BA and Project Columbus III

[jetset lady]

Originally Posted by nuigini

The A319 and A320 have at least 4 crew and the number is actually regulated depending on which trip the aircraft is doing and obviously also the load. For an AMS you would have 6 crew (2 in EC and 4 in ET) due to the short flight time and the service onboard.

Ironically, on the A319 from LGW to AMS, you will have 3 crew, despite the short flight time and service onboard, unless the club load exceeds 15....

As nuigini says, the crewing level on shorthaul is complicated for both bases and depends on aircraft type/variation, club load and flight time. To those onboard, it may sometimes seem like we are overloaded with crew when there are 5 crew for 40 odd pax, but you can usually guarantee that the other sector would have been chocka block full.

And there, I think, we have part of the crux of the problem. The one word that has kept popping up is complicated. And so far, we have only really covered LGW T&C's in any detail. LHR crew, apart from the lovely nuigini, have been suspiciously quiet. Yet Carnage Matey has correctly pointed out that LGW is the "Simple" fleet, for want of a better description.

I can only imagine that those outside of BA are looking at all this in complete bewilderment. 3 fleets of the same airline with so many differences to their terms and conditions. To outsiders, including our shareholders, it must border on the ridiculous! In my opinion, we must streamline our operation if we are to survive as an airline in the future.


Jsl

[Jean-Lill]

I can see why the short range aircraft have more crew due to the short sector times and a high club load but I cannot see why the LGW 777 needs less crew than the LHR 777 unless the LHR 777 has more seats or a different configuration that requires more crew.

Presemably the cabin products are the same for services from both bases or perhaps the LHR 777's fly longer sectors than the LGW 777's do.

[pinkaroo]

Gg, Please reread my posts. I have only just damned those who pay you so much less at LGW but I am sorry you resent that. As for my attitude to flightdeck. I have also shown my support for those T & Cs not being stolen. What I am trying to get across to you is your defence of BA rather sticks in my throat. Here we have a company we suspect is about to turn the CC over and you are posting your gratitude for actually having a job. You do rather sound like headgirl.
CM, I have a problem with any group who want CC to suffer financially.

[Carnage Matey!]

You'll find that given so many other departments have given so much in terms of increased productivity, job cuts and pay reform, they have a problem with CC saying "No change! Why pick on us?". BASSA still try to hold the company to ransom at any opportunity. If they'd been more receptive to progressive change in the past the cabin crew community wouldn't be facing the huge change it is now. The militant unionism which reared it's ugly head during Februarys snow disruption only served to strengthen the resolve of the board to force change.

[Glamgirl]

Pinkaroo,

I'll try and explain this again (for the last time). I'm not defending the company per se. However, I do realise that something needs to be done to remain as an airline and to remain profitable. All other departments are getting cut, so why do you think CC are different? I don't necessarily agree with it, I'd love for all of us to earn £100K a year but it's not sustainable.

Try having a chat with a loader, engineer, MT driver, check-in staff and ask what's happening in their department. It's not pretty, and I'm having to watch several friends in different department being paid off and most likely not able to get another job in the forseeable future. This is what makes me grateful to have a job in the current climate.

What you do need to understand, is that the company is getting seriously fed up with this "NO!!NO!!NO!!" attitude from unions. At least if the unions turned up at meetings and behaved like adults and negotiated properly, you would have a better chance of getting somewhere. This doesn't mean I (or anyone else for that matter) want you to lose money, but there are obvious (to me anyway) areas where money could be saved from IFCE. You may not want to see it for yourself, and that's your perogative, but I'm being realistic here.

Gg

[Re-Heat]

For an AMS you would have 6 crew (2 in EC and 4 in ET) due to the short flight time and the service onboard.

3-crew worked on inter-German 737 services in the 80s/90s. Full hot meal and very short flight times.

[pinkaroo]

Gg, How do you know they are getting seriously fed up with your perception of the Bassa attitude? Have you had a personal conversation directly with members of the management negotiating team or are you just repeating what you think they feel? As regards your definition of "properly negotiating" don't you just mean give away hard earned T & Cs you do not have at LGW? These T & Cs were part of many people's contract and to lose each one is a reduction in contracted rights. Don't be so keen to see them disappear.

[Glamgirl]

Pinkaroo,

No, that's not how I look at negotiation. Proper negotiation includes discussion and give and take. Company wants one thing, union wants another, talk, discuss, come to agreement. That's how it works in the real world. We didn't really have much of a choice when it came to LGW, as a certain union starting with B couldn't give a flying monkey as to what happens at LGW. Most of the people who voted FOR singlefleet were LGW world wide and who couldn't wait to get different routes and easy option transfer to LHR.

I know your t&c's were hard fought for etc etc, but some of your t&c's are from BOAC days for crying out loud. It's not sustainable, end of story. Give me a good reason for getting destination payment for Dallas and Houston, please. And don't say it's about the type of pax, because I've done that route. That's just one of the things I can see the company cutting to be honest.

