BA and Project Columbus III

[The Moo]

It's nowhere near £500 for u/s crew rest.

[Perry-oaks]

Actually SP when the bunk lights fail that they fail 'on' for safety so you don't fall down the stairs. The CB's must be manually pulled (with the captains permission!) for the lights to go out.

But I guess you already knew that!

And it would probably trigger a 'cabin crew falling down stairs' payment !

[Carnage Matey!]

£208.14 is the current diversion payment, which I'm told is the value of the 'Can't get to sleep' payment.

[wobble2plank]

£208, Thanks Carnage, I stand corrected. Phew, I though £500 was a bit much. £208 is far, far more reasonable for a light that won't go off who could dispute such a critical payment!

I will be much more vigilant now about Flight Crew taking 'controlled rest' whilst they have a heavy crew member in the bunks. Thanks to you, I will be reporting the matter in the future. So please carry on with your attacks on cabin crew.

SP, just out of interest what does the Flight Crew controlled rest have to do with you? Last time I looked the Cabin Crew came under the command of the Captain, followed by the SFO/FO then the CSD, not the other way round? Hence the reason why the CSD has to report crew rest to the Flight Crew but flight crew only need to 'inform' the crew about controlled rest so they don't get disturbed. Also 'controlled rest' is detailed in flight crew orders irrespective of 'heavy' crews. So, your point is and what exactly will you be reporting?

Instead of just likening WW to a Mill Owner, give the forum a good, valid reason why BASSA shouldn't accept change? Surely the removal of various destination based payments will level the system out and be of benefit to the majority of Cabin Crew instead of those old enough and 'senior' enough to cream off the lucrative trips?

[TopBunk]

BA crew cost double the nearest competitor, with an £800 million budget you could thus save £400million and that would put the company on a break even from cc alone.

CC got off lightly really with only a 14% cut and not 50%, the proposal even keeps pay as it is and just reduces crewing levels and saves in the future with a new contract.

I have it on some reasonable authority, that if any group fails to reach agreement by the end of the month, that the targets for that group when the company come to impose a solution will in all likelyhood vary upwards, ie the imposed savings will match the current business needs rather than those back in January when they were originally set. The business has gone downhill since then.

So, SP, you may be right or you may be wrong in your allegations, but you see it doesn't really matter either way, because the letter of the law and the man at the helm will (right royally and legally) have his way with you, all BASSA can do is mitigate the extent of the shafting, and this they seem totally unprepared to do, and it is his that we have been advising about for some months, to no avail.

The rest of the employees will welcome it and whilst feeling sorry for the some individuals, feel that justice has been done and that as a company we can move forward as a more focussed entity.

[nuigini]

Anybody else read the latest BASSA communique? I have to say it did make me laugh!

Especially that bit that common sense will surely prevail before next week.

[JayPee28bpr]

SP: how would you have run Aer Lingus?

"Walsh changed the "core business" at Aer Lingus and now look at it...unable to compete with RyanAir as a low cost carrier."

I'm curious how you would have competed against Ryanair had you been CEO of Aer Lingus. The options were pretty limited. Remember Aer Lingus was pretty much a short haul operator pre-Ryanair. It earned the bulk of its revenue flying DUB-LHR, with a "normal" economy fare being about £250 return, and business class of £350. I'm not a Ryanair fan, but the airline (and MOL especially) deserves huge credit for reducing the "normal" cost of flying to London now to no more than €50/£40, a high proportion of which is passenger tax and airport "security" charges. 15 years ago Ryanair was messing about with a handful of clapped out planes. It now carries far more passengers than BA, is a much larger customer of Boeing than is BA, will have the second largest fleet globally if and when it implements its latest fleet enlargement, and is profitable (ex-provision against its Aer Lingus ahareholding). It also has a better safety record than BA over those 15 years. In short, it is a fearsome competitor and, bad news for BA, it has signalled its intent to do to long haul travel what it has already done to short haul.

WW's problem at Aer Lingus was that he could not grow the airline (ie aircraft numbers) because the Irish government, then the only shareholder, could not afford to invest in the airline. Nor, however, would it sell the airline. Of course after WW's departure the government did exactly what WW had recommended. They privatised the airline, having already authorised a big increase in the fleet with a consequent increase in routes. Aer Lingus has, and continues to go through, the painful process of restructuring to make it competitive versus LoCos. I suspect the same debate you are currently having on CC T&Cs has happened, and continues to happen, within Aer Lingus. I know they have had several rounds of job cuts, even whilst they were expanding their route network.

Moving to a structure that allows legacy airlines to compete with the LoCos is painful. WW probably has more knowledge and experience of taking on the "daddy" of LoCos than any other airline executive globally.

[Carnage Matey!]

It also has a better safety record than BA over those 15 years

Are you sure you want that claim put to the test, given Ryanairs recent record of having to climb to reach the runway off a circling approach in Ireland, throwing on 80 degrees of bank in an unstable approach in Rome or landing with take off flaps at about 200 knots in Oslo? A better luck record perhaps!

[Hotel Mode]

It also has a better safety record than BA over those 15 years.

How did you work that one out? Each airline has had one major incident, both very similar with similar results. Minor incident wise RYR have had gone off the runway at Limoges, Lodz and Aarhus, and had the extremely nasty incidents mentioned above. BA have had no similar inceidents.

[JayPee28bpr]

Carnage #1050

Based on the fact that BA crashed at Heathrow recently, Ryanair haven't. And weren't BA "lucky" with that one? I read that fuel leaked from the plane and would probably have ignited had the plane reached the runway and caused sparks, rather than coming to rest on the (very wet) grass short of the runway.

