British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jean-Lill
Not trying to be argumentative as I agree wholeheartedly with you, but why not just exercise your right to go to work normally and not have to change your daily routine.
If the Union decide to take IA and you, through your own reasons and for your own job security, decide not to then, in a democracy, that is your choice and you have the right to work without reprisal.
Anything that comes against you is unlawful, unfair and highly unprofessional.
Good luck to all.
Why not go to work by the tube that day, park somewhere else and catch the tube, they cannot picket inside T5.
If the Union decide to take IA and you, through your own reasons and for your own job security, decide not to then, in a democracy, that is your choice and you have the right to work without reprisal.
Anything that comes against you is unlawful, unfair and highly unprofessional.
Good luck to all.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
And now Hotel mode takes the vindictive patronizing view.
I haven't voted yet. I voted against last time. I have a 90% certainty of my intention and in looking for the confirming 10% shared opinion I either find Red Rob Trotskites shouting yes or Fat Controller Facists lecturing me no. I too have first hand recollections from a person within the building during negotiations, only he states that ACAS couldn't believe BA's stance.
I'll say that Francis almost had me when new fleet was off the table. He'd canvassed opinion among crew and understood how crew were concerned about new fleet, so he removed it. A good starting point for the unions to negotiate the final points, but by either manufactor or negligence it went wrong. And the one thing that Bill, the crew's mate, stated he would remove was impossed. I distrust BA senior management motives as much as BASSA reps motives. There is a true version of events somewhere, but I can guarantee it isn't to be found here or over at CF
So, I'm in a lose-lose situation. I don't give a hoot about working one down. I do believe premium passengers from LHR will suffer from what they are use to, whenever I board an aircraft to commemce service I never have what BA advertise, be it functional seats or the correct product. I witness crew having the time to smooth over such issues, and they do. But crew and passengers will get use to it they always do. I am very concerned about new fleet. A monthly travel payment is only as good as allowances when I'm sat at home on constant 24 available, i.e not earning. And when new fleet becomes the majority carrier and I find myself surplus to requirements where do I go. To new fleet, to the t&cs I was told would not affect me under the new redeployment scheme. Or leave.
A strike won't force Walsh's hand. He's an arrogant little empire builder and he's doing quite well at it. I haven't got the time of day for the transparent man, but know that striking can only be detrimental to me. The routine mesages of support in our endeavours I recieve from passengers, the common hatred shared with executive card holders of walsh's BA will all evaporate, and very quickly, when the same supporters and haters are stranded and inconvenienced.
The one matter I am certain about is that from the 'leaking' of columbus 2 years ago, todays impasse has been engineered by walsh. And the union leaders fell straight into his trap. It should have been akin to dealing with a rude and diva'ish passenger. Kill em with kindness.
Like I say, lose-lose.
I haven't voted yet. I voted against last time. I have a 90% certainty of my intention and in looking for the confirming 10% shared opinion I either find Red Rob Trotskites shouting yes or Fat Controller Facists lecturing me no. I too have first hand recollections from a person within the building during negotiations, only he states that ACAS couldn't believe BA's stance.
I'll say that Francis almost had me when new fleet was off the table. He'd canvassed opinion among crew and understood how crew were concerned about new fleet, so he removed it. A good starting point for the unions to negotiate the final points, but by either manufactor or negligence it went wrong. And the one thing that Bill, the crew's mate, stated he would remove was impossed. I distrust BA senior management motives as much as BASSA reps motives. There is a true version of events somewhere, but I can guarantee it isn't to be found here or over at CF
So, I'm in a lose-lose situation. I don't give a hoot about working one down. I do believe premium passengers from LHR will suffer from what they are use to, whenever I board an aircraft to commemce service I never have what BA advertise, be it functional seats or the correct product. I witness crew having the time to smooth over such issues, and they do. But crew and passengers will get use to it they always do. I am very concerned about new fleet. A monthly travel payment is only as good as allowances when I'm sat at home on constant 24 available, i.e not earning. And when new fleet becomes the majority carrier and I find myself surplus to requirements where do I go. To new fleet, to the t&cs I was told would not affect me under the new redeployment scheme. Or leave.
A strike won't force Walsh's hand. He's an arrogant little empire builder and he's doing quite well at it. I haven't got the time of day for the transparent man, but know that striking can only be detrimental to me. The routine mesages of support in our endeavours I recieve from passengers, the common hatred shared with executive card holders of walsh's BA will all evaporate, and very quickly, when the same supporters and haters are stranded and inconvenienced.
