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
Originally Posted by flapsforty
... we provide about the most impartial moderating you will find on any of the sites currently hosting this debate.
Last edited by Human Factor; 1st Dec 2009 at 17:49.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most recent posts on this thread illustrate the problems that have led to this impasse. On one side you have well reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful discourse on how the company can progress into the future and on the other side childlike rants that contain no fact, no answers and no intelligent questions. The problem the company faces is that the CC union is led in majority by those of the second ilk, who are unable to see past their god given right for loads of loot and to control what goes on in one of the largest UK companies.
It smacks of historically poor management by BA to allow these people to have so much sway over the company and how it is run and the company finally seems to be getting to grips with it. BA is no longer government owned and has to make a profit. A point lost on one side of this argument.
I have nothing against CC, and most seem quite sensible. However a vocal group seem to think that they should run the company, deciding on policy, product and other aspects of the operation. In my experience none seem to have the faintest idea of the length of training, qualifications and experience of those in the company who do make those decisions.
In other airlines CC turn up, do their jobs and go home. Why is BA any different?
CFC, as the most vocal of those on this forum expounding your side of the argument, how about answering a few of the questions posed to you?
I suspect the previous posters £20 is safe.
LD
It smacks of historically poor management by BA to allow these people to have so much sway over the company and how it is run and the company finally seems to be getting to grips with it. BA is no longer government owned and has to make a profit. A point lost on one side of this argument.
I have nothing against CC, and most seem quite sensible. However a vocal group seem to think that they should run the company, deciding on policy, product and other aspects of the operation. In my experience none seem to have the faintest idea of the length of training, qualifications and experience of those in the company who do make those decisions.
In other airlines CC turn up, do their jobs and go home. Why is BA any different?
CFC, as the most vocal of those on this forum expounding your side of the argument, how about answering a few of the questions posed to you?
I suspect the previous posters £20 is safe.
LD
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFC,
I think you'll find the vast majority of posters on here do work for BA, hence the interest and the passion for explaining the facts to your colleagues in Bassa who might come on here looking for answers and guidance on how to vote.
Many of us have given our view of events, and have asked Bassa supporters to explain many of the apparent flaws in Bassa's argument, but you can only state that we 'concoct' and 'spout' facts that you find funny.
Instead of providing no answers to your fellow ballotters about the Bassa position, and attempting to divert them away from here, please point out facts that support your argument.
Perhaps you could start by explaining what your goal in all this is, and specifically what happens when you get a Yes vote. Or is that the victory in itself?
I think you'll find the vast majority of posters on here do work for BA, hence the interest and the passion for explaining the facts to your colleagues in Bassa who might come on here looking for answers and guidance on how to vote.
Many of us have given our view of events, and have asked Bassa supporters to explain many of the apparent flaws in Bassa's argument, but you can only state that we 'concoct' and 'spout' facts that you find funny.
Instead of providing no answers to your fellow ballotters about the Bassa position, and attempting to divert them away from here, please point out facts that support your argument.
Perhaps you could start by explaining what your goal in all this is, and specifically what happens when you get a Yes vote. Or is that the victory in itself?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or is that the victory in itself?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CFC
High Flier...Tiramisu...Clarified
Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?
High Flier...Tiramisu...Clarified
Did any of you make it to the Sandown Park meeting?
I was flying and unfortunately could not attend the meeting.
However, my previous experience of pre-strike meetings in 1984 and 1997 have not been pleasant. I remember speaking out then and being completely ostracised by the BASSA die hards. Tyres let down, anonymous phone calls and cheap and malicious taunts that you would not expect from colleagues for having an alternative view or difference of opinion.
Sadly, not much has changed and most of our senior colleagues know that I am a-non striker and still give me the cold shoulder. But hey ho, I'm big and ugly enough to take it.
Would I have gone to the meeting if I could, probably not to be honest. I don't like the chanting, and thuggish attitudes and behaviours of many who attend.
