British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Fleet Industrial Agreements
With fewer such industrial agreements in place in New Fleet - Does that mean that New Fleet flights may be able to offer better services such as 'Eat when you want' in Club?
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
Vote No - and continue to put the passengers first
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
Vote No - and continue to put the passengers first
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that it is illuminating when you look and see what BA has included in the imposition and what it has left out.
Imposed: Crew complements and working routines
Excluded: Allowances, Reduced rest (with or without disruption), EF short turnarounds, etc.
To me it is clear that BA have scrutinised and taken legal advice on what they can impose and have done those parts while leaving the other 'contractural' items for follow-on actions in 2010, via negotiation/agreement or via introduction through New Fleet.
I'm sorry, but any which way you cut it, BA has dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' throughout the whole process, and BASSA having resolutely refused to attend and conduct any meaningful negotiations over 9+ months, have missed out on having any influence in the future direction of cabin crewing going forward in BA and have let down their colleagues very badly.
Shame on BASSA!
Imposed: Crew complements and working routines
Excluded: Allowances, Reduced rest (with or without disruption), EF short turnarounds, etc.
To me it is clear that BA have scrutinised and taken legal advice on what they can impose and have done those parts while leaving the other 'contractural' items for follow-on actions in 2010, via negotiation/agreement or via introduction through New Fleet.
I'm sorry, but any which way you cut it, BA has dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' throughout the whole process, and BASSA having resolutely refused to attend and conduct any meaningful negotiations over 9+ months, have missed out on having any influence in the future direction of cabin crewing going forward in BA and have let down their colleagues very badly.
Shame on BASSA!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Blue
Please see Post 3472 for the reasons we are balloting for Industrial Action - it is not just about one person off an aircraft - also on Long Haul out of Gatwick a lot of those routes are 'Leisure' routes on a two class aircraft - namely a 777
Out of Heathrow WW flies on three aircraft types and offer a 3 class service - the reduction in crew numbers is one part of the dispute
Out of Heathrow WW flies on three aircraft types and offer a 3 class service - the reduction in crew numbers is one part of the dispute
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Blue
Simple!
BASSA is doing everything they can to protect LHR. Look at previous bases: BHX, GLA and MAN. All of them closed for saving purposes and be rest assured that BASSA did not do very much to prevent it from happening.
BA wanted to save money. BASSA did everything they could to protect the land of milk and honey - namely LHR - which meant that they sacrified LGW by letting BA introduce Single Fleet without blinking.
No more bases to sacrify to protect LHR. Be rest assured BASSA will throw EF out the window to protect WW. What will happen after that?
A Lurker, as a pax that flies on a regular basis with BA, can you explain to me why these proposals are so bad for crew ex Lhr, but were/are perfectably acceptable to Bassa for crew ex Lgw? By the way, I have no link to ba or travel trade in any way.
BASSA is doing everything they can to protect LHR. Look at previous bases: BHX, GLA and MAN. All of them closed for saving purposes and be rest assured that BASSA did not do very much to prevent it from happening.
BA wanted to save money. BASSA did everything they could to protect the land of milk and honey - namely LHR - which meant that they sacrified LGW by letting BA introduce Single Fleet without blinking.
No more bases to sacrify to protect LHR. Be rest assured BASSA will throw EF out the window to protect WW. What will happen after that?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please see Post 3472 for the reasons we are balloting for Industrial Action - it is not just about one person off an aircraft - also on Long Haul out of Gatwick a lot of those routes are 'Leisure' routes on a two class aircraft - namely a 777
Out of Heathrow WW flies on three aircraft types and offer a 3 class service - the reduction in crew numbers is one part of the dispute
Out of Heathrow WW flies on three aircraft types and offer a 3 class service - the reduction in crew numbers is one part of the dispute
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APYu
PLease see post from the mods ref adding slogans to the bottom of your postings.
It would be a physical impossibility to have an 'Eat when you want' service on an aircraft with 70 Club Passengers - so the answer to your question is no
It would be a physical impossibility to have an 'Eat when you want' service on an aircraft with 70 Club Passengers - so the answer to your question is no
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Blue
I also forgot to say - BASSA is encouraging crew to make reports to OH Parsons for one reason - operating with less crew is dangerous and unhealthy.
Why did they not encourage crew at LGW to do this when they introduced new crewing levels? Because BASSA could not be bothered about a base which was not LHR.
Simple logics.
I also forgot to say - BASSA is encouraging crew to make reports to OH Parsons for one reason - operating with less crew is dangerous and unhealthy.
Why did they not encourage crew at LGW to do this when they introduced new crewing levels? Because BASSA could not be bothered about a base which was not LHR.
Simple logics.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With fewer such industrial agreements in place in New Fleet - Does that mean that New Fleet flights may be able to offer better services such as 'Eat when you want' in Club?
