British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also received a phone call from my mgr at home, along with many of my flying buddies. My mgr has also made the effort to meet me in CRC since.
Whats the problem...why do you not believe A.Lurker?
Well said Courtney!
Whats the problem...why do you not believe A.Lurker?
Well said Courtney!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC,
If I'm speaking out of turn when I try and suggest why there may be a modicum of disbelief, please excuse me but, I think the disconnect lies in the fact that some regular posters on here have asked some very straight questions which no-one from the pro-BASSA side of the debate has either been able, or seen fit, to answer. I know from reading CF that this forum is derided as being irretrievably biased and full of bitter Nigels or wannabes who'll get no closer to an aeroplane than MS Flight Sim but that very stance means that you'll never get the understanding or support of people who, by their very questions, strive to understand more fully your position and stance.
But, and this is only my point of view, it's incredibly frustrating when people won't actually engage in the meat of the debate and answer some simply put questions. Your case is not assisted greatly by those who support you coming on here, playing a personal attack card, being banned or merely putting BASSA 100%
as a posting.
I note from Crew Forum a debate which really exemplifies the problem if you don't feel the way BASSA want you to feel. For those without access it debates the recent secondment/promotion campaign for CSD's that BA have run. Some have dared to suggest that those who apply for it may not be the undermining of all that BASSA hold dear and have mooted other issues which have contributed to a degree of undermining. Those people have been excoriated for their point of view. Moreover when the debate turns to whether or not BASSA won their day in court (we all have our opinion on this), those who dare to suggest they may not have are lambasted with "how do you know?", "were you there?" and then these self-same attackers in the very next sentence proceed to say they know they won because BASSA told them, even proclaiming they know that BA's lawyers admitted defeat on the contractual point because, yes that's right, BASSA told them.
On neither side is there any proof of the above. One most certainly will prove to be correct in time but neither person can claim absolute knowledge and this undermines any attempt at debate all the damned time. It's so depressing that so many armchair CEO's seem to think they know better than WW how to run the company yet can come up with nothing more constructive in debate about that very issue than "Wake up and smell the coffee". That's not debate - it's sniping and it belittles the very core of the argument.
Your passions are undeniable. Your articulation of the root and validity of those passions falls somewhat shorter.
All the assertions made, thus far, by BASSA have, as far as I'm aware not been backed up by one provable piece of evidence. Claiming you offered the savings without an audited proof of such means nothing. I can claim I saved BA £300,000 on my last flight. I can't prove it but if I say it often enough does it become true? Not really.
Same with the fines etc - it's now an article of faith through repetition that had BA not played their, admittedly, underhand fixing games, that we'd not be in any financial trouble whatsoever and none of this structural change would be necessary. The fact (verifiable through the company accounts, which, despite many of the assertions, BA don't, and can't, run 2 sets of just to screw the CC over) is that they were accounted for in a different year to this one in which (the news will tell you) we are making record losses which are unsustainable. So BA aren't coming to you to pay the fines. They're accounted for. Too many beliefs are held as facts due to the catechistic manner of BASSA's preaching.
I respect each and every crew member's right to hold their opinion but when you read of so many taking pride in the fact they don't read anything BA sends them, then I weep for the fact that on that statement alone, one can never form a balanced opinion, formed by one's own mature mind. It isn't fact because BASSA say it is, nor, indeed, because BA say it is. But, the least you owe yourselves is to read all the available information and then form an opinion and not to only absorb the information that supports your pre-defined viewpoint.
Apologies for a ramble, one of the failings of my brain.
MrB
If I'm speaking out of turn when I try and suggest why there may be a modicum of disbelief, please excuse me but, I think the disconnect lies in the fact that some regular posters on here have asked some very straight questions which no-one from the pro-BASSA side of the debate has either been able, or seen fit, to answer. I know from reading CF that this forum is derided as being irretrievably biased and full of bitter Nigels or wannabes who'll get no closer to an aeroplane than MS Flight Sim but that very stance means that you'll never get the understanding or support of people who, by their very questions, strive to understand more fully your position and stance.
But, and this is only my point of view, it's incredibly frustrating when people won't actually engage in the meat of the debate and answer some simply put questions. Your case is not assisted greatly by those who support you coming on here, playing a personal attack card, being banned or merely putting BASSA 100%
as a posting.I note from Crew Forum a debate which really exemplifies the problem if you don't feel the way BASSA want you to feel. For those without access it debates the recent secondment/promotion campaign for CSD's that BA have run. Some have dared to suggest that those who apply for it may not be the undermining of all that BASSA hold dear and have mooted other issues which have contributed to a degree of undermining. Those people have been excoriated for their point of view. Moreover when the debate turns to whether or not BASSA won their day in court (we all have our opinion on this), those who dare to suggest they may not have are lambasted with "how do you know?", "were you there?" and then these self-same attackers in the very next sentence proceed to say they know they won because BASSA told them, even proclaiming they know that BA's lawyers admitted defeat on the contractual point because, yes that's right, BASSA told them.
