British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[wiggy]

seasick

Quite possibly "Yes".

There was a discussion here on this thread several eons ago of a legal device known as SOSR ( Some Other Substantial Reason). SOSR, it would seem, may well allow a Company to impose contract changes if it can show that failure to do so would threaten the survival of the business...

Some interesting (?) reading here, particularly the opening paragraph:

Unfair Dismissal - Some Other Substantial Reason: Employment Law: Michelmores Solicitors

[Desertia]

For the benefit of any CC who wish detailed information (for BASSA members, read: The Truth) about employment contracts:

Employment contracts and conditions : Directgov - Employment

[Fume Event]

Under Walsh, BA is on the road to ruin. In over thirty years service with the airline I have never seen such a catastrophic collapse in crew morale and passenger satisfaction.

As an article in the Times yesterday implied; there is a choice of outcomes in the current dispute: Walsh will back down and lose credibility and authority or the airline will be ruined by a protracted and intensely bitter industrial action.

Although someone has said here before that Walsh would only be replaced with someone empowered with the same agenda, Walsh's tenure at Aer Lingus and the current state of that airline, demonstrates that he made a huge mistake there putting the airline into the low cost model. That alone has ensured its demise.

Sooner or later the penny will drop that BA was never in a "fight for survival", it was a pack of lies. If the company was in such dire straights temporary measures to save money would have been invoked as before, such as the closing of First cabins. However this management have tried to enforce the illusion that there has been a "structural change" in the business travel market, whilst at the same time having a mock up of the new First cabin in the the CRC for crew to view.

There could have been huge cost savings running for months this year as Unite/BASSA offered, but it was rejected by Walsh. Why if the company was in such a bad way, would a CEO refuse voluntary concessions, preferring imposition and a strike at the worst possible time in the calendar for the airline? Imposition is union busting, that is the objective of Walsh.

Yet as a negotiator for IALPA Walsh did such a good job, that some senior pilots at Aer Lingus earn over Euros 300,000 a year!!!! I find it hard to deal with such hypocrisy. One moment he fights for better T&C's as an IALPA rep, then as CEO of the same company he shuts the airline down for a week locking out employees.

I can assure you all here that next Monday, the game will be up for Walsh and his cronies.

[HiFlyer14]

Alot of cabin crew seem oblivious to the fact that many, many other departments in BA have previously had to reapply for their jobs. Why do we as cabin crew think we should escape the same fate? A year ago all the managers went through it, either taking VR or reapplying for the job without knowing exactly what the job entailed.

I don't really think BA ever would have been able to achieve "New Fleet" per se due to simply logistics and experience levels, etc onboard. I do, however, strongly believe that what they do want is "Old Fleet aka New Fleet". This wretched Union (thanks for nothing) are playing right into their hands. We could re-apply for our jobs, and hey presto New Fleet is born.

The only way I see of being able to avoid this would be a no vote in the soon-to-be-announced ballot. The Union reps need to wake up and realise what they are doing to us, before it is too late.

I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own personal view and not that of BA.

[wiggy]

Blimey, I've flown with a few ( Long Haul ) crews recently - even had one or two pleasant soft drinks in their company down route, now I've heard a few grumbles, some justified IMHO, but hardly anything I could call a catastrophic collapse in crew morale...then again I had the pleasure of working with some very competent CSDs.

[Desertia]

Fume, as usual your frequent Willie bashing doesn't really take into account all the facts, does it? For example the key statement you neglected to mention.

The article actually states:

That leaves the BA boss, Willie Walsh. It is hard to imagine the Irishman going quietly but his fight with the airline’s 13,000 cabin crew over cost cutting could make or break him. He can lose this fight by either ruining the airline with a prolonged strike or by caving in and seeing his authority evaporate. If he wins, Mr Walsh could become the iron man of the European aviation industry as the head of a merged BA-Iberia. But, as for all airline executives these days, the odds are against him.

Personally I think the odds are significantly in his favour thanks to last weeks subsidiary results. After all, it is the shareholders that would have decided to kick him out, and they seem to be completely in support of his plan to emasculate BASSA.

Iron Man. I like that.

Oh, and for the umpteenth time:

There could have ben bhuge <sic> cost savings running for months as UNite/BASSA offered, but it was rejected by Walsh. Why if the company was in such a bad way, would a CEO refuse voluntary concessions, preferring imposition and a strike at the worst possible time in the calendar for the airline? Imposition is union busting, that isthe objective of Walsh.