I simply do not believe that striking does anyone any favours and this is what the meeting was about.
Sensible, intelligent and adult negotiation is the only way forward in my view and that has not happened.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by plodding along
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.
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.
FWIW, I agree with you that crew can't have it both ways. I'd be very surprised if crew fail to complete the service, the new matrix is adjusted to the reduced service. At the end of the day you make a rod for your own back and it's unnecessary. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the changes are minimal on Eurofleet, and in my view it's much ado about nothing.
But then I don't mind working a little harder as I'd rather be in a job with BA then anywhere else.
Vote NO To Strike Action
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew Lobbenberg's note
Firstly, thanks to Da Dog for posting the above. It is an interesting summary of the Union position.
What makes it most interesting is that the clear message from it is that the dispute is really about control, and nothing to do with the actual changes. AL makes the point that many of the (middle) managers with whom Union reps have previously agreed such matters have already left BA. BA is now tackling the other side of the issue.
That raises the question: how does the Union maximise its influence in future? There is simply no chance of the staus quo remaining if BA want to change it. IA appears an irrelevance, and AL's meeting summary confirmed my own view that the ballot and IA are pointless. The real deal here is the Court case. However, even if Unite wins it, they will still lose, and lose very badly in my view. Incidentally, I do not share the view they "lost" at the interim injunction hearing. They simply did not take the risk that, had they taken an interim injunction and then lost, they would have been bankrupt. It was a sensible tactical retreat: lose the battle, win the war.
What is the Union really looking to defend? AL's note suggests it is nothing less than maintaining a veto on operational matters affecting the routine running of BA. Unfortunately, successful companies are not run in this producer-centric manner. They are run in a customer-centric manner which, ultimately, results in profits. The Union ought to be working with BA to maximise profits and then seek a decent "cut" of the profit for its members. I will give you a simple example. From what I have read on here, when BA was disrupted by weather in early-2009, it appears CC insisted on staying two nights away from base under the terms of the disruption agreement. Presumably they get some sort of "hardship" payment for this, which they would not get if they got the planes back to base quicker. A more sensible, customer-centric, agreement would have as its objective getting passengers back to their destination, and planes to where they ought to be for future operations, as quickly as possible. The Union demand ought to be for some kind of bonus payment if achieving these objectives are achieved in a given timeframe. The staff cost to BA may well end up being the same (they save peripherals such as hotel costs), but there is a clear marketing benefit in minimising customer disruption and the goodwill that engenders. That should be the way remuneration is negotiated generally: work out how to meet/beat customer expectation, then reward people who meet/beat it. Embed those rewards in employee contracts. As the service/product evolve, revisit the rewards.
What Unite appears to be fighting for, however, is to maintain a veto on the service/product BA provides, effectively freezing in time the requirements in terms of staffing and payments for non-compliance with such product/service agreements. They simply cannot win this fight. Even if they win in Court, they will lose. Ultimately, companies can change whatever they want in staff contracts. A win in Court for the Union simply makes this a longer and (short-term) costlier exercise. Utlimately, however, BA could just lay off all 14,000 CC on compulsory redundancy having gone through due process and consultation, and then offer as many staff as they want new contracts on the terms they want. It is a futile battle. Sure, the Union will have "won the argument", but that pays no bills.
Not only is it futile, but it is very high risk for the Union (as opposed to its individual members). It seems to me that if the Union took the pragmatic, customer-centric approach I describe, then it remains a relevant and useful party in BA's human resource management. However, if it remains of the view that it ought to be able to veto reasonable management decisions, then its relevance declines. In that case, BA ought to (and probably will) seek alternative means of communicating and consulting with staff. It will seek to bypass the Union. As Union influence declines, members question its relevance and leave, resulting in lower memberhip stats and revenue.
