British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Clarified,
It is indeed a relief to see so many like minded crew on PPrune who are against IA.
I too feel that I've nothing and no one to hide from, and if asked about what I'll do in the unfortunate event of a Strike, I'm open about my intentions to work. Its's a pity the ESS Forum was closed down, we could have had healthy debates as we do on PPrune without fear of repercussions.
On another note, it's great to be able to share views here with our Flight Crew colleagues.
It's the 1st of December and our changes to the crew matrix begin today.
I'm looking forward to the challenge. Onwards and upwards, I say!
Vote NO To Strike Action and save BA
It is indeed a relief to see so many like minded crew on PPrune who are against IA.
I too feel that I've nothing and no one to hide from, and if asked about what I'll do in the unfortunate event of a Strike, I'm open about my intentions to work. Its's a pity the ESS Forum was closed down, we could have had healthy debates as we do on PPrune without fear of repercussions.
On another note, it's great to be able to share views here with our Flight Crew colleagues.
It's the 1st of December and our changes to the crew matrix begin today.
I'm looking forward to the challenge. Onwards and upwards, I say!
Vote NO To Strike Action and save BA
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiramisu, I'm quite looking forward to the challenge aswell!! OK I realise it may not work but then it might do, however I will do the service and SEP requirements as BA say they want me to, like we all should! I will work hard, the same as I do now, but if it's workable (which must of the matrix does) then I will accept just work harder (how many flights do you have plenty of time to sit around reading the daily rag?? plenty) OK, there are some hang ups I have like up to 2 less crew on a MAN which may not work etc, but on the other hand, some of it is no problem, it might well work on some flights and not on others.... I'm sure the matrix will be tweaked if so but I don't think it's really that unreasonable. It may be abit trial and error at first, like I'm sure LGW was.... some ex-LGW crew say it was terrible... some say it was perfectly fine..... we will just wait and see, I will form my opinion when I've done enough sectors to be in a place to say if it works and is reasonable... or not as the case may be, no question about it we will be working harder but somethings got to give! I'm not going to whinge about it trying to make it NOT work, it's irrational!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SlideBustle,
The Matrix has been adjusted in line with the reduced service in any case so not a big problem except for the 767. As you rightly say, LGW have been doing it for some time with no real problems, so why can't we?
I enjoyed reading your sensible posts and look forward to flying with you.
Anyway, welcome to PPrune, I'm relatively new myself!
Vote No To Strike Action
The Matrix has been adjusted in line with the reduced service in any case so not a big problem except for the 767. As you rightly say, LGW have been doing it for some time with no real problems, so why can't we?
I enjoyed reading your sensible posts and look forward to flying with you.
Anyway, welcome to PPrune, I'm relatively new myself!
Vote No To Strike Action
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps another indicator to the residents of LaLa land that all is not well in the real world:
This comes on top of a large amount of other redundancies from all other SAS departments as they attempt to adjust their business model to the new environment. No Government bailouts there either as, except in the dodgy case of Alitalia, Government bailouts for private companies are against the EU law.
Scandinavian airline SAS plans to sack up to 100 pilots after talks with their union failed.
"We were in negotiations with the pilots and the negotiations were not successful," Sture Stolen, head of investors relations at the airline, admitted.
The staff cuts were part of a cost reduction programme and would be enforced "as soon as possible", he said.
The airline has struggled with falling passenger loads and has been cutting costs aggressively through its "Core SAS" programme.
Traffic was down 13.5 per cent in October year-on-year, it revealed earlier this month.
"We were in negotiations with the pilots and the negotiations were not successful," Sture Stolen, head of investors relations at the airline, admitted.
The staff cuts were part of a cost reduction programme and would be enforced "as soon as possible", he said.
The airline has struggled with falling passenger loads and has been cutting costs aggressively through its "Core SAS" programme.
Traffic was down 13.5 per cent in October year-on-year, it revealed earlier this month.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC,
A few of my friends did, they couldn't make up their minds as to what, exactly, was happening prior to the meeting either. They attended the Sandown Park meeting out of 'curiosity as to the BASSA plan', as there had been no canvassing of the members as to the stance of the Union amid one of the biggest potential changes since privatisation.
They left the meeting with the objective of not voting for IA and they have subsequently not voted for IA.
Half of the 'information' given was nothing but rhetoric. They were given 'assurances' that they could not be legally dismissed for striking. However they were not informed that they could be 'illegally' dismissed and thus have to endure Industrial Tribunal.
The 'explanation' was, once again, just a run through of the BASSA proposals, not a breakdown in detail you understand just a gloss overview, which everybody had heard before.