What huge cost savings? BA required 140m from cabin crew, it was offered what actually amounted to 54m. UNITEBA are still quoting their fantasy figure of 175 million on their website, which was proven to be completely wrong by an independent audit by a respected firm, no matter what lies some people might make up to impugn PWC's reputation.

Do please feel free to elaborate on any other "huge savings" that were offered.

The reason Willie is perceived as "union busting" dear Fume, is because in the eyes of the shareholders (and other interested parties like myself), this is one union that actually deserves to be busted, if only to get rid of the cancer of the rich old reps desperately trying to cling onto their wholly unrealistic packages.

I would think that you might as well bring on your strike if you get the mandate. Not only will it show Joe Public BASSA's true colours, but I'm also sure BA have already made the necessary arrangements.

I'm sure it's not only BASSA who have full page adverts lined up in all the press, not to mention sensible interviews on the various news channels, should they be required.

[HiFlyer14]

As an article in the Times yesterday implied; there is a choice of outcomes inthe current dispute: Walsh will back down and lose credibility and authority or the airline will be ruined.

Fume Event this is wrong, and I'm afraid anyone who believes this is deluded. WW cannot back down - the airline will be ruined if he does. So what choice does he have? This is the lesser of two evils.

Of course, another option would have been for us as cabin crew to work with the new crew complements (oh...we are ), not try to "bring this airline to it's knees" and NEGOTIATE an appropriate payment for the monthly travel payment to negate the effect of New Fleet.

It would have been Win-Win - BA get what they want, and we as crew keep our current jobs, with our pay, T&Cs etc. Everybody happy. Oh - except BASSA would have lost their power. So the reason that we're having a strike is nothing to do with imposition, it's purely and simply about BASSA trying to retain their power.

I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own personal viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Andy_S]

Of course, that's not actually what the article says.......

If anyone wants to read the artcle, follow this link On a wing and a prayer - Times Online
What it ACTUALLY says is that the ongoing dispute with the cabin crew will probably make or break him. And that with regard to the latter, this is likely to happen if there is a prolonged strike, or if he caves in and thereby loses his authority (my italics).

So what are the odds of either outcome?

[Fume Event]

Well Desertia, you are running to some sort of personal agenda here which is devoid of all reality regarding what is actually going on. I see you did not highlight the last sentence which states that "the odds are against him".

High Flyer14, likea lot of cabin crew you do not look farther than the end of your nose. With New Fleet will come temporary contracts and part time working. There will not be any permanent contracts on that fleet. To take a linear view on New Fleet further down the line, agency staff will be employed to take advantage of the UK's weak employment laws. Air France would not be able to start a "New Fleet".

YOu are completely wrong, there is no win-win situation here for BA's cabin crew. You might believe it, but thousands of your colleagues do not. The strike is everything to do with imposition, not the smoke and mirrors propaganda you are peddling.

[HiFlyer14]

Fume - the only thing I peddle is my own thoughts. Unlike some, who can only regurgitate what is on the BASSA web or Halloween brochures.

Anyway - thanks to Andy and Desertia for publishing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So "make or break him" eh? Fume for your info that means that The Times actually think WW has a 50/50 chance of success!

I am BA cabin crew, and the above represents my own personal viewpoint and not that of BA.

[3Greens]

i don't recall British Airways saying there will be NO permanent contracts on new fleet, when did they say that?

Cabin crew have ALREADY been employed on temporary contracts this year so the prescedent has been set.

Part-time working ?? - don't understand your point here...??

When, i repeat, when has anyone from BA (or BASSA) mentioned agency workers? Is the ballot even about this?

The ONLY reason i believe BASSA have ballotted is because of impositon is that correct? Would you still have ballotted if BA imposed an EXTRA crew member on certain flights instead of removing one - of course not!


Also it find it beyond belief that anyone who cannot see that BA and all airlines are in a "fight for survival" right now. The worldwide economy has taken a huge dive and BA has massive exposure to corporate business travel. There seems to be a belief with BASSA that there is somehow a massive conspiracy involving BA the stockexchange and PWC to name but a few; to cook the books and show losses amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds.
Ba will this year post a second massive loss come April for the past year - the only time it has ever done that. The economy hangs in the balance and could yet double dip into another recession, yet some crew still think BA isn't in the 5h1t.

