British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sussex
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might be of interest for those who want news on the subject
British Airways Union Prefers Court Case to Strike (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
British Airways Union Prefers Court Case to Strike (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Anyone else surprised there's been no mention here yet of the Company's offer to the Cabin crew of a extra Staff Travel ticket ( Additional 100% staff bookable concession for colleague and travel partners, based on company performance in 2009/10.) and some sort of share scheme. It seems procrastination, sheer b****y mindedness and bad mouthing the Company management is rewarded with a freebie 
That'll go down well with those who have already reached a negotiated settlement and those still negotiating but not under the umbrella of IFCE.
That'll go down well with those who have already reached a negotiated settlement and those still negotiating but not under the umbrella of IFCE.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it happens. A one off bookable ticket based on the companys 09/10 financial performance? We're half way through the financial year, how are things looking for that ticket? Of course if Unite go to court and find that a strike is actually illegal then there's no need to offer any more incentives.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstonsmith,
Hard to say really - at the end of the day, in theory, you can strike for pretty much anything if you want to, and you conduct the preamble correctly. That Unite seem to think they'll challenge the legality of the BA changes in court is an interesting and, potentially, high-risk strategy.
I shouldn't expect that the ST ticket or the fixed monthly payment will make a lot of difference as the foot stampers on CrewForum are adamant that even if it were £50k p/a fixed allowances they still wouldn't take it. As for the one that holds a moderator position trying to frighten people into not even contemplating a fixed allowance by dividing the £8k p/a figure by every single hour in the year and then telling people they'll only get 92p per hour allowances - well, I think there's an opening for you writing BASSA factsheets. For shame. That's for every single hour of the whole year, you'd still get meal allowances on top and you'd not have to rely on destinations to make your money. Terrible suggestion but, hey, it's from BA so it must be lies, lies and more lies I guess.
And as for the angry CSD who seems incapable of turning off the vitriol - if you hate them that much - why stay and give yourself an ulcer?
It seems that the vocal group want a fight, no matter what, yet, endearingly believe that if Willie and Bill could be shown the door that all would be rosy again. I wonder when the intelligentsia will finally note the earth revolving around the sun instead of their current inviolable orthodoxy.
This whole show is a travesty that reflects appallingly on our cabin crew unions, some of the membership, our management and the outward perception of our airline.
MrB
Hard to say really - at the end of the day, in theory, you can strike for pretty much anything if you want to, and you conduct the preamble correctly. That Unite seem to think they'll challenge the legality of the BA changes in court is an interesting and, potentially, high-risk strategy.
I shouldn't expect that the ST ticket or the fixed monthly payment will make a lot of difference as the foot stampers on CrewForum are adamant that even if it were £50k p/a fixed allowances they still wouldn't take it. As for the one that holds a moderator position trying to frighten people into not even contemplating a fixed allowance by dividing the £8k p/a figure by every single hour in the year and then telling people they'll only get 92p per hour allowances - well, I think there's an opening for you writing BASSA factsheets. For shame. That's for every single hour of the whole year, you'd still get meal allowances on top and you'd not have to rely on destinations to make your money. Terrible suggestion but, hey, it's from BA so it must be lies, lies and more lies I guess.
And as for the angry CSD who seems incapable of turning off the vitriol - if you hate them that much - why stay and give yourself an ulcer?
It seems that the vocal group want a fight, no matter what, yet, endearingly believe that if Willie and Bill could be shown the door that all would be rosy again. I wonder when the intelligentsia will finally note the earth revolving around the sun instead of their current inviolable orthodoxy.
This whole show is a travesty that reflects appallingly on our cabin crew unions, some of the membership, our management and the outward perception of our airline.
MrB
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS To the legal admin bod on CrewForum - I shouldn't worry about having to restart your chats with Mr Webb as he's no longer BA's legal counsel. He's head of BBC worldwide I think now. Reassuring to know you've got all the legal angles covered isn't it?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The offer on the table now is a very good one; the best that we could hope for under the current financial environment, and I and many people I have spoken to will not strike.
What does it mean to me? Working abit harder (less crew onboard), No financial loss of pay, although it is frozen for 2 years (as per BASSA's suggestion), and New Fleet. But New Fleet is not a worry now because of the Fixed Monthly Payment. People like me who just want job security and are NOT afraid of hard work, will be more than happy.
I see no reason whatsoever to strike. And I won't. I see no reason not to accept this package.
I do have one question though - anyone willing to come to the meeting with me on the 2nd and stand up and say so?? Oh, and perhaps we could ask for a vote of no confidence in the Union whilst we're there??
