British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PiB
Or you can have an alternative view to your selected Telegraph article Timesonline
And to reply to your comment:
1. The "ridiculing" you speak of is usually short on facts and long on playground taunts. Such posts are generally shown up for their lack of a solid argument, rather than "moderated".
2. The Mods have said time and time again, though you still question their integrity (like that of PWC
), that they are cabin crew, NOT Flight Crew or BA managers or whatever accusation you throw in next.
3. When such posts ARE moderated, it is usually because of libellous or threatening behaviour.
4. The behaviour you seem to abhor is rife, and indeed encouraged, on the BASSA forum. "Those in glass houses....." etc
Stick to facts and not rhetoric and you may find you further your argument somewhat. I'm certainly willing to listen and I'm sure that if you could calm yourself for a while, you COULD probably provide a mature view from the BASSA side of things. Do that, please, and you will find that an adult debate ensues.
P.S In the vain hope you'll ever read anything and actually take it onboard.....comments like
are really doing you no good. You'll simply be turning those on the middle ground to away from BASSA. Muttering "and these people are meant to represent us" as they walk away. Good luck in approaching this in a more adult way.
Or you can have an alternative view to your selected Telegraph article Timesonline
And to reply to your comment:
Posts that ridicule Walsh and suppport BASSA are regularly 'pruned' out by the Mods, and any excuse to ban contributors is found.
2. The Mods have said time and time again, though you still question their integrity (like that of PWC
), that they are cabin crew, NOT Flight Crew or BA managers or whatever accusation you throw in next.3. When such posts ARE moderated, it is usually because of libellous or threatening behaviour.
4. The behaviour you seem to abhor is rife, and indeed encouraged, on the BASSA forum. "Those in glass houses....." etc
Stick to facts and not rhetoric and you may find you further your argument somewhat. I'm certainly willing to listen and I'm sure that if you could calm yourself for a while, you COULD probably provide a mature view from the BASSA side of things. Do that, please, and you will find that an adult debate ensues.
P.S In the vain hope you'll ever read anything and actually take it onboard.....comments like
you can all go to hell in a handcart.
Last edited by Nutjob; 2nd Aug 2009 at 22:11.
CC Top
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wild blue yonder
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poof in Boots is lying.
Lying in a brazen manner, and maligning this forum and its moderators.
To set the record straight, here is (again) some background information.
Verifiable for everybody who cares to provide proof of identity.
The CC forum is moderated by three people, all three employed as long term career cabin crew by three different major airlines.
None of which is based in the UK.
We are of three different nationalities, live in three different countries and what we have in common is a belief in the value of the job we do, a love of flying and a desire to help improve the working lives of fellow FAs through our moderating of this independent forum.
Apart from fervently hoping that our pilot and cabin crew colleagues in BA will have continued safe, satisfying and profitable employment, we do not have a stake in the outcome of the current events in BA.
Our aim with hosting this thread is to provide a platform where all BA flight attendants can speak out freely. Without fear of being flamed, abused or threatened. A thread where ideas and information can be shared and debated, and where people who are not BA FAs can provide information that may be helpful to BA FAs.
With the sole aim of helping BA cabin crew to decide their own fate armed with all the information available.
Lying in a brazen manner, and maligning this forum and its moderators.
To set the record straight, here is (again) some background information.
Verifiable for everybody who cares to provide proof of identity.
The CC forum is moderated by three people, all three employed as long term career cabin crew by three different major airlines.
None of which is based in the UK.
We are of three different nationalities, live in three different countries and what we have in common is a belief in the value of the job we do, a love of flying and a desire to help improve the working lives of fellow FAs through our moderating of this independent forum.
Apart from fervently hoping that our pilot and cabin crew colleagues in BA will have continued safe, satisfying and profitable employment, we do not have a stake in the outcome of the current events in BA.
Our aim with hosting this thread is to provide a platform where all BA flight attendants can speak out freely. Without fear of being flamed, abused or threatened. A thread where ideas and information can be shared and debated, and where people who are not BA FAs can provide information that may be helpful to BA FAs.
With the sole aim of helping BA cabin crew to decide their own fate armed with all the information available.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: gatwick 26L
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our aim with hosting this thread is to provide a platform where all BA flight attendants can speak out freely. Without fear of being flamed, abused or threatened. - thank you moderator 
Meanwhile some crew are living in fear, following recent events and the spill over from other forums cf and bassa.
I am fully aware of how someone can be made to feel intimidated, scared and very fearful after recent very serious threats made to those who dare question the stance of bassa etc are met.
The dangers of this is mistaken identity of the people who are viewed as suspects. I know i have been picked out and blocked from reading anything over on cf, I have sent a number of emails to the providers of the site, along with evidence to support my claim, roster, flight dates and allowances, but have yet to hear anything back other than generic emails.
Meanwhile some crew are living in fear, following recent events and the spill over from other forums cf and bassa.