On neither side is there any proof of the above. One most certainly will prove to be correct in time but neither person can claim absolute knowledge and this undermines any attempt at debate all the damned time. It's so depressing that so many armchair CEO's seem to think they know better than WW how to run the company yet can come up with nothing more constructive in debate about that very issue than "Wake up and smell the coffee". That's not debate - it's sniping and it belittles the very core of the argument.
Your passions are undeniable. Your articulation of the root and validity of those passions falls somewhat shorter.
All the assertions made, thus far, by BASSA have, as far as I'm aware not been backed up by one provable piece of evidence. Claiming you offered the savings without an audited proof of such means nothing. I can claim I saved BA £300,000 on my last flight. I can't prove it but if I say it often enough does it become true? Not really.
Same with the fines etc - it's now an article of faith through repetition that had BA not played their, admittedly, underhand fixing games, that we'd not be in any financial trouble whatsoever and none of this structural change would be necessary. The fact (verifiable through the company accounts, which, despite many of the assertions, BA don't, and can't, run 2 sets of just to screw the CC over) is that they were accounted for in a different year to this one in which (the news will tell you) we are making record losses which are unsustainable. So BA aren't coming to you to pay the fines. They're accounted for. Too many beliefs are held as facts due to the catechistic manner of BASSA's preaching.
I respect each and every crew member's right to hold their opinion but when you read of so many taking pride in the fact they don't read anything BA sends them, then I weep for the fact that on that statement alone, one can never form a balanced opinion, formed by one's own mature mind. It isn't fact because BASSA say it is, nor, indeed, because BA say it is. But, the least you owe yourselves is to read all the available information and then form an opinion and not to only absorb the information that supports your pre-defined viewpoint.
Apologies for a ramble, one of the failings of my brain.
MrB
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC and A Lurker, you both claim to have received calls yet you don't say what those calls were about. Were they asking you which way you were voting? Were they putting pressure on you to vote No as BASSA claim?
My question as to was it a "Waterside manager" that phoned, or actually someone you knew, has been answered and I thank you; the rest of my question hasn't, which based on your past form (CFC) suggests you are being evasive once more, or you need time to describe these conversations in a manner which suits your argument.
As for whether it's my business, as a former premium FF who stopped flying BA because of the miserable and off-putting attitude of some of their tired old staff, to offer my opinions on how both BASSA members and BA can get me (and probably many others) flying BA again, fortunately that is none of "your business". I and the mods think I do and that's all that matter thank heavens. You cannot throw your BASSA weight around in this thread as you can and do on other forums.
If you don't like my opinions, that is your prerogative, but I am afraid you are going to have to lump them if the moderators consider that I have a right to participate in the thread. You'll just have to get over it.
Please stop your diversionary "it's got nothing to do with you" tactics and answer the questions that we continue to pose on this thread, and from which you continually hide.
My question as to was it a "Waterside manager" that phoned, or actually someone you knew, has been answered and I thank you; the rest of my question hasn't, which based on your past form (CFC) suggests you are being evasive once more, or you need time to describe these conversations in a manner which suits your argument.
As for whether it's my business, as a former premium FF who stopped flying BA because of the miserable and off-putting attitude of some of their tired old staff, to offer my opinions on how both BASSA members and BA can get me (and probably many others) flying BA again, fortunately that is none of "your business". I and the mods think I do and that's all that matter thank heavens. You cannot throw your BASSA weight around in this thread as you can and do on other forums.
If you don't like my opinions, that is your prerogative, but I am afraid you are going to have to lump them if the moderators consider that I have a right to participate in the thread. You'll just have to get over it.
Please stop your diversionary "it's got nothing to do with you" tactics and answer the questions that we continue to pose on this thread, and from which you continually hide.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that they are more than capable of looking after themselves without Fincastle and Desertia sticking their noses in.
I could suggest that comments from passengers who are experiencing the best/worst of the current coal face dispute can be extremely useful in gaining the passenger insight. Whether to posts are genuine, irrelevant or conjecture is not up to the posters reading, if they are the latter then they get ignored/moderated.
Locking a thread down to just those who are, in the eyes of others, involved would lead to the CF style of ranting/raving and gratuitous 'back slapping'.