If the Union loses the Court case, and still sticks to its attitude of having veto rights over decisons BA considers rightfully its alone, then the Union will lose all influence. If the Union loses in Court, it will suffer very high costs, ie will not be in a position to defend further legal claims against BA. In which case, I see little to stop BA writing to the Union and stating it no longer recognises it for collective bargaining purposes. The Union may still meet the requirements for recognition, but in the event of a Court loss, it may not have the financial means to prove that point and force BA to comply. Even if it could, it would incur further heavy costs, and certainly then be in no position to fight further changes to its status that BA wishes to make.
So, it seems to me, the Union has chosen the wrong fight. It would be better off in the long term accepting that its influence over day-to-day operations will diminish, but seeking imaginative ways to ensure its members share in any rewards generated by the changes BA insists are necessary and will return it to attractive levels of profit. That seems to be the approach, certainly on this forum, that many Union members want the Union to pursue.
Will the Union's failure to do this impact their members negatively? I do not think it will. BA is engaged in exactly the same battle as the Union but from the opposite side: namely to regain control over its operations. It is not battling its staff per se. If BA can ascertain from staff what they really do and do not like, it will adjust product and working conditions accordingly. I would suggest this dispute should be seen as being as much about BA being able to get closer to the bulk of its CC staff as about diminishing Union power. These are two sides of the same coin.
We are already seeing this happening. There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so. Conversely, by being seen to respond to staff feedback, there is a positive feedback loop that management does listen. It encourages further (even unsolicited) suggestions for change and questioning the status quo. Coming from staff with the greatest interface with paying customers, it is the most valuable source of information. It is actually quite ironic that CC appear to be the staff with the least direct input to product management and development right now, yet they have the most customer interraction.
Sorry for a long post from a total outsider. However, I always feel a disinterested observer can offer useful opinions as a catalyst to better debate internally.
What makes it most interesting is that the clear message from it is that the dispute is really about control, and nothing to do with the actual changes. AL makes the point that many of the (middle) managers with whom Union reps have previously agreed such matters have already left BA. BA is now tackling the other side of the issue.
That raises the question: how does the Union maximise its influence in future? There is simply no chance of the staus quo remaining if BA want to change it. IA appears an irrelevance, and AL's meeting summary confirmed my own view that the ballot and IA are pointless. The real deal here is the Court case. However, even if Unite wins it, they will still lose, and lose very badly in my view. Incidentally, I do not share the view they "lost" at the interim injunction hearing. They simply did not take the risk that, had they taken an interim injunction and then lost, they would have been bankrupt. It was a sensible tactical retreat: lose the battle, win the war.
What is the Union really looking to defend? AL's note suggests it is nothing less than maintaining a veto on operational matters affecting the routine running of BA. Unfortunately, successful companies are not run in this producer-centric manner. They are run in a customer-centric manner which, ultimately, results in profits. The Union ought to be working with BA to maximise profits and then seek a decent "cut" of the profit for its members. I will give you a simple example. From what I have read on here, when BA was disrupted by weather in early-2009, it appears CC insisted on staying two nights away from base under the terms of the disruption agreement. Presumably they get some sort of "hardship" payment for this, which they would not get if they got the planes back to base quicker. A more sensible, customer-centric, agreement would have as its objective getting passengers back to their destination, and planes to where they ought to be for future operations, as quickly as possible. The Union demand ought to be for some kind of bonus payment if achieving these objectives are achieved in a given timeframe. The staff cost to BA may well end up being the same (they save peripherals such as hotel costs), but there is a clear marketing benefit in minimising customer disruption and the goodwill that engenders. That should be the way remuneration is negotiated generally: work out how to meet/beat customer expectation, then reward people who meet/beat it. Embed those rewards in employee contracts. As the service/product evolve, revisit the rewards.
