British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of BA employees clinging to rumours that the City doesn't like Walsh and want him out. Thats nothing but wishful thinking. The City want to see him get a grip on BAs costs and restive unions and there'll be no putsch from them.
There's no evidence that the big corporate governance advisors are advising any kind of anti-WW stance at the AGM. It's more likely that WW is under pressure from large shareholders to find efficiency gains at BA in return for additional investment to allow him to refresh/grow the fleet ready for the upturn.
The price of this may be industrial action. I would argue that this is something the shareholders would back WW on if the end result was a leaner more efficient airline. I don't think either WW or the major shareholders really want a strike on their hands, but in their eyes a one off hit might be a price worth paying for a permamanent reduction in BA's cost base.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investors, whoever they may be, are after three things:
Dividend when possible
Increase in the value of their shares and investment
Profitable and stable company to continue investing in.
They don't care about the terms and conditions of either the pilots, engineers, ground staff or cabin crew. That is what the elected board members are there for to sort all that out. They want a profitable bottom line and will very likely back the CEO to the hilt if the current changes achieve this.
I have not seen anything on the investment markets that says that the markets think that Willie Walsh is barking up the wrong tree. Quite the opposite in fact!
Dividend when possible
Increase in the value of their shares and investment
Profitable and stable company to continue investing in.
They don't care about the terms and conditions of either the pilots, engineers, ground staff or cabin crew. That is what the elected board members are there for to sort all that out. They want a profitable bottom line and will very likely back the CEO to the hilt if the current changes achieve this.
I have not seen anything on the investment markets that says that the markets think that Willie Walsh is barking up the wrong tree. Quite the opposite in fact!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smaller airlines face uncertain future
BBC NEWS | Business | Smaller airlines face uncertain future
But of course according to BASSA there is no recession!
Brussels Airlines, Belgium's national carrier, has been partially sold to the German airline, Lufthansa, which has an option to take the rest in a few years time.
The move has prompted fears for the future of the national flag carriers of smaller European countries in a crowded market.
Jonny Dymond reports from Brussels.
The move has prompted fears for the future of the national flag carriers of smaller European countries in a crowded market.
Jonny Dymond reports from Brussels.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite Amicus
Don't forget that not all CC are Unite bassa members, some are with Unite Amicus.
Unite Amicus held a meeting yesterday, the results of which were:
BA proposal - rejected
Unite proposal - accepted
Continue negotiations - accepted
So, a somewhat different outcome to that of the bassa meeting.
Not sure how this sits overall with Unite, as of the 2 branches, 1 wants to negotiate, 1 doesn't.
Unite officials reportedly meeting ACAS today
Unite Amicus held a meeting yesterday, the results of which were:
BA proposal - rejected
Unite proposal - accepted
Continue negotiations - accepted
So, a somewhat different outcome to that of the bassa meeting.
Not sure how this sits overall with Unite, as of the 2 branches, 1 wants to negotiate, 1 doesn't.
Unite officials reportedly meeting ACAS today
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposal -
WW sends out an envelope to all crew he wants on a new contract (specifically the CSD's/and old dinosaurs or anyone that would rather see BA go under than loose face). In the envelope there is :-
1) A new contract.
2) A P45
3) A note saying choose one of the above.
Regards,
L Met
WW sends out an envelope to all crew he wants on a new contract (specifically the CSD's/and old dinosaurs or anyone that would rather see BA go under than loose face). In the envelope there is :-
1) A new contract.
2) A P45
3) A note saying choose one of the above.
Regards,
L Met
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GPM is bollox
One of the duties CSD's get paid for is to hand out, and receive back, GPM's.
I recently witnessed a CSD give one of these to the child of a staff member, for the child to fill out. (the parent did not know about it).
Says it all really.......surely BA could invest in a post-flight survey emailed to the address of the person who did the booking, it is after all 2009. Although BASSA thinks its the 1970's.
BASSA = British Airways SENIOR Stewards (and Stewardesses) Association.