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD12986
I am not sure - all I know is when I flew out of LGW we did not have First on lots of our 777's eg Orlando, Jamaica, Tampa etc They where all configured just as Club and Traveller - stand corrected if that is no longer case
Right I'm off out - bye y'all
Right I'm off out - bye y'all
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And BA are not losing any customers over the current threatened Industrial Action - Willie Walsh on the 22nd of November stated the following:
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all. Booking profiles haven’t changed at all. Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
There you have it straight form the CEO's mouth - after all he would not lie would he?
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all. Booking profiles haven’t changed at all. Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
There you have it straight form the CEO's mouth - after all he would not lie would he?
The fact there is no evidence of people cancelling their bookings means, to me, that they never booked in the first place. They may have thought about booking BA, but with the simmering unrest, they have thought prudent not to book BA but another airline. Hence the big drop in bookings for November.
So on that basis WW is telling the truth. (IMHO!)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Beach
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APYu
With fewer such industrial agreements in place in New Fleet - Does that mean that New Fleet flights may be able to offer better services such as 'Eat when you want' in Club?
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
That would be a great improvement to the existing service.
Enjoy...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker's argument that 'because the contract refers to collective agreements as part of the contract, and crew complements are part of that agreement, therefore are contractual' is rather simplistic and there are other considerations that are relevant.
(There have to be, if you think about it. BA spend huge sums on employing some of the best legal brains, and these guys will have looked at every proposition and confirmed its legality in far more depth than we legal amateurs on a forum).
I think the weakness in Lurker's assertion is that English law, and employment law in particular, despite what might be written in stark black and white, is subject to the principle of 'reasonableness'.
Even though both parties may have signed a document saying x is always going to happen, if one party later feels that x is 'unreasonable', especially if circumstances have changed since the document was signed, then that party can challenge the contractual statement and say it is not reasonable. For example, dress regulations might form part of a contract of employment, and if someone came to work with their hair 1cm too long they could be sacked. Any employment tribunal would say that although the letter of the contract was followed precisely and literally, the interpretation was 'unreasonable' and the sacking would be deemed unjust.
BA will, amongst other things I'm sure, say that although there are many hundreds of points agreed in the official 'agreements' between the union and the company, they cannot 'reasonably' be required to renegotiate with the union on every item. They will also point out that any crewmember in excess of the minimum stipulated by EASA CS25 is purely for commercial reasons and BA must 'reasonably' be allowed to make commercial decisions.
Especially if they can show they have tried to negotiate, but the other party has refused outright to discuss the issue (see Bassa comms), they will feel that they have a strong argument in court.
There are other legal areas which grey out the black and white of lurker's argument and which BA have doubtless prepared in depth, particularly following the judge's statement that he wasn't 'minded' to grant Unite's injunction, which was purely an argument of whether the impositions were contractual or not
In any case, I'm pretty sure it won't get that far. Once Unite set a strike date, the whole tone of the argument will change. BA will go on the attack with far more artillery than the BF softly softly 'trust me' argument. It will get very nasty and the euphoria of week Monday's ballot result won't last very long at all. We're still in the phoney war, where the yes voters think their ballot will force WW to back down. The trouble is, WW knows the vast majority of cabin crew won't strike. He's absolutely convinced of it.
(There have to be, if you think about it. BA spend huge sums on employing some of the best legal brains, and these guys will have looked at every proposition and confirmed its legality in far more depth than we legal amateurs on a forum).
I think the weakness in Lurker's assertion is that English law, and employment law in particular, despite what might be written in stark black and white, is subject to the principle of 'reasonableness'.
Even though both parties may have signed a document saying x is always going to happen, if one party later feels that x is 'unreasonable', especially if circumstances have changed since the document was signed, then that party can challenge the contractual statement and say it is not reasonable. For example, dress regulations might form part of a contract of employment, and if someone came to work with their hair 1cm too long they could be sacked. Any employment tribunal would say that although the letter of the contract was followed precisely and literally, the interpretation was 'unreasonable' and the sacking would be deemed unjust.
BA will, amongst other things I'm sure, say that although there are many hundreds of points agreed in the official 'agreements' between the union and the company, they cannot 'reasonably' be required to renegotiate with the union on every item. They will also point out that any crewmember in excess of the minimum stipulated by EASA CS25 is purely for commercial reasons and BA must 'reasonably' be allowed to make commercial decisions.
Especially if they can show they have tried to negotiate, but the other party has refused outright to discuss the issue (see Bassa comms), they will feel that they have a strong argument in court.