What does it mean to me? Working abit harder (less crew onboard), No financial loss of pay, although it is frozen for 2 years (as per BASSA's suggestion), and New Fleet. But New Fleet is not a worry now because of the Fixed Monthly Payment. People like me who just want job security and are NOT afraid of hard work, will be more than happy.
I see no reason whatsoever to strike. And I won't. I see no reason not to accept this package.
I do have one question though - anyone willing to come to the meeting with me on the 2nd and stand up and say so?? Oh, and perhaps we could ask for a vote of no confidence in the Union whilst we're there??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just conjecture, but maybe Unite have refused to bankroll BASSA's strike costs/punitive costs to be paid to BA and BASSA have threatened to leave Unite if they don't have their support.
Neither Unite nor BASSA can afford to lose (financially) so they have come up with a compromise whereby a QC is engaged (and paid for by Unite), the result of which will determine whether Unite are prepared to gamble the union for BASSA.
It will therefore be interesting to see what the QC says.
In the meantime BA will have imposed the changes and crews will have operated at the reduced levels, even if the QC backs BASSA and a strike ballot is held, and all the VR's will have left and part time contracts be in place.
If BASSA then get a strike mandate, BA will let it go ahead and people who don't turn up to work will be deemed as having resigned and the only way back will be onto New Fleet.
Result: game set and match to BA.
Note: this is not meant to more than indicate a possible scenario to BA Cabin Crew. I wish them no harm or financial penalty, but merely to point out how they are being let down by their elected reps.
Neither Unite nor BASSA can afford to lose (financially) so they have come up with a compromise whereby a QC is engaged (and paid for by Unite), the result of which will determine whether Unite are prepared to gamble the union for BASSA.
It will therefore be interesting to see what the QC says.
In the meantime BA will have imposed the changes and crews will have operated at the reduced levels, even if the QC backs BASSA and a strike ballot is held, and all the VR's will have left and part time contracts be in place.
If BASSA then get a strike mandate, BA will let it go ahead and people who don't turn up to work will be deemed as having resigned and the only way back will be onto New Fleet.
Result: game set and match to BA.
Note: this is not meant to more than indicate a possible scenario to BA Cabin Crew. I wish them no harm or financial penalty, but merely to point out how they are being let down by their elected reps.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were head office staff at BASSA/Unite I would be very concerned as to the possibility of damages arsing from the threat of strike action.
As has been mentioned above just the fact of balloting on an issue, where the company can legally prove it has explored all avenues, will cause a damages claim that could potentially run into hundreds of millions.
Money which I would be fairly sure Unite can't afford to risk.
The only road for strike action is one that has been tested thoroughly for legal 'water tightness' and proven not to leak. At the moment the BASSA case seems to resemble a colander with lots of extra holes in it.
It will take mighty balls to strike in the current climate with a case so leaky.
As has been mentioned above just the fact of balloting on an issue, where the company can legally prove it has explored all avenues, will cause a damages claim that could potentially run into hundreds of millions.
Money which I would be fairly sure Unite can't afford to risk.
The only road for strike action is one that has been tested thoroughly for legal 'water tightness' and proven not to leak. At the moment the BASSA case seems to resemble a colander with lots of extra holes in it.
It will take mighty balls to strike in the current climate with a case so leaky.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture! None of the posts here in the last 24 hours will help either side.
BA management have ballsed-up - that is obvious from the fact that WW's "imposition" is so vastly different from the hard-and-fast proposals from the management over which they would not budge one millimetre!
Indeed, WW had no idea that our own T5 managers were witholding a bonus payment for us front-line staff from April, May and June 2009 and was visibly embarrassed when this was pointed out.
So, I think WW's "imposition" gives both sides a way out whilst saving face, and the company, albeit it will be a mighty uphill struggle to restore morale.
.............but then, our pilots need not worry - Lord King's grand plan was to have an airline staffed by Managers and Pilots with everyone else outsourced and I guess that's what will happen. After all, we may gain an agreement, but it won't stop the management coming back to the table for more next year!
BA management have ballsed-up - that is obvious from the fact that WW's "imposition" is so vastly different from the hard-and-fast proposals from the management over which they would not budge one millimetre!
Indeed, WW had no idea that our own T5 managers were witholding a bonus payment for us front-line staff from April, May and June 2009 and was visibly embarrassed when this was pointed out.
