British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds familiar?
Minister informed of Aer Lingus layoff plan - The Irish Times - Thu, Dec 10, 2009
The main point of this story is that Aer Lingus is looking to make about 25% of its entire workforce compulsorily redundant. Timing is Q1:10, just in time for potential trouble at BA!
Swap "Aer Lingus" for "BA", and "pilots" for "cabin crew", and there appears to be little difference in the two disputes. Aer Lingus are just a bit more desperate as, without the cuts, they will be broke within 6 months.
This story should concentrate minds in many airlines, not just the two noted here.
The main point of this story is that Aer Lingus is looking to make about 25% of its entire workforce compulsorily redundant. Timing is Q1:10, just in time for potential trouble at BA!
Swap "Aer Lingus" for "BA", and "pilots" for "cabin crew", and there appears to be little difference in the two disputes. Aer Lingus are just a bit more desperate as, without the cuts, they will be broke within 6 months.
This story should concentrate minds in many airlines, not just the two noted here.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: london
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No strike by Aer Lingus pilots despite talks failure
JayPee28bpr, the minds that need concentrating right now are the pro-strike cabin crew, who should be reminded that several hundred cabin crew in Virgin Atlantic, BMI and Aer Lingus have already been laid off/are about to be laid off. There are other well qualified personnel out there who want jobs - BA jobs, if BA decides to off-load what it considers to be trouble-makers!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however those changes should not be imposed changes in my opinion
Sit and wait (at a cost of almost two million pounds a day?).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we stop validating A.Lurker? Thanks.
All this discussion is pointless. It is a matter of conviction more than absolute truth. Pro-union feels it is their god given right to strike since it is the only way they can force their opinion on others. Management can do so by developing policy.
I am against this strike not because I am against IA but because a court date has been set and reasonably one would expect both parties to follow the law. BASSA/Unite has made one big error in judgement imho. They thought that striking at or around xmass would force BA to compromise. Instead public opinion and the opinion of loyal BA pax has turned against them. It has damaged the reputation of BA crew.
All this time WW was cleverly preparing for this by telling the world that BA is at the brink of bankruptcy. So now BASSA/Unite (perceived as BA CC) is not only ruining xmass for a lot of people but is also helping to damage British Airways.
I think that CC should have the right to use IA as e means to put force behind a sound alternative to proposed cost cutting measure. However this feels more like street fighting.
All this discussion is pointless. It is a matter of conviction more than absolute truth. Pro-union feels it is their god given right to strike since it is the only way they can force their opinion on others. Management can do so by developing policy.
I am against this strike not because I am against IA but because a court date has been set and reasonably one would expect both parties to follow the law. BASSA/Unite has made one big error in judgement imho. They thought that striking at or around xmass would force BA to compromise. Instead public opinion and the opinion of loyal BA pax has turned against them. It has damaged the reputation of BA crew.
All this time WW was cleverly preparing for this by telling the world that BA is at the brink of bankruptcy. So now BASSA/Unite (perceived as BA CC) is not only ruining xmass for a lot of people but is also helping to damage British Airways.
I think that CC should have the right to use IA as e means to put force behind a sound alternative to proposed cost cutting measure. However this feels more like street fighting.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round and round in circles we go...
Imposition has happened because the union refused to negotiate.
"Cost savings" from the union were proven to be wrong/false.
If a strike happens you can be sacked if you strike. You won't necessary be sacked for striking, but for not fulfilling your contract by not turning up for duty.
The union may pay you on strike days, but is £30/day (if you were rostered to work) worth putting your job on the line?
The recession isn't finished yet. Recovery will be slow, and in the meantime BA is losing millions, putting a hell of a lot of jobs on the line.
WW/BF will not back down because of a "yes" vote. WW was brought in to BA to get this sorted once and for all (amongst other things), as he doesn't run scared of the unions as his predecessors have done.
New Fleet will happen. The only question is when.
The unions have not been fully truthful about a lot of issues, including legalities of striking.
I'm sure other people can add to this list of what's going on, but we're really going round in circles now.
Gg
Ps. A Lurker. All the links and references you need can be found on this forum.