I recently witnessed a CSD give one of these to the child of a staff member, for the child to fill out. (the parent did not know about it).
Says it all really.......surely BA could invest in a post-flight survey emailed to the address of the person who did the booking, it is after all 2009. Although BASSA thinks its the 1970's.
BASSA = British Airways SENIOR Stewards (and Stewardesses) Association.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I originally read this thread and expected to simply be a concerned observer as oppose to a participant.
I am ex BA cabin crew and still have friends who work as crew for BA. I can see the predicament that the CC are under and I do feel sorry for them.
It is not pleasant to potentially have your contract changed from one which you signed. However, it is quite clear across the world that this economic crisis is hitting everywhere and everyone, and every occupation is suffering. Based on this why should (some) CC think that they should be unaffected, when everyone else is?
I have read by the moderator than no more of "pilot gets this/CC gets that" so this means that we have to look to CC's t&c's. From what I am gleaming here (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), one of the issues is the removal of ETP/box payments etc in replacement for a set monthly payment. When I flew I had good trip months and bad trip months and my wage could fluctuate by Ł1000 month. I joined in 1997 on the new contract and was full time main crew. The discussion of this set monthly payment seems fair. This will mean an even amount of take home each month rather than huge variances. It will mean that the pressure for the long range trips is taken away as you get paid for coming to work rather than the destination you go to. It seems a fairer system and surely the only thing that needs negotiating is the actual amount rather than not to have it?
This means then that a CC member would be paid their basic, the monthly payment and their food subsistence allowances.
rmac
"But is it actually possible to live on 11k per annum in this day and age without needing to visit a soup kitchen from time to time"
It is not simply 11k though is it? It is 11k, plus the monthly payment (was this approx Ł400?) and food allowance. Speaking from personal experience I never spent my full food allowance when I was away, and although you shouldn't rely on it for part of net pay, most people do. The food allowance was generous, when I left in 2003 I'm sure the daily rate for the UK when on a back to back was Ł60, I can't imagine spending Ł60 on food for the day (and this is 82% tax free). This also means that CC are not like Joe Bloggs who works on the ground, Joe Bloggs has to pay for his meals every day in the month, there are no food allowances for him. CC are given the money for food and subsistence whilst they are away which means that you are not having to spend any of your 11k on food whilst out of the country. For this reason I have to aruge that it wouldn't be:
"782 pounds a month after tax and NI payments"
But more likely 782 basic + 400 monthly payment = 1182 plus whatever is not spent in food allowances.
As I said at the start of this post I still have friends who are CC now and their future concerns me. Not only their job security but how BA CC in general are being perceived by the general public. There have already been some negative posts from non flyers and there are some CC who are giving the rest of the CC a bad name. The attitude that is being seen by some is making the CC look petty, selfish and completely out of touch with what is going on in the world. These are the people that you wish to travel on your airline and so in fact pay your wages. Amongst various statements one that implies Ł11k is not enough to live on.
I've no idea what the average wage is in this country but for a lot Ł11k is a lot of money. I accept that the CC are there for a numerous amount of safety jobs whilst on board but it is still only a 6 week training course. Years have not been spent on training so if you have good people skills and common sense it is a job you can excel at ... but it is still not classed as a professional job. I am hesitating writing this as I expect an onslaught from some CC, but I am writing it as I want you to see the image that you are portraying to the public and why if you push it, the public will show their disapproval by booking with competitors.
Regarding the figure of Ł782 month,
Del Prado
"for someone whose primary role is passengers safety. Doesn't sound a lot."
Let me give you a personal insight as to why making statements like that is an insult to a lot of the general public:
An ambulance worker on emergency frontline ambulances (EMT) on a full time wage takes home approx Ł1370 month.
They will work approx 12-14 shifts a month on 12 hour shifts.
They are not paid for a 45min meal break.
They are not provided sleeping quarters as it is frowned upon if you sleep whilst on duty. Unlike the rest that CC get even on on TLV flight!