If The crew walk out this will only further damage BA at a critical time which it can ill afford, i really hope you get what you want at the end of all this because i fear that next week it will turn nasty. There wil be no "bring the bolly to the brazier" parties, only lockouts, suspensions, sackings and removal of ST to get started.
It will be interesting to see the timings of the strikes and to see if Ms Malone will be one of the first not to report, somehow i doubt it and the poor shorthaul folk will be the first to bear the brunt as they decide whether or not to turn up for the first wave departures.
Fume Event, quite why you still stay with BA when you obviously do all you can do damge their reputation i can only wonder. I suggest you find out how hard it is to earn a similar salary elsewhere where your talents might be more relavent

[dave747436]

Fume

Jeez, Fume - if you're going to utterly misquote something, one would have thought that you would have chosen a source a little harder to verify than yesterdays Times!

And then, having been completely caught with your trousers down - to carry on posting as if nothing had happened!

[Desertia]

Well Desertia, you are running to some sort of personal agenda here which is devoid of all reality regarding what is actually going on. I see you did not highlight the last sentence which states that "the odds are against him".

Why did I need to? It wasn't that that you chose to leave out, but the sentence before. You opined, remember:

As an article in the Times yesterday implied; there is a choice of outcomes in the current dispute: Walsh will back down and lose credibility and authority or the airline will be ruined by a protracted and intensely bitter industrial action.

What is actually your own inference from the article competely ignored the third option, which is that he has the complete backing of the board to take this as far as he needs to in order to win.

I realise that omitting key parts of articles and attacking their critics instead of giving honest answers is part of the BASSA mindset, but you just need to be reminded occasionally that if you try that here, you will be found out.

Now, I'll ask you one more time. Where were/are these "huge savings" you talked about?

[HiFlyer14]

Oh Fume, I really don't know why I am bothering, but just for the hxxx sake of it...

* What agencies are these that provide "ready made cabin crew"?

* What "weak UK employment laws" will these Agencies (if you can name any) be able to take advantage of?

Actually if you want my honest opinion, I believe the Union is redundant now. Yes that's right, we have no need whatsoever for them. And the reason for that is precisely because UK Employment Law is so strong. Companies simply are unable to take advantage of employees in the way that they used to. Unions were brought in eons ago when mill or factory owners were conducting slave labour. Now, there is no need, because most employees know their rights, and will be happy to take the company to a tribunal if they are not getting their rights. As someone who has been both an employer and an employee, and been to Tribunals etc. I can talk from experience.

I think the Union will die a slow painful death now. Then we will be able to bring in a more appropriate forum, perhaps an Employee Council/Association or other such thing, to represent the members viewpoint. We won't need to strike at the drop of a hat, we will negotiate and guess what...we will achieve things for our members.

Now remind me, what was the last thing our Union "achieved" for us? Oh yes, Purser off the 747 and a poor pay deal. Emmm...bye bye BASSA.

[fly12345]

British Airways Plc today announced that Mr Rafael Sánchez-Lozano Turmo will be joining the board as a non-executive director with immediate effect. Mr Sánchez-Lozano is Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Iberia.



Pursuant to Clause 9 of the memorandum of understanding between the two airlines dated 12 November 2009, Iberia has the right to nominate a director to the Board of British Airways. At its meeting this morning the British Airways Board accepted Iberia's nomination of Mr Sánchez-Lozano and elected him as a director.



British Airways chairman, Martin Broughton, said: "Following the signing of the MOU with Iberia, there are many ways that the two airlines will be working closer together. We are delighted to welcome Mr Sánchez-Lozano on to the British Airways board and look forward to the wealth of experience that he will bring to the airline".

[deeceethree]

Fume Event,

I can assure you all here that next Monday, the game will be up for Walsh and his cronies.

Thanks for that. I'll place more money with the bookie, betting on a BASSA loss.

..... you are running to some sort of personal agenda here which is devoid of all reality regarding what is actually going on.

..... like a lot of cabin crew you do not look farther than the end of your nose.

YOu are completely wrong, there is no win-win situation here for BA's cabin crew. You might believe it, but thousands of your colleagues do not. The strike is everything to do with imposition, not the smoke and mirrors propaganda you are peddling.

Take a cold hard look at your own postings - see any personal agendas or shortsighted ideas? There are people here that see precisely that in your postings. Somehow everyone else is completely wrong or peddling propaganda? Your exhortations might go down a treat on other crew forums, but the majority here on this forum are thinkers and readers - they do their homework and see that your claims just don't stand up to scrutiny.