[Carnage Matey!]

The BA38 incident wasn't the BA crews fault and their intervention prevented an accident from being a tragedy. Speculation about wet grass preventing a fire is just that - speculation - and improbable speculation at that given what we know about the impact.Jet fuel doesn't ignite from a few sparks. Contrast that with the three unstable approaches I detailed, which were completely attributable to the actions of the crew. You'll also note that Ryanair had a rather similar crash a few months back when they hit a flock of birds at Ciampino, as Hotel Mode has pointed out.

[Andy_S]

Based on the fact that BA crashed at Heathrow recently, Ryanair haven't.

Didn't Ryanair have a hull loss somewhere else, though?

In any case, there is NO significant difference between BA's and FR's accident rate. 1 accident out of BA's thousands of flights over many years is not statistically significant.

Sorry to go off topic......

[Andyismyname]

But this thread is about BA Cabin Crew, so lets go back there

[Runway vacated]

Erm, I think one of the reasons airlines do NOT use safety data in their publicity is because they know it is pretty much meaningless. Is Air France safer now than it was a month ago/year ago/decade ago? Ditto Ryanair/BA/United, virtually any well regulated and trained airline in the world.

This is a bit of a distraction (perhaps the point, given the lack of concrete facts concerning the main points raised on this thread?)

BA must adapt to survive. The board, the shareholders, and the majority of staff think WW is the man to do it. ANY staff group that seeks to hold the company to ransom with unreasonable demands WILL be steamrollered.

[Jean-Lill]

We're really going off the topic now talking about aircraft crashes.

It's obvious to anyone who reads these threads that BA cabin crew need better representation from a sensible trade union rather than a union who's sole aim appears to be to gain power and wants to be seen as though they are really running the airline.

Cabin crew pay high monthly union fees and deserve better representaion to protect thier jobs and future employment. The outcome of non negotions will probably adversely affect the crew in the long run.

Most crew I have spoken to have a sensible approach to the issue, they must speak louder to be heard above the small minority who think they work for the union instead of the airline.

[nuigini]

Most crew do have a sensible approach towards the issue but the problem is the consequences faced should they raise their opinion. Nobody is brave enough to take the first step. It only takes one person and the others will follow the lead. I would love to walk into the BASSA office and say exactly how I feel about their standpoint but in that case I would be in for a tough fight. I have also heard that the negotiations are not progressing at all and we are only seven days away from the deadline before BA, what I think (better to point this out because I obviously have no authority according to a certain member), remove all offers for part-time and unpaid leave and introduce their cost saving plan as well doing CR instead of VR.

We are working for BA, not BASSA. BA is running the business, not BASSA.

When are they going to resolve the situation about hot towels? I came home from a trip this morning and the CSD asked them to be done before second break was over. Number 10, as well the FC PSR, refused and referred to BASSA which left a temporary crew member to do them. One of the passengers came to the galley and said they were positively surprised about the hot towel and asked if it was something new. Number 10 said it had been going on since January but not agreed by the union as it has been agreed not to put any more work on us. The passenger raised his eyebrows and asked why BA needs permission for a simply task like that. We are becoming a laugh stock. Seriously.

[Carnage Matey!]

Good job nobody told him about the "Can't get to sleep in the bunk" payment!!!

[cellstar]

It seems so odd to me, perhaps because I've never been in a union, that the employer would even have to consult with the union to make some changes. As previously mentioned, the issue of handing out hot towels in WTP and the union vetoing it. To me it just seems something that the employer would inform the CC that as part of your duties you now need to hand out hot towels as part of the service to WTP passengers. In a more general sense it puzzles me that it seems the CC crew and the union are defining which duties they will perform as part of their job rather than the employer adding and removing duties as they see fit from a business perspective. Then I would expect the union to only get involved when those duties fall so far outside of their job description or in disciplinary cases. It seems nowadays that the union is almost working as a third party and really sees their members as contractors to which they enter into contracts with a company. I wonder at what point does the union become the tail that wags the dog?

[HiFlyer14]

Cabin crew pay high monthly union fees and deserve better representaion to protect thier jobs and future employment. The outcome of non negotions will probably adversely affect the crew in the long run.

Most crew I have spoken to have a sensible approach to the issue, they must speak louder to be heard above the small minority who think they work for the union instead of the airline.

I fully agree Jean-Lill, but how do we get them to do this? The Unite Website is advocating that BA have "parked" the new fleet, and that talks are progressing, whilst the BASSA Chairman has spouted off the usual BASSA rhetoric about WW wanting to smash the unions and seems more distressed about a crew member who has been disciplined for posting a Union sticker on BA Property.

Our lives really is in their hands. There is never any real debate on the matter, and quite frankly we're now just wasting time trying. Unable to understand any of the real factors at play here, SP et al simply quote the BASSA rhetoric - if I hear "sweetheart deal" "smash & grab" or "management buy-out" one more time I'll scream!

People are also talking about CR. I don't think we'll get CR. I think what we will get is compulsory New Fleet, though. BA can't make CR and then employ staff for their New Fleet, so they will have to make a certain amount of us New Fleet. Can they do it? Not sure - but I'm sure they've looked into it!

Time is running out.....

[plodding along]

Controlled rest ....... all deleted, can't be bothered.

Will just wait and see what happens next week.

Another BASSA victory I suspect and the rest of us can all make more sacrifices to keep the company afloat.