Imposition has happened because the union refused to negotiate.
"Cost savings" from the union were proven to be wrong/false.
If a strike happens you can be sacked if you strike. You won't necessary be sacked for striking, but for not fulfilling your contract by not turning up for duty.
The union may pay you on strike days, but is £30/day (if you were rostered to work) worth putting your job on the line?
The recession isn't finished yet. Recovery will be slow, and in the meantime BA is losing millions, putting a hell of a lot of jobs on the line.
WW/BF will not back down because of a "yes" vote. WW was brought in to BA to get this sorted once and for all (amongst other things), as he doesn't run scared of the unions as his predecessors have done.
New Fleet will happen. The only question is when.
The unions have not been fully truthful about a lot of issues, including legalities of striking.
I'm sure other people can add to this list of what's going on, but we're really going round in circles now.
Gg
Ps. A Lurker. All the links and references you need can be found on this forum.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we are getting somewhere;
A.Lurker says;
Not an opinion shared by BASSA it would seem. The savings they offered, apart from being hugely over-valued (by their own admission, the figures they mentioned when briefing the city were way below what they told their own members) were only to be temporary, and to be paid back within a few years IIRC.
So, say we could make the huge leap, and BASSA now accept that IFCE have to make savings, like everyone else, and they shouldn't be a special case, they (BASSA) have to decide how they want to make them.
They could;
a) Just decide amongst themselves, and offer a load of things that the crew don't necessarily want, and that protect old contract CSDs, things like no increment rises (doesn't matter if you're on the top scale), or things that no-one seems to want, 2.6% pay cut for example.
or
b) Ask, poll, research etc, and find out what the crew actually want to give up. (now we have established that they have come to the conclusion that they will have to give something up).
I have a sneaking suspicion that after a month or two of these new crewing levels being in place, most crew would probably come to the conclusion that in a choice between something that hits the bottom right of their pay slip, and working slightly harder, most people would opt to keep the pay. (The same I would imagine would go for New Fleet, even if it was a little short sighted, that is human nature. Would you rather lose money so new joiners can be on the same deal as you, or would you rather keep what you have, and let them have less, after all, they knew what they were signing up for. (a la Gatwick....)
If you go with option b), I think you might find you end up in a similar situation as you do now, it just depends if you want to go through a strike to get there, and if you can swallow your pride and realise that in actual fact, its a pretty good deal, and even if you end up negotiating a deal, its going to look remarkably similar..
Just a thought...
A.Lurker says;
Absolutely - everyone in IFCE see's the need to make changes that will protect the future for us all....
So, say we could make the huge leap, and BASSA now accept that IFCE have to make savings, like everyone else, and they shouldn't be a special case, they (BASSA) have to decide how they want to make them.
They could;
a) Just decide amongst themselves, and offer a load of things that the crew don't necessarily want, and that protect old contract CSDs, things like no increment rises (doesn't matter if you're on the top scale), or things that no-one seems to want, 2.6% pay cut for example.
or
b) Ask, poll, research etc, and find out what the crew actually want to give up. (now we have established that they have come to the conclusion that they will have to give something up).
I have a sneaking suspicion that after a month or two of these new crewing levels being in place, most crew would probably come to the conclusion that in a choice between something that hits the bottom right of their pay slip, and working slightly harder, most people would opt to keep the pay. (The same I would imagine would go for New Fleet, even if it was a little short sighted, that is human nature. Would you rather lose money so new joiners can be on the same deal as you, or would you rather keep what you have, and let them have less, after all, they knew what they were signing up for. (a la Gatwick....)
If you go with option b), I think you might find you end up in a similar situation as you do now, it just depends if you want to go through a strike to get there, and if you can swallow your pride and realise that in actual fact, its a pretty good deal, and even if you end up negotiating a deal, its going to look remarkably similar..
Just a thought...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely - everyone in IFCE see's the need to make changes that will protect the future for us all - however those changes should not be imposed changes in my opinion
It is exactly this attitude that gets the other departments riled.
