British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[Snas]

I have been catching up on the employment tribunal stuff, after my earlier post was questioned when I suggested that reinstatement was rare, 7 cases last year btw, I'd call that rare considering the total claims were 151,000

Anyway, I was rather surprised to see this statement in their annual report: -

The total receipts figure for 2007/8 includes over 10,000 multiple claims
from Airline employees (cabin crew) that have been resubmitted a
number of times during the year. Excluding these suggests that there has
been a decrease of 4% in accepted claims between 2007/8 and 2008/9.

It seem the aviation industry is something of a major customer for them these days and by the looks of it business is booming....

Source: - http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Publications/publications.htm

[Openclimb]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Im watching this with great interest now.

As someone just mentioned this is a bar fight and the protagonists are hard, seasoned fighters who have seen it all and (on the other side) a group who have done a step class once a month, have just watched Daniel Craig in action and think thats what real life fights are like.

I too have my ear pretty close to the ground on this one and say with total certainty thet in a short time they are going to be lifted off the ground, thrown into the air with a strength of force 10 times stronger than they believed could ever have existed, and then be punched into the middle of next week.

Then they will wake up in intensive care and realise that the life they had is no more and they are forced to make a commitment to a brave new world.

And all because "BA imposed".

Watching with great interest...

[Snas]

the protagonists are hard, seasoned fighters who have seen it all

Would that include the management and final result of the last vote?

[SlideBustle]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Oh well! Shame!
Seriously though, I know you have probably voted Yes, but could you or any other Yes voters answer these questions (I AM fellow cabin crew like yourself btw):

1/What will a strike achieve do you hope? WW putting crew back on maybe and saying we don't need to save anything, or maybe just accept a temporary pay freeze??
2/WW and BF have both said that a cost of a strike (which will be quite a few million if it goes ahead!) will come out of the IFCE budget. So how do you feel that BA's proposals so far will be the tip of the iceberg if the cost of a 12 day strike has to come from us

Just a few questions that I hope you may be able to answer. I believe it is everyone's perogative to vote Yes and go on strike, and I am not anti-strike per se, I just personally feel that in this economic climate where the company has to save money and cannot be procrastinating like the union does how a strike will do anything. The possibility of the company going down if a strike proceeds is not just scaremongering.
People who are voting Yes; think fully about the implications before placing that cross rather than using emotions. We are all angry and worried but don't think striking is going to solve anything this time!

Slidebustle

This is MY own views and not the views of my employer BA.

[Rover90]

snas has illustrated what I have always maintained, you can win a case for unfair dismissal, you will get a financial settlement (significantly reduced if you do not take the new contract offered) but you will NOT get your job back.

Don't underestimate the 90 day option.

Second thought is a bit off the wall but "Do BASSA representatives really want to get a "Yes" vote?"

A "Yes" vote would inevitably lead to industrial action and there is now growing agreement that the destruction of the current BASSA heirachy would follow given the obvious resolve of Mr Walsh.

A "No" vote would enable them to reverse out of this particular "cul-de-sac" and surprise surprise, blame the membership for not supporting them and start uttering that all the subsequent changes were the fault of the membership not supporting the "executive".

IMHO, probable outcome of this ballot is going to be "Yes" but by a very much reduced majority.

So bye bye BASSA.

Complex things "Unions"

Just one final final thought. Did anyone else get the impression that A_Lurker came across as two different personalities. Pretty reasoned one moment and then a completely different person at other times. Perhaps we have the CC member sharing the handle with the partner who has the "Spud-u-Like" franchise, allegedly of course.

[MrBernoulli]

I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across

Goodbye WWW! Your YES vote is precisely the excuse BA needs to get the millstone off it's neck, and soon. Enjoy your new job, wherever it that is!

[Ten West]

...Perhaps we have the CC member sharing the handle with the partner who has the "Spud-u-Like" franchise, allegedly of course.

Might explain why he took such obvious delight in handling such a .... Hot potato!

... I'll get me coat.

[MrBernoulli]

Rover90, I definitely got that impression a couple of weeks ago. One morning A Lurker had a complete rant, which was deleted by the Mods, or by Lurker him/herself. Later the same day another poster pulled up Lurker about the rant, even quoting it, and Lurker persistently denied that he/she had written anything of the sort! It was an interesting exchange. Lurker has definitely displayed a 'dual personality' before now.

But apparently he/she is not coming back. What a shame ........

[Carnage Matey!]

Maybe Lurker will reinvent him/herself as a 'New Poster'?

[M2dude]

With the departure of the lurking one, it is now so refreshing to see both 'sides' here generally returning to constructive and open debate in this forum.
Personally I believe that this strike would be a disaster, MAINLY for the CC that went out, but it would do no good, at least in the short-term for any of us. (Long term I tend to agree that breaking the BASSA/UNITE stranglehold will be a very good thing, both for our airline and the good folks in CC at LHR).
Do you guys and gals think that there is a reasonable chance of a 'NON' vote? I'm curious to hear what the concencus of LHR CC on this forum is. Your honest opinions would be very interesting.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Utterly Useless Information Dept. ( but Light Relief ? )

Why in civil aviation are Nigels known as Nigels?

I ' think ' ?? ( and doubtless I will be shot down ) it goes back to the mid-60's, when a satirical column in Flight International - before it became inflated with the International moniker - was published under the name of a fictional Roger Bacon, who when relating the exploits of co-pilots gave them the anonymous name of " Nigel " ( or sometimes " Hoskins " )

Unless you know better - or even care.

[soberthought]

If a flight is a crewmember down, there will have been a request made to Bassa for an alleviation - standard procedure. As you night-stopped, that will have been Bassa denying that alleviation. I've been on many flights with a crewmember down - most crew loved it as it was a good pay day. It rarely happens now, if ever, because Bassa won't allow it.