At least on this thread there is discussion and, where possible and with the exception of CFC, answers are provided.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC,
Can I ask yet again, what you think strike action is going to achieve, and what are the expected sequence of events that will result in your desired outcome?
I'm increasingly of the opinion that people have no idea where they are going with this.
Prove me wrong.
Can I ask yet again, what you think strike action is going to achieve, and what are the expected sequence of events that will result in your desired outcome?
I'm increasingly of the opinion that people have no idea where they are going with this.
Prove me wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
midman
It seems pretty clear from comments on here, and discussions elsewhere, that BASSA has no plan beyond 'sending Willie a message'.
Once people realise a yes vote alone will achieve absolutely nothing, then we will see which party takes the initiative in these matters.
One group has a very definite plan, with many contingencies. Sadly, I fear the other organisation has nothing more than the 'mantra' we see from some contributors here.
It seems pretty clear from comments on here, and discussions elsewhere, that BASSA has no plan beyond 'sending Willie a message'.
Once people realise a yes vote alone will achieve absolutely nothing, then we will see which party takes the initiative in these matters.
One group has a very definite plan, with many contingencies. Sadly, I fear the other organisation has nothing more than the 'mantra' we see from some contributors here.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get this straight, I had a call fom my manager in the last week. She informed me that they were calling everybody. It was purely to say they were concerned that a lot of crew were quite scared about the circumstances we are all in and if I had any concerns that I could contact them just as easily as the union. I had no questions for her at the time and at no point was I asked how I had or was going to vote. The union and ballot wasn't even mentioned.
I have a good relationship with my manager and I've always found it easy to have a frank and open discussion with her. Maybe this is the call people have been getting?
I have a good relationship with my manager and I've always found it easy to have a frank and open discussion with her. Maybe this is the call people have been getting?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bunker,
An excellent post which expresses my thoughts far more eloquently then I could.
Desertia,
My wife is a Purser, presently applying to be a CSD.
Whilst visiting her manager (in CRC) a few days ago for some feedback/information, said manager was working her way down a list of names, telephoning each in turn, and not enjoying the experience very much.
I believe she was contacting 'her' Pursers to ask if thay had any questions about the ballot/ BA's position.
If ALurker said he was contacted by his manager, I think it pretty likely he was- I believe many crew are being contacted.
(Or maybe I'm a BASSA rep in disguise, too!!)
I don't think BASSA would need to pull a stunt like the one you're suggesting.
BASSA just need to tell the troops to vote YES whether they intend to strike or not, which they have already done.
Unfortunately BA know this, which makes it almost a certainty that BA will call BASSA's bluff & see how many crew will put their money where their mouth is on day 1 of the strike.
I genuinely fear for my wife and the other hard working, moderate crew I meet day-in-day-out.
An excellent post which expresses my thoughts far more eloquently then I could.
Desertia,
My wife is a Purser, presently applying to be a CSD.
Whilst visiting her manager (in CRC) a few days ago for some feedback/information, said manager was working her way down a list of names, telephoning each in turn, and not enjoying the experience very much.
I believe she was contacting 'her' Pursers to ask if thay had any questions about the ballot/ BA's position.
If ALurker said he was contacted by his manager, I think it pretty likely he was- I believe many crew are being contacted.
(Or maybe I'm a BASSA rep in disguise, too!!)
I don't think BASSA would need to pull a stunt like the one you're suggesting.
BASSA just need to tell the troops to vote YES whether they intend to strike or not, which they have already done.
Unfortunately BA know this, which makes it almost a certainty that BA will call BASSA's bluff & see how many crew will put their money where their mouth is on day 1 of the strike.
I genuinely fear for my wife and the other hard working, moderate crew I meet day-in-day-out.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: LHR
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be true because my manager phoned me recently and asked if I was worried or had any concerns about the dispute. She never asked about what I would be voting. I have a very good relationship with my manager and I will tell her about my voting. Some might say it's none of their business but I have nothing to hide and stand for my opinion.
At least I made up my mind today after a lot of thinking and pondering and I will be voting NO.
Voting YES had been wrong because I can't actually explain what the ballot is all about and going out on a possible strike under that sort of illusion would be such a fault.
It's neck or nothing.
At least I made up my mind today after a lot of thinking and pondering and I will be voting NO.
Voting YES had been wrong because I can't actually explain what the ballot is all about and going out on a possible strike under that sort of illusion would be such a fault.
It's neck or nothing.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's put this one to rest - managers are calling us. It's absolutely fine, and the majority don't have a problem with it. TBH I doubt the union would have had the intelligence to dream up a scam like that!