Why should BASSA get another bite of the apple? BASSA had the opportunity, along with all other Unions, to negotiate. They squandered it. BA went further with BASSA past the deadline, BASSA squandered that too. BASSA wanted to run the show and BA wouldn't let them so they walked away like a bunch of petulant children. BA will have all the official transcripts of the meetings and they will come out in Court.
Willie Walsh made it perfectly clear that any delay past the 30th June deadline would cause the losses made by failure to implement would be added to the cost savings required. BASSA then threw their toys out of the cot because their numbers went up.
Nobody on this thread has a beef against the individuals who make up the Union. Lots of people on this thread have a beef against a feckless Union beast who refuses to support its membership.
If you, personally, get fined or take out loans you don't pay or repay then, eventually, that loan or fine will be repayed by imposition.
BASSA left BA with no choices at all. Savings were essential, not just for monetary balance but for Business Plan projection for investors.
Thankfully BA has take BASSA by the horns and will fight them all the way. The impositions are mild compared to what could have happened and BASSA have shown their true overtly militant colours by their recent actions.
Looking forward to the result of the ballot and the court case. This could bankrupt Unite!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From talking to people at work, I think we are set for a majority Yes vote. I have flown with some who say No they won't, they see BA as being reasonable but a lot are angry at the briefing, on the flight.... it is understandable that people are angry, frustrated, worried etc but I think some crew have missed the point.
Alot of crew say we have to go on strike because otherwise the 52 week clause will mean we will be on ''LGW T&C's'' on new fleet. Alot say ''we have to strike because otherwise we will be forced onto a new fleet'' etc etc... but I missed where BA has said this... I thought BF/WW has always said about protecting current crew. I do think some militants believe ''protecting current crew'' means leaving us alone completely when we are losing £1m a day!!! Other crew say they will vote Yes as it is all been imposed and what next etc etc... well hopefully no more impositions if both sides can sit down and talk but by wasting time balloting/striking surely it will bring about more impositions. At the moment as BASSA doesn't have plans for what savings can be made.. New Fleet looks certain.
I have also even had people say, ''BA are not in that much of a bad state it is all spin'' and ''it's not really that bad''
Hello? I will say, BA do have to be careful where they cut in product etc etc..... but that is a different debate! Some changes unfortunately have to be made. As I think this thread has said repeatedly!!
Alot of crew say we have to go on strike because otherwise the 52 week clause will mean we will be on ''LGW T&C's'' on new fleet. Alot say ''we have to strike because otherwise we will be forced onto a new fleet'' etc etc... but I missed where BA has said this... I thought BF/WW has always said about protecting current crew. I do think some militants believe ''protecting current crew'' means leaving us alone completely when we are losing £1m a day!!! Other crew say they will vote Yes as it is all been imposed and what next etc etc... well hopefully no more impositions if both sides can sit down and talk but by wasting time balloting/striking surely it will bring about more impositions. At the moment as BASSA doesn't have plans for what savings can be made.. New Fleet looks certain.
I have also even had people say, ''BA are not in that much of a bad state it is all spin'' and ''it's not really that bad''
Hello? I will say, BA do have to be careful where they cut in product etc etc..... but that is a different debate! Some changes unfortunately have to be made. As I think this thread has said repeatedly!!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
Quote
"Cost savings" from the union were proven to be wrong/false. - Can you please provide me with a link for this - also the link where PWC cut the Unions proposals to shreds because I have gone through every post as you suggested and I cannot find any definite links - just hearsay from people - nothing linking it through to a genuine and reliable source..
So once again - please can you show me the link as I would be genuinely interested in seeing the information
Many thanks
"Cost savings" from the union were proven to be wrong/false. - Can you please provide me with a link for this - also the link where PWC cut the Unions proposals to shreds because I have gone through every post as you suggested and I cannot find any definite links - just hearsay from people - nothing linking it through to a genuine and reliable source..
