British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Surrrey
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I dont think the figure is far off as you are keen to suggest.
It was very interesting that the result of the audit was kept relatively quiet.
If it was so one sided this would have been told to all and sundry.
Why would there be a need to not disclose the information for all to see. That way transparency would ensure openness and credibility to the debate. People need to be given all the facts in order to make decisions. If there was nothing to hide then all parties would have been involved.
Im affraid some are clutching at straws hoping that SOSR will be applied. I stand by my opinion that as the issue here is the method of introducing such savings and not the amount SOSR would be very difficult to apply.
Smoke and Mirrors would make SOSR very difficult. In my opinion.
It was very interesting that the result of the audit was kept relatively quiet.
If it was so one sided this would have been told to all and sundry.
Why would there be a need to not disclose the information for all to see. That way transparency would ensure openness and credibility to the debate. People need to be given all the facts in order to make decisions. If there was nothing to hide then all parties would have been involved.
Im affraid some are clutching at straws hoping that SOSR will be applied. I stand by my opinion that as the issue here is the method of introducing such savings and not the amount SOSR would be very difficult to apply.
Smoke and Mirrors would make SOSR very difficult. In my opinion.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to stay out but in part answer to AiB's questions
http://www.pprune.org/5098169-post882.html
From earlier in the thread
The staff vote was to accept the new T & Cs
http://www.pprune.org/5098169-post882.html
From earlier in the thread
The staff vote was to accept the new T & Cs
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suggestion that a strike would cost BA £300m doesn't seem right to me.
In the highly unlikely event there was a walkout by all crew, based on previous experience, a couple of days of significant disruption to the flying programme (ie almost complete suspension of LHR ops) would probably cost the airline about £40m. I also really doubt that any actual strike would last more than a couple of days at most.
Also, as to why the outcome of the PwC audit wasn't on the front page of BA News, how would BASSA have reacted if BA effectively rubbished BASSA reps on its internal newsletter (which would have also been read by journalists who all read BA News)? Would that really help negotiations?
In the highly unlikely event there was a walkout by all crew, based on previous experience, a couple of days of significant disruption to the flying programme (ie almost complete suspension of LHR ops) would probably cost the airline about £40m. I also really doubt that any actual strike would last more than a couple of days at most.
Also, as to why the outcome of the PwC audit wasn't on the front page of BA News, how would BASSA have reacted if BA effectively rubbished BASSA reps on its internal newsletter (which would have also been read by journalists who all read BA News)? Would that really help negotiations?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Surrrey
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last dispute that went to the wire cost 80 million for one days cancellations.
West Lakes thanks for the link. Its always interesting to see how things have been done in other situations. However logistically I can only conclude that for the council it was much easier. SEP 6 weeks training, ID pass issues compiled with criminal record checks adds to the process. Also the system clogs if more issues are being dealt with than normal then the process slows down.
Some companies can change contracts easily with minimum impact others can not.
West Lakes thanks for the link. Its always interesting to see how things have been done in other situations. However logistically I can only conclude that for the council it was much easier. SEP 6 weeks training, ID pass issues compiled with criminal record checks adds to the process. Also the system clogs if more issues are being dealt with than normal then the process slows down.
Some companies can change contracts easily with minimum impact others can not.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
Considering how many people have applied for VR and part time, I doubt CR will come into it unless any "official" or "unofficial" industrial action is brought forward.
Considering there are about 50 applications for VR at LGW alone (out of 1200 crew), I reckon the company will find the 2000HCE that is needed.
For those concerned about the winter schedule and how it can be crewed with 2000HCE less than now, there are plenty of aircraft being put to bed (as it were) and reduction in crew levels on board.
Gg
Considering how many people have applied for VR and part time, I doubt CR will come into it unless any "official" or "unofficial" industrial action is brought forward.
Considering there are about 50 applications for VR at LGW alone (out of 1200 crew), I reckon the company will find the 2000HCE that is needed.
For those concerned about the winter schedule and how it can be crewed with 2000HCE less than now, there are plenty of aircraft being put to bed (as it were) and reduction in crew levels on board.
Gg
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So again, using SOSR, you have changed the amount of crew required as well as the levels of pay. So the head count is too high. Do you then use redundancy to mop the rest up. Is it unfair to not only sack people, but also reduce the package of those that are left, whilst making them work harder for a company that last year made a £1 billion?