I am fully aware of how someone can be made to feel intimidated, scared and very fearful after recent very serious threats made to those who dare question the stance of bassa etc are met.
The dangers of this is mistaken identity of the people who are viewed as suspects. I know i have been picked out and blocked from reading anything over on cf, I have sent a number of emails to the providers of the site, along with evidence to support my claim, roster, flight dates and allowances, but have yet to hear anything back other than generic emails.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
babitch,
I do agree with you regarding threats made to people who dare question/comment on CF. It is also a concern of mine that they have banned some people who have done nothing wrong.
I was the one who posted a few bits from CF (as I wanted to give an example of attitude over "there"). I haven't been banned or restricted. Several people have, and it is therefore a worry for me, as posters on CF are claiming it would be a good idea to "name and shame".
The moderators over there had better think carefully before they do anything unwise, that's all I'll say on the matter.
I would like to thank the moderators on this forum though, as they do a very good job, especially when things periodically kicks off in here.
I would also like to thank the people who contribute with facts and information. I've learned a lot in the last few months because of this forum and thread, and for that I'm grateful.
Free speech does apply around here, as long as one's respectful and adult about it.
Gg
I do agree with you regarding threats made to people who dare question/comment on CF. It is also a concern of mine that they have banned some people who have done nothing wrong.
I was the one who posted a few bits from CF (as I wanted to give an example of attitude over "there"). I haven't been banned or restricted. Several people have, and it is therefore a worry for me, as posters on CF are claiming it would be a good idea to "name and shame".
The moderators over there had better think carefully before they do anything unwise, that's all I'll say on the matter.
I would like to thank the moderators on this forum though, as they do a very good job, especially when things periodically kicks off in here.
I would also like to thank the people who contribute with facts and information. I've learned a lot in the last few months because of this forum and thread, and for that I'm grateful.
Free speech does apply around here, as long as one's respectful and adult about it.
Gg
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PiB there certainly does seem to be
, hold up a mirror 
The rest of us are trying to help our colleagues see the wood for the trees.
PS: I have almost never seen such attacks on PPRuNe mods
a relentles [sic] propaganda campaign
The rest of us are trying to help our colleagues see the wood for the trees.
PS: I have almost never seen such attacks on PPRuNe mods
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: on an aircraft
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GlamGirl's Union
Glamgirl
I too ,am sick of the "mis-information" from my Union. I think I'ts a great idea that you set up a Break-away Union, just like CC89 did all those years ago...Count me in ..We need a voice of reason and some-one who is prepared to negotiate with the Company in a mature and enlightened manner..You go girl !!
I too ,am sick of the "mis-information" from my Union. I think I'ts a great idea that you set up a Break-away Union, just like CC89 did all those years ago...Count me in ..We need a voice of reason and some-one who is prepared to negotiate with the Company in a mature and enlightened manner..You go girl !!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PiB,
You do seem to enjoy giving the merry-go-round one more kick, don't you?
Let's take your latest rejoinder - fuel hedging. Well, for starters despite you bandying around headline figures, it's not a device for creating profit for the company, it's there to smooth out the highs and lows of the price of a commodity that we, in the west, are beholden to purchase at prices dictated by artificially defined OPEC production levels. A choice they actively make, rather than simply sucking as much out of the ground as the wells will bear. If you read the recent forum webchats in the airline you'll note that over the last few years we've done awfully well overall and are ahead of the spot price in general terms despite that not being the raison d'etre of the department. Got anything to back up your assertion that we're pouring money overboard on fuel hedging? Or is it merely another crowd-pleaser that you love to wave around without backup? After all, it wouldn't play well on CF if you didn't claim absolute knowledge of all BA accounting and your inalienable right to be better at running the company than the board would it?
Who knows, maybe you can introduce the fines issue to the table again. After all they were accounted for in a previous year's set of accounts but it doesn't stop the faithful recounting the mantra again and again as if, without them, we'd have made another year of record profits. Perhaps we could hide half of last years profits, move them over to this year and be profitable again. You may think that glib, but it borders on as asinine as many of your assertions.
Yet again you ignore the pleas of the members here to bring some decent, debatable facts to the table. Is it any wonder, therefore that you are given scant regard? Perhaps, if you were to use your considerable eloquence in engaging those who doubt you in debate, you might win some people over. Certainly, you'd have a great deal more respect if, finally, you ended in disagreement having carried yourself in such a manner. I've thought a great deal about this next statement and, having read your assertion about BASSA members being rock solid behind their union - it's often because the "bullying", "name and shame" (words used by the web warriors on your oh-so-clever forum) attitude of the most vociferous stops the moderates from even bothering to engage. Frankly, and I apologise in advance if this doesn't pass the moderators' scalpel, it's a self-congratulatory, borderline circle-jerk over there where, if anyone dares to air an opinion that isn't in line with the perceived orthodoxy, they're not met with considered, if passionate, debate. They're simply called a twunt (oh, how very clever, take 2 swear words and pretend that by their amalgamation, they lose their vitriol) and threatened with shunning, or worse, physical violence.