So once again - please can you show me the link as I would be genuinely interested in seeing the information
Many thanks
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A.Lurker
Perhaps if you would pursue BASSA over on the BASSA forum as dogmatically as you do posters on this one, you might find some answers
nope thought not, because: a) you will be shot down and b) BASSA couldn't begin to give you a break down, they threw that particular fag packet in the bin ages ago
"Cost savings" from the union were proven to be wrong/false. - Can you please provide me with a link for this - also the link where PWC cut the Unions proposals to shreds because I have gone through every post as you suggested and I cannot find any definite links - just hearsay from people - nothing linking it through to a genuine and reliable source..
nope thought not, because: a) you will be shot down and b) BASSA couldn't begin to give you a break down, they threw that particular fag packet in the bin ages ago
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALurker
Initially, I too thought you were here for reasoned debate, but I think I was wrong (not something you have ever admitted no matter how many links are provided for you)
You selectively answer questions & change tangent as you become cornered.
I started to get your requested links for you then thought NO. The information is out there & easily available - get your own links to prove the posters here wrong if you're so confident that they are wrong.
I asked these questions in a previous post. Perhaps you missed them.
Just answer me one of them.
Have your representatives ever offered BA permenant savings that do not have to be repaid at some future date? (In this business plan, just for clarity)
I think they haven't, but I'm willing to be corrected. (oh yes, I'll need a link....)
No picking on another subject in my post, just answer the question in bold.
Thanks.
You selectively answer questions & change tangent as you become cornered.
I started to get your requested links for you then thought NO. The information is out there & easily available - get your own links to prove the posters here wrong if you're so confident that they are wrong.
I asked these questions in a previous post. Perhaps you missed them.
The dozens of posters here are not trying to prove that they're right & you're wrong - in the main I think they're trying to get you (and others like you who are willing to engage) to ask questions of your union.
Then apply the same rigor to the Unions answers as you apply to ours, here.
eg: Look at Unite's answer to the question "Can BA dismiss you for striking?"
Ask yourself if the answer is full and frank. Does it mention that you don't have to be rehired and that the absolute maximum compensation is around 70grand? But this is a fact.
Has Unite ever done an independent poll of the members, or even an online poll so that it really knows the will for a strike? Are you happy with this?
On a show of hands BASSA passed the motion that it would not negotiate on permanent savings. That still stands. Are you happy with this?
Unite have stated that there will be no negotiation with BA until the impositions have been reversed. But BA cannot comply even if it wanted to - these crew have left the company. Are you happy with this non-negotiating stance?
Have BASSA explained why the new LHR crewing levels have health & safety implications at LHR, when the same BASSA approved the same crewing levels at LGW and deemed them adequate?
There is clearly a grey area in the law here, and I'm sure neither side is absolutely sure it will win.
Has Unite explained the implications of going on strike over imposition in Dec/Jan and then the Judge finding that the impositions are in fact legal in Feb?
Just ask some questions and take a good long look at the answers to see if you're happy.
Then apply the same rigor to the Unions answers as you apply to ours, here.
eg: Look at Unite's answer to the question "Can BA dismiss you for striking?"
Ask yourself if the answer is full and frank. Does it mention that you don't have to be rehired and that the absolute maximum compensation is around 70grand? But this is a fact.
Has Unite ever done an independent poll of the members, or even an online poll so that it really knows the will for a strike? Are you happy with this?
On a show of hands BASSA passed the motion that it would not negotiate on permanent savings. That still stands. Are you happy with this?
Unite have stated that there will be no negotiation with BA until the impositions have been reversed. But BA cannot comply even if it wanted to - these crew have left the company. Are you happy with this non-negotiating stance?
Have BASSA explained why the new LHR crewing levels have health & safety implications at LHR, when the same BASSA approved the same crewing levels at LGW and deemed them adequate?
There is clearly a grey area in the law here, and I'm sure neither side is absolutely sure it will win.
Has Unite explained the implications of going on strike over imposition in Dec/Jan and then the Judge finding that the impositions are in fact legal in Feb?
Just ask some questions and take a good long look at the answers to see if you're happy.
Have your representatives ever offered BA permenant savings that do not have to be repaid at some future date? (In this business plan, just for clarity)
I think they haven't, but I'm willing to be corrected. (oh yes, I'll need a link....)
No picking on another subject in my post, just answer the question in bold.