I believe that the result of the ballot will be irrelevant - I do not think it will come to a strike. It will be stopped by Unite, or BA,long before then.

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Fume Event

Under Walsh, BA is on the road to ruin. In over thirty years service with the airline I have never seen such a catastrophic collapse in crew morale and passenger satisfaction.

Funny but the GPMs don't seem to be recording a collapse in passenger satisfaction. Perhaps morale is collapsing because the crew realise they've been led up the garden path by BASSA and management won't crumble this time. BA are taking a hard line on this one. The astonishment amongst crew that BA would dare to suspend CSDs who have bad-mouthed the company in public or spouted union propaganda on company time suggests that they had no idea the company was prepared to play hard.

Although someone has said here before that Walsh would only be replaced with someone empowered with the same agenda, Walsh's tenure at Aer Lingus and the current state of that airline, demonstrates that he made a huge mistake there putting the airline into the low cost model. That alone has ensured its demise.

Nothing to do with Ryanair then?

Sooner or later the penny will drop that BA was never in a "fight for survival", it was a pack of lies. If the company was in such dire straights temporary measures to save money would have been invoked as before, such as the closing of First cabins.

Why close a profitable cabin? It was only ever closed because crew refused to work harder on short handed flights. Now BA can keep the cabins open and earning revenue by making the CSD work a trolley.

However this management have tried to enforce the illusion that there has been a "structural change" in the business travel market, whilst at the same time having a mock up of the new First cabin in the the CRC for crew to view.

One presumes the other airlines and IATA are helping to enforce this 'illusion'? And in your numerous other guises on this and other forums you chide BA for it's failure to invest in the product. Don't you want a new First class seat now?

There could have been huge cost savings running for months this year as Unite/BASSA offered, but it was rejected by Walsh. Why if the company was in such a bad way, would a CEO refuse voluntary concessions, preferring imposition and a strike at the worst possible time in the calendar for the airline?

Best possible time you mean! No high revenue business pax and no goodwill or support fom the public either.

Yet as a negotiator for IALPA Walsh did such a good job, that some senior pilots at Aer Lingus earn over Euros 300,000 a year!!!! I find it hard to deal with such hypocrisy. One moment he fights for better T&C's as an IALPA rep, then as CEO of the same company he shuts the airline down for a week locking out employees.

I guess he just excels at whatever he does. Not good news for you!

I can assure you all here that next Monday, the game will be up for Walsh and his cronies.

It'll all be over in a month, and you'll be back on a trolley working one down and being grateful for it.

[demomonkey]

Mr Rafael Sánchez-Lozano Turmo

I know it doesn't have anything to do with the price of fish but;

Whilst we all want to see our employer survive and we all understand the need to make sacrifices and drive efficiencies for survival can anyone answer this question?

As a Non-Exec director of BA, will Mr Rafael Sánchez-Lozano Turmo be receiving any remuneration for his Non-Executorial BA duties or because he is already remunerated by Iberia will this work be free-gratis?

As a shareholder and employee, I severely hope that it is not the former. Whilst all of us wish to see a successful merger, I cannot accept the need to pay 'double bubble' for services we'd get for free anyway, particularly when some of our colleagues (not the CC) are being asked to take massive %age pay cuts.

[tomkins]

Demomonkey.
just for the record, which of our colleagues are being delt massive % pay cuts ,and what are the %'s.

[demomonkey]

The Ground Staff could to be placed onto salaried contracts and lose their early/late allowances. This could mean up to 25% cut for some. When you hear how much their salary would be reduced to I shudder to think (a.) how families could survive in the SE on such income levels and (b.) what the quality of future recruits might be like for a role which demands strong customer service skills and initiative.

I don't know the current status of their discussions so I have not included actual figures.

On a general note, whilst being a supporter of Adam Smith's principles I find it deeply unfair that in this modern era large organisations are able to pay staff minimal salaries which have to be topped up by Government through social support mechanisms just to meet minimum income levels whilst the said organisations pay their senior staff obscene bonuses and actively seek tax 'minimisation' schemes. Whilst BA is not particularly an example of this generally, this seems to be a step in that direction. Hence you might appreciate why I am so concerned this gentleman does not receive a six figure sum for token labours.

Maybe I should change my name to RedDemoMonkey. Anyone for storming the Winter Palace?