Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Other Aircrew Forums > Cabin Crew
Reload this Page >

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

Cabin Crew Where professional flight attendants discuss matters that affect our jobs & lives.

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

Old 23rd Nov 2009, 08:59
  #3501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hiflyer14 - a very commendable stance I am sure - in the meantime I am sure that you will continue to enjoy the benefits that many of your colleagues have made sacrifices for and fought for over the years by taking action to secure the agreements put in place between the company and it's employees.
Could you possibly give an example of such Union shining achievements? What sacrifices, exactly, are you talking about? CC agreements haven't basically changed since privatisation back in the 80's. We still have all the trappings of the 1970's LH high yield airlines which all but died out in the 80's except at BA. Lateness credit? CAT turnarounds? Disruption agreements that put the CC rest before the passengers or flight crew? Downroute payments? Disturbed rest payments? Need we go on? Any attempt to change them has met with standard BASSA threatening IA, posturing and brick walling even when possessing no credible evidence to oppose the changes. Please don't try to claim some small personal issues with individual members, we are talking about mass achievements by BASSA. Also don't try the pensions because BASSA stormed out of that one as usual and then came crawling back to accept whatever 'scraps' were left.

The only reason the the CC enjoy the elevated T's & C's they have today is not down to 'sacrifices for and fought for over the years by taking action' by the Union but down to feckless, weak and ineffectual management that haven't had the balls to grab the BASSA monster by the horns and drag it into the 21st century. That can hardly be attributed to the sacrifices of the Union membership can it?

Now, the management do have the 'cohones' and are prepared to fight the beast and BASSA/Unite are running scared with a mis-information campaign, lack of credible facts to their members and a rather sad campaign of personal attacks against the BA management.

All told a little sad.
wobble2plank is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 09:44
  #3502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Lurker,

Wobble - a mis-information campaign by BASSA and UNITE - and you don't think that BA have also played some games with their selective distribution of information?
A fair accusation but could you then show us some evidence of deceit by BA where they haven't placed all of the information in the public domain? Where BA haven't attempted all avenues of negotiation? Where BA haven't given the opportunity for Unions to access sensitive financial data?

Why didn't BASSA look at the figures that BA were willing, with a confidentiality agreement, to show them?

Why did BASSA continue to pursue 'temporary' measures when BA showed the evidence that permanent change was required?

Why have BASSA emphatically denied that members can be sacked for striking when, in fact, they can be sacked albeit with the cushion of tribunal behind them?

Why do BASSA continue to claim that they have 'won' their injunction case when the following court case is standard procedure?

Why have BASSA not produced a full, financial breakdown, independently verified, of the cost savings they are so proud of that BA rejected?

Why do BASSA feel that they can 'run' the business better than BA by dictating how many crew should be on specific aircraft?

Why do BASSA accuse all other full service airlines of putting their passengers at risk by running aircraft at lower crewing levels than BA if, by running those crewing levels we are putting passengers health and safety at risk?

Why do BASSA continue to claim that crewing levels are specific, contractual measures?

Why do BASSA seem to think that their department is so worthy of note that they can be the only ones within a large, multi tiered organisation, who haven't grasped both the nettle and the truth and understood that change is necessary?

Why do BASSA blindly announce that public opinion is behind them when, in all honesty, it is not and the traveling public just see another senseless disruption caused by a Union that is woefully out of touch with the realities of the day?

Still think it is all even in the mis-information game? I can trawl back through ESS and find all of the BA information that is open and pertinent. Sadly the same can't be said of Unite/BASSA where it is all in-fighting and bitchiness.
wobble2plank is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 09:45
  #3503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Meaning Of 'bassa?'

Thanks Top Bunk.
Seriously though, just out of interest I would like to know. I'm guessing it's 'British Airways Something? Something? Association'
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 09:49
  #3504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some might say BASSA stands for British Airways Senior Stewards Association....

Actually the two S's stand for Steward and Stewardess.

Those who fall between those two stools do not appear to be represented...
dave747436 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 10:23
  #3505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Latest from BASSA

BASSA > Latest News

THE DISINGENUOUS MR FRANCIS
Nov 22nd, 2009 by admin


"We want to keep talking with the unions
We have written to the trade unions several times to make it clear that we remain willing and available to continue talks at any time to try to reach an agreement. So far, they have not agreed a date when they will meet us. So I’d reiterate - there is no need to vote ‘Yes’ just for the talks to continue. They can continue at any time, if the unions are willing to engage. If you want them to come back to the table, please ask them to do so." Bill Francis November 2009.

Bill Francis’s most recent words, repeated above, are probably the most hollow in this whole sorry episode. To describe them as extremely disingenuous is being polite.

It seems Bill Francis’s idea of good industrial relationship with the TUs is to hold talks, move the goalposts on numerous occasions, waste time at ACAS before unilaterally imposing changes to contractual terms and conditions. Then, when the Union are holding a legal and lawful ballot about those impositions, he announces he is ready to talk and criticises the Unions for not committing to a date? It is akin to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour and then complaining that the Americans are dragging their feet in fixing a date for a coke and a hamburger.

