BA and Project Columbus III

[jetset lady]

Right. This is obviously getting us nowhere, as we are back to going round in the same old circles.

Pinkaroo, seeing as you are the one on line at the moment, help me out and explain to me why you shouldn't compromise on some of your T&C's. Why are your allowances justified and how are they sustainable? Everyone else in the company has had to give something, so why are you any different? What do you have/do that we don't? Maybe I'm failing to see something here, as nothing I have seen so far has made the slightest bit of difference to my views.

However, please don't just trot out the old line of, "Why should I give up my T&C's?" That tells me precisely nothing and makes you sound no better than some of our beloved Ministers. I admit that that may be a bit of a leap, but the principle remains the same.

Jsl

[jetset lady]

Originally Posted by silverstreak

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

Well done, silverstreak. You have finally stumbled upon the main point to running a business!

[Jean-Lill]

Pinkaroo.

No I am not ex BOAC, I joined BEA when some of the aircraft had propellors-When it became BA both EF & WW . After retirement as a WW CSD worked as cabin crew for 6 months with a LCC but now fully retired from flying and living in France with my French husband.

Wish I was still with BA though, pity the current 65 retirement age came in just a bit too late for me otherwise I would still be with you all.

Now you have my history.

LOL

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by pinkaroo

CM I rejoice in the fact WW finds Bassa argumentative.

Pink he doesn't find them argumentative. Obstinate would be a better word. The problem is that obstinacy serves no purpose, as it would not reduce in any way the amount of savings IFCE have to find. It simply means a solution would be imposed rather than negotiated, and there's only going to be one winner if that happens. The millions Willie wants are not up for negotiation. They are going to be found one way or the other, and as BA controls the purse strings they have the stronger hand.

[wobble2plank]

The biggest problem underlying this whole debate is that of 'benchmarking' CC terms and conditions.

Obviously this hasn't been done on a 'formal' level, but can you honestly believe that the BA management team won't have had a good trawl through all of the equivalent LH/SH airlines to do a cross comparison? Add to that the ability to look at the LH/SH route structure of LGW which, in my opinion, runs excellently and far more smoothly than the LHR operation. The company knows exactly what the 'going rate' for CC is and what the worldwide LH/SH 'standard' pay structure is.

The 'structure' of the CC pay at LHR is the target. The ability for an accountant to sit down and look at cabin crew rosters and calculate the monthly cost of each individual is the key. This allows vital forward projection of personnel costs. As it stands currently CC rosters are the most chaotic on the planet with costs changing every day due to the various 'random' credits involved with lunch payments, CAT turnarounds, dinner payments, earlies, blocks, lateness etc. etc. etc.

Silverstreak dragged, once again, the flight crew into it. Take another look, FC pay structures are what BA wants for the CC (albeit not at the same levels). The ability to say 'they fly XX hours at ZZ per hour over a month equals £YYY'. That is the entire thrust of the pay restructuring and exactly what flight crew have at the moment and have had for the past 5 years.

BASSA have successfully defended the current pay structure at, and only at, LHR. Congratulations and well done, honestly. However the disparity between the operation at LHR and the rest of the CC employment world has become so large that the managment have finally taken this battle out of the 'too difficult' draw and are going to take it to conclusion.

The new 'One World' fleet launches in November. The BASSA mantra drum of 'We will bring the company down' is beating ever quieter as more 'new entry' CC are recruited every day. WW will have budgeted for industrial dispute as he and the board are well aware of the petulant, childish nature of BASSA as has been summed up by many of the LGW crew. What happens now is the decision as to whether or not the current CC accept a readjustment to their contracts to bring them in-line with all of the other departments who are either cutting pay or losing personnel or, possibly, accept a 90 day notice of termination.

The company WILL play hard ball on this one and BASSA will stand on its own as the other departments have taken their medicine already.

Whilst I don't like what is happening it is, unfortunately, inevitable if the company is to survive and I get annoyed when a singular department feels that they have the right to 'bring the company to its knees' because of a long overdue overhaul of outdated 1970's contractual fluff thus affecting the employment of thousands of others.

[HZ123]

Today 09:15
wobble2plank


You have summed up very well this situation and it's expected outcome. One thing I must correct you on though is the new CC. There have only been 2 courses this year and with the exception of some national NECC that is it. It is right that there are indeed 1000 plus that have had interviews and await the call to arms at Cranebank.