Thanks.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So once again - please can you show me the link as I would be genuinely interested in seeing the information
The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave747436
Have your representatives ever offered BA permenant savings that do not have to be repaid at some future date? (In this business plan, just for clarity)
I think they haven't, but I'm willing to be corrected. (oh yes, I'll need a link....)
Pay reduction of 2.61% (same % reduction as the pilots) PERMANENT
Telephone allowance withdrawn PERMANENT
New disruption agreement for WW and an introduction for EF + SFG PERMANENT
(Note - It is based on data over the last 2 years and uses the cost of diversions plus the cost of a/c out of position for longer than under our new proposal. In February this year BA admitted to the press that the snow disruption cost them £20 million +. Should the next 2 winters contain little or no snow and fog, no ATC problems or T5 bag problems, then this saving will be reduced. Equally one bad winter will increase the total saved.)
Switch of PSR to main crew WW - 4 class a/c ( this was BAs original figure ) PERMANENT
Removal of additional crew member on WW additional routes PERMANENT
Switch at SFG of PSR to main crew on 777 - 3 class ( BAs figure )PERMANENT
WW 767 and routes to EF - full integration, ( head saving 400 x 18 months) PERMANENT
EF single supervisor 757 and switch of PSR to main crew on EF767 PERMANENT
EF finish time last day 2200 - up to and incl. 5 day block PERMANENT
Head surplus at current + surplus with a/c fleet reduction (500 heads x 18 months) £30 million note - this figure of 500 quoted by BA PERMANENT
Natural wastage of crew leaving (200 per annum x 18 months) PERMANENT
Dave - I am one for reasoned debate but I am a lone voice pretty much on here against the tirade of non-CC who many it seems want to wage a war against fellow employees. And you know what - I actually think I have debated the subject matter reasonably well.
I think they haven't, but I'm willing to be corrected. (oh yes, I'll need a link....)
Pay reduction of 2.61% (same % reduction as the pilots) PERMANENT
Telephone allowance withdrawn PERMANENT
New disruption agreement for WW and an introduction for EF + SFG PERMANENT
(Note - It is based on data over the last 2 years and uses the cost of diversions plus the cost of a/c out of position for longer than under our new proposal. In February this year BA admitted to the press that the snow disruption cost them £20 million +. Should the next 2 winters contain little or no snow and fog, no ATC problems or T5 bag problems, then this saving will be reduced. Equally one bad winter will increase the total saved.)
Switch of PSR to main crew WW - 4 class a/c ( this was BAs original figure ) PERMANENT
Removal of additional crew member on WW additional routes PERMANENT
Switch at SFG of PSR to main crew on 777 - 3 class ( BAs figure )PERMANENT
WW 767 and routes to EF - full integration, ( head saving 400 x 18 months) PERMANENT
EF single supervisor 757 and switch of PSR to main crew on EF767 PERMANENT
EF finish time last day 2200 - up to and incl. 5 day block PERMANENT
Head surplus at current + surplus with a/c fleet reduction (500 heads x 18 months) £30 million note - this figure of 500 quoted by BA PERMANENT
Natural wastage of crew leaving (200 per annum x 18 months) PERMANENT
Dave - I am one for reasoned debate but I am a lone voice pretty much on here against the tirade of non-CC who many it seems want to wage a war against fellow employees. And you know what - I actually think I have debated the subject matter reasonably well.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ A Lurker
As someone who is not involved with anybody in this dispute - having followed the entire thread - and no longer a FF I would agree that you have debated reasonably and in some depth, but also believe that you have dodged a number of core questions and continue to duck and weave.
Regrettably I have to say that I won't be paying too much attention to your future thoughts, but thanks for taking part.
As someone who is not involved with anybody in this dispute - having followed the entire thread - and no longer a FF I would agree that you have debated reasonably and in some depth, but also believe that you have dodged a number of core questions and continue to duck and weave.
Regrettably I have to say that I won't be paying too much attention to your future thoughts, but thanks for taking part.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Know What......
I'm just going to let the bully boys win - I give up having to try to have a debate because in the end people on this thread do exactly what they every day in the job - shout people down and bully them into submission
Bye
Bye