Well done Alexandraa for having the guts to talk about it. You are not alone, I truly think many people are really thinking about the ballot this time, and they are asking the following questions:
1. What will be achieved with a strike? (Nothing)
2. Will I put my job and livelihood at risk? (Yes)
3. Are BA asking too much of me? (No)
The Union have no plan for what happens after the ballot, and that is a very dangerous position to be in. You can bet your bottom dollar that the other side have a plan!
Vote No - You won't be alone in doing so.
The above represents my own personal views and not that of BA.
Well done Alexandraa for having the guts to talk about it. You are not alone, I truly think many people are really thinking about the ballot this time, and they are asking the following questions:
1. What will be achieved with a strike? (Nothing)
2. Will I put my job and livelihood at risk? (Yes)
3. Are BA asking too much of me? (No)
The Union have no plan for what happens after the ballot, and that is a very dangerous position to be in. You can bet your bottom dollar that the other side have a plan!
Vote No - You won't be alone in doing so.
The above represents my own personal views and not that of BA.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I hadn't mentioned it now, but seeing as I did, can I reiterate a few points. Managers were not calling us back then. The calls were made at approximately 1900G from a person claiming to be a manager at Waterside. The crew called were of different ranks and had different managers. The only thing they had in common was that they were BASSA members. There was another strong coincidence, however, I can't go into details, as it could lead to someone being identified.
On reflection, I agree that BASSA probably have more sense than to risk pulling a stunt like this but, having seen the evidence, I am also forced to believe that it was not an official BA call, or even a mistake made by one of the less than bright Waterside staff.
I can only conclude that this was a one off, by someone with a grudge, looking to stir the pot. There may even have been a personal angle involved and bearing in mind the way that BASSA subs are collected, contact details could, I assume, be obtained by someone from either side of the fence.
Once again, I apologise for bringing it up in the first place. I was curious to see if anyone else had experienced the same thing. Can we forget I ever mentioned it? Please? I really need to go to sleep now...
On reflection, I agree that BASSA probably have more sense than to risk pulling a stunt like this but, having seen the evidence, I am also forced to believe that it was not an official BA call, or even a mistake made by one of the less than bright Waterside staff.
I can only conclude that this was a one off, by someone with a grudge, looking to stir the pot. There may even have been a personal angle involved and bearing in mind the way that BASSA subs are collected, contact details could, I assume, be obtained by someone from either side of the fence.
Once again, I apologise for bringing it up in the first place. I was curious to see if anyone else had experienced the same thing. Can we forget I ever mentioned it? Please? I really need to go to sleep now...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You bet BA have a plan following the expected YES vote:-
Option 1 (BASSAs preferred response from BA)
BA go to the courts to get an injunction against any strike being implimented - this they could easily achieve given the tenuous lack of reason for a strike ballot in the first place.
Result - BA win because the new crew compliments are in and the savings are made. BASSA also win because they could claim thier hands were tied by the courts and it's the big bad company preventing their membership from exercising their right to take industrial action and how the Union has the moral high ground etc.
Option 2 (A BASSA nightmare)
BA don't try to fight in the courts at all and do nothing thereby calling the unions bluff. The union will be forced to announce strike dates which will be broken in the first 24 hours once a few crew are sacked. The union loses all credability. BASSA falls apart and BA get to impliment even more changes early in the new year following disappointing quarterly results etc
- New fleet implimented early along with Operational Recovery Proceedure (the replacement for the disruption agreement).
Option 3 (BASSAs worst nightmare)
BA yield to cabin crew pressure and announce the recent impostion of crewing levels is cancelled / rescinded. Crew joy for 24 hours until the 90 day notice to terminate all CC contracts under SOSR rules hit the doormats and that existing crew are invited to accept new (New Fleet) contracts or please return their uniform etc.
My bet is option 2 because BA win massivley with little disruption / cost.
BASSA would hate options 2 or 3 but option 3 is the worst for the union reps personally because it affects all crew not just the ones who are sacked on day 1 of the strike as you can bet none of the reps will be rostered to work that day.
Option 1 (BASSAs preferred response from BA)
BA go to the courts to get an injunction against any strike being implimented - this they could easily achieve given the tenuous lack of reason for a strike ballot in the first place.
Result - BA win because the new crew compliments are in and the savings are made. BASSA also win because they could claim thier hands were tied by the courts and it's the big bad company preventing their membership from exercising their right to take industrial action and how the Union has the moral high ground etc.
Option 2 (A BASSA nightmare)
BA don't try to fight in the courts at all and do nothing thereby calling the unions bluff. The union will be forced to announce strike dates which will be broken in the first 24 hours once a few crew are sacked. The union loses all credability. BASSA falls apart and BA get to impliment even more changes early in the new year following disappointing quarterly results etc
- New fleet implimented early along with Operational Recovery Proceedure (the replacement for the disruption agreement).