Add to that a bit of 'tub thumping' in respect to how evil all of the management team are and that BASSA action will rid BA of the cancerous Willie Walsh. (again, and again with no conviction or result)
Their view, not mine as I wasn't present, was that the whole thing was a complete waste of time and money.
Clear thinking, well balance crew being egged on by a minority of Union Proles. Jack Dromey and Bob Crow would have been proud!
Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?
They left the meeting with the objective of not voting for IA and they have subsequently not voted for IA.
Half of the 'information' given was nothing but rhetoric. They were given 'assurances' that they could not be legally dismissed for striking. However they were not informed that they could be 'illegally' dismissed and thus have to endure Industrial Tribunal.
The 'explanation' was, once again, just a run through of the BASSA proposals, not a breakdown in detail you understand just a gloss overview, which everybody had heard before.
Add to that a bit of 'tub thumping' in respect to how evil all of the management team are and that BASSA action will rid BA of the cancerous Willie Walsh. (again, and again with no conviction or result)
Their view, not mine as I wasn't present, was that the whole thing was a complete waste of time and money.
Clear thinking, well balance crew being egged on by a minority of Union Proles. Jack Dromey and Bob Crow would have been proud!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Flier...Tiramisu...Clarified
You guys are a breath of fresh air, finally I can comfort myself that all behind that door are not mad or possessed!
Just one point to note about the cabin service on shorthaul, airborne holding is down to record lows at the moment and the shedules are still based on previous statistical levels, also taxi times in to T5 are a lot less than they used to be.
Hence most flights arrive early, indeed the most frequently asked question by crew seems to be "can we get back early?"
With that in mind there is fat in the system, if cabin service is getting tight slowing down can generate an extra 10 minutes, save a bit of fuel and still arrive on time.
It will not look good if reports go in about insufficient time if the aircraft arrived 30 mins early and the pilots weren't informed.
Some crew will want the cabin service to suffer to prove a point, they will also want to get home early, they can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways.
You guys are a breath of fresh air, finally I can comfort myself that all behind that door are not mad or possessed!
Just one point to note about the cabin service on shorthaul, airborne holding is down to record lows at the moment and the shedules are still based on previous statistical levels, also taxi times in to T5 are a lot less than they used to be.
Hence most flights arrive early, indeed the most frequently asked question by crew seems to be "can we get back early?"
With that in mind there is fat in the system, if cabin service is getting tight slowing down can generate an extra 10 minutes, save a bit of fuel and still arrive on time.
It will not look good if reports go in about insufficient time if the aircraft arrived 30 mins early and the pilots weren't informed.
Some crew will want the cabin service to suffer to prove a point, they will also want to get home early, they can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #3842 is indeed strongly worded, but does not attack any of the thread participants personally.
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.
CFC - W2T take it to the PM system please.
We are very pleased to note that more and more BA Cabin Crew appear to be finding their way here. Welcome people.
It bears repeating once again, that while this is an open forum where everybody is welcome, the main participants here are BA cabin crew.
This thread is an arena for them to discuss matters without fear of bullying and intimidation.
From either side!
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.
CFC - W2T take it to the PM system please.
We are very pleased to note that more and more BA Cabin Crew appear to be finding their way here. Welcome people.
It bears repeating once again, that while this is an open forum where everybody is welcome, the main participants here are BA cabin crew.
This thread is an arena for them to discuss matters without fear of bullying and intimidation.
From either side!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these difficult economic times suggesting that you stay airborne longer than necessary just to allow cabin service to be completed is staggering. You save a lot more fuel by being on the ground with the engines off than by being airborne flying slowly. Please think more carefully before suggesting things like this.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is, indeed, enlightening to see that so many of the crew can see through what could be the BASSA end play.
Today sees the implementation of the new crewing routines on SH and I will be interested to see how they fair. Especially as many of the SH flight crew have operated parts of the Airbus fleet out of LGW and have first hand experience of operating with the reduced crew.
I feel that having at least a 'source' of independent information where people can exchange views and ideas is vital in scenarios like this.
My view, the ballot will return a close 'yes' verdict. BASSA will be forced into commencing IA within 4 weeks, possibly 8 if the company agree! BA will ignore the IA and the airline will instigate contingency measures to keep the majority of flights on track.
BASSA will, once again, lose (you know that word which means you didn't win or gain the injunction you applied for) the court case over injunction and BA will be awarded damages including those incurred during ill advised IA running into, possibly, hundreds of millions of pounds especially if forward bookings damages are applied.
Unite have their hands full trying to fight GM at Luton at the moment along with a vast collection of minor disputes within minor industries where people are potentially losing their jobs through compulsory redundancy or employer insolvency. How much time will Unite have for a sub branch who are hell bent on keeping their cushy little number from the 1980's by taking on a company who have tried everything to get a negotiated settlement?