They are not given food during their shift, so if they want to eat they have to buy it themselves. Unlike CC who are given a sandwich on boarding, a hot meal during flight and then meal allowances whilst they are away.
They normally work 4 shifts on at a time. Days, days, nights, nights. On the morning of when they finish their last night shift this is classed as a day off, unlike CC who have this classed as a working day eg 3 day JFK but lands on the morning of day 3.
I could go on about the differences but I won't, I choose do this job and I love it. I work harder than I ever did as crew with more abuse than I ever received as crew. I have a lot more responsibilty than I did as crew. I am not the only person who will be doing a job like this, working these sort of hours to these sort of conditions. This post is not to have a moan about my conditions but to show you that you will be losing public sympathy by not taking a more realistic look at the wages that are being proposed and what other industries get.
To try and show a comparison between wages, as crew you are given your meals whilst working but on the ambulance you pay for your own food out of your wages, so let's take an average of Ł5 a day for meals (not the daily amount I remember as CC for the UK at Ł60 per day.). This is Ł5 x 13 shifts = Ł65 to be deducted from Ł1370. So an EMT gets approx Ł1305 and CC gets approx Ł1182 plus remainder of food allowance. Not a lot of difference in it.
Do you think Ł1305 is a lot when you are trying to save lives on an ambulance? Probably not but it is the real world and this is what people get paid. Some are the main bread winner of the house. Please don't belittle a lot of the public by making out that 11k is not enough to survive on. This is not directed at all CC just those who do not have a realistic grasp of the worldwide situation. I hope something can be sorted for you and that the general public keeps its faith in BA as a company.
I am ex BA cabin crew and still have friends who work as crew for BA. I can see the predicament that the CC are under and I do feel sorry for them.
It is not pleasant to potentially have your contract changed from one which you signed. However, it is quite clear across the world that this economic crisis is hitting everywhere and everyone, and every occupation is suffering. Based on this why should (some) CC think that they should be unaffected, when everyone else is?
I have read by the moderator than no more of "pilot gets this/CC gets that" so this means that we have to look to CC's t&c's. From what I am gleaming here (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), one of the issues is the removal of ETP/box payments etc in replacement for a set monthly payment. When I flew I had good trip months and bad trip months and my wage could fluctuate by Ł1000 month. I joined in 1997 on the new contract and was full time main crew. The discussion of this set monthly payment seems fair. This will mean an even amount of take home each month rather than huge variances. It will mean that the pressure for the long range trips is taken away as you get paid for coming to work rather than the destination you go to. It seems a fairer system and surely the only thing that needs negotiating is the actual amount rather than not to have it?
This means then that a CC member would be paid their basic, the monthly payment and their food subsistence allowances.
rmac
"But is it actually possible to live on 11k per annum in this day and age without needing to visit a soup kitchen from time to time"
It is not simply 11k though is it? It is 11k, plus the monthly payment (was this approx Ł400?) and food allowance. Speaking from personal experience I never spent my full food allowance when I was away, and although you shouldn't rely on it for part of net pay, most people do. The food allowance was generous, when I left in 2003 I'm sure the daily rate for the UK when on a back to back was Ł60, I can't imagine spending Ł60 on food for the day (and this is 82% tax free). This also means that CC are not like Joe Bloggs who works on the ground, Joe Bloggs has to pay for his meals every day in the month, there are no food allowances for him. CC are given the money for food and subsistence whilst they are away which means that you are not having to spend any of your 11k on food whilst out of the country. For this reason I have to aruge that it wouldn't be:
"782 pounds a month after tax and NI payments"
But more likely 782 basic + 400 monthly payment = 1182 plus whatever is not spent in food allowances.
As I said at the start of this post I still have friends who are CC now and their future concerns me. Not only their job security but how BA CC in general are being perceived by the general public. There have already been some negative posts from non flyers and there are some CC who are giving the rest of the CC a bad name. The attitude that is being seen by some is making the CC look petty, selfish and completely out of touch with what is going on in the world. These are the people that you wish to travel on your airline and so in fact pay your wages. Amongst various statements one that implies Ł11k is not enough to live on.