Option 3 (BASSAs worst nightmare)
BA yield to cabin crew pressure and announce the recent impostion of crewing levels is cancelled / rescinded. Crew joy for 24 hours until the 90 day notice to terminate all CC contracts under SOSR rules hit the doormats and that existing crew are invited to accept new (New Fleet) contracts or please return their uniform etc.
My bet is option 2 because BA win massivley with little disruption / cost.
BASSA would hate options 2 or 3 but option 3 is the worst for the union reps personally because it affects all crew not just the ones who are sacked on day 1 of the strike as you can bet none of the reps will be rostered to work that day.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm BA cabin crew (LHR) I only joined a couple of years ago and I must say this is an awful awful position for us all to be in (including other people working at BA pilots, ground staff, baggage handlers, call centre, head office etc etc) I am like Alexandraa, very confused on how to vote, lots of mixed mixed messages and ALOT at stake in one important decision. Yes or NO? I THINK I am going to vote No in the end but haven't done so YET, just want to make sure. Must admit I am glad I came across this forum, I use all the other forums official and non whether I post or just lurk. It has allowed me to look balanced at the whole issue.
I wish negotiations could continue, for everyones sake. Yes, I suppose you may think well BA have imposed, what could they impose next. Well they have been negotiating for 9 months. I think with such dire financial results they had to do something about it. Of course negotiation is what they should do, but they have, surely if they can't come to an agreement and the savings HAVE to be made soon or else... then they have the right to do this. It's only crew complements that have been imposed... Similar complements (well for the 777 and a319 as they don't have the others) as LGW have been operating with and manage, don't know how our service compares, but surely the union could of saw this coming when they allowed SFLGW? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick.
Having said that... I don't agree with making us cheap and ending our careers.... neither do I agree with turning this into a gap year job... but BA have not imposed new t&c's, and have said they are willing to negotiate on new fleet, new contracts etc... surely the Union could agree to this invitation by BA get down to some serious negotiations on IT'S MEMBERS behalf. There were many things in the UNite proposal I didn't agree with.... they suggested 1 SCCM on a euro 767 no PSR, noone complained because it was a BASSA proposal but as soon as BA do it it becomes unworkable, unthinkable and a nightmare although I do think it's the worst part of the new crew complements, mainly because of the promotional prospects.
I want a future with BA, I would like promotion, I want BA to survive and to be the great airline it can be. Most of my colleagues are fab and make this airline great, sure there is PLENTY of deadwood that bring shame but we do deserve a future. To have a future we need change... yes we don't need to be shafted but the key to this is negotiation.... I must admit though, I do worry when the people in BASSA say if they imposed this what next... there will be no promotion etc.... but is this all propaganda. Or do they have a point.
Inclined to vote No but still very much confused. However I think I'm slowly coming to my senses as to the consequences of a strike and the reality that surrounds us (airlines gone bust, bmi sheding jobs, BA losing money etc etc!)
Sorry for my long post, just alot of emotions and thoughts racing through my mind!
I wish negotiations could continue, for everyones sake. Yes, I suppose you may think well BA have imposed, what could they impose next. Well they have been negotiating for 9 months. I think with such dire financial results they had to do something about it. Of course negotiation is what they should do, but they have, surely if they can't come to an agreement and the savings HAVE to be made soon or else... then they have the right to do this. It's only crew complements that have been imposed... Similar complements (well for the 777 and a319 as they don't have the others) as LGW have been operating with and manage, don't know how our service compares, but surely the union could of saw this coming when they allowed SFLGW? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick.
Having said that... I don't agree with making us cheap and ending our careers.... neither do I agree with turning this into a gap year job... but BA have not imposed new t&c's, and have said they are willing to negotiate on new fleet, new contracts etc... surely the Union could agree to this invitation by BA get down to some serious negotiations on IT'S MEMBERS behalf. There were many things in the UNite proposal I didn't agree with.... they suggested 1 SCCM on a euro 767 no PSR, noone complained because it was a BASSA proposal but as soon as BA do it it becomes unworkable, unthinkable and a nightmare although I do think it's the worst part of the new crew complements, mainly because of the promotional prospects.
I want a future with BA, I would like promotion, I want BA to survive and to be the great airline it can be. Most of my colleagues are fab and make this airline great, sure there is PLENTY of deadwood that bring shame but we do deserve a future. To have a future we need change... yes we don't need to be shafted but the key to this is negotiation.... I must admit though, I do worry when the people in BASSA say if they imposed this what next... there will be no promotion etc.... but is this all propaganda. Or do they have a point.