Is Lizanne Maloney the female version of Bob Crow?
Today sees the implementation of the new crewing routines on SH and I will be interested to see how they fair. Especially as many of the SH flight crew have operated parts of the Airbus fleet out of LGW and have first hand experience of operating with the reduced crew.
I feel that having at least a 'source' of independent information where people can exchange views and ideas is vital in scenarios like this.
My view, the ballot will return a close 'yes' verdict. BASSA will be forced into commencing IA within 4 weeks, possibly 8 if the company agree! BA will ignore the IA and the airline will instigate contingency measures to keep the majority of flights on track.
BASSA will, once again, lose (you know that word which means you didn't win or gain the injunction you applied for) the court case over injunction and BA will be awarded damages including those incurred during ill advised IA running into, possibly, hundreds of millions of pounds especially if forward bookings damages are applied.
Unite have their hands full trying to fight GM at Luton at the moment along with a vast collection of minor disputes within minor industries where people are potentially losing their jobs through compulsory redundancy or employer insolvency. How much time will Unite have for a sub branch who are hell bent on keeping their cushy little number from the 1980's by taking on a company who have tried everything to get a negotiated settlement?
Is Lizanne Maloney the female version of Bob Crow?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Creep
Dear Juan Tugoh
We base our speed on a Cost Index. This is a mix of fuel burn, engineering cost and schedule/lateness cost etc. An Airbus is normally CI 20 but if early we can and do slow down to save fuel using CI 0. So if the crew are struggling do let us know and given enough notice we can help.
Apologises for the thread creep.
We base our speed on a Cost Index. This is a mix of fuel burn, engineering cost and schedule/lateness cost etc. An Airbus is normally CI 20 but if early we can and do slow down to save fuel using CI 0. So if the crew are struggling do let us know and given enough notice we can help.
Apologises for the thread creep.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]In these difficult economic times suggesting that you stay airborne longer than necessary just to allow cabin service to be completed is staggering. You save a lot more fuel by being on the ground with the engines off than by being airborne flying slowly. Please think more carefully before suggesting things like this./QUOTE]
Juan Tugoh...that is not actually correct (sorry for the thread creep). Most aircraft are flown at a speed which is most economical but can have that economy 'adjusted'. Generally the faster you fly the more fuel you burn, sometimes by slowing down and flying at a more economical speed despite being in the air longer we actually burn much less fuel over the entire journey length (on long haul often by many tons).
The decision as to which speed we fly is generally specified by the company on the flight plan with the proviso that arriving too early is not always the fastest way of getting the pax into the terminal or best for the overall operation!
Also keep in mind 'most economical' is not always JUST about fuel burn but may include other costs...for example being close to the cusp of crew box payments may see your flight planned at much higher speed and fuel burn but overall the costs to the airline are lower.
It's their trainset, unless safety is compromised they decide the rules...
Hope that help clear it up and again sorry for the creep...
Jazzy
Juan Tugoh...that is not actually correct (sorry for the thread creep). Most aircraft are flown at a speed which is most economical but can have that economy 'adjusted'. Generally the faster you fly the more fuel you burn, sometimes by slowing down and flying at a more economical speed despite being in the air longer we actually burn much less fuel over the entire journey length (on long haul often by many tons).
The decision as to which speed we fly is generally specified by the company on the flight plan with the proviso that arriving too early is not always the fastest way of getting the pax into the terminal or best for the overall operation!
Also keep in mind 'most economical' is not always JUST about fuel burn but may include other costs...for example being close to the cusp of crew box payments may see your flight planned at much higher speed and fuel burn but overall the costs to the airline are lower.
It's their trainset, unless safety is compromised they decide the rules...
Hope that help clear it up and again sorry for the creep...
Jazzy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that 'rushing' to land can also involve stand delays on the ground as the stand allocation is generally +/- 15mins of scheduled arrival time.
So, as JazzyKex has alluded to, rushing to wait can burn excessive fuel in the air leading to airborne holding followed by ground holding.
As our erstwhile colleagues in the back are well aware the passengers can get very grumpy sitting on the ground for 15 minutes waiting for a stand to become free even if the aircraft is 30 minutes early.
So, all told, quite a carefully though out plan and one that is constantly reviewed throughout the flight.
So, as JazzyKex has alluded to, rushing to wait can burn excessive fuel in the air leading to airborne holding followed by ground holding.
As our erstwhile colleagues in the back are well aware the passengers can get very grumpy sitting on the ground for 15 minutes waiting for a stand to become free even if the aircraft is 30 minutes early.
So, all told, quite a carefully though out plan and one that is constantly reviewed throughout the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest 6 months trading figures have just arrived in my in tray & don't make happy reading.