I've talked to both union reps and management, as I don't just listen to one side of the story. I listen to both sides and then make up my own mind as to what I want to believe. And for the record, the £6K loss per crew member the union is spouting is rubbish. Do the math, it doesn't add up. It's not as simple as dividing the company's wanted savings by amount of crew.

Gg

[Carnage Matey!]

How do you know they are getting seriously fed up with your perception of the Bassa attitude? Have you had a personal conversation directly with members of the management negotiating team or are you just repeating what you think they feel?

A friend of mine very recently spoke to both Willie Walsh and Keith Williams on the matter, and they were determined that changes would happen, regardless of whether BASSA tried to stonewall the company. Do you require more evidence that the management are fed up with BASSAs attitude?

[Glamgirl]

I don't have hostility towards anyone. I am, however, fed up with some attitudes from LHR crew, and from the amount of rubbish the union spouts, as well as crew not thinking for themselves but taking what the union says as gospel.

I asked you for a good reason for getting destination payment for Dallas/Houston, which you haven't given me, so I'm guessing there is no good reason. The only reason I think it should not be there in the first place is because I seriously can't see why there is a destination payment for those routes, not because I'm not getting it.

We have been left to "rot" as you say, at LGW. So, why should we back you guys up when you scream "STRIKE!" at the top of your voices? I went to a big union meeting a while back, and the convener said "we're going for strike. We don't know what for yet, but we're doing it". How is that good representation from the unions?

By the way, I'd like to point out that long haul at LGW is the department making the most money at the moment. Go figure.

I would like to make it absolutely clear (as you haven't understood me yet), that I do not want you to lose your t&c's because I'm not getting as good deal as you. I'm just saying things have to change to make sure we all have a job at the end of the day. If that's a crime, I'm guilty, but last time I checked, it wasn't a crime having an opinion.

Gg

[nuigini]

Another insulting thing about DFW and IAH, apart from the destination payment, is the fact when these came to LHR both of them all of the sudden gave three days off. At LGW both of these had given two days off. Same case with ATL as it has now come to LHR.

LGW is the most profitable fleet of all three. After that are LHR EF and LHR WW. Fact!

Why do I feel for LGW even though I have always been based at LHR? Because I have since the very beginning noticed the major differences between the bases. We are the same company and we SHOULD work under the same conditions with the same crewing levels. End of story.

[nuigini]

Presemably the cabin products are the same for services from both bases or perhaps the LHR 777's fly longer sectors than the LGW 777's do.

Not really.

Every 777 service from LHR leave with anything between 11 and 13 CC depending on configuration and not taking into consideration any load factor. It's the same at LGW as they either leave with 10 or 11 CC depending on configuration.

Many of the LGW trips go to the Caribbean and they can be pretty long.

The shortest trip for LHR is to TLV and even that one has 12 CC.

[Jean-Lill]

Is that because the CSD/Cabin Manager has a working position on the LGW services whereas at LHR they do not?

[aar4n5]

the singlefleet operation works at LGW beacuse we do short-range longhaul that checks in the morning and all clears by the latest 10:30 in the morning. Also its a smaller base with a lot less crew than LHR and we have a bid system that can almost give us what we want.
Having a singlefleet operation at LHR becomes more complicated because of the varying destinations/times zones/check in times and when you factor in long-range trips such as sin-syd. I cannot see having the whole of LHR on a singlefleet operation with a bid system working ???

[Jean-Lill]

Glam Girl

You speak a lot of sense which is nice to hear.

[nuigini]

I can't actually say why they removed one crew member from the 777 at LGW because I honestly don't know. Unfortunately LGW has always previously been the target for the management because the union(s) haven't been that strong there as the one at LHR.

I think it's a good idea that the CM is actually part of the service! Some of the CSD on WW couldn't care less and only leave their office once an hour to their hourly cabin check. Having said that, there are also some great CSD that really help out and take part of the service.

aar4n5,

LH does mixed flying all around the clock and they also have a bidding system for their crew. They don't fly to Australia but still they have some really long trips all over the world.

[KitKat747]

I thought LGW were in the same union as LHR c/c are.

[Baz50]

The CSD on my last flight in World Traveller was actually serving meals in that cabin and she chatted to the passengers which was very nice. Pity they are not all like that.

On the previous 3 flights I have heard the CSD's on the cabin announcement system but never saw one enter the traveller cabin unless going to/from crew rest area. I guess they must have been helping out in Club?

[silverstreak]

Project Columbus IS comming, WONT go away so start preparing.

Obviously, it will mean change and for the better for Willie. Nothing gets changed unless it benefits BA.

Hes taken on the regions and won. Now its the Cabin Crews turn, and who knows, Flightdeck next...

[Shaka Zulu]

It's flight crew, not flight deck. I have cabin crew under my command not cabin deckhands.

And Silverstreak, your statements really do add nothing to what we already know.
So polish up, change is coming and it'll be painful for us all. No glee, no ''other staff groups/fence peeking''. We're all going to give.

Debate/Constructive dialogue might get you a half palatable deal.