What Unite appears to be fighting for, however, is to maintain a veto on the service/product BA provides, effectively freezing in time the requirements in terms of staffing and payments for non-compliance with such product/service agreements. They simply cannot win this fight. Even if they win in Court, they will lose. Ultimately, companies can change whatever they want in staff contracts. A win in Court for the Union simply makes this a longer and (short-term) costlier exercise. Utlimately, however, BA could just lay off all 14,000 CC on compulsory redundancy having gone through due process and consultation, and then offer as many staff as they want new contracts on the terms they want. It is a futile battle. Sure, the Union will have "won the argument", but that pays no bills.
Not only is it futile, but it is very high risk for the Union (as opposed to its individual members). It seems to me that if the Union took the pragmatic, customer-centric approach I describe, then it remains a relevant and useful party in BA's human resource management. However, if it remains of the view that it ought to be able to veto reasonable management decisions, then its relevance declines. In that case, BA ought to (and probably will) seek alternative means of communicating and consulting with staff. It will seek to bypass the Union. As Union influence declines, members question its relevance and leave, resulting in lower memberhip stats and revenue.
If the Union loses the Court case, and still sticks to its attitude of having veto rights over decisons BA considers rightfully its alone, then the Union will lose all influence. If the Union loses in Court, it will suffer very high costs, ie will not be in a position to defend further legal claims against BA. In which case, I see little to stop BA writing to the Union and stating it no longer recognises it for collective bargaining purposes. The Union may still meet the requirements for recognition, but in the event of a Court loss, it may not have the financial means to prove that point and force BA to comply. Even if it could, it would incur further heavy costs, and certainly then be in no position to fight further changes to its status that BA wishes to make.
So, it seems to me, the Union has chosen the wrong fight. It would be better off in the long term accepting that its influence over day-to-day operations will diminish, but seeking imaginative ways to ensure its members share in any rewards generated by the changes BA insists are necessary and will return it to attractive levels of profit. That seems to be the approach, certainly on this forum, that many Union members want the Union to pursue.
Will the Union's failure to do this impact their members negatively? I do not think it will. BA is engaged in exactly the same battle as the Union but from the opposite side: namely to regain control over its operations. It is not battling its staff per se. If BA can ascertain from staff what they really do and do not like, it will adjust product and working conditions accordingly. I would suggest this dispute should be seen as being as much about BA being able to get closer to the bulk of its CC staff as about diminishing Union power. These are two sides of the same coin.
We are already seeing this happening. There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so. Conversely, by being seen to respond to staff feedback, there is a positive feedback loop that management does listen. It encourages further (even unsolicited) suggestions for change and questioning the status quo. Coming from staff with the greatest interface with paying customers, it is the most valuable source of information. It is actually quite ironic that CC appear to be the staff with the least direct input to product management and development right now, yet they have the most customer interraction.
Sorry for a long post from a total outsider. However, I always feel a disinterested observer can offer useful opinions as a catalyst to better debate internally.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: brighton
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quoting jaypee above
There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so.
well, we know it works, as do ba, because lgw have proved it for the last three years. in light of which, there is no way any judge in february is going to uphold bassa's stance re safety/security etc. i still feel there'll be a yes vote re strike, but as a protest about the way in which things have happened, and coloured by bassa rhetoric. but if/when push comes to shove, be under no illusion, a tactical sh cancellation will see lgw crews working out of lhr on 777 prestige routes. and there's no one to blame but the union for that. that's just the way the ball bounces!
There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so.
well, we know it works, as do ba, because lgw have proved it for the last three years. in light of which, there is no way any judge in february is going to uphold bassa's stance re safety/security etc. i still feel there'll be a yes vote re strike, but as a protest about the way in which things have happened, and coloured by bassa rhetoric. but if/when push comes to shove, be under no illusion, a tactical sh cancellation will see lgw crews working out of lhr on 777 prestige routes. and there's no one to blame but the union for that. that's just the way the ball bounces!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people are so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable!! LOL. I have spoken to people who say ''the situation is not that bad'' ''BA are not doing that bad it's all spin'' etc etc... they are the ones who say wake up and smell the coffee - ironic really!?!?