To summarise:
Operating loss £111 million ( 2008 profit of £240 million )
Loss before tax £292 million
Revenue down 13.7%
Not happy reading!
Question: How will IA help to improve these appalling figures?
To summarise:
Operating loss £111 million ( 2008 profit of £240 million )
Loss before tax £292 million
Revenue down 13.7%
Not happy reading!
Question: How will IA help to improve these appalling figures?
Last edited by fincastle84; 1st Dec 2009 at 10:13. Reason: sp.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More thread creep
The suggestion was slowing down to allow the service to be completed - on SH staying airborne for another 10 mins is often an increase of 1/6th of the total flight time. I do not believe that any reduction in cost index (by the way a concept that any modern operator is aware of not just BA) will mean that staying airborne equals a lower fuel burn. Ground idle fuel flow on the engines means even if the engines are running for the same amount of time you are always better off on the ground - that's without shutting one down. On LH it will only become obvious that a slow down to facilitate poor planning by the CSD meaning they need more time to complete the cabin service will come at such a late point in the flight - probably at the 40 minute to run point that the same argument applies. We are not talking about running at a reduced cost index for many hours where a significant difference in fuel burn can be achieved.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CFC
Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?
I have said many times that I no longer belong to a union.
So, the answer to your question is no.
I understand it was the first joint meeting Amicus and Bassa have held.
Is that right?
Why are you asking me this question?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan, if you re read my post I was saying that these days we often arrive excessively early due lack of holding and ground congestion.
T5 always has a shortage of stands and we should aim to arrive no more than shed arr time (STA) -15 mins.
Arriving 20/30 minutes early due to no holding often results in waiting on the ground for a stand or having a stand change which is then a logistical nightmare for the ground crews.
I'm afraid you are incorrect, cost index 0 will burn less fuel than cost index 20 even though the flight time is longer, (drag vs airspeed squared and all that). As long as we don't go over the planned block time and keep to schedule the crew costs etc stay the same.
I was not saying delay the flight, we can fly at the most economical speed to arrive when we should arrive as opposed to horrendously early.
I find it a little hypocrital when every day crew want to board early so that we can depart early to then land early and go home early, yet some claim we won't be able to do a service properly.
If the service can't be done in the proper time then it should and hopefully will be reviewed.
Sorry mods, hopefully misunderstanding cleared up.
T5 always has a shortage of stands and we should aim to arrive no more than shed arr time (STA) -15 mins.
Arriving 20/30 minutes early due to no holding often results in waiting on the ground for a stand or having a stand change which is then a logistical nightmare for the ground crews.
I'm afraid you are incorrect, cost index 0 will burn less fuel than cost index 20 even though the flight time is longer, (drag vs airspeed squared and all that). As long as we don't go over the planned block time and keep to schedule the crew costs etc stay the same.
I was not saying delay the flight, we can fly at the most economical speed to arrive when we should arrive as opposed to horrendously early.
I find it a little hypocrital when every day crew want to board early so that we can depart early to then land early and go home early, yet some claim we won't be able to do a service properly.
If the service can't be done in the proper time then it should and hopefully will be reviewed.
Sorry mods, hopefully misunderstanding cleared up.
Last edited by plodding along; 1st Dec 2009 at 11:21.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East sussex
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps40 - Mod wrote:
Well thats how YOU read it - why am I not surprised.
Post #3842 is indeed strongly worded, but does not attack any of the thread participants personally.
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.
Nor does it break any other PPRuNe rules as far as I can see.
It is staying.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suggestion was slowing down to allow the service to be completed - on SH staying airborne for another 10 mins is often an increase of 1/6th of the total flight time. I do not believe that any reduction in cost index (by the way a concept that any modern operator is aware of not just BA) will mean that staying airborne equals a lower fuel burn. Ground idle fuel flow on the engines means even if the engines are running for the same amount of time you are always better off on the ground - that's without shutting one down.
On a typical shorthaul sector (90 to 120 minutes), I can reduce the CI and arrive perhaps five minutes or so later having burned the same amount of fuel as flying at a higher cost index and arriving earlier. If we still have to wait for the same stand, this means that the amount of time spent waiting on the ground with the engines running is five minutes less. Ergo, we use less fuel overall.
Slowing down is not a big issue in terms of cost and in some cases is a benefit. In extremis on a longhaul sector, you could slow down enough to arrive an hour late whilst reducing your fuel burn by 10%. So why don't we fly slower all the time? In the long run, you complete fewer sectors for a given aeroplane, which reduces the overall revenue.
However, if we're significantly early on a particular sector, slowing down to allow the service to be completed whilst still allowing us to make the schedule, has a lot of benefits. The main one for you being that BA won't b*ll*ck the SCCM for not completing the service. If in doubt, ask.