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, 13:07
  #3521 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 72
Posts: 531

If there was "a reduction of safety" on your recent "itinerary", I assume you have submitted an ASR.
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 13:22
  #3522 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,846
Re: reduced complement

Just operated a couple Longhaul flights with two different, v. pleasant CSDs and no issues at all with reduced crew level despite full cabins and one or two passenger and IFE issues. May I suggest it's not the reduced compliment that matters, it's the state of mind of those in charge on the day - then again the LGW crews know that.
wiggy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 16:04
  #3523 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Crash and Burn

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.
Required cabin crew on B777 ER Three class is 9.

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?
A very good question indeed. Money talks.

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??
We will have to wait and see what Miss Malone has to say. A huge embarrassment is to be expected.

Surely the LGW fleet should be grounded right away until the crewing levels can be brought into line with the OLD LHR agreement?
LGW should be grounded immediately if you were to listen to Miss Malone and her brigade. Safety and health were of course not an issue a couple of years ago when BASSA sold LGW down the road to protect their own castle.

Should the crew bases in BHX, GLA and MAN still have existed and BA had wanted to reduce the number of crew on routes operated by those bases, do you think BASSA would have cared? Not for a second if it had protected LHR.
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 16:20
  #3524 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
I have done a trip with a CSD who couldn't be less bothered and kept complaining, not only at the aircraft but also on the bus to and from the hotel and of course also at the hotel, about having to work in the cabin for an eternity until retirement - where in the job description does it say that the CSD should be part of the service this CSD kept asking.

Our CSD also threw comments card into the hands of those passengers with a complaint. If they wanted to email WW personally with their complaint our CSD happily offered to give them his email address. On top of this - endless speeches to some of the passengers about WW bringing down the airline and wanting to screw the entire cabin crew community.

CW Galley Operator (7) also spent both sectors complaining about running the galley without being paid to do it - the pursers should do it - not main crew. A main crew actually works as galley operator in First without any problems - response from CW Galley Operator - that's actually an agreement between BA and the unions!

Do some crew even know that many airlines have main crew working as galley operators? It's actually happening not too far away - Deutsche Lufthansa AG is one of them!
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 17:27
  #3525 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 110
To Crash and Burn

My thoughts exactly with relation to the "One Down Payment"...

You can just hear the judge "Miss M, please can you tell me why BASSA agreed to compromise safety in exchange for financial reward on... (BA provide a long list of departures with one down) yet now without the reward you claim the operation is unsafe? Furthermore, Gatwick based BA Cabin Crew operate to lower crewing levels, is this unsafe?"

How I would love to be a fly on the wall that day. I see BASSA are requesting reports from crew of onboard difficulties, incuding reduced rest. How many reports of east coast flights will there be when bunk rest was reduced from 90 minutes to 60 minutes? By the way, crew are not entitled to bunk rest on these flights

The BASSA train appears to be coming off the rails. Can the cabin crew take action against the union leadership for "representing" them so appallingly?
Flap33 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 17:35
  #3526 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
When we talk about pension benefits, don't forget.....

Our company have a very generous AVC scheme for those NAPS members (inc. A Lurker). No charge to invest in any of the three funds and some of the best performing returns in the market.
It's important not to lose sight of all the benefits of working for BA, we are taken care of! Ask any of our cabin crew colleagues who have come from other carriers. My friend has worked for a global telecoms company for 12 years full time (middle manager) and just been made redundant, he was given 12000 GBP.
BA has a history of implementing legislation on time eg. working time directive, age discrimination and partime working to name a few. I can assure any doubters that the outside world is VERY different.
As we go through this tough, but necessary change we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these benefits don't just come on a plate. These benefits come from being sucessful. This year we are going to lose 700-800 m GBP we can't have it both ways, the appropriate response is 'how can we help? Anything else threatens all that we enjoy, wood for the trees and all that!
Clarified is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 18:11
  #3527 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
With the new changes imposed, during the safety demo on the 747, there are now no crew covering doors 5. They are standing at the front of E zone.

During start up and taxi when generally there is a higher probability of things going wrong like an engine fire, why have BA decided to leave these doors unguarded? A recent point of case was the Phoenix evacaution which occurred just after start up. If crew are at the front of E zone, they would be unable to reach the doors at the back if there was an emergency evacuation due to panicking passengers blocking the aisles.

This is not the first time BA have compromised safety to reduce crew. They and one other airline (KLM I think), were the only two to deactivate the emergency exits at 3 left and right on the 747-100's and 200's.

Last edited by Fume Event; 23rd Nov 2009 at 18:21.
Fume Event is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 18:17
  #3528 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
On the subject of pensions if we must stray there, when there were good times BA took pension contribution holidays, and when times are bad, they expect the staff to pay more.
Fume Event is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 18:35
  #3529 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 706

Fume event:

I sincerely hope that you have reported these serious (?) safety problems to the CAA!
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 19:08
  #3530 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 72
Posts: 531
Fume Event.

Since you are concerned about safety, I will repeat my last post as a simple question.

If you thought safety was compromised on your trip by the withdrawal of one crew member, did you submit an ASR?