I would be lying if I said that I didn't have worries about the proposals. Main things for me I care about most are no CR, no pay cuts, promotion prospects still being there as I have started on my career like many crew, and still having agreements where you can enjoy the job. Most crew have the same concerns. With BAs proposals if negotiated properly, I can see promotions, current crew pay etc protected and just have us working REASONABLY harder, with new crew on new t&cs. Is that really too much to ask?? Just read Bill's webchat, he has said the above should be protected.
Oh well... will both parties get back to the table - it seems one side is open to and has actually been reasonable and fair through all of this no pay cut, just work abit harder etc. Afterall BA have been quite fair - the deadline for agreement was June 30th!! And they changed their proposals a couple of times since!! New fleet, no new fleet etc... BASSA didn't want ANY of it!! Not even a compromise!! They just want a strike! (Well they did from the start!)
Oh and who else is fed up of people who say ''I would rather break the company 'till it goes bust than change our T&Cs???''
I would be lying if I said that I didn't have worries about the proposals. Main things for me I care about most are no CR, no pay cuts, promotion prospects still being there as I have started on my career like many crew, and still having agreements where you can enjoy the job. Most crew have the same concerns. With BAs proposals if negotiated properly, I can see promotions, current crew pay etc protected and just have us working REASONABLY harder, with new crew on new t&cs. Is that really too much to ask?? Just read Bill's webchat, he has said the above should be protected.
Oh well... will both parties get back to the table - it seems one side is open to and has actually been reasonable and fair through all of this no pay cut, just work abit harder etc. Afterall BA have been quite fair - the deadline for agreement was June 30th!! And they changed their proposals a couple of times since!! New fleet, no new fleet etc... BASSA didn't want ANY of it!! Not even a compromise!! They just want a strike! (Well they did from the start!)
Oh and who else is fed up of people who say ''I would rather break the company 'till it goes bust than change our T&Cs???''
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JayPee28bpr,
What a brilliant post!
Fo a disinterested observer, you make some very interesting and accurate observations!
I wish we could elect some new representatives of the people, by the people, for the people! It's time to get rid of the dead wood and have a fresh start, we deserve it. There are a few colleagues both Flight and Cabin Crew here on this forum that I would vote for.
Thanks to PPrune and all the Mods for allowing us to have a voice here without fear of backlash.
What a brilliant post!
Fo a disinterested observer, you make some very interesting and accurate observations!
I wish we could elect some new representatives of the people, by the people, for the people! It's time to get rid of the dead wood and have a fresh start, we deserve it. There are a few colleagues both Flight and Cabin Crew here on this forum that I would vote for.
Thanks to PPrune and all the Mods for allowing us to have a voice here without fear of backlash.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiramisu, it is such a shame though that we have to come to this forum to be able to see both sides and actually have a different opinion and express it without being shot down. I doubt anyone on the BASSA forum has ADMITED to voting No!! Can you imagine???
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it just, SlideBustle?
I have to add that occasionally when you fly with some of the crew and explain things the way you, Alexandraa, Midman, Clarified, GlamGirl, HighFlyer and myself see it, they tend to come round our way of thinking. I'm not trying to persuade anyone but just explaining it with a little logic.
I did like the BA ESS Forum, there were some healthy debates on there too until it was disbanded.
I have to add that occasionally when you fly with some of the crew and explain things the way you, Alexandraa, Midman, Clarified, GlamGirl, HighFlyer and myself see it, they tend to come round our way of thinking. I'm not trying to persuade anyone but just explaining it with a little logic.
I did like the BA ESS Forum, there were some healthy debates on there too until it was disbanded.