Inclined to vote No but still very much confused. However I think I'm slowly coming to my senses as to the consequences of a strike and the reality that surrounds us (airlines gone bust, bmi sheding jobs, BA losing money etc etc!)
Sorry for my long post, just alot of emotions and thoughts racing through my mind!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for elaborating on the telephone calls from your managers.
Given the current circumstances, offering to answer your colleagues' questions seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I wonder why A Lurker would be so angry about it - or is it simply that some of those answers might expose the BASSA sham?
Let's remind ourselves of the oberfuhrers' orders shall we?
From the people who've spoken here free from the shackles of BASSA censorship, it sounds as if nothing of the sort has taken place in the 18 days since this drivel was published; another BASSA LIE.
WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM BASSA!
Given the current circumstances, offering to answer your colleagues' questions seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I wonder why A Lurker would be so angry about it - or is it simply that some of those answers might expose the BASSA sham?
Let's remind ourselves of the oberfuhrers' orders shall we?
With a ballot paper due to arrive next week you will increasingly find yourselves the subject of much management “activity” by way of phone calls, meeting aircraft, attending briefings etc to enquire as to your intentions when voting.
WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM BASSA!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle
However I think I'm slowly coming to my senses as to the consequences of a strike and the reality that surrounds us (airlines gone bust, bmi shedding jobs, BA losing money etc etc!)
Congratulations on your excellent post & please accept my sincere sympathy for the extreme stress being suffered by you & your colleagues. Good luck in reaching the correct decision & best wishes for a successful & happy career with your great airline.
Mistrust in Management
Slide Bustle
I have sympathy with your predicament.
I'll offer some advice if I may (because you seem to be asking for it)
As background I used to work for BA both on the ground as an Engineer and flying both as an F/E and Pilot (34 years) - I have never been Cabin Crew. I am not now in the BA pension scheme and very rarely travel on BA as a customer. So I am reasonably unbiased apart from the fact that I have quite a few friends who still work for BA - flying (as Pilots and Cabin Crew) and on the ground (as Engineers).
For BA to survive they must remain competitive. Changes in working practices have to take place in order for BA to be competitive - it is that simple. If they don't then BA will die. The Management team know this and they will play their cards very carefully to ensure that BA survive (think shareholders here) - they will try and do this with the least blood spilt by shareholders, customers and staff (in that order). They are a caring employer but they will spill blood if necessary to survive.
I think a majority yes vote is likely, but a lot of folk who vote yes will not strike. So much is at stake here that I think a small number of the initial strikers will be sacked but after some time (with any Management sense) they may be re-instated.
The strike (if it takes place) will be broken because for BA shareholders anything else means kissing goodbye to their investment. The Management team will try by any means to ensure that BA survives (If I was a BA investor that is what I would expect them to do) For BA Management it is simple - the strike may break us but the alternative definitely will break us in the long term.
So Slidebustle make your vote but please think carefully about what you stand to lose and what you may gain (if anything)
I wish you and your colleagues all the best.
Regards
Exeng
I'll offer some advice if I may (because you seem to be asking for it)
As background I used to work for BA both on the ground as an Engineer and flying both as an F/E and Pilot (34 years) - I have never been Cabin Crew. I am not now in the BA pension scheme and very rarely travel on BA as a customer. So I am reasonably unbiased apart from the fact that I have quite a few friends who still work for BA - flying (as Pilots and Cabin Crew) and on the ground (as Engineers).
For BA to survive they must remain competitive. Changes in working practices have to take place in order for BA to be competitive - it is that simple. If they don't then BA will die. The Management team know this and they will play their cards very carefully to ensure that BA survive (think shareholders here) - they will try and do this with the least blood spilt by shareholders, customers and staff (in that order). They are a caring employer but they will spill blood if necessary to survive.
I think a majority yes vote is likely, but a lot of folk who vote yes will not strike. So much is at stake here that I think a small number of the initial strikers will be sacked but after some time (with any Management sense) they may be re-instated.
The strike (if it takes place) will be broken because for BA shareholders anything else means kissing goodbye to their investment. The Management team will try by any means to ensure that BA survives (If I was a BA investor that is what I would expect them to do) For BA Management it is simple - the strike may break us but the alternative definitely will break us in the long term.
So Slidebustle make your vote but please think carefully about what you stand to lose and what you may gain (if anything)
I wish you and your colleagues all the best.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From several posts above it seems no one really knows what this is about any more.