So, I think WW's "imposition" gives both sides a way out whilst saving face, and the company, albeit it will be a mighty uphill struggle to restore morale.
.............but then, our pilots need not worry - Lord King's grand plan was to have an airline staffed by Managers and Pilots with everyone else outsourced and I guess that's what will happen. After all, we may gain an agreement, but it won't stop the management coming back to the table for more next year!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't declare the outcome of a game that isn't over.....
They are only around for five years or so, on average, Those who chose the airline as a career have to stick around and pick up all the broken pieces and stick them back together!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking around too long
Bealine said: "Yes - you're right! The trouble is, the management look on it all as a game! They are only around for five years or so, on average, Those who chose the airline as a career have to stick around and pick up all the broken pieces and stick them back together!"
Funny that, because the busineess is owned by its shareholders who have their own perspective on things. I'm fairly certain that they don't think it's being kept alive by the intransigence of the dinosaurs in the CC community, it's actually bleeding to death. (And if you ask on what I base that, start with the shareholders meeting which gave BA management their almost complete support).
And I suspect they also feel that the departure of your ilk would be what saves the company, instead of having to put it to sleep.
Funny that, because the busineess is owned by its shareholders who have their own perspective on things. I'm fairly certain that they don't think it's being kept alive by the intransigence of the dinosaurs in the CC community, it's actually bleeding to death. (And if you ask on what I base that, start with the shareholders meeting which gave BA management their almost complete support).
And I suspect they also feel that the departure of your ilk would be what saves the company, instead of having to put it to sleep.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA management have ballsed-up - that is obvious from the fact that WW's "imposition" is so vastly different from the hard-and-fast proposals from the management over which they would not budge one millimetre!
Oh, and Unite don't even know if they can legally strike over it!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not exactly clear in the article whether Unite is simply obtaining a legal opinion before deciding whether to ballot or will challenge the imposition in the courts instead of balloting.
If it's the former, all Unite will get is one person's opinion on the strength of BA's case that is unlikely to be 100% either way. If Unite proceeds with a ballot there is still the risk of a legal challenge. The only person who decides on whether the ballot is legal is a High Court judge. If Unite decides to go to court instead of balloting for strike, this could drag on for months.
If it's the former, all Unite will get is one person's opinion on the strength of BA's case that is unlikely to be 100% either way. If Unite proceeds with a ballot there is still the risk of a legal challenge. The only person who decides on whether the ballot is legal is a High Court judge. If Unite decides to go to court instead of balloting for strike, this could drag on for months.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this sounds glib but it really won't kill you. It may, just may mean that an hour and a half rest isn't always achievable on an East Coast flight but let's not pretend that's an entitlement.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this sounds glib but it really won't kill you
I would like to see some assurance from BA that this 'travel payment' won't actually cost me money. As new contract crew it feels like I'm constantly doing US/Indian/African night stops, so hopefully if the travel payment is an average of the allowances to ALL destinations, hell I might even get a pay rise!
I have little sympathy for the crew that have long been abusing the system taking the prime trips effectively stealing money from the pockets from the rest of us, hopefully these are the people that will now see a pay cut.
PS - I completely agree with you about the angry CSD on crew forum - this guy is totally in the wrong job!!
Last edited by Meal Chucker; 25th Oct 2009 at 11:41.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies Meal Chucker. I wasn't having a pop. My wife's much of the same opinion as you - she's happy to work as part of the service and increase her productivity, but, like many people, her outgoings are based more or less on what she currently earns so a paycut is bottom of her list.
You're right also - I think he/she'll blow a vein if they carry on being quite so angry!
You're right also - I think he/she'll blow a vein if they carry on being quite so angry!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have little sympathy for the crew that have long been abusing the system taking the prime trips effectively stealing money from the pockets from the rest of us, hopefully these are the people that will now see a pay cut.
Quite a strong statement Meal Chucker.
Ref seniority, there are little perks, such as choosing "good renumeration routes", getting an extra staff travel "free firm" flight etc.
I have been with BA a "long" number of years. Every now and then you would hear comments, or even read in the BA News about how unfair it was of long service staff getting "long service" benefits from people who had been in the airline for a "short" number of years. Although I have given staff travel as an example, it has been changed to favour "short service" employees at the expense of "long service" employees.
That is life. From your age profile, you are from the "Thatcher Generation" where they wanted the good things now! and not wait and save something up for it. Sadly a large number of todays Generation have that attitude, partly seen in people struggling with extra taxes etc.
I do applaud you for being prepared to be more productive, as other staff in BA have agreed to do.