Would it be reasonable for the affected employees to collectively fight the actions of the employer, by using industrial action, which is not illegal, if all the correct procedures are followed?
Would it be reasonable for the affected employees to collectively fight the actions of the employer, by using industrial action, which is not illegal, if all the correct procedures are followed?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG,
I do not wish to argue with you, because you have put up some very valid points on this thread. Can you clarify for me whether these people have applied, or expressed an interest?
I do not wish to argue with you, because you have put up some very valid points on this thread. Can you clarify for me whether these people have applied, or expressed an interest?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to BASSA, as posted a fair few pages ago, the number of crew expressing interest in VR was about 3600 in total. Take off about a third of that number and you have the number who would probably take it.
However, the rub lies in that there needs to be productivity agreements in place if the company is to take the extra expense of VR (the VR package would be above and beyond a CR package).
BASSA failed to agree by the deadline so the company withdrew its VR package proposals that were never even discussed.
If it comes to the headcount reduction of 2000 then, in realistic terms, that could be up to 4000 personnel depending upon part time etc. Those who volunteer to go will possibly get an enhanced package but there are no guarantees. CR is the cheapest way for the company to shed personnel.
SOSR has been used in many cases of industrial tribunal where new contracts have been issued with those not signing being deemed to have 'resigned' from their previous contract. If the company can realistically state that it would have struggled to stay in 'competitive business' if change hadn't occurred then SOSR places the burden of proof on the employee not the employer. Thus making it very difficult to get through tribunal. If BA makes CR decisions based upon a streamlined business model then the continued employment of 36000+ people verses the loss by CR of 2-3000 makes compelling business sense.
However, the rub lies in that there needs to be productivity agreements in place if the company is to take the extra expense of VR (the VR package would be above and beyond a CR package).
BASSA failed to agree by the deadline so the company withdrew its VR package proposals that were never even discussed.
If it comes to the headcount reduction of 2000 then, in realistic terms, that could be up to 4000 personnel depending upon part time etc. Those who volunteer to go will possibly get an enhanced package but there are no guarantees. CR is the cheapest way for the company to shed personnel.
SOSR has been used in many cases of industrial tribunal where new contracts have been issued with those not signing being deemed to have 'resigned' from their previous contract. If the company can realistically state that it would have struggled to stay in 'competitive business' if change hadn't occurred then SOSR places the burden of proof on the employee not the employer. Thus making it very difficult to get through tribunal. If BA makes CR decisions based upon a streamlined business model then the continued employment of 36000+ people verses the loss by CR of 2-3000 makes compelling business sense.
am i bothered,
Where in a cabin crew employment contract (or any other standard BA employment contract, for that matter) does it say that your choice to commute affects how you will be handled in a dispute such as this? Those who drive/cycle/train/walk/fly to work are all required to turn up for duty on time, fit for work. Anyone who flies in to work is not afforded special privileges just because they choose to live a substantial distance away from their place of work. Why is there this pervading idea amongst some who use staff travel to get to/from work, that it is their right? No such right exists!
The company is neither interested nor required to take your living arrangements into account when circumstances are such that terms and conditions need changing, to reflect a critical business situation. Those who have chosen to live a long way from their place of work have to accept they have had a good ride up till now. If they can't handle the result of a necessary change then they need to live closer to the workplace or seek employment elsewhere. Simple.
Many commuters will not be able to continue flying if all the changes come in with out negotiation. ..... However if someone signs a contract that enables them to commute, to pull the rug from under their feet will only result in conflict.
The company is neither interested nor required to take your living arrangements into account when circumstances are such that terms and conditions need changing, to reflect a critical business situation. Those who have chosen to live a long way from their place of work have to accept they have had a good ride up till now. If they can't handle the result of a necessary change then they need to live closer to the workplace or seek employment elsewhere. Simple.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AiB,
Google is your friend!!
As stated before I dont know too much about SOSR
If people would like to give examples of when it has been used in the past so in essence providing mini case studies it would make very interesting reading.