Last edited by Tiramisu; 2nd Dec 2009 at 01:13.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Lingus
For anyone wondering either where BA may end up eventually, or what is likely to happen if BA is held not to be able to make changes without Union agreement, may I direct you to the Flight Deck/Rumours & News thread entitled "Aer Lingus to leave Dublin forever"? Specifically posts #109 and 110. These detail results of an Aer Lingus Board meeting this evening resulting from failure to agree a €100 million cost cut plan with Unions.
For those of you who do not like pilots, you will be pleased to hear that it is IALPA who are the bad guys over here. They were the most intransigent work group. However, everything else occuring at Aer Lingus ought to focus minds at BA very clearly. As a reult of IALPA being nowhere near reaching agreement, even though 3 other Unions did reach agreement and cabin crew were very close, this evening Aer Lingus has announced an imposition package across the airline. This will result in compulsory redundancies immediately (per the Board announcement, not simply my opinion). This is on top of previous cuts announced just a few months ago.
One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.
Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.
For those of you who do not like pilots, you will be pleased to hear that it is IALPA who are the bad guys over here. They were the most intransigent work group. However, everything else occuring at Aer Lingus ought to focus minds at BA very clearly. As a reult of IALPA being nowhere near reaching agreement, even though 3 other Unions did reach agreement and cabin crew were very close, this evening Aer Lingus has announced an imposition package across the airline. This will result in compulsory redundancies immediately (per the Board announcement, not simply my opinion). This is on top of previous cuts announced just a few months ago.
One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.
Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, a warm welcome to Alexandraa and Slidebustle.
Secondly, a big thank you to the people who talk sense. I won't name anyone in particular, but the information is much appreciated.
In regards to the imposition:
I'm amazed at the short-sightedness of some people. The ones who think it's a good thing to have go-arounds/not finish the service/only doing the bare minimum etc, have no idea how unprofessional they will look. They'll also look incompetent and incapable (esp CSDs) when others can manage perfectly well. How will it reflect on them when, after a few months, they get called in for a "chat" with their manager? One doesn't need a lot of pax complaints per crew member before managers start calling. I'm sure the union will claim that managers are bullies, as that's the standard when anyone gets a call from the office.
Refusing to reset AVOD/screens because the CSD is on a trolley is ridiculous. At LGW we just call the front (777) and whoever is the closest resets the screen. Simple. None of us had any training on it, just a printed user guide and a mock-up in crc. It's not exactly rocket science...
In regards to recent publications and comments, it seems to me that the unions are coming close to be found out about their lies and mis-information. I'm sure they're working non-stop to come up with more excuses and lies to cover it all up, but we'll have to wait another 12 or so days for that.
I do appreciate this forum and the ability it gives us to express our opinions, concerns and facts without repercussions (unless you're me, of course - but they haven't found me yet...). I think the more people on CF talk badly about this forum, the more people will come over to look, and will hopefully realise that it's ok to not follow the die-hard militants. As and when I meet NO voters (basically every day I go to work), I encourage them to find information and facts in various places. I also encourage them to pop on here if they have questions at any point.
To some posters, who keep with the rhetoric and keep putting people's posts down (I'm trying very hard here to be pc about it and not mention names), you must soon start to realise that if you answer the many questions that have been put to you on this thread, you might actually persuade people that you have arguments and points of view other than name-calling and accusations.
Gg
Secondly, a big thank you to the people who talk sense. I won't name anyone in particular, but the information is much appreciated.
In regards to the imposition:
I'm amazed at the short-sightedness of some people. The ones who think it's a good thing to have go-arounds/not finish the service/only doing the bare minimum etc, have no idea how unprofessional they will look. They'll also look incompetent and incapable (esp CSDs) when others can manage perfectly well. How will it reflect on them when, after a few months, they get called in for a "chat" with their manager? One doesn't need a lot of pax complaints per crew member before managers start calling. I'm sure the union will claim that managers are bullies, as that's the standard when anyone gets a call from the office.