I've no idea what the average wage is in this country but for a lot Ł11k is a lot of money. I accept that the CC are there for a numerous amount of safety jobs whilst on board but it is still only a 6 week training course. Years have not been spent on training so if you have good people skills and common sense it is a job you can excel at ... but it is still not classed as a professional job. I am hesitating writing this as I expect an onslaught from some CC, but I am writing it as I want you to see the image that you are portraying to the public and why if you push it, the public will show their disapproval by booking with competitors.
Regarding the figure of Ł782 month,
Del Prado
"for someone whose primary role is passengers safety. Doesn't sound a lot."
Let me give you a personal insight as to why making statements like that is an insult to a lot of the general public:
An ambulance worker on emergency frontline ambulances (EMT) on a full time wage takes home approx Ł1370 month.
They will work approx 12-14 shifts a month on 12 hour shifts.
They are not paid for a 45min meal break.
They are not provided sleeping quarters as it is frowned upon if you sleep whilst on duty. Unlike the rest that CC get even on on TLV flight!
They are not given food during their shift, so if they want to eat they have to buy it themselves. Unlike CC who are given a sandwich on boarding, a hot meal during flight and then meal allowances whilst they are away.
They normally work 4 shifts on at a time. Days, days, nights, nights. On the morning of when they finish their last night shift this is classed as a day off, unlike CC who have this classed as a working day eg 3 day JFK but lands on the morning of day 3.
I could go on about the differences but I won't, I choose do this job and I love it. I work harder than I ever did as crew with more abuse than I ever received as crew. I have a lot more responsibilty than I did as crew. I am not the only person who will be doing a job like this, working these sort of hours to these sort of conditions. This post is not to have a moan about my conditions but to show you that you will be losing public sympathy by not taking a more realistic look at the wages that are being proposed and what other industries get.
To try and show a comparison between wages, as crew you are given your meals whilst working but on the ambulance you pay for your own food out of your wages, so let's take an average of Ł5 a day for meals (not the daily amount I remember as CC for the UK at Ł60 per day.). This is Ł5 x 13 shifts = Ł65 to be deducted from Ł1370. So an EMT gets approx Ł1305 and CC gets approx Ł1182 plus remainder of food allowance. Not a lot of difference in it.
Do you think Ł1305 is a lot when you are trying to save lives on an ambulance? Probably not but it is the real world and this is what people get paid. Some are the main bread winner of the house. Please don't belittle a lot of the public by making out that 11k is not enough to survive on. This is not directed at all CC just those who do not have a realistic grasp of the worldwide situation. I hope something can be sorted for you and that the general public keeps its faith in BA as a company.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo wrote:
...but it will not - there will be no Q&A session with WW for the first time in BA AGM history.
I wonder why?
The AGM will be the same old dull affair it always is.
I wonder why?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tor C wrote:
Not quite the same Q's Tor C ...from Bassa direct:
The floor was then asked 3 questions.
1. Did they accept BA’s proposal? - A unanimous NO
2. Did they accept BASSA’s proposal? - All but 6 members said YES
3. Did they wish the BASSA proposal to make any further concessions? - A unanimous NO
So a 'different outcome' maybe as different Q's were asked.
Don't forget that not all CC are Unite bassa members, some are with Unite Amicus.
Unite Amicus held a meeting yesterday, the results of which were:
BA proposal - rejected
Unite proposal - accepted
Continue negotiations - accepted
So, a somewhat different outcome to that of the bassa meeting.
Not sure how this sits overall with Unite, as of the 2 branches, 1 wants to negotiate, 1 doesn't.
Unite officials reportedly meeting ACAS today
Unite Amicus held a meeting yesterday, the results of which were:
BA proposal - rejected
Unite proposal - accepted
Continue negotiations - accepted
So, a somewhat different outcome to that of the bassa meeting.