If people would like to give examples of when it has been used in the past so in essence providing mini case studies it would make very interesting reading.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Surrrey
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deeceethree if you read my post thoroughly you would see that my argument was not based on pandering to the needs of a certain element of the work force. However when a large amount of peoples lives will be turned upside down then this will influence the result of a ballot if it comes to it.
Also GSS Alpha with regards to competitors.
Since when has industrial action been deemed ilegal due to the contracts of competitors employment contracts??
An example please.
Also GSS Alpha with regards to competitors.
Since when has industrial action been deemed ilegal due to the contracts of competitors employment contracts??
An example please.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W2P,
Would you not argue that BA were in the same position post 9/11, but very quickly returned to the profitable business that they were, until less than a year ago?
I have tried to find UK case law that shows SOSR and Redundancy used together, that has protected an employer against unfair dismissal claims and/or legal blocks to industrial action. I am not saying that it is not there, it is just that I have not found it on the net (no trawling through books in legal libraries!)
As many people have previously stated, Unite will have done their homework on this, as much as BA have done. Unite will have vastly more actual experience at handling strike action than either BA or BALPA has.
As a trade unionist, I hope that BASSA has done its homework too.
Would you not argue that BA were in the same position post 9/11, but very quickly returned to the profitable business that they were, until less than a year ago?
I have tried to find UK case law that shows SOSR and Redundancy used together, that has protected an employer against unfair dismissal claims and/or legal blocks to industrial action. I am not saying that it is not there, it is just that I have not found it on the net (no trawling through books in legal libraries!)
As many people have previously stated, Unite will have done their homework on this, as much as BA have done. Unite will have vastly more actual experience at handling strike action than either BA or BALPA has.
As a trade unionist, I hope that BASSA has done its homework too.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Surrrey
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also Deeceethree the company have conducted recruitment campaigns within Europe before for language needs etc.
Also with various base closures through out the UK offering contracts at Heathrow have meant that people have been accepted for employment living considerably far from work.
If their lives are now made difficult then they will either have to leave or hope for the best for a satisfactory outcome.
This is one of the reasons why support will be huge. Most feel they have been backed into a corner with very little to lose. Regardless of location.
Also with various base closures through out the UK offering contracts at Heathrow have meant that people have been accepted for employment living considerably far from work.
If their lives are now made difficult then they will either have to leave or hope for the best for a satisfactory outcome.
This is one of the reasons why support will be huge. Most feel they have been backed into a corner with very little to lose. Regardless of location.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
The figures I have from LGW are people who applied for VR and are chomping at the bit to be given their leaving date.
Considering the waiting list for part time at all bases/fleets is/has been as long as an MP's expenses list, a vast amount of people will be given part time.
This is of course, only after an "agreement" has been reached.
Hope this clarifies.
Gg
Ps. As and when a new contract is issued to cc, there will be people who refuse to sign it, and therefore seen as resigning. This will in turn reduce crew levels (not on board, but within the company)
The figures I have from LGW are people who applied for VR and are chomping at the bit to be given their leaving date.
Considering the waiting list for part time at all bases/fleets is/has been as long as an MP's expenses list, a vast amount of people will be given part time.
This is of course, only after an "agreement" has been reached.
Hope this clarifies.
Gg
Ps. As and when a new contract is issued to cc, there will be people who refuse to sign it, and therefore seen as resigning. This will in turn reduce crew levels (not on board, but within the company)
Last edited by Glamgirl; 5th Sep 2009 at 22:28. Reason: to add a PS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
You make a very interesting point and one that should be clarified.
The simple answer is no. The post 9/11 depression in air travel was down to the travelling public's unwillingness to travel due to the possibility of further terrorist attacks not their inability to travel due to funding.
The current depression in air travel is due to the inability of companies and individuals to be able to sustain both the frequency and cost of travel, especially in the business sector.
Travel demographics change frequently. Initially flying was for the rich then the charter agents brought it, albeit limited, to the masses. In order to differentiate from 'the masses' many chose to travel in either first class or business class. That system is dying out. People are primarily concerned with cost and, as that is the driver, the way airlines do their business has to adapt with it. I don't think we will ever see the yield levels from executive travel that we have seen for the past decade again. Couple that with the worldwide inability to see how long or how deep this recession will be or, indeed, if it will lead to depression adds to the murk that companies must see through and navigate through.