As ever, despite your fine rhetoric, you singularly fail to advance the debate. Please come back with facts, figures (verifiable) and a calm head and convince me of the rightness of your case.
Finally, derogating the moderators because you are culled for not playing by the rules of a forum you choose to engage on is simply not on. If you feel so very strongly that you are maligned in this environment, your choice is to leave. Just as your colleagues exhort the exiling of the non-believers over the road. Sad truth is there's a medium for debate and enlightenment here - why, when it's clear you can construct a lucid and fine sentence, will you not bring that to the argument?
MrB
PS. For the individuals in another place who think that BA CC invented the Twunt word and were so delighted in the cleverness of their colleagues, may I burst your collective bubble and direct you to urbandictionary which posits the origin some 9-10 yrs ago. Nothing new in the world.
PPS. FlapsForty has some idea of my identity and I have no trouble saying anything I've just said here face to face or under my own name. Mods, you've a thankless task. So thank you.
You do seem to enjoy giving the merry-go-round one more kick, don't you?
Let's take your latest rejoinder - fuel hedging. Well, for starters despite you bandying around headline figures, it's not a device for creating profit for the company, it's there to smooth out the highs and lows of the price of a commodity that we, in the west, are beholden to purchase at prices dictated by artificially defined OPEC production levels. A choice they actively make, rather than simply sucking as much out of the ground as the wells will bear. If you read the recent forum webchats in the airline you'll note that over the last few years we've done awfully well overall and are ahead of the spot price in general terms despite that not being the raison d'etre of the department. Got anything to back up your assertion that we're pouring money overboard on fuel hedging? Or is it merely another crowd-pleaser that you love to wave around without backup? After all, it wouldn't play well on CF if you didn't claim absolute knowledge of all BA accounting and your inalienable right to be better at running the company than the board would it?
Who knows, maybe you can introduce the fines issue to the table again. After all they were accounted for in a previous year's set of accounts but it doesn't stop the faithful recounting the mantra again and again as if, without them, we'd have made another year of record profits. Perhaps we could hide half of last years profits, move them over to this year and be profitable again. You may think that glib, but it borders on as asinine as many of your assertions.
Yet again you ignore the pleas of the members here to bring some decent, debatable facts to the table. Is it any wonder, therefore that you are given scant regard? Perhaps, if you were to use your considerable eloquence in engaging those who doubt you in debate, you might win some people over. Certainly, you'd have a great deal more respect if, finally, you ended in disagreement having carried yourself in such a manner. I've thought a great deal about this next statement and, having read your assertion about BASSA members being rock solid behind their union - it's often because the "bullying", "name and shame" (words used by the web warriors on your oh-so-clever forum) attitude of the most vociferous stops the moderates from even bothering to engage. Frankly, and I apologise in advance if this doesn't pass the moderators' scalpel, it's a self-congratulatory, borderline circle-jerk over there where, if anyone dares to air an opinion that isn't in line with the perceived orthodoxy, they're not met with considered, if passionate, debate. They're simply called a twunt (oh, how very clever, take 2 swear words and pretend that by their amalgamation, they lose their vitriol) and threatened with shunning, or worse, physical violence.
As ever, despite your fine rhetoric, you singularly fail to advance the debate. Please come back with facts, figures (verifiable) and a calm head and convince me of the rightness of your case.
Finally, derogating the moderators because you are culled for not playing by the rules of a forum you choose to engage on is simply not on. If you feel so very strongly that you are maligned in this environment, your choice is to leave. Just as your colleagues exhort the exiling of the non-believers over the road. Sad truth is there's a medium for debate and enlightenment here - why, when it's clear you can construct a lucid and fine sentence, will you not bring that to the argument?
MrB
PS. For the individuals in another place who think that BA CC invented the Twunt word and were so delighted in the cleverness of their colleagues, may I burst your collective bubble and direct you to urbandictionary which posits the origin some 9-10 yrs ago. Nothing new in the world.
PPS. FlapsForty has some idea of my identity and I have no trouble saying anything I've just said here face to face or under my own name. Mods, you've a thankless task. So thank you.
Last edited by MrBunker; 3rd Aug 2009 at 06:12.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat off thread but couldn't let this go unchallenged:-
This may have been the case in previous cases of oil crises but the spike last year was mainly down to "the market" getting carried away with itself on the back of speculators seeing a chance to make money out of betting which way the oil price would go. Normally Opec actually increases production to try and ease price rises to an acceptable level when demand soars but actually demand was falling but the price still going up. Companies were then hedging at prices which in retrospect were unsustainable given the already existing recession. Afterwards this action is usually given a couple of lines in the company results even though it has cost many millions and no-one seems to take responsibility for what actually was a cock-up. Opec does play its part but nowhere near as much as in the past.
fuel hedging. Well, for starters despite you bandying around headline figures, it's not a device for creating profit for the company, it's there to smooth out the highs and lows of the price of a commodity that we, in the west, are beholden to purchase at prices dictated by artificially defined OPEC production levels. A choice they actively make, rather than simply sucking as much out of the ground as the wells will bear.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tocamak the thrust of my argument stands. It's not a device for making profit for the company. Granted OPEC have, themselves been "trading" in an unusual environment too but I doubt you could argue that they don't throttle the supply in order to best maximise the price. Market or otherwise, we hedge fuel (as do others) in order to smooth out the spikes, wherever they might arise.