There are other legal areas which grey out the black and white of lurker's argument and which BA have doubtless prepared in depth, particularly following the judge's statement that he wasn't 'minded' to grant Unite's injunction, which was purely an argument of whether the impositions were contractual or not
In any case, I'm pretty sure it won't get that far. Once Unite set a strike date, the whole tone of the argument will change. BA will go on the attack with far more artillery than the BF softly softly 'trust me' argument. It will get very nasty and the euphoria of week Monday's ballot result won't last very long at all. We're still in the phoney war, where the yes voters think their ballot will force WW to back down. The trouble is, WW knows the vast majority of cabin crew won't strike. He's absolutely convinced of it.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midman
So what you are saying is that the Cabin Crew contract and the agreed Collective Agreements are worthless - if that is so, then so is your own contract and indeed any other contract within BA - you see I don't think that that would stack up - otherwise what is the point of any of us having a contract or agreement?
As for your statement on trying to negotiate - again that is open to interpretation isn't it?
As for your statement on trying to negotiate - again that is open to interpretation isn't it?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trueblue and APYu
A Lurker, as a pax that flies on a regular basis with BA, can you explain to me why these proposals are so bad for crew ex Lhr, but were/are perfectably acceptable to Bassa for crew ex Lgw?
Does that mean that New Fleet flights may be able to offer better services such as 'Eat when you want' in Club?
Can you imagine how many ovens would be required in the Club galley to accommodate the individual eating needs of 70 people? With each of our meals needing about 20 minutes to cook thats 3 meals per hour in each oven and if memory serves me correct there are only two or three ovens in a Club galley. The maths is mind boggling which makes the dream unreachable. Best to upgrade to First!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has very strong in-house legal capability (15 people in its in-house legal team), and they have used employment law specialists (John Evason at Baker & Mackensie) and Timothy Brennan QC to represent them in court on this case (who according to the quotes below conducts "lethal cross-examinations" in court).
Devereux Chambers | Timothy Brennan QC
I would be amazed if BA hasn't carefully checked that it has a watertight case on this.
Devereux Chambers | Timothy Brennan QC
I would be amazed if BA hasn't carefully checked that it has a watertight case on this.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you are saying is that the Cabin Crew contract and the agreed Collective Agreements are worthless - if that is so, then so is your own contract and indeed any other contract within BA - you see I don't think that that would stack up - otherwise what is the point of any of us having a contract or agreement?
The company's case is hugely strengthened if they can demonstrate that they have done their utmost to negotiate. BA will use Bassa's comms, minutes of the meetings with Bassa (or not), ACAS rows between union officials and their own comms to demonstrate their efforts to negotiate the issues. I believe this explains BA's benign approach so far.
And I haven't mentioned the use of SOSR - a powerful argument listened to by courts, especially in these difficult times.
No, that will be down to official records and communications made by BA and by the unions and ACAS.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, into the fray.
Well done Lurker. Excellent posts. I am amazed that after your careful and repeated explanations, there are some here who still don't understand the legal thrust of the case. As I have said before somewhere in this thread, it is very unusual for employees to take out an injunction against an employer, it is normally the employer asking the employees via an injunction NOT to do something. We have seen before over OpenSkies that BA are very willing to use injunctions to prevent IA. How will they use this weapon now when they themselves are under the cosh?
A friend of mine who attended the hearing on the 5th November gave some valuable insight into how the judge put off the full hearing until February.
He said that BA's legal team were poorly briefed and unprepared, whereas QC John Hendy presented the case on behalf of UNITE "brilliantly" in his words. The problem for BA is that most of its management do not go back more than ten years due to the high turnover of personnel. Hendy was able to hark back to the 70's and refer to collective agreements laid in stone then, which the BA legal team were unaware of.
Although there are many here cheering on Willie Walsh, you will soon see that he is leading BA into a legal blind alley and a damaging strike. Unfortunately BA does not appear to be run for the benefit of its shareholders at the moment, just someone's personal agenda.
Well done Lurker. Excellent posts. I am amazed that after your careful and repeated explanations, there are some here who still don't understand the legal thrust of the case. As I have said before somewhere in this thread, it is very unusual for employees to take out an injunction against an employer, it is normally the employer asking the employees via an injunction NOT to do something. We have seen before over OpenSkies that BA are very willing to use injunctions to prevent IA. How will they use this weapon now when they themselves are under the cosh?
A friend of mine who attended the hearing on the 5th November gave some valuable insight into how the judge put off the full hearing until February.
He said that BA's legal team were poorly briefed and unprepared, whereas QC John Hendy presented the case on behalf of UNITE "brilliantly" in his words. The problem for BA is that most of its management do not go back more than ten years due to the high turnover of personnel. Hendy was able to hark back to the 70's and refer to collective agreements laid in stone then, which the BA legal team were unaware of.
Although there are many here cheering on Willie Walsh, you will soon see that he is leading BA into a legal blind alley and a damaging strike. Unfortunately BA does not appear to be run for the benefit of its shareholders at the moment, just someone's personal agenda.