I think we need a straight talking pro BASSA person to come on here and explain without emotion what the issues are and what the plan of action actually is.
We need to know the aim of this potential strike.
To go back to the beginning BA set a cost saving target of £140m or 24% for IFCE (I know it was £82m originally but that was before the fleet stand downs).
Each department had it's own cost saving target.
Some departments, after seeing an independant financial review accepted these savings, polled their members and came up with a negiotated settlement.
BASSA held a big meeting at a racecourse and about 1000 crew voted on the other 13,000's behalf to say they DID NOT accept the cuts.
I don't recall BASSA polling the remaining members.
BASSA then came up with it's own £174m cost saving proposal which was not only later valued at £54m but was temporary.
They had a mantra of "temporary soloution for a temporary problem".
ALL their savings were to be paid back in full after two years (please correct me if I am wrong), that is after all what the 1000 had voted on - no cuts, full stop.
(Did BASSA even actually poll it's members on how to achieve these tempory savings? Did crew want middle east back to backs? Did they want a 2.61% pay cut? Did they want crew complements reduced? I don't know.)
So, the membership wanted no cuts, so BASSA offered no cuts. (Just a temporary soloution to be paid back in full)
Nine months later nothing had changed because BA wanted/needed permanent savings and the membership had still not accepted permanent cuts.
One presumes this would have gone on for infinitum, BASSA were never going to agree with BA's cost savings because the membership had told them not to.
Thus the imposition.
Now, the strike ballot seems to be because of the imposition, BASSA say remove it and get back round the table.
So two questions, if (option 1) BA did remove imposition and get back round the table, has BASSA and it's membership's position changed?
Do they now accept the need for £140m savings or not?
If not then surely we are back to the same deadlock we've had for the last nine months and talks will go on for ever with no agreement reached.
Question two, (option two), if BASSA now accept the £140m target and with the involvement of the membership negiotiate a way of achieving it. How could this be done?
Forgive me if I'm being simple but to save 24% of a department's wage bill you only have three possibilities:
1: a 24% reduction in wages (ouch!) Crew have said they do not want this.
2: a 24% increase in hours worked. As longhaul crew already do circa 900 hours this would mean shorthaul making all the cuts, a huge lifestyle change by reducing days off and increasing sectors flown through fixed links etc.
3: Reducing the number of crew on board by 24%, thus keeping pay and hours worked the same.
Given the above three choices would crew not vote for option three, thus having the same end result as the imposition?
The other big factor is that in reality 24% is very hard to achieve through the current workforce, from the BASSA newsletter the BA imposition only saves about £40m, the other £100m will come from new fleet.
Is this not a good thing? If a strike forces new fleet away then the remaining £100m would have to come from current crew, am I not correct in saying that when new fleet was removed a few months back the current crew faced reduced days off and single night stopovers in addition to the complement changes?
I've had enough typing now but what I'm trying to say is that despite the imposition is this not the best solution anyway?
If customers genuinely suffer a little then that is an unfortunate result of necessary cost cutting, do crew really want to swap the reduced complements for a large pay cut or a big jump in sectors flown just to get more crew back on the aircraft?
I'm perplexed.
Please could someone outline how crew would prefer to make these savings (if at all) assuming it's not the way BA has imposed.
I think we need a straight talking pro BASSA person to come on here and explain without emotion what the issues are and what the plan of action actually is.
We need to know the aim of this potential strike.
To go back to the beginning BA set a cost saving target of £140m or 24% for IFCE (I know it was £82m originally but that was before the fleet stand downs).
Each department had it's own cost saving target.
Some departments, after seeing an independant financial review accepted these savings, polled their members and came up with a negiotated settlement.
BASSA held a big meeting at a racecourse and about 1000 crew voted on the other 13,000's behalf to say they DID NOT accept the cuts.
I don't recall BASSA polling the remaining members.
BASSA then came up with it's own £174m cost saving proposal which was not only later valued at £54m but was temporary.
They had a mantra of "temporary soloution for a temporary problem".
ALL their savings were to be paid back in full after two years (please correct me if I am wrong), that is after all what the 1000 had voted on - no cuts, full stop.
(Did BASSA even actually poll it's members on how to achieve these tempory savings? Did crew want middle east back to backs? Did they want a 2.61% pay cut? Did they want crew complements reduced? I don't know.)
So, the membership wanted no cuts, so BASSA offered no cuts. (Just a temporary soloution to be paid back in full)
Nine months later nothing had changed because BA wanted/needed permanent savings and the membership had still not accepted permanent cuts.
One presumes this would have gone on for infinitum, BASSA were never going to agree with BA's cost savings because the membership had told them not to.