However, overall BA are up over the years on hedging. Indeed you note yourself that "in retrospect" the prices were unsustainable. That's hedging for you. As in your bets. Had we the gift of foresight we'd buy fuel on spot prices in bulk whenever the price bottomed.
MrB
However, overall BA are up over the years on hedging. Indeed you note yourself that "in retrospect" the prices were unsustainable. That's hedging for you. As in your bets. Had we the gift of foresight we'd buy fuel on spot prices in bulk whenever the price bottomed.
MrB
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PiB, On behalf of Flight Deck can I urge immediate capitulation. Their bonus oops share price is rising rapidly as the City recognises recovery (stabilised loads, oil prices dropping to about $47 per barrel). Those school fews are going up you know. Damn labour proles demanding the removal of charity status is very damaging to fee inflation. Topbunk and the like need your help.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkaroo
Yet another solid, mature post. Does BASSA's stance have substance or facts to back it up? Or is sarcasm the best it gets? Please continue though. You and PiB continue to highlight why we SHOULD question BASSA's actions AND why they're so hard to justify.
Yet another solid, mature post. Does BASSA's stance have substance or facts to back it up? Or is sarcasm the best it gets? Please continue though. You and PiB continue to highlight why we SHOULD question BASSA's actions AND why they're so hard to justify.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkaroo,
And that's your idea of contributing to the debate is it? You can see, perhaps, why some of your colleagues tire of the endless empty rhetoric. You've singularly managed to say nothing in the space of a post.
Who urged capitulation? Not I. All I and many who've dared to disagree with BASSA is to urge negotiation. By which I mean going back to the table and hammering out an agreement. Negotiation is not slamming BASSA nor BA's proposals back on the desk and saying take it or leave it. If that's the best intellectual level you can operate on you'd best hop off back to crewforum where someone will be no doubt waiting to tell you what a great job you did sticking it to those nigel twunts. Spare me.
As for the share issue - it's been done to death a thousand times on here but, if like your colleague you don't want to hear it, that's up to you. Simple as, if agreement isn't reached, our deal's off the table too so we're in a no paycut "lala" I'm not listening position too. But, and here's something I think cuts to the meat of the matter, there are certain facts BASSA don't want to believe and will persist in the who can shout the loudest campaign and endeavour to blame flight crew for all their woes (did BASSA ever care to point out how close they came to giving your NAPS pension away, or how BALPA found the NI loophole which saved millions back into the pension - for both staff groups?). Just like the soul who thinks he might withdraw his pension from NAPS just to spite the flight crew, ably demonstrating both their bile and utter misunderstanding of how a pension fund operates.
As for the oil price, if, as you imply, we should leave you alone because oil's cheap - would you be happy to revisit this when oil prices rise as manufacturing demand picks up with the end of the recession? Shall we pay you according to the spot price per barrel? Don't see you hollering for a paycut when it tips the $100pb do you?
Welcome to the 21st century, I don't believe there's a place at the table for this combative approach any longer. Would that you would come back with some facts rather than what you lamely consider to be a witty riposte. But that seems to be the best that can be mustered over here before scuttling back to CF on your hobby horse.
MrB
Oh, by the way, no kids and wouldn't privately educate them if I were to have them. Solid labour voter all my life, happy to pay tax to support Bevan's finest creations.
And that's your idea of contributing to the debate is it? You can see, perhaps, why some of your colleagues tire of the endless empty rhetoric. You've singularly managed to say nothing in the space of a post.
Who urged capitulation? Not I. All I and many who've dared to disagree with BASSA is to urge negotiation. By which I mean going back to the table and hammering out an agreement. Negotiation is not slamming BASSA nor BA's proposals back on the desk and saying take it or leave it. If that's the best intellectual level you can operate on you'd best hop off back to crewforum where someone will be no doubt waiting to tell you what a great job you did sticking it to those nigel twunts. Spare me.
As for the share issue - it's been done to death a thousand times on here but, if like your colleague you don't want to hear it, that's up to you. Simple as, if agreement isn't reached, our deal's off the table too so we're in a no paycut "lala" I'm not listening position too. But, and here's something I think cuts to the meat of the matter, there are certain facts BASSA don't want to believe and will persist in the who can shout the loudest campaign and endeavour to blame flight crew for all their woes (did BASSA ever care to point out how close they came to giving your NAPS pension away, or how BALPA found the NI loophole which saved millions back into the pension - for both staff groups?). Just like the soul who thinks he might withdraw his pension from NAPS just to spite the flight crew, ably demonstrating both their bile and utter misunderstanding of how a pension fund operates.