Refusing to reset AVOD/screens because the CSD is on a trolley is ridiculous. At LGW we just call the front (777) and whoever is the closest resets the screen. Simple. None of us had any training on it, just a printed user guide and a mock-up in crc. It's not exactly rocket science...
In regards to recent publications and comments, it seems to me that the unions are coming close to be found out about their lies and mis-information. I'm sure they're working non-stop to come up with more excuses and lies to cover it all up, but we'll have to wait another 12 or so days for that.
I do appreciate this forum and the ability it gives us to express our opinions, concerns and facts without repercussions (unless you're me, of course - but they haven't found me yet...). I think the more people on CF talk badly about this forum, the more people will come over to look, and will hopefully realise that it's ok to not follow the die-hard militants. As and when I meet NO voters (basically every day I go to work), I encourage them to find information and facts in various places. I also encourage them to pop on here if they have questions at any point.
To some posters, who keep with the rhetoric and keep putting people's posts down (I'm trying very hard here to be pc about it and not mention names), you must soon start to realise that if you answer the many questions that have been put to you on this thread, you might actually persuade people that you have arguments and points of view other than name-calling and accusations.
Gg
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JayPee28pr
One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.
Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.
One of the strangests aspects of the BA CC dispute to me is the failure to compare what BA is doing with what is happening elsewhere in the aviation industry. BA has put forward some of the least painful suggestions for change, eg so far no compulsory redundancies. I find the "Willie Must Go" argument that seems to underpin the dispute very hard to understand. Who would you like to see replace him? Keep in mind, whoever does so has to have shareholder support, and the shareholders definitely do not support the Union vision of no change. If Walsh does go, it will be because he fails to deliver structural change. Any replacement will push harder for change, and when change comes it will be deeper. Just like Mueller has done in his second (third?) week as CEO of Aer Lingus.
Painful though it may be for some at BA, Walsh looks to be your least bad option to me. Do read the Aer Lingus Board Press Release, though. It will make you think.
I agree that the package put together by our Head of IFCE Bill Francis and Willie Walsh is more than reasonable. Hence my acceptance of the changes that have been implemented. As a CSD I have more to loose if New Fleet starts next year and I'm forced to move eventually.
You'll be pleased to know that some of us have our eyes wide open.
The way I see it having been with BA since 1984 and a CSD for almost 12 years, I have little or no option. Rather than work for another airline I would move to New Fleet in the hope of a Supervisory role and continue to do a job that I absolutely love. I don't think people realise just how fortunate we are in BA.
As far as our CEO Willie Walsh goes, I don't have a problem with him having met him at our Crew Report Centre twice.
Thanks to him, we are still Standing!
PS. Thanks for drawing our attention to the Aer Lingus posts
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JayPee,
That was an interesting read. As I've previously mentioned, I just wish that the crew who are willing to go on strike would realise that none of us are indispensable. There are crews from airlines like Aer Lingus, BMI and not to mention the many graduates without work just waiting to jump into our shoes on new terms and conditions on a lot less than we are earning currently.
None of us are safe during this financial Tsunami.
That was an interesting read. As I've previously mentioned, I just wish that the crew who are willing to go on strike would realise that none of us are indispensable. There are crews from airlines like Aer Lingus, BMI and not to mention the many graduates without work just waiting to jump into our shoes on new terms and conditions on a lot less than we are earning currently.
None of us are safe during this financial Tsunami.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl, your last paragraph is very true, the more militant brigade need to answer the various questions... then the rhetoric might actually be plausable! Must admit, as I haven't been around for that long like others, I initially blindly followed the rhetoric, and was probably brainwashed by the various flyers/newsletters. It was probably when the deadline was not met this summer June 30th I started having my doubts about the whole rhetoric, and have started seeing the light. Don't get me wrong, I feel the union is important and does alot of good for us, but this probably isn't one of the examples. I remember looking at the proposals in July from BA thinking we could accept that and that and that - ok not accept that, but negotiate something else, accept that, negotiate that. Instead 2000 or so BASSA members decided against the whole thing, rather than working with it as a start.... unfortunately...