The one matter I am certain about is that from the 'leaking' of columbus 2 years ago, todays impasse has been engineered by walsh. And the union leaders fell straight into his trap. It should have been akin to dealing with a rude and diva'ish passenger. Kill em with kindness.
Like I say, lose-lose.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How then, PC 767, have Gatwick managed all of those Caribbean flights and not managed to destroy BA's reputation by delivering poor service?
Customer service will only be hit when the Crew involved have a hidden agenda to ensure that the service levels get hit in order to further the Unions stance.
Oddly enough most crews, lead by those CSD's the company wishes to keep, keep the service levels up and they are, generally, the ones whom the executive passengers speak so highly of.
As to personal opinions of Willie Walsh, who cares? He is here at the behest of the board on behalf of the shareholders not to pander to the whims and moans of the staff. That is why we have junior managers to drain down on. I am fairly sure he wouldn't give a hoot about your concerns as long as he can steer the company to profitability.
Customer service will only be hit when the Crew involved have a hidden agenda to ensure that the service levels get hit in order to further the Unions stance.
Oddly enough most crews, lead by those CSD's the company wishes to keep, keep the service levels up and they are, generally, the ones whom the executive passengers speak so highly of.
As to personal opinions of Willie Walsh, who cares? He is here at the behest of the board on behalf of the shareholders not to pander to the whims and moans of the staff. That is why we have junior managers to drain down on. I am fairly sure he wouldn't give a hoot about your concerns as long as he can steer the company to profitability.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he states that ACAS couldn't believe BA's stance.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
The point I was making. So why should this forum accept that Carnage matey's informant was anymore reliable and thus lay the blame for poor/no negotiation at the feet of Bassa reps.
As for walsh, he could be steering this company to calmer more profitable waters if he had the skils to engage rather than isolate his staff. For what it is worth I believe he is the right man in the wrong job. His public exclamation that BA were on the brink off going under, in a fight for our survival, most likely did as much damage for our reputation and therefore future financial success as Bassa's call for industrial action.
As for walsh, he could be steering this company to calmer more profitable waters if he had the skils to engage rather than isolate his staff. For what it is worth I believe he is the right man in the wrong job. His public exclamation that BA were on the brink off going under, in a fight for our survival, most likely did as much damage for our reputation and therefore future financial success as Bassa's call for industrial action.
PC767,
Charming!
Would you prefer that then CEO hid or lied about the company's perilous financial state? In any event, he had to say something because BASSA continued with the line of "All is well, the world and the company are just dandy!" And BASSA still continues with same.
Red Rob Trotskites shouting yes or Fat Controller Facists lecturing me no
His [Walsh's] public exclamation that BA were on the brink off going under, in a fight for our survival, most likely did as much damage for our reputation and therefore future financial success as Bassa's call for industrial action.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote PC 767
"I'll say that Francis almost had me when new fleet was off the table. He'd canvassed opinion among crew and understood how crew were concerned about new fleet, so he removed it. A good starting point for the unions to negotiate the final points, but by either manufactor or negligence it went wrong. And the one thing that Bill, the crew's mate, stated he would remove was impossed. I distrust BA senior management motives as much as BASSA reps motives. There is a true version of events somewhere, but I can guarantee it isn't to be found here or over at CF"
BF has said that 'New Fleet' was out because he found other ways to match the money needing to be saved. Now BASSA refused to negotiate a deal he has had to bring back new fleet to make the savings needed. Can't you see it is BASSA who created the return of 'New Fleet'.
BA have two options;
1) Take savings from current crew negotiated by unite = no new fleet
2) Take savings from future crew and some from current crew imposed = having to create new fleet
We are in this situation because of a power fight from BASSA. Thanks to them.
If you trust them over management then vote yes but I can assure you, I know where my vote lies.
"I'll say that Francis almost had me when new fleet was off the table. He'd canvassed opinion among crew and understood how crew were concerned about new fleet, so he removed it. A good starting point for the unions to negotiate the final points, but by either manufactor or negligence it went wrong. And the one thing that Bill, the crew's mate, stated he would remove was impossed. I distrust BA senior management motives as much as BASSA reps motives. There is a true version of events somewhere, but I can guarantee it isn't to be found here or over at CF"
BF has said that 'New Fleet' was out because he found other ways to match the money needing to be saved. Now BASSA refused to negotiate a deal he has had to bring back new fleet to make the savings needed. Can't you see it is BASSA who created the return of 'New Fleet'.