If BA is to survive as a going concern it needs to adapt and it needs the ability to adapt quickly. With the current intransigent, unionised workforce system it has, it cannot react quickly enough to maintain a profitable stance. That is where the LoCo's have an advantage over any 'legacy' carrier.
The disruption agreement is a classic. BASSA claims £60 million saving through it. That is the total cost to BA of displaced aircraft. Fuel, parking, ATC fees, engineering, compensation etc. etc. etc. The 'actual' costs of keeping 20 odd CC in a hotel for a night or two are pitiful in comparison but BASSA claim the whole 'shebang'. These things need to be changed to benefit the customer. Get the customer to where they have paid to go and then sort out the crew. By which I mean all of us, Flight crew, Cabin crew together. Minimum rest, get the aircraft back to destination and then discuss. Never put the passengers at a disadvantage.
As for commuters, I think you will find that BA recommends that you live within 2 hours of your primary base. However, as a responsible adult you can live where you like but it is, ultimately, your responsibility to get yourself to work promptly and in a fit state to work. Where you live, what you speak and the difficulties of getting to work are of no concern to BA whatsoever.
Would you not argue that BA were in the same position post 9/11, but very quickly returned to the profitable business that they were, until less than a year ago?
The simple answer is no. The post 9/11 depression in air travel was down to the travelling public's unwillingness to travel due to the possibility of further terrorist attacks not their inability to travel due to funding.
The current depression in air travel is due to the inability of companies and individuals to be able to sustain both the frequency and cost of travel, especially in the business sector.
Travel demographics change frequently. Initially flying was for the rich then the charter agents brought it, albeit limited, to the masses. In order to differentiate from 'the masses' many chose to travel in either first class or business class. That system is dying out. People are primarily concerned with cost and, as that is the driver, the way airlines do their business has to adapt with it. I don't think we will ever see the yield levels from executive travel that we have seen for the past decade again. Couple that with the worldwide inability to see how long or how deep this recession will be or, indeed, if it will lead to depression adds to the murk that companies must see through and navigate through.
If BA is to survive as a going concern it needs to adapt and it needs the ability to adapt quickly. With the current intransigent, unionised workforce system it has, it cannot react quickly enough to maintain a profitable stance. That is where the LoCo's have an advantage over any 'legacy' carrier.
The disruption agreement is a classic. BASSA claims £60 million saving through it. That is the total cost to BA of displaced aircraft. Fuel, parking, ATC fees, engineering, compensation etc. etc. etc. The 'actual' costs of keeping 20 odd CC in a hotel for a night or two are pitiful in comparison but BASSA claim the whole 'shebang'. These things need to be changed to benefit the customer. Get the customer to where they have paid to go and then sort out the crew. By which I mean all of us, Flight crew, Cabin crew together. Minimum rest, get the aircraft back to destination and then discuss. Never put the passengers at a disadvantage.
As for commuters, I think you will find that BA recommends that you live within 2 hours of your primary base. However, as a responsible adult you can live where you like but it is, ultimately, your responsibility to get yourself to work promptly and in a fit state to work. Where you live, what you speak and the difficulties of getting to work are of no concern to BA whatsoever.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those taking Voluntary Redundancy will be leaving BA employment by 31 October. In reality many will have stopped before then as acrued leave has to be used up before they leave ( my source is a lovely Purser who is taking VR).
I therefore suspect BA knows exactly how many are taking VR!!
I therefore suspect BA knows exactly how many are taking VR!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR acceptances (from the employee) had to be in by 4th September.
Applicants will be notified by 14th September.
BA definitely knows how many people it will be getting rid of in this way.
Applicants will be notified by 14th September.
BA definitely knows how many people it will be getting rid of in this way.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR acceptances (from the employee) had to be in by 4th September.
Applicants will be notified by 14th September.
BA definitely knows how many people it will be getting rid of in this way.
Applicants will be notified by 14th September.
BA definitely knows how many people it will be getting rid of in this way.
A. Several thousand pounds in severance payments.
As has been previously mentioned, BA are currently in a position of being able to dismiss around 2000 cabin crew with statutory redundancy pay only (one week's pay per year served) and can choose who to dismiss. What's the betting that BA will say that they will only honour VR (severance) if there is a no-strike agreement.
That's the best part of 3000 non-strikers already.