Bill, we will talk anytime, anyplace, anywhere but first we have the not insignificant matter of the imposition. Remove that imposition and let’s get back around the table to talk about a negotiated settlement to a dispute that is 100% of the company’s making.
BASSA don't seem to know what they want. They say they are willing to talk, but if they are then why is it a problem to talk during a ballot? And of course they want imposition removed first, so they can reset the clock to 9 months back and carry on stalling change.
Carnage Matey! is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 10:32
  #3506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Backtrack

Unite won't talk unless the impositions are reversed & crew compliments are restored.

BA can't reverse the impositions even if they wanted to, because of the 1000+ VR etc MPE's that have left the company.

How are talks ever to be restarted with this impasse?
dave747436 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:00
  #3507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Pension comparison

Just for interest, my Civil Service Pension as a Higher Executive Officer (equivalent to jobcentre manager) would be £15,000 if I had put in forty years. In fact I left at age 50 and so get about three quarters of that. I worked in private sector IT for the last ten years at about the same level of seniority and this earned me the princely pension sum of £500 per annum NOT index linked.

I would not wish to get into a dispute about who should be paid what. Just for comparison though, Lurker's anticipated £21,992 is comparable to a Civil Service middle to senior management pension. And more to the point, the £500 pa I have earned in the last ten years is typical private sector pension provision. I know works managers with forty years service with private sector pensions below £5000 pa. If I were in Lurker's position my sole priority would be to see BA survive.
911slf is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:05
  #3508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wobble2plank

Why do BASSA accuse all other full service airlines of putting their passengers at risk by running aircraft at lower crewing levels than BA if, by running those crewing levels we are putting passengers health and safety at risk?
Because they are desperate.

Reducing the crewing level with one CC will have no impact whatsoever on either health or safety. Miss Malone and her brigade are getting more desperate - what to do - what should we say?

As long as you have the minimum crew required - you will be fine. Do they honestly think that CAA would let BA operate if they thought that the airline would be putting the lives of the passengers on the line?

Jesus. Maybe BASSA thinks that CAA is corrupted. I forgot.

Speaking of which - there is a thread on CrewForum about any problems with the new crewing levels - and one story in particular is very interesting. A crew has written about a trip to DEL with 14 CC. They seemed to have a bloody mess in WT. Trolleys out in the galleys at the 20 minute call and not being able to assist a passenger with ear ache because they were far too busy trying closing the duty free bars, collecting headsets, shouting at passengers to fold away their tables and securing the cabin.

It makes me wonder - the crewing level in WT has not changed - it sounds more of poor planning to me.
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:16
  #3509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting that some crew seem to be taking things out on passengers.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ing-point.html

Pretty unprofessional.
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:39
  #3510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hiflyer
That's because in those cases it WAS the individual taking them to court, not the Union. The female pilot didn't pay costs because she WON.
True enough in the case of the female pilot but not so in the holiday pay case. That was an action taken by BALPA on behalf of some 2,800 pilots who submitted their names to the petition. They won the first case, won the appeal and then (unfortunately) lost the second appeal in April when BA found a judge who saw things their way. So the question still stands, who paid the legal bill? May give us an idea whether BASSA or the members pay the next one. It also gives some idea of time scales because the whole legal process was around 15 months in that case. Another recent case BA was involved in (around discriminating against someone because he was Scottish) cost the petitioner about £4000 when he lost. So the amount of money may not be quite so shocking either.

If you want to give your names to the Union and risk being liable for MILLIONS of pounds of costs
I have never said I was a member of either union or that I had put my name to the petition. Not a subject I care to discuss in open forum.
ottergirl is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:45
  #3511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IIRC the Scottish case you refer to was an employment tribunal, not a court case. Much, much cheaper.
Carnage Matey! is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 11:55
  #3512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just for interest, my Civil Service Pension as a Higher Executive Officer (equivalent to jobcentre manager) would be £15,000 if I had put in forty years. In fact I left at age 50 and so get about three quarters of that. I worked in private sector IT for the last ten years at about the same level of seniority and this earned me the princely pension sum of £500 per annum NOT index linked.

I would not wish to get into a dispute about who should be paid what. Just for comparison though, Lurker's anticipated £21,992 is comparable to a Civil Service middle to senior management pension. And more to the point, the £500 pa I have earned in the last ten years is typical private sector pension provision. I know works managers with forty years service with private sector pensions below £5000 pa. If I were in Lurker's position my sole priority would be to see BA survive.
911slf,

Your post elegantly illustrates how deluded many BASSA members are of what really goes on in the "Real World". Sadly, many of them still think they are part of the Civil Service, and are indispensable to British Airways and the Nation.
Slickster is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:01
  #3513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has this become a thread on pensions?

Having just flown an intinerary with the reduced crew complements, because they have not been thought out properly or trialled, the impact of these changes is a reduction in safety and an undermining of the service, especially to Club passengers. On the 3 class 777 where the crewing level has been reduced to only 10, it is a disaster.

Whilst Iberia cabin crew get a pay rise even though they earn greatly more than BA cabin crew, it seems that it is only the British part of the new conglomerate which is expected to be efficient and profitable.
Fume Event is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:04
  #3514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ottergirl, whether or not you are a member of the Union is irrelevant.