As for the oil price, if, as you imply, we should leave you alone because oil's cheap - would you be happy to revisit this when oil prices rise as manufacturing demand picks up with the end of the recession? Shall we pay you according to the spot price per barrel? Don't see you hollering for a paycut when it tips the $100pb do you?
Welcome to the 21st century, I don't believe there's a place at the table for this combative approach any longer. Would that you would come back with some facts rather than what you lamely consider to be a witty riposte. But that seems to be the best that can be mustered over here before scuttling back to CF on your hobby horse.
MrB
Oh, by the way, no kids and wouldn't privately educate them if I were to have them. Solid labour voter all my life, happy to pay tax to support Bevan's finest creations.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr B,
I'm sure you are aware, but from the 'other forums' there is at least one individual who stated that they post here to 'Stir the pot'. They are not interested in reasoned debate and they certainly don't listen!!!
Apparently Unite spoke to the City and that it was a productive meeting! Hopefully we'll get a few more details soon!
SS
I'm sure you are aware, but from the 'other forums' there is at least one individual who stated that they post here to 'Stir the pot'. They are not interested in reasoned debate and they certainly don't listen!!!
Apparently Unite spoke to the City and that it was a productive meeting! Hopefully we'll get a few more details soon!
SS
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunnysmith, I know, I know but I can't help but keep asking for a proper reply. I'm all for a proper debate but time and again they just refuse to engage. If all they wish to do is come over here to "stir the pot" and then go back to CF where they are greeted with hearty slaps on the back and cries of well done then it's surely a fruitless, slightly masturbatory exercise for them. It's not like they're making forays behind enemy lines on here.
As for Steve Turner meeting the city, I can't imagine for a moment that institutional investors take their financial advice from the head of Unite. Nor indeed are swayed by calls at the AGM to block vote their millions of shares to back up a few militant, diehards. It's wishful thinking at best. At worst, it's leading us down the path of destruction and the only winners will be our competitors.
As for Steve Turner meeting the city, I can't imagine for a moment that institutional investors take their financial advice from the head of Unite. Nor indeed are swayed by calls at the AGM to block vote their millions of shares to back up a few militant, diehards. It's wishful thinking at best. At worst, it's leading us down the path of destruction and the only winners will be our competitors.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have thought long and hard as to whether or not to contribute to this discussion again. I have been reading through it over the past few weeks and have come to the conclusion that the moderators play a fair and even hand even if we have not seen eye to eye in the past.
I have had posts removed as has PiB and many others. Those posts have contained both pro BASSA comments and anti BASSA comments. As the moderators have previously admitted some are lost as collateral damage in a broad sweep cull whilst others are removed as they go against the thread or are offensive. Fair enough. So, my hats off to the moderators and thanks for a thankless task as MrB has put it.
Back to the thread.
As usual we have a cyclical debate going here with the same old topics being raised again and again without any valid, factual or relevant counter arguments coming back from the pro BASSA contributors.
Fuel Hedging.
Ironically fuel hedging is, as Tocamak pointed out, its own worst enemy. Normally an airline will hedge with different companies at different prices in order to stabilise to cost of fuel over the operating year and, hence, give it the ability to forecast its fuel costs. As the fuel price began to climb forecasts of the price of oil, irrespective of the OPEC production levels, was topping $200 a barrel. At such a figure no airline in the world could have continued to make a profit. However, as airlines rushed to hedge, which is in itself speculation, the speculator market began to buy hence pushing the price up and up. One of the first indicators of a recession is the rapid increase in consumption followed by a dramatic fall. As seen in the 1970's oil crisis which led into the 80's recession. OPEC were pushed and pushed to increase production but refused, enjoying the artificial high, oddly enough as the price plummeted they started to increase production, always one step behind. Now many of the OPEC counties are feeling the pinch severely. Look at Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
What company wouldn't have hedged at $94-96 a barrel with those projections and no foresight of the coming crash? If, with our 20/20 hindsight glasses on, we had been in a position where fuel had hit $200 a barrel we would all be trumpeting the fuel hedging as a great success.
You can't have it both ways and the fuel hedge department has been, since privatisation, in the black over all.
So, fuel hedging fiasco, Nil Points.
Price fixing, punitive fining.
How much EXTRA profit did the company make from artificially high ticket and cargo pricing? Well, to be honest we will probably never know. However, the level of fines must be taken into context of the extra profit gained by the companies involved, and no we weren't the only ones involved. Hence, using 'generic' figures if we made and extra $200million profit and got fined $300million it is a loss of $100million. Still a large figure in made up numbers land but, hopefully, you get the point.
Remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The AGM
Remember that the shareholders were as incensed with WW and the Board as BASSA? We were all looking forward to a vote of no confidence from the shareholders in Martin Broughton and his appointed CEO Willie Walsh? Seems it didn't happen, despite the BASSA lemmings. Willie Walsh runs the company on behalf of the Board for the shareholders. His job is to return a profit and, if possible, a dividend. He gets his brief from departmental heads and then treats all departments as the bottom line of a spreadsheet. He is not interested in the day to day running of the company at the coal face and quite rightly so. BASSA needs to get a grip on how to influence to board which is through the departmental chain of responsibility. Targeting the CEO is nonsense especially when they have received a resounding vote of 99% confidence from those who own the company. You may feel his direction is wrong but, looking at the losses over the industry, many would beg to differ.
Consultancy.
Why did they lay off managers and then 're-employ' them as consultants? Another horrendous WW mistake! Err, on actually. Consultants have a mandate that runs as long as the company needs them. They do not require NI payments, pension payments, medical cover, bonuses etc. They come at a fixed (tax deductible) fee for a defined period and are far more 'money' efficient to employ for 1 month than to have a permanent member of staff doing 1 months work over a year with all the added costs.
BASSA figures.
Could someone from the pro BASSA brigade please explain to us where the 2.61% pay cut figure came from?
Also the $60million saving from the proposed (only BASSA approved) disruption agreement? Where does BASSA get the idea that the CC alone could save the company $60million over 18 months by implementing a disruption agreement? Aircraft will still get diverted. The landing costs, displacement costs, parking, fuel, passenger handling, navigation fees, engineering costs etc. will still be incurred. Is it not a little above BASSA to take credit for the cost savings that could possibly come from ALL other departments? They might however, due to the magnanimous gesture by BASSA, be for only one day now. Allowing the majority of sensible CC who want to get the passengers and themselves back home, to do their job without fear of BASSA rule breaking and a witch hunt.
Back to back flights? 'Allowing' extra back to back flight for those that want to bid for them. How, exactly, does this save money when all of the box payments, the back to back payments and the rest of the paraphernalia still exists?
BASSA valued its savings at £174m, PWC valued it at £54m, still a good saving according to BASSA but one has to ask why BASSA are trumpeting that BA are the monsters for not taking it? If you think your house is worth £250,000 you wouldn't entertain an offer at £75,000 would you?
Looking over the fence
Forgive me Moderators but I just wish to put this 'share deal' to bed once and for all.
The current share deal as negotiated has a fixed monetary figure attached to it. That means that if all of the multitude of trigger points are achieved then shares to the value of that fixed figure will be issued. So, if the share price is low then that figure will be divided by the share price and that amount of shares will be issued. If the share price is high then fewer shares will be issued. Quite simple really.
If you like to look of such a deal then try and negotiate it yourself.
As to the Telegraph story, well if you were to base a story entirely on the quotes from WW I am sure you would get a different article. If you base the story purely on the comments of the UNITE/BASSA negotiators then of course they are going to tell you they are single handedly holding the company up. That's what they are paid for. Not sure Tony Woodly is worth the cost but that is for the membership to decide.
I sympathise for those CC who I have talked with over the past couple of weeks. I have gleaned from them that they feel they are being misrepresented but cannot speak out due to fear of reprisal from the very Union that they pay to protect them. Many of them do not have a full overview of what is occurring nor a balanced brief on the reasons behind the dispute. They have not been given adequate information on the possible future based upon either a successful or unsuccessful deal. These are the personnel who will be hit the hardest as they are the ones who are paying for an organisation which is not delivering its basic mandate to represent its membership.
Tomorrow sees the next round. I truly hope it goes well for the sake of those moderate crew who it has been my privilege to fly with.
I have had posts removed as has PiB and many others. Those posts have contained both pro BASSA comments and anti BASSA comments. As the moderators have previously admitted some are lost as collateral damage in a broad sweep cull whilst others are removed as they go against the thread or are offensive. Fair enough. So, my hats off to the moderators and thanks for a thankless task as MrB has put it.
Back to the thread.
As usual we have a cyclical debate going here with the same old topics being raised again and again without any valid, factual or relevant counter arguments coming back from the pro BASSA contributors.
Fuel Hedging.
Ironically fuel hedging is, as Tocamak pointed out, its own worst enemy. Normally an airline will hedge with different companies at different prices in order to stabilise to cost of fuel over the operating year and, hence, give it the ability to forecast its fuel costs. As the fuel price began to climb forecasts of the price of oil, irrespective of the OPEC production levels, was topping $200 a barrel. At such a figure no airline in the world could have continued to make a profit. However, as airlines rushed to hedge, which is in itself speculation, the speculator market began to buy hence pushing the price up and up. One of the first indicators of a recession is the rapid increase in consumption followed by a dramatic fall. As seen in the 1970's oil crisis which led into the 80's recession. OPEC were pushed and pushed to increase production but refused, enjoying the artificial high, oddly enough as the price plummeted they started to increase production, always one step behind. Now many of the OPEC counties are feeling the pinch severely. Look at Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
What company wouldn't have hedged at $94-96 a barrel with those projections and no foresight of the coming crash? If, with our 20/20 hindsight glasses on, we had been in a position where fuel had hit $200 a barrel we would all be trumpeting the fuel hedging as a great success.