On that premise, I think WW does not anticipate to many problems when they finally are put to the staff. Options outside the industry are few and far between. I expect that the bombshell will come toward the end of the summer schedule but it will not all be bad news, maybe softened by a new grade/JD and promotion for a 1000 plus?

[Re-Heat]

I think evidence of BA compromise is the fact that they have yet to pull the nuclear option and terminate all your contracts, rehiring at market rates.

The very fact that negotiations are taking place is evidence of compromise, even though the results have yet to be announced.

I'm afraid, pinkaroo, that Glamgirl has ten times the logic and ten times the maturity of your posts. Perhaps if you had not turned your back on LGW in the past, you might be lucky enough to have her negotiating for you.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Pink he doesn't find them argumentative. Obstinate would be a better word. The problem is that obstinacy serves no purpose,

Carnage Matey, I think you are very wrong about the purposes of the board, the conduct of it and the role of Unions.

I once had some very unfortunate meetings with BA board members, Messrs Hatton and Kirkwood.

Nowhere will you find more obstinate or obnoxious people than the senior management of BA. Remember Birmingham, Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow etc.

I say the CC should strike.

[wobble2plank]

Ex Cargo Clown

I say the CC should strike.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your (oft aired ) views of the management I feel that the only ones the CC will hurt by a strike will be themselves.

Public support for any campaign would be very slim in the current climate especially when the disparity between LHR and LGW is made fully public.

The offenders would have their contracts annulled and invited to re-apply under the new scheme.

Foot, line up, shoot springs to mind.

Tread carefully with this one. Now is not the time for Unionistic banner waving.

[nuigini]

wobble2plank,

Well said!

I also believe that a strike will definitely have a great impact on all of us and put us in even a worse situation than we are already in.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Well said!

I also believe that a strike will definitely have a great impact on all of us and put us in even a worse situation than we are already in.

A line has to be draw in the sand though.

BA are haemorrhaging for one reason, and one reason only.

A bloated management structure that can only justify it's existence by cutting costs. Even though it costs more to have them in place.

Ayling started the rot, Eddington continued it, and then Walsh appears to be determined to hammer the final nail into the coffin.

It's not reduction of terms that is necessary, it's a look at the company as a whole. Horribly, horribly run.

And let's not get into the soon to be NAPS disaster ! That will sink the company quicker than any industrial action.

[Carnage Matey!]

I think your reasoning is a little out of date ECC. BA have already shed hundreds of managers in the last 12 months. There's plenty more there, but now it's just because BA like to give the title to pretty much anyone. The high grade, high pay managers are few and far between. Claiming that the company is up the creek because of excessive management numbers doesn't wash anymore, and the companys in better shape operationally than it has been for 5 years. The reason the business is up the creek is that premium pax numbers have dropped off a cliff, hot on the heels of the world economy. To deny that would defy credulity.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I think your reasoning is a little out of date ECC. BA have already shed hundreds of managers in the last 12 months. There's plenty more there, but now it's just because BA like to give the title to pretty much anyone. The high grade, high pay managers are few and far between. Claiming that the company is up the creek because of excessive management numbers doesn't wash anymore. The company is up the creek because premium pax numbers have dropped off a cliff, hot on the heels of the world economy. To ignore that reality undermines the credibility of your arguments.

I cannot agree with that at all. I've spoken to people in revenue management and there was never a need to have a huge yield from J/F fares. They were merely the "icing on the cake".

You can operate a 747 or 777 across the pond just off cargo and WT Pax. The price of fuel has not helped, but there is still something completely wrong with the airline. I believe that to be management. Have a walk around Waterworld, it is crammed with them still !!! I remember Ayling and co took on around 15,000 managers, that will not be affected by having a few hundred take redundancy. A mass cull is needed, and fast.

[Matt101]

I hate to disagree but I believe we were told J class has been for a while now the highest revenue producing cabin in the airline - also there was an article in the BA News suggesting a full J class cabin to HKG bought the flight to a break even basis - without them the flight generally lost money.

My best wishes to all former colleagues though - times are hard and I don't want to see anyone lose out. Though I think some trimming around the edges is going to be inevitable.

[Carnage Matey!]

Waterside is a much quieter place these days, even with more departments moving in as properies are sold or returned to lessors. Perhaps in the good old days you could run an airline based on cargo and WT pax alone, but the anyone whose seen the fares on offer at the moment will recognise that even the WT revenue stream has taken a massive hit. We're flying aircraft around half empty that would have been full 18 months ago, and those who are flying are doing it on discounted fares. It'll be interesting to see how much of a hit cargo revenue has taken in the downturn when the results are published on Friday. A mass cull may be needed, but you can't blame management numbers for this crisis and expect to be taken seriously. Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, Iberia, Virgin, Cathay, Singapore Airlines are all reporting bad results. Are they all overmanaged too? Or is something more fundamental at work?