Thus the imposition.
Now, the strike ballot seems to be because of the imposition, BASSA say remove it and get back round the table.
So two questions, if (option 1) BA did remove imposition and get back round the table, has BASSA and it's membership's position changed?
Do they now accept the need for £140m savings or not?
If not then surely we are back to the same deadlock we've had for the last nine months and talks will go on for ever with no agreement reached.
Question two, (option two), if BASSA now accept the £140m target and with the involvement of the membership negiotiate a way of achieving it. How could this be done?
Forgive me if I'm being simple but to save 24% of a department's wage bill you only have three possibilities:
1: a 24% reduction in wages (ouch!) Crew have said they do not want this.
2: a 24% increase in hours worked. As longhaul crew already do circa 900 hours this would mean shorthaul making all the cuts, a huge lifestyle change by reducing days off and increasing sectors flown through fixed links etc.
3: Reducing the number of crew on board by 24%, thus keeping pay and hours worked the same.
Given the above three choices would crew not vote for option three, thus having the same end result as the imposition?
The other big factor is that in reality 24% is very hard to achieve through the current workforce, from the BASSA newsletter the BA imposition only saves about £40m, the other £100m will come from new fleet.
Is this not a good thing? If a strike forces new fleet away then the remaining £100m would have to come from current crew, am I not correct in saying that when new fleet was removed a few months back the current crew faced reduced days off and single night stopovers in addition to the complement changes?
I've had enough typing now but what I'm trying to say is that despite the imposition is this not the best solution anyway?
If customers genuinely suffer a little then that is an unfortunate result of necessary cost cutting, do crew really want to swap the reduced complements for a large pay cut or a big jump in sectors flown just to get more crew back on the aircraft?
I'm perplexed.
Please could someone outline how crew would prefer to make these savings (if at all) assuming it's not the way BA has imposed.
Last edited by plodding along; 30th Nov 2009 at 18:01.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plodding Along
You raise some good points worthy of rsponse from BASSA, but let's face it - that won't happen (you'll get accused of BASSA bashing!)
All you could expect is the standard BASSA response of figures fiddled by BA / price fixing fines / poor fuel hedging / greedy pilots / what recession?? (Delete as appropriate)
I am sorry but BASSA are absolutely clear that they have the support of the membership when they voted (I use the term losely) at Kempton Park for NO cost savings. That, IMHO, means that you will NEVER get BASSA back to the negotiating table to work something out as it would be the same as admitting defeat.
They have lead their members up a creek then have sold the paddle in an attempt to preserve the terms of the few at the top of the tree.
All you could expect is the standard BASSA response of figures fiddled by BA / price fixing fines / poor fuel hedging / greedy pilots / what recession?? (Delete as appropriate)
I am sorry but BASSA are absolutely clear that they have the support of the membership when they voted (I use the term losely) at Kempton Park for NO cost savings. That, IMHO, means that you will NEVER get BASSA back to the negotiating table to work something out as it would be the same as admitting defeat.
They have lead their members up a creek then have sold the paddle in an attempt to preserve the terms of the few at the top of the tree.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who would really like to make it home from foreign parts for Christmas and New Year, I do hope you wont vote for a strike, it will cause so much misery to those who dont deserve it, us passengers. In my limited experience a strike will have no real effect on management whatsoever. 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plodding Along,
Nice summary, I think - and especially worth restating that BASSA's offer was temporary, to be repaid at the end of the business plan. (Whether it was £54m or £174m is moot, if the saving was temporary it didn't meet BA's criteria (no other department has refused to negotiate on permenant change.))
The only point I would make is that the initial £82m, and latterly £140m saving, is over the life of the BP. ie: 2 years.
It's not a £82m (£140m) year-on-year saving, more like £60m y-o-y once fleet contraction has been stripped out of the figures.
£60m is, what, 10% of the IFCE budget- ish?
So in your 3 options, the work harder/pay-cut balance would be more along the lines of 10%...
All IMHO and willing to be corrected!
Nice summary, I think - and especially worth restating that BASSA's offer was temporary, to be repaid at the end of the business plan. (Whether it was £54m or £174m is moot, if the saving was temporary it didn't meet BA's criteria (no other department has refused to negotiate on permenant change.))
The only point I would make is that the initial £82m, and latterly £140m saving, is over the life of the BP. ie: 2 years.
It's not a £82m (£140m) year-on-year saving, more like £60m y-o-y once fleet contraction has been stripped out of the figures.
£60m is, what, 10% of the IFCE budget- ish?
So in your 3 options, the work harder/pay-cut balance would be more along the lines of 10%...
All IMHO and willing to be corrected!