You can't have it both ways and the fuel hedge department has been, since privatisation, in the black over all.
So, fuel hedging fiasco, Nil Points.
Price fixing, punitive fining.
How much EXTRA profit did the company make from artificially high ticket and cargo pricing? Well, to be honest we will probably never know. However, the level of fines must be taken into context of the extra profit gained by the companies involved, and no we weren't the only ones involved. Hence, using 'generic' figures if we made and extra $200million profit and got fined $300million it is a loss of $100million. Still a large figure in made up numbers land but, hopefully, you get the point.
Remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The AGM
Remember that the shareholders were as incensed with WW and the Board as BASSA? We were all looking forward to a vote of no confidence from the shareholders in Martin Broughton and his appointed CEO Willie Walsh? Seems it didn't happen, despite the BASSA lemmings. Willie Walsh runs the company on behalf of the Board for the shareholders. His job is to return a profit and, if possible, a dividend. He gets his brief from departmental heads and then treats all departments as the bottom line of a spreadsheet. He is not interested in the day to day running of the company at the coal face and quite rightly so. BASSA needs to get a grip on how to influence to board which is through the departmental chain of responsibility. Targeting the CEO is nonsense especially when they have received a resounding vote of 99% confidence from those who own the company. You may feel his direction is wrong but, looking at the losses over the industry, many would beg to differ.
Consultancy.
Why did they lay off managers and then 're-employ' them as consultants? Another horrendous WW mistake! Err, on actually. Consultants have a mandate that runs as long as the company needs them. They do not require NI payments, pension payments, medical cover, bonuses etc. They come at a fixed (tax deductible) fee for a defined period and are far more 'money' efficient to employ for 1 month than to have a permanent member of staff doing 1 months work over a year with all the added costs.
BASSA figures.
Could someone from the pro BASSA brigade please explain to us where the 2.61% pay cut figure came from?
Also the $60million saving from the proposed (only BASSA approved) disruption agreement? Where does BASSA get the idea that the CC alone could save the company $60million over 18 months by implementing a disruption agreement? Aircraft will still get diverted. The landing costs, displacement costs, parking, fuel, passenger handling, navigation fees, engineering costs etc. will still be incurred. Is it not a little above BASSA to take credit for the cost savings that could possibly come from ALL other departments? They might however, due to the magnanimous gesture by BASSA, be for only one day now. Allowing the majority of sensible CC who want to get the passengers and themselves back home, to do their job without fear of BASSA rule breaking and a witch hunt.
Back to back flights? 'Allowing' extra back to back flight for those that want to bid for them. How, exactly, does this save money when all of the box payments, the back to back payments and the rest of the paraphernalia still exists?
BASSA valued its savings at £174m, PWC valued it at £54m, still a good saving according to BASSA but one has to ask why BASSA are trumpeting that BA are the monsters for not taking it? If you think your house is worth £250,000 you wouldn't entertain an offer at £75,000 would you?
Looking over the fence
Forgive me Moderators but I just wish to put this 'share deal' to bed once and for all.
The current share deal as negotiated has a fixed monetary figure attached to it. That means that if all of the multitude of trigger points are achieved then shares to the value of that fixed figure will be issued. So, if the share price is low then that figure will be divided by the share price and that amount of shares will be issued. If the share price is high then fewer shares will be issued. Quite simple really.
If you like to look of such a deal then try and negotiate it yourself.
As to the Telegraph story, well if you were to base a story entirely on the quotes from WW I am sure you would get a different article. If you base the story purely on the comments of the UNITE/BASSA negotiators then of course they are going to tell you they are single handedly holding the company up. That's what they are paid for. Not sure Tony Woodly is worth the cost but that is for the membership to decide.
I sympathise for those CC who I have talked with over the past couple of weeks. I have gleaned from them that they feel they are being misrepresented but cannot speak out due to fear of reprisal from the very Union that they pay to protect them. Many of them do not have a full overview of what is occurring nor a balanced brief on the reasons behind the dispute. They have not been given adequate information on the possible future based upon either a successful or unsuccessful deal. These are the personnel who will be hit the hardest as they are the ones who are paying for an organisation which is not delivering its basic mandate to represent its membership.
Tomorrow sees the next round. I truly hope it goes well for the sake of those moderate crew who it has been my privilege to fly with.
Last edited by wobble2plank; 3rd Aug 2009 at 09:31.
Need to understand Trade Unions
Dear all,
I think that there is a need to understand TUs and how they behave. BASSA and Unite are very, very different from BALPA. Those posting on here who have experience of interacting with BALPA need to "forget" that experience.