BA have two options;
1) Take savings from current crew negotiated by unite = no new fleet
2) Take savings from future crew and some from current crew imposed = having to create new fleet
We are in this situation because of a power fight from BASSA. Thanks to them.
If you trust them over management then vote yes but I can assure you, I know where my vote lies.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Walsh, he could be steering this company to calmer more profitable waters if he had the skils to engage rather than isolate his staff. For what it is worth I believe he is the right man in the wrong job. His public exclamation that BA were on the brink off going under, in a fight for our survival, most likely did as much damage for our reputation and therefore future financial success as Bassa's call for industrial action.
A bailout we would never ever get!
Also negotiation was tried for 9 months, dialogue was tried but BASSA weren't interested. So where would those calmer waters be?
BA were ahead of the pack giving forecast profit warnings, ensuring the shareholders knew, to the letter, the state of the company thus preventing a fire-sale of stock when the bad quarters bit and preventing the company from, potentially, going under or being the victim of a hostile take over. Ironically I think the stance that Walsh has taken has been exactly the right one in the face of the immense recession riding on the back of astronomical fuel costs.
Now, how do you even begin to justify the costs of IA of the one and only department that refuses to accept the current/past situation and still wants its cake and eat it and calls a strike even when there is no changes to T's & C's except having to work a teensy/tiny bit harder?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA has known about Project Columbus for a very long time - and what have they done - nothing! Did they ever confront the company about this? Why did they not take any action earlier?
New Fleet was taken off the table - BASSA refused to negotiate - New Fleet returned to the table.
BASSA has done absolutely nothing to its members - unfortunately it is payback time which will only affect the cabin crew - and some of them are far too naive to see beyond as to what is on the line. As some of them keeping repeating - wake up and smell the coffee and realise what BASSA is doing to you!
Miss Malone and her bridage are in for a tough fight.
Vote NO and be sensible!
New Fleet was taken off the table - BASSA refused to negotiate - New Fleet returned to the table.
BASSA has done absolutely nothing to its members - unfortunately it is payback time which will only affect the cabin crew - and some of them are far too naive to see beyond as to what is on the line. As some of them keeping repeating - wake up and smell the coffee and realise what BASSA is doing to you!
Miss Malone and her bridage are in for a tough fight.
Vote NO and be sensible!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh may, or may not, be in the wrong job - BUT - the board and the shareholders have confidence in him and believe he is doing a good job. They are behind him. If they had no confidence in him they would have whipped his ankles a long time ago!
Do you remember what BASSA kept saying about WW before the AGM? That he would have no trust whatsoever from. And - see what happened - they did and still do!
Mistakes followed by mistakes followed by mistakes. When will BASSA ever learn?
Do you remember what BASSA kept saying about WW before the AGM? That he would have no trust whatsoever from. And - see what happened - they did and still do!
Mistakes followed by mistakes followed by mistakes. When will BASSA ever learn?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to Winston Smith
Winston you are totally incorrect about Operation Columbus - please see the email that was sent to members 18 months ago
From: [email protected]
Date: 20/06/2008 21:02:56
To:
Subject: BASSA
mergency announcement.
Emergency announcement.
As we prepare for the final stage of the movement of crew and services
into Terminal 5, in Waterside a specialist group of 5 managers are working
on a top-secret project called "Operation Columbus", in partnership with
Hewitt Associates, an American outsourcing and corporate restructuring
specialist.
This group has been secretly working for a number of months on a potential
huge bombshell for the entire cabin crew community.
They are looking at the potential feasibility of setting up a subsidiary
operation to "employ" all cabin crew at Heathrow and Gatwick.
In simple terms, the plan is to slash costs in a manner that we have
previously not thought possible by simply ending, over a short period of
time, the current terms, conditions, pay scales and agreements of all
current BA cabin crew.
This will be done by setting up a separate structure to employ cabin crew
specifically on lower cost terms and conditions.
Legally, this new operation cannot resemble current structures, so all
rank and pay scales agreements etcetera, would not be replicated to avoid
any potential legal challenge over breach of contract of existing
employees.
Routes could then be gradually moved from the current crew operation into
this new organisation. Crew who decline to move will either be bought out
of current contracts or be simply left behind as the work moves. The legal
work on how to do this within current legislation has already been carried
out.
The project covers many detailed areas including:
A fixed hourly rate of pay.
The removal of all current ranks.
The ending of all variable pay premiums - CAT, back-to-back, destination,
long day, one down, early report, DOA and ETP etc.
Set salary rate.
All current agreements ended in favour of a LGW style mixed flying option.
LGW is also considered within this project as even this base's reduced
agreement is considered to be too complex and costly.
