.
I suppose with an additional crew member the service can be completed quicker and crew rest will be longer. Please do not shoot me down for this but this is the case on many flights.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Y service in 2001 was also a lot more elaborate than these days - drinks, food, drinks, ice cream, drinks, afternoon sandwich etc. Today they make a PA at the beginning of the flight telling you to take wine for lunch with the first drinks round, as there is no drinks round with lunch! Although I have been assured by a BA CC that this is not in the service manual, it happens all the time!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Age: 74
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L B
I can confirm what you have stated is the norm.
I travel frequently on business but only in the economy cabin on several airlines.
Drinks for the meal have to be taken with the pre-meal drinks service.
I often wondered on 12 hours flights why they do not have the time to offer drinks with the meals.
The seating capacity in the economy cabins seems to be shrinking now they put more premium seats in the aircraft, I guess the 747's must be down to well less than 200 economy seats now.
I can confirm what you have stated is the norm.
I travel frequently on business but only in the economy cabin on several airlines.
Drinks for the meal have to be taken with the pre-meal drinks service.
I often wondered on 12 hours flights why they do not have the time to offer drinks with the meals.
The seating capacity in the economy cabins seems to be shrinking now they put more premium seats in the aircraft, I guess the 747's must be down to well less than 200 economy seats now.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today they make a PA at the beginning of the flight telling you to take wine for lunch with the first drinks round, as there is no drinks round with lunch! Although I have been assured by a BA CC that this is not in the service manual, it happens all the time!
According to the service manual a choice of red and white wines should be offered with the meal but some crew do shortcuts and offer it during the bar service before instead.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baz
There are 2 basic configs now on the BA744's:
1. 291/299 (Hi J) with 14F/70J and 30WTP+177or185 WT
and
2. 337 (Mid J) with 14F/52J and 26WTP + 235 WT.
As I understand it, the WTP and WT service is combined to give a 207/215 or 261 pax service.
Previously we had 401/409 config aircraft, with 14F/about 50J and 335-ish Y. The cabin compliments have not reflected hese changes - the CSD still has no role in the service - things must change
There are 2 basic configs now on the BA744's:
1. 291/299 (Hi J) with 14F/70J and 30WTP+177or185 WT
and
2. 337 (Mid J) with 14F/52J and 26WTP + 235 WT.
As I understand it, the WTP and WT service is combined to give a 207/215 or 261 pax service.
Previously we had 401/409 config aircraft, with 14F/about 50J and 335-ish Y. The cabin compliments have not reflected hese changes - the CSD still has no role in the service - things must change
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought now that WT+ is between F and J a dedicated c/crew member worked solely in that cabin so the 30 or so WT+ seats is not included in the amount of M seats which I believe in now about 190 seats depending on whether the a/c is a high or medieum J configured a/c.
I presume when it is a high J cabin the WT+ service would be combined with the M service as the cabin would be in front of M.
Some CSD's do work in the M cabin to help out with the meal service but perhaps not on all flights!!!
I presume when it is a high J cabin the WT+ service would be combined with the M service as the cabin would be in front of M.
Some CSD's do work in the M cabin to help out with the meal service but perhaps not on all flights!!!