Simple question, simple answer requested - Yes or No
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 19:26
  #3531 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9
Working a crew member down

Just out of interest, will BA flights ever operate with less than the new crew complement, with them receiving an extra payment? Or are the new crewing levels the absolute minimum they are able to go out with, so if someone can't operate at the last minute and a standby crew member is unable to be found, the flight won't go/ be delayed until they get someone else?
Marty172 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:00
  #3532 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 228
The all new disruption agreement is not an 'agreement'. It's called the operational recovery procedure. The company won't do any more agreements as it leads to the tail wagging the dog as has become the case now.
Locked door is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:01
  #3533 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
BASSA runs the airline - and they are also both scared and desperate to lose control of their power!

Not a single aircraft can leave LHR will less crew than agreed without BA having to gain permission from Miss Malone and her pact.

Can anyone remember when BASSA ordered an aircraft enroute LHR from somewhere in the US to divert because the cabin crew were running out of hours - as per agreement - but they were within legal limitations as per JAR-OPS? WW went mad and was furious. Fully understandable.

Marty172 - Good question. The new crewing levels are above minimum legal requirements. 747 has 14 CC (A minimum of 12 is required - 11 can be carried without passengers on UD), 767 has 7 CC and CANNOT leave base with less than that. 777 has 11 CC and minimum crew is either 8 or 9 depending on configuration.

It still doesn't mean anything because BASSA will do everything they can to fight any aircraft leaving with even less crew now. That's my opinion.
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:08
  #3534 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 944
Fume Event

Why was it safe to operate one down if you had extra pay to do it, but now less safe if you don't get the payment?
The CAA fix the min safe number of crew on a 744 and it's 12.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:28
  #3535 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Fume Event

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.
Iberia crew had much of their ancillary payments restructured in 2005/6, and have worked through a FOUR YEAR pay freeze.

This is not the first time BA have compromised safety to reduce crew.
BA operate to the Rules and Regulations of the CAA. Are you inferring therefore that in your impending litigation, you will be naming the CAA as defendants also?

Times are changing. It's time BASSA represented the majority of its membership, not just those in The La La Home for senior junkets.
StoneyBridge Radar is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:33
  #3536 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
The CAA fix the min safe number of crew on a 744 and it's 12.
It can actually operate with 11 crew but in such case UD must not carry any passengers.
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 20:44
  #3537 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
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.
Not only should anyone thinking of joining the case as a claimant insist on written indemnity for court costs from BASSA and Unite, I would insist on seeing at some of the legal advice received by BASSA and Unite on the merits of the case before signing up.

You have to go into this with your eyes wide open knowing exactly what you're letting yourself in for.

Last edited by LD12986; 23rd Nov 2009 at 21:21.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 21:42
  #3538 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Fume Event should already know that BA have received approval from the CAA for the new crewing arrangements. The name of the CAA contact who confirmed this is available on the dark side forum. The regulator has concluded that if the crew are standing in the aisles doing the safety demo (which is when door 5 is unguarded) then they should be able to get to the door in an emergency faster than seated and strapped in passengers. Of course it doesn't help if you're trying to play the safety card and the regulator has stated that there isn't a card to be played.
Carnage Matey! is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 22:20
  #3539 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 688
It is not unusual of course to operate one crewmember down through sickness or disruption.
But never out of Heathrow! The union (BASSA) won't allow it, even when it screws up the traveling public.

How shocked were our pax to hear recently, that we could 'legally' depart one crew member down, but BASSA wouldn't allow it! Hence a one hour delay on stand awaiting a further crew member! How shocked also were the cabin crew to hear their restrictive practices revealed in a PA to the customers they would be sharing the next hour with!

My response? Why wouldn't we tell the pax the true reason for their delay??

We were even told the a/c would be recalled to stand if we attempted to depart with perfectly legal (though not 'industrial') crew numbers! (Even with the agreement of the crew!!) Such is the current stranglehold of BASSA. Enough is enough!

This lead me to ask, who is running this airline? And for whose benefit? It certainly doesn't seem to be for the fare-paying public!!

CRM in BA in a 'few' respects is already a joke. Just read the BASSA website (as I do!) to see the reality!

All power to the excellent majority of our cabin crew who live and work in the real world! Some of whom have posted here.

Last edited by 4468; 23rd Nov 2009 at 22:58.
4468 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 22:30
  #3540 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 61
Posts: 158
Pension Holidays

This is just to clarify a misconception that's arisen here over the above subject.

BA, and many other, pension schemes did take contribution holidays in the mid-1990s. This covered both employer and employee contributions. As pointed out earlier, the schemes were in significant surplus at the time. The key point to note is that the Revenue does not allow schemes to be run with large surpluses as they offer scope for tax avoidance, ie effectively sheltering corporate profit and/or employee earnings from immediate taxation. So, if there are large surpluses, holidays are taken. I think you'll find benefits were also improved in order to draw down the surplus more quickly. With hindsight, that wasn't a brilliant move, as these are now making pension deficits worse. However, the pensions issue raised here is really a Revenue/tax issue, not a BA ploy that reduced employee benefits in any way.
JayPee28bpr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.