This is worrying and extremely frightening news, both to us and to you,
but we feel obligated to make you aware of its existence.
We now have no alternative but to challenge Simon Talling-Smith to issue
an immediate statement regarding our concerns and indeed the concerns of
the entire cabin crew community.
From: [email protected]
Date: 20/06/2008 21:02:56
To:
Subject: BASSA
mergency announcement.Emergency announcement.
As we prepare for the final stage of the movement of crew and services
into Terminal 5, in Waterside a specialist group of 5 managers are working
on a top-secret project called "Operation Columbus", in partnership with
Hewitt Associates, an American outsourcing and corporate restructuring
specialist.
This group has been secretly working for a number of months on a potential
huge bombshell for the entire cabin crew community.
They are looking at the potential feasibility of setting up a subsidiary
operation to "employ" all cabin crew at Heathrow and Gatwick.
In simple terms, the plan is to slash costs in a manner that we have
previously not thought possible by simply ending, over a short period of
time, the current terms, conditions, pay scales and agreements of all
current BA cabin crew.
This will be done by setting up a separate structure to employ cabin crew
specifically on lower cost terms and conditions.
Legally, this new operation cannot resemble current structures, so all
rank and pay scales agreements etcetera, would not be replicated to avoid
any potential legal challenge over breach of contract of existing
employees.
Routes could then be gradually moved from the current crew operation into
this new organisation. Crew who decline to move will either be bought out
of current contracts or be simply left behind as the work moves. The legal
work on how to do this within current legislation has already been carried
out.
The project covers many detailed areas including:
A fixed hourly rate of pay.
The removal of all current ranks.
The ending of all variable pay premiums - CAT, back-to-back, destination,
long day, one down, early report, DOA and ETP etc.
Set salary rate.
All current agreements ended in favour of a LGW style mixed flying option.
LGW is also considered within this project as even this base's reduced
agreement is considered to be too complex and costly.
This is worrying and extremely frightening news, both to us and to you,
but we feel obligated to make you aware of its existence.
We now have no alternative but to challenge Simon Talling-Smith to issue
an immediate statement regarding our concerns and indeed the concerns of
the entire cabin crew community.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mod edit - Remove Lengthy & Pointless Quote
18 months ago and how much relevant dialogue?
None, zip, nada, nichts.
Once again it shows that BASSA can and are only reactive they have never been proactive otherwise they would have engaged with the company to see what productivity measures could have been implemented to avoid Project Columbus.
Sadly BASSA have fallen lazily back on their only weapon, 'change will be met with IA'.
Too little, too late. Crass misrepresentation of the membership once again!
18 months ago and how much relevant dialogue?
None, zip, nada, nichts.
Once again it shows that BASSA can and are only reactive they have never been proactive otherwise they would have engaged with the company to see what productivity measures could have been implemented to avoid Project Columbus.
Sadly BASSA have fallen lazily back on their only weapon, 'change will be met with IA'.
Too little, too late. Crass misrepresentation of the membership once again!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any comments on how we should feel as crew at LGW.Obviously as most know we don't benefit from the same t&c 's as LHR ,a good month may net us in the region of £1500 ,a poor one in the region of £1000.With the prospects of no future transfers to "the golden runway", or a combined allowance payment of around £400 to add to our basic of £800 approx , how do you expect people to hope to do this job as a career choice as opposed to a gap year project.Would the flight crew amoung you prefer a crew of dedicated if sometimes faided crew with miles of experience or a crew with all new faces,no experience,and no celulite.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally (as flight deck), I'm hoping for a YES vote: -
If the crew vote is NO there will be wishy washy compromise where everyones a winner blah blah .... and to be honest that is the way of the world - negotiation not confrontation. It's all very grey.
BUT (being a black and white sort of bloke) if they vote YES then Willie can have it all.... sackings on day 1 of strike. Imposition of new fleet on very much reduced T & Cs from day 1 - lots of tears over lattees and the decimation of BASSA and the 'cabin crew' as a department in it's own right.
Flight Ops could run the show with the new cabin crew rostered with the pilots and controlled / under the command of the Captain (like every other airline) - no checking to see if it's OK to do this or that by some faceless union type ... simply get on with it or hand your ID in to security on the way out.
The new Cabin Crew would (hopefully) only put up with the low pay /high work load for a couple of years (having enjoyed seeing some of the world) and then move on to a proper job. The savings in pensions and incremental payscales will be be enourmous.
Yes it will cost the Company bookings and cashflow in the short term but the in long term the potential savings are HUGE. I really hope some manager has looked at this as a business model / strategy - I can't see a downside.