Why the can't consider certain parts and play/tweak others to reach a mutual agreement I don't know.... some say ''we are flexible'' etc but NEVER give suggestions as what they could actually change/compromise on! They reject absolutely EVERYTHING. Oh, except the middle east back to backs and the WW 767 coming to shorthaul which was proaposed by the union as it saves £172m
Interestingly, it was a union proposal (not BA) to get rid of the 2nd SCCM on shorthaul 767s, when people questioned this everyone was like ''don't critisise the union'' but as soon as BA implement it it's immediately ''this is unworkable and unthinkable'' - I think it's one of the worse things brought in personally but.... it's hypocritcial that they didn't mind when Unite proposed it lol
Why the can't consider certain parts and play/tweak others to reach a mutual agreement I don't know.... some say ''we are flexible'' etc but NEVER give suggestions as what they could actually change/compromise on! They reject absolutely EVERYTHING. Oh, except the middle east back to backs and the WW 767 coming to shorthaul which was proaposed by the union as it saves £172m
Interestingly, it was a union proposal (not BA) to get rid of the 2nd SCCM on shorthaul 767s, when people questioned this everyone was like ''don't critisise the union'' but as soon as BA implement it it's immediately ''this is unworkable and unthinkable'' - I think it's one of the worse things brought in personally but.... it's hypocritcial that they didn't mind when Unite proposed it lol
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle, I agree with what you wrote:
I'm amazed that none of the die-hard union supporters have questioned that or the other items offered to BA by the unions: Pay cut, pay freeze, etc etc. I certainly can't afford a pay cut, considering a Purser has been taken off the 777, and therefore my potential income has dramatically reduced. We've only got 6 European/domestic night stops and 2 split duty destinations, so we're dependant on long haul to make the money.
Incidentally, doing a Middle East B2B would actually cost more money than what it is at the moment. No wonder the union suggested that one.
It seems really bizarre to me that some people won't read info from various sources, but only rely on one. Nobody can get a balanced view from only one opinion.
The only thing (unfortunately) I've found the union is good at, is getting people out of trouble, as in getting them off the "naughty step".
Gg
Ps. Tiramisu, I can't reply. Please check your settings
Interestingly, it was a union proposal (not BA) to get rid of the 2nd SCCM on shorthaul 767s, when people questioned this everyone was like ''don't critisise the union'' but as soon as BA implement it it's immediately ''this is unworkable and unthinkable'' - I think it's one of the worse things brought in personally but.... it's hypocritcial that they didn't mind when Unite proposed it
I'm amazed that none of the die-hard union supporters have questioned that or the other items offered to BA by the unions: Pay cut, pay freeze, etc etc. I certainly can't afford a pay cut, considering a Purser has been taken off the 777, and therefore my potential income has dramatically reduced. We've only got 6 European/domestic night stops and 2 split duty destinations, so we're dependant on long haul to make the money.
Incidentally, doing a Middle East B2B would actually cost more money than what it is at the moment. No wonder the union suggested that one.
It seems really bizarre to me that some people won't read info from various sources, but only rely on one. Nobody can get a balanced view from only one opinion.
The only thing (unfortunately) I've found the union is good at, is getting people out of trouble, as in getting them off the "naughty step".
Gg
Ps. Tiramisu, I can't reply. Please check your settings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi GlamGirl,
I agree with you re-union good at getting naughty crew out of trouble. Ironic isn't it that they are now about to get a lot of crew in trouble by asking them to vote for strike action!
Ps, Thanks GG, settings disabled!
I agree with you re-union good at getting naughty crew out of trouble. Ironic isn't it that they are now about to get a lot of crew in trouble by asking them to vote for strike action!
Ps, Thanks GG, settings disabled!