Unite need to be seen as a business. Like any other business, they will make choices. They are not full of trots and agitators, rather, they have sensible and (in most cases) bright National Officials. Those National FTOs might have been political in their younger days, but they are not political in practice nowadays.
No matter what BASSA might say on this, and on any other thread, they will not gain the support of Unite unless they fully deserve it. If Woodley et al thinks they are bonkers, they just will not be supported. Unite cannot afford to support either unlawful action, not unreasonable action.
If Unite thinks that their case is worthy of support, then they will support them.
I think that there is a need to understand TUs and how they behave. BASSA and Unite are very, very different from BALPA. Those posting on here who have experience of interacting with BALPA need to "forget" that experience.
Unite need to be seen as a business. Like any other business, they will make choices. They are not full of trots and agitators, rather, they have sensible and (in most cases) bright National Officials. Those National FTOs might have been political in their younger days, but they are not political in practice nowadays.
No matter what BASSA might say on this, and on any other thread, they will not gain the support of Unite unless they fully deserve it. If Woodley et al thinks they are bonkers, they just will not be supported. Unite cannot afford to support either unlawful action, not unreasonable action.
If Unite thinks that their case is worthy of support, then they will support them.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for a proper debate but time and again they just refuse to engage
As for them refusing to engage, well to be blunt I don't think they know (not all of them!!!) how without resorting to personal abuse. It may sound harsh, but the CF/Bassa forum group either don't want to think for themselves or can't!!
Could someone from the pro BASSA brigade please explain to us where the 2.61% pay cut figure came from?
Unfortunately, all you get is 'if it's good enough for the pilots it's good enough for us' from the usual lot. They simply don't understand or care to understand the work/background that was involved in our package. Only recently my partner was listening to a BASSA rep talking to some crew at the CRC, and (as I said before in a previous post) after correcting his 'understanding' of our package a few times she gave up and walked away!!! (She thinks she overheard him say 'must be married to flight deck' as she walked away.... but that's an aside!)
All in all though, I have to say that (apart from the three crew members I encountered on a trip recently - as I alluded to in another previous post) everyone I have flown with in the last week or so, have been a credit to the hardworking, intelligent and articulate crew you'd expect in our airline. That is one of the things I agree with Bassa on. They've restored my confidence that a sensible solution is possible.
SS
CM
That takes us off-thread...........but.........
As you may/may not know, the GG episode was very unpleasant with a lot of "heavy" things going on at the local level. I think that the FTOs locally might have been unusually motivated. At National level, they did not want to know.
There were also some difficult-to-understand ownership issues. At the time, GG was owned by TPG, (private equity). At the same time, TPG was the biggest registered shareholder in Ryannair, and the TPG boss was Ryannair's Chairman. - Even motormouth MOL has a boss.
The biggest beneficiaries of the GG situation were Ryannair.
That takes us off-thread...........but.........
As you may/may not know, the GG episode was very unpleasant with a lot of "heavy" things going on at the local level. I think that the FTOs locally might have been unusually motivated. At National level, they did not want to know.
There were also some difficult-to-understand ownership issues. At the time, GG was owned by TPG, (private equity). At the same time, TPG was the biggest registered shareholder in Ryannair, and the TPG boss was Ryannair's Chairman. - Even motormouth MOL has a boss.
The biggest beneficiaries of the GG situation were Ryannair.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Age: 46
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SUNNYSMITH,
Hilarious haven't laughed so much in ages. Militant ones outnumbered in briefing? You work for BA darlinG?? I seriously don't think so!! 95% of us our behind our union and MARK MY WORDS WE WILL WIN THIS FIGHT. WE ARE A PREMIUM AIRLINE AND WE WILL RULE THE ROOST!!! 
You have underestimated our fight and strength. Just talk to any BA crew and DARLING you are wrong when you say we our outnumbered.
Have a lovely day HUN.
BASSA 100% UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. WE WILL FIGHT AND FIGHT AND FIGHT. This time next year we will see who has won. Don't be too suprised when we still have a term and conditions, Not so easy legally to break a union sorry WW. You will go eventually and I bet I am still here.
Hilarious haven't laughed so much in ages. Militant ones outnumbered in briefing? You work for BA darlinG?? I seriously don't think so!!
95% of us our behind our union and MARK MY WORDS WE WILL WIN THIS FIGHT. WE ARE A PREMIUM AIRLINE AND WE WILL RULE THE ROOST!!! You have underestimated our fight and strength. Just talk to any BA crew and DARLING you are wrong when you say we our outnumbered.
Have a lovely day HUN.
BASSA 100% UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. WE WILL FIGHT AND FIGHT AND FIGHT. This time next year we will see who has won. Don't be too suprised when we still have a term and conditions, Not so easy legally to break a union sorry WW. You will go eventually and I bet I am still here.