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It will indeed to see what the results show.

Let's not forget that we have to take into account the huge fine (caused by George and his other corrupt cronies) will hit the bottom line.

And I'm also interested into the NAPS "hole", I really can't see how saving a few quid with CC is going to sort that mess out.

[Carnage Matey!]

Yep the fine hurt, but thats done and dusted with last years accounts and frankly doesn't make this years results look any better. NAPS is also another black hole, one which isn't likely to be around for many more years. Frankly we could all ask "Why should I give this? Why should I change? My contribution won't make much difference". The problem is everyone else is contributing, and granting immunity from sacrifice to one group simply won't wash with the others.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

CM, I know quite a few former colleagues how have been "red-ringed" as CC. Would you expect them to take a pay cut ? I also know quite a few off the FD, and I wouldn't expect them to take a paycut either.

The entire airline is in a complete financial mess, and trying to alienate a large sector of your staff seems to be quite idiotic.

Many years ago BA was well-known for it's excellence in all areas, mostly because they paid the most, and hence got the best staff. I do not see the logic in changing that, erm logic. Yes times are hard, but why cost cut when it means a lowering of standards ????

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Ex Cargp Clown

CM, I know quite a few former colleagues how have been "red-ringed" as CC. Would you expect them to take a pay cut ? I also know quite a few off the FD, and I wouldn't expect them to take a paycut either.

I don't want to take a pay cut either, but I've had plenty of time to look at the worldwide economic situation, the BA business model and the trends we're showing month on month. If you'd ask me to make sacrifices 12 months ago I'd have told you where to shove it. Unfortunately we are now in an entirely different place. I have the good fortune to have plenty of friends who have nothing to do with aviation at all. They all fear for their jobs, and they are all the kind of people who would have flown BA on business or leisure. Make no mistake, they won't now. Business travel is cancelled, leisure travel is back to the minimum and now purely dictated by price. Personally I'd rather knuckle down, keep the company afloat and claw back the rewards later than try to cling to the status quo and end up like Swissair or Sabena.

The entire airline is in a complete financial mess, and trying to alienate a large sector of your staff seems to be quite idiotic.

Unfortunately, due to their union, that large sector of staff in question have been resistant to any sort of reform for a long time. The rest of the airline has leaned up and become fit for purpose. The remainder are not only inefficent but actively seek to disrupt the operation at times. That sort of disruptive behaviour is an anachronism today.

Many years ago BA was well-known for it's excellence in all areas, mostly because they paid the most, and hence got the best staff. I do not see the logic in changing that, erm logic. Yes times are hard, but why cost cut when it means a lowering of standards ????

Perhaps the operative phrase there is 'many years ago'? We certainly paid the most in certain departments, over the odds in fact, but what we got in the end was a mixed bag of those who love the job and those who hate it but can't get the same money doing anything else. Variability remains one of the biggest bugbears in the feedback from passenger surveys. There are plenty of ways to cut costs without lowering standards. Do crew really need two nights in Prestwick after a diversion before flying home on an empty aircraft? Do we really need to pay crew members £200 each to work one down ex-LHR with a closed cabin? Do we really need to pay £50K to a CSD to sit in an office with no service role? Do we really need in a Purser in each cabin when an experienced crew member can perfom the job just as well? Do cabin crew really need a £50 payment to reduce their LHR turnaround to below 2 hours? Do they really need 18 hours off after a short haul duty of 12:30 hours? BA could save a fortune if cabin crew adopted more efficient working practices, and nobody need lose income, they'd just not backfill the jobs they'd eliminated. Of course this sort of intelligent reform wouldn't take place because BASSA won't stand for it.

[Re-Heat]

I cannot agree with that at all. I've spoken to people in revenue management and there was never a need to have a huge yield from J/F fares. They were merely the "icing on the cake".

You can operate a 747 or 777 across the pond just off cargo and WT Pax.

Sorry, ECC, but you are plain wrong. Without high yield (of course depending upon what you charge for flex fares down the back), the airline would operate at a loss, and I have run the numbers personally.

I think your chum in rev mgmt might be looking too much at F/J redemption flights and too little at what the bankers were spending on the North Atlantic in recent times.