Not sure how this sits overall with Unite, as of the 2 branches, 1 wants to negotiate, 1 doesn't.
Unite officials reportedly meeting ACAS today
The floor was then asked 3 questions.
1. Did they accept BA’s proposal? - A unanimous NO
2. Did they accept BASSA’s proposal? - All but 6 members said YES
3. Did they wish the BASSA proposal to make any further concessions? - A unanimous NO
So a 'different outcome' maybe as different Q's were asked.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC - perhaps it's because all the serious questions will have been asked in private by the institutional investors and it would be a waste of time fielding endless questions about the cabin crew dispute from stooges? Do you really think that if there was a Q&A session then the collective views of Mrs Miggins and Joe Average (500 shares between them) would change the corporate strategy?
NJR - it would take a brave soul to venture into the bearpit that is a BASSA rally and voice a contradictory opinion. Perhaps you've seen the abuse heaped upon those who dare to disagree on your own forums? I suspect those that disagreed with BASSA (like the last two CSDs I flew with) all stayed at home rather than waste a journey. I was downroute on the day of the meeting and even I would have shyed away from debating the matter with the crew in my presence given the level of anger and foul language eminating from their coven. Which is a pity because their arguments against change were manifestly b******s.
NJR - it would take a brave soul to venture into the bearpit that is a BASSA rally and voice a contradictory opinion. Perhaps you've seen the abuse heaped upon those who dare to disagree on your own forums? I suspect those that disagreed with BASSA (like the last two CSDs I flew with) all stayed at home rather than waste a journey. I was downroute on the day of the meeting and even I would have shyed away from debating the matter with the crew in my presence given the level of anger and foul language eminating from their coven. Which is a pity because their arguments against change were manifestly b******s.
Last edited by Hand Solo; 8th Jul 2009 at 19:25.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC - perhaps it's because all the serious questions will have been asked in private by the institutional investors and it would be a waste of time fielding endless questions about the cabin crew dispute from stooges? Do you really think that if there was a Q&A session then the collective views of Mrs Miggins and Joe Average (500 shares between them) would change the corporate strategy?
Just from the comments on this forum - regularly - one can see that some of the FC community have no idea whatsoever of the current CC/BA ongoing shenanigans.
I personally would like to see Mr Broughton either back WW in public just so we are sure what side of the fence he is on. I cannot believe the whole board are behind WW in bringing IA upon BA yet again for this is WW's sole agenda - break the Unions (except his Balpa chums of course) just to please the greedy corporates....whoops, sorry I meant the 'institutional investors'.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually CFC it seems to me the flight crew on this forum seem to have a much better idea of what is really going on than the cabin crew. It's been a one way stream of facts, figures, details and analysis, met largely by spurious and frequently incorrect information largely peddled by BASSA. It's probably worthy of note that there are representatives of other unions present in one capacity or another at many of the negotiations. That means that some people are informed neither by BA nor BASSA but by essentially independent witnesses. That's certainly one reason why other groups seem to have significantly more detail on what actually went on in the Big Brother house than the crew community. Blind faith in one's leadership is just that: blind.
I really don't see the point of wheeling the Chairman out just to state the obvious - that he does back Willie (and indeed his CFO who set the 30th June deadline). It was mentioned earlier that people cling to rumours in BA, and any idea that the board is somehow split over the cost savings is a triumph of hope over reality. There are no bleeding hearts in the boardroom pitying the poor cabin crew. Walsh was brought in to slash costs, something he has done effectively. If he wasn't axed over the T5 opening he's not going to be axed for taking the unions to task. Perhaps the board would like him to risk IA this time in order to prevent the unions threatening IA of their own accord every other year? If you think the Chairman is daft enough to be cornered into answering a "Do you want the cabin crew to strike" question with anything other than a response that the company needs to cut costs then you are dreaming. As to the pilots getting preferential treatment, how do you square that with the engineers also agreeing terms with the company? And GSS being inch close? Are they all Willies favourites? Finally, who exactly do you think BA is run for? The staff, or the 'greedy corporates'? BA is a business like any other, and it's there to serve the needs of it's shareholders.