You are advocating, on an open forum, that people are not at risk when giving their names for the court hearing. You appear very poorly informed, and are clutching at straws. You are comparing apples and pears - the UNITE hearing is a HIGH COURT hearing; the examples you give are tribunal examples where financial implications are much lower. You also have given sketchy (and sometimes incorrect) knowledge of the cases you refer to.

I do not know whether or not these poor people will be liable for costs. Neither do you. But, whereas you seem quite happy to lead them like lambs to the slaughter with no real facts to back up your evidence, I prefer to warn people that in giving their names THERE IS ENORMOUS RISK THAT THEY MAY BE LIABLE FOR COSTS.


DO NOT GIVE YOUR NAME TO THE COURT HEARING
VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM THE UNION
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:10
  #3515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has this become a thread on pensions?
No, it's about CC terms and conditions, of which pensions are a part. A Lurker seems to think his pension is rubbish, when in fact by national standards (it is close to the average wage) it's actually quite good.

Having just flown an intinerary with the reduced crew complements, because they have not been thought out properly or trialled, the impact of these changes is a reduction in safety and an undermining of the service, especially to Club passengers. On the 3 class 777 where the crewing level has been reduced to only 10, it is a disaster.
Can you explain then, why LGW, which operates these levels does not suffer from an unsafer operation (ASRs bear this out), or customer service is not compromised (GPMs bear this out)? Maybe you should just get used to working a bit harder FE; the rest of us, including your "colleagues" at LGW have had to.
Slickster is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:12
  #3516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe Unite, the parent union of BASSA, have stated on their website that the union will cover all court costs of the plaintives.

Anyone with access to the BASSA site may be able to confirm this.

If I was on the list, I would also want binding guarantees that I would also be indemnified for any compensation awarded by the court to BA.
dave747436 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:17
  #3517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fume wrote

the impact of these changes is a reduction in safety and an undermining of the service, especially to Club passengers
I think we need to speak to the CAA. If safety is being compromised then how come the legal minimum crew level onboard a 3 Class 777 would be 6 crew? or is it 8 I can't remember.

Also can you please explain why, when previously asked to fly a crew member down, it didn't compromise safety because you were paid a one-down payment.... If it is a safety issue, why didn't you refuse to fly when you were one down.. Why compromise safety to line your own pocket?

As the Union will be using safety as a defence come Feb, I am genuinely interested to know the difference between a 1 down payment and working the same level for free??

Surely the LGW fleet should be grounded right away until the crewing levels can be brought into line with the OLD LHR agreement?

CB
Crash_and_Burn is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:17
  #3518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are advocating, on an open forum, that people are not at risk when giving their names for the court hearing.
I am sorry you feel I am advocating that people put their name to the petition as that was not my intention; if you read my post again you will see that nowhere do I suggest such a thing. I did however want to point out that YOUR assertion that they will end up footing the bill MAY NOT be the case. As for these being employment tribunal cases, indeed they are; unfortunately the only recent High court action was the BALPA 'right to strike' action which was withdrawn after three days of wrangling so would not give us a comparison for cost or time purposes, although BALPA did meet the cost.
As to being poorly informed, nothing I have written in my posts can not be verified either on the BALPA press release website or the Law network so I consider such a statement to be a personal attack. Attack my views by all means but not me!
ottergirl is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:26
  #3519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Otter girl

I, and many others, are saying be careful about what you sign up to regarding court cases.

If all goes according to plan and BA are found liable for costs all well and good.

Now look at the other side of the coin

BA are awarded costs against BASSA.

BASSA have already had a strike, I understand they are paying strike pay of £30 per person per day and let us say the strike lasts 5 days - say 10,000 go on strike.

That is £300,000 per day or 1.5 million for 5days.

Now, I don't know how big BASSA's coffers are but the costs, including your own, have to be paid.

The costs will be taken from BASSA first and when all their money is gone the court will ask the individual petitioners to pay the remaining costs.

If BASSA are sensible they will offer some indemnity to those petitioners by, say, taking out an insurance policy or getting an agreement from another party (Unite?) to pay any shortfall.

I don't receive BASSA communications but I feel sure they have advised you of the possible outcomes.
finncapt is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 12:57
  #3520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fume Event
Having just flown an intinerary with the reduced crew complements, because they have not been thought out properly or trialled, the impact of these changes is a reduction in safety and an undermining of the service, especially to Club passengers. On the 3 class 777 where the crewing level has been reduced to only 10, it is a disaster.
I find that when the service goes to a ball of chalk one usually has to look no further than the CSD to see the reason why. Having just flown a trip in which the crew were operating two down from the normal level, on a full aircraft and with demanding customers, I was very impressed at how the CSD made it work.

I'm led to believe that some other CSDs simply don't have the skills required to make the new service work and so are attempting to offload their responsibilities on others. Attempting to shed responsibility for the half hourly calls to the flight deck seems to be one such example of weak CSD behaviour. Fortunately BA have anticipated these failings and intend to actively performance manage those who are simply unable to cope.
Carnage Matey! is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.