Gap year students are perfect - young, motivated, energetic and adaptable - everything the current crowd aren't.
If the crew vote is NO there will be wishy washy compromise where everyones a winner blah blah .... and to be honest that is the way of the world - negotiation not confrontation. It's all very grey.
BUT (being a black and white sort of bloke) if they vote YES then Willie can have it all.... sackings on day 1 of strike. Imposition of new fleet on very much reduced T & Cs from day 1 - lots of tears over lattees and the decimation of BASSA and the 'cabin crew' as a department in it's own right.
Flight Ops could run the show with the new cabin crew rostered with the pilots and controlled / under the command of the Captain (like every other airline) - no checking to see if it's OK to do this or that by some faceless union type ... simply get on with it or hand your ID in to security on the way out.
The new Cabin Crew would (hopefully) only put up with the low pay /high work load for a couple of years (having enjoyed seeing some of the world) and then move on to a proper job. The savings in pensions and incremental payscales will be be enourmous.
Yes it will cost the Company bookings and cashflow in the short term but the in long term the potential savings are HUGE. I really hope some manager has looked at this as a business model / strategy - I can't see a downside.
Gap year students are perfect - young, motivated, energetic and adaptable - everything the current crowd aren't.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockster....
The law states quite clearly that is is 'UNLAWFUL' to sack an employee who is participating in LAWFUL Industrial Action - In my opinion British Airways will not sack anybody who takes part in lawful IA as they themselves would not want to be seen to be breaking the law (as a caring employer) - As for 'New Fleet' from day one - again I doubt that very much.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
How many times must we go round this one? It is irrelevant whether or not the IA is lawful or not. If the employee doesn't turn up for work on a day they are rostered to work on because they are participating in lawful IA then the company CAN sack them although the company might well need to take the case to tribunal.
The company, for all it's caring sharing employment stance, has carefully ensured that it meets all of the necessary legal requirements to implement change to ensure the survival of the company thus enabling the use of SOSR at any subsequent tribunal hearing.
Are you going to be the one who tests the water?
Big balls!
p.s.
tomkins, play the ball (subject matter) not the player (poster)!
The law states quite clearly that is is 'UNLAWFUL' to sack an employee who is participating in LAWFUL Industrial Action
The company, for all it's caring sharing employment stance, has carefully ensured that it meets all of the necessary legal requirements to implement change to ensure the survival of the company thus enabling the use of SOSR at any subsequent tribunal hearing.
Are you going to be the one who tests the water?
Big balls!
p.s.
tomkins, play the ball (subject matter) not the player (poster)!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobble - how many times must we go round with this....
It is unlawful to sack anybody who is participating in lawful IA that is a FACT
If a company did sack somebody for taking part in lawful Industrial Action then the dismissal is automatically deemed to be 'unfair' and as such unlawful.
Can you really see BA sacking 2000 Cabin Crew and having to be taken to 2000 Industrial Tribunals?
It is unlawful to sack anybody who is participating in lawful IA that is a FACT
If a company did sack somebody for taking part in lawful Industrial Action then the dismissal is automatically deemed to be 'unfair' and as such unlawful.
Can you really see BA sacking 2000 Cabin Crew and having to be taken to 2000 Industrial Tribunals?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker,
Put simply yes.
Why 2000? Pick and choose those you want to get rid of, you know the ones, those with managers files as long as your arm, sack them and watch the others run back to work.
Ironically, a bunch of sackings, the drag to tribunal and a bunch of punitive payouts is cheaper in the long run for BA than drawn out strike action.
Public opinion is NOT behind the CC on this one.
I also agree with the idea of getting the CC under the direct command and thus management of the Captain. A far better system where the Captain decides how things are to be run, once the aircraft has got to where it should be and the passengers to their destination the whiners can go off to their line managers. At least the airline would be run for the benefit of the passengers and not the CC.
Put simply yes.
Why 2000? Pick and choose those you want to get rid of, you know the ones, those with managers files as long as your arm, sack them and watch the others run back to work.
Ironically, a bunch of sackings, the drag to tribunal and a bunch of punitive payouts is cheaper in the long run for BA than drawn out strike action.
Public opinion is NOT behind the CC on this one.
I also agree with the idea of getting the CC under the direct command and thus management of the Captain. A far better system where the Captain decides how things are to be run, once the aircraft has got to where it should be and the passengers to their destination the whiners can go off to their line managers. At least the airline would be run for the benefit of the passengers and not the CC.