I really don't see the point of wheeling the Chairman out just to state the obvious - that he does back Willie (and indeed his CFO who set the 30th June deadline). It was mentioned earlier that people cling to rumours in BA, and any idea that the board is somehow split over the cost savings is a triumph of hope over reality. There are no bleeding hearts in the boardroom pitying the poor cabin crew. Walsh was brought in to slash costs, something he has done effectively. If he wasn't axed over the T5 opening he's not going to be axed for taking the unions to task. Perhaps the board would like him to risk IA this time in order to prevent the unions threatening IA of their own accord every other year? If you think the Chairman is daft enough to be cornered into answering a "Do you want the cabin crew to strike" question with anything other than a response that the company needs to cut costs then you are dreaming. As to the pilots getting preferential treatment, how do you square that with the engineers also agreeing terms with the company? And GSS being inch close? Are they all Willies favourites? Finally, who exactly do you think BA is run for? The staff, or the 'greedy corporates'? BA is a business like any other, and it's there to serve the needs of it's shareholders.
As for being "greedy corporates", you're talking about companies who manage other peoples money. Not just filthy rich fat cats, but ordinary everyday people who might want to save a bit of money. Or who might want to build up a decent pension fund. That's why institutional investors want to invest in viable businesses with good prospects. Would you allow your savings to be managed by a company that invests them in failing businesses? Of course not. So why the bad feeling towards the institutional investors who are simply doing their job of getting the best possible return on their investments?
You've got to start seeing BA not just as an employer, but as a business operating in a competitive and tough market. Do you not see that your own interests are inextricably bound to those of the business?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe the whole board are behind WW in bringing IA upon BA yet again...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we are on the subject of what the City thinks of WW, this is exactly what they think as follows:
Citi, 29th May 2009:
Collins Stewart, 10th June 2009:
BoA ML, 22nd May:
So, no mention of WW's management style whatsoever.
Citi, 29th May 2009:
An almost full-year impact of current year restructuring efforts that re being implemented. BA is not announcing specific restructuring initiatives, apart from securing new ‘permanent’ pay and productivity agreements with each of the labour groups. These are likely to address issues such as demarcation, overtime, overnight stays for crews and working time. In addition, voluntary and involuntary redundancy initiatives are likely as BA reduces its capacity by at least 4% from this winter. Overall, we estimate that the number of FTEs could fall from around 40,500 currently to 39,000 by the end of FY10 and maybe as far as 38,000 by the end of FY11. Better operational performance as a result of the success of Terminal 5, a 4%+ capacity reduction and fewer premium-class related staff/crew are likely to be sources of cost savings in addition to the productivity initiatives targeted. Achieving these benefits depends critically on the various labour groups accepting management’s pay and productivity initiatives currently being put before them. Balloting members is currently taking place for some groups. The least advanced discussions, however, are with the cabin crew groups, typically the situation with previous negotiations. In our view, the risk of a cabin crew strike is high, even though such action would likely be deeply unpopular, internally and externally, and out of touch with economic realities.
Significant staff cost savings needed:
Negotiations with staff over changes to pay and conditions are key. There are a range of legacy issues which need to be eliminated for BA to rebuild returns. Willie Walsh has set end June as a deadline. So far the ground staff and cabin crew are unreceptive.
Negotiations with staff over changes to pay and conditions are key. There are a range of legacy issues which need to be eliminated for BA to rebuild returns. Willie Walsh has set end June as a deadline. So far the ground staff and cabin crew are unreceptive.
The near-term trading backdrop remains difficult - the trading environment for the sector remains tough at this time. This includes weaker traffic trends, lower pricing and negative mix movements (trading down from premium to economy cabin).