Correct, Bassa refused alleviation as the 'one down payment' was being witheld. This was confirmed by the 'cabin crew 89' CSD. The poster insinuated that working one down was a regular occurrence and they have personally been on "many flights", define "many". It may have happened regularly, but it is certainly far from the norm or ideal in terms of customer experience and in my opinion safety. These occasions do happen in large organisations where the norms are circumvented, but to accept it now as standard is disappointing. In the example mentioned, the expense of cancelling a flight and the related costs incurred then accommodating passengers and crew seemed illogical rather than pay each crew member a 'one down payment', especially since as you say, this had been done before and no precedent was being set.

So in one cabin they would have needed a bit of help from the csd or another crewmember? Not exactly a great change in circumstances requiring thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew. Other airlines just get on with it, pilots just get on with it (if legal) other industries just get on with it

"bit of help"..Again I can only speak from personal experience but working one down can have a significant affect on the customer experience, mainly with regard to time issues, but also the 'manager' ie CSD is not readily 'available' for passengers to vent their concerns or issues at a time convenient to the paying customer. Issues can fester and esculate and be taken 'off' the aircraft which is not satisfactory.

1. Ratio of crew to passengers is reduced.

2. Non face-to-face work increases per crew member.

As regards "thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew" I do not understand? On the occasion I mention a full flight was cancelled with the related expenses incurred. I do not know what the 'one down' payment figure is, at the time I was told it could be up to a max of £250 per crew member. This still seems illogical to me, considering accommodation etc and the inconvience to paying customers and their choice of which airline to travel with in the future.

'Other airlines, pilots and industries just get on with it' [Paraphrase]
Vague? Agreed working conditions i assume are not specific to British Airways plc?

No, I'm afraid I don't. Manning levels are set to ensure doors are manned to ensure swift evacuation. BA set their manning levels well above the CAA mandated minima, extra crew members are there for service standards only. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where one fewer crew member would impact safety, especially as BA still have MORE than the legal minimum on the vast majority of their aircraft.

As I stated, some may argue that working one down does not affect safety in any 'significant' manner, I personally disagree. I believe it is significant, however I do not understand the reply that safety is not affected in any way whatsoever? Many airlines are curretly legal and adhere to CAA minimums, yet i would not willingly choose to fly with them based on their track records. Also, I can think of several scenarios whereby safety would be impacted with one less crew member.

The figures quoted are from Bassa! Blame them for putting such stuff into the public domain. See now why the rest of us don't believe a word Bassa say? As soon as anyone has their own knowledge of the facts, they can see the UNITE/Bassa fiction for what it is.

I neither apportion blame, agree or disagree with the figures quoted by the poster. As to their source, I do not know. They may well be correct for some crew, however as stated I can only speak from personal experience and reiterate that in six years of full time flying my max salary has been just over £24k and not the figures quoted in the post.

[Glamgirl]

Sober,

I'd like to ask you a question (or two) if I may: You mention safety as one of your issues in regards to reduced crew levels. If the "one down" payment is given to each crew member, would it be more safe or less safe? Also, you mention that there are airlines that are to CAA minimums, but you wouldn't fly with them. Do you deem the BA LGW operation as less safe than BA LHR operation? I would certainly hope you don't.

I'm not sure as to what kind of safety you are specifically concerned about. For example, there are 8 doors on a B777, the minimum crew, leaving base, 3 class, is 10 (currently, for BA). That means there are 2 crew members more than doors. I'm not advocating that the crew levels should be cut further, by the way.

Please bear in mind that it is the CAA's rules we have to adhere to. If the CAA deems it safe, then that's the way it is. I really don't understand why, after LGW has operated with fewer crew for 3 1/2 years, that all of a sudden it's not deemed safe in your eyes. Please explain how you come to such a conclusion if you don't mind.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[fa_wannabe_20]

fa training

hi, anyone knows if there are still fa's who would not make or finnish the training? if that happens are they gonna send back to ther country of origin?

thx

[SlideBustle]

Soberthought,

Glamgirl has raised some very valid points.

CAA regulates the requirements that all UK airlines have to stick to. It is worth pointing out the UK requirements are very stringent and of a high standard compared to many countries (although if I am honest there are some aspects I think that could be improved and even stricter)

The CAA requirements are 1 crew member per door (or on narrow bodies, 1 crew member per pair of doors EXCEPT self help exits such as overwing hatches etc) PLUS 1 crew member per every 50 seats/pax.

Using this example. The max pax load for a general 747 from Boeing is 524. The max amount of seats BA 747-400s carry is 337 in a mid-J config. (got this from wikipedia! lol) That is almost 200 pax less seats that BA carry. On high J 747s we carry even less (slightly under 300 pax I think)

If a carrier was to fit a 747 with 524, to comply with the 2 manning requirements they would need 12 crew. Current crew compliments even with the reductions, is 14 so 2 more than minimum, even though we carry 200 pax less.

I, like glamgirl am certainly not advocating removing any more crew members. I would agree that having more hands is a benefit and I wouldn't want BA to operate to minimum levels. The extra crew members are carried mainly as a customer service benefit though and to ''ease'' the workload of crew. (Can you imagine 12 crew serving 524 pax! ugh!)

I suppose safety is benefited by having extra pairs of hands. But by having for example, 2 crew extra to the minimum levels on a 747 which has less crew than legally allowed for the type, I would say that BA still has safe manning levels for each aircraft. From both a legal perspective (ie.meeting CAA requirements) and also realistically as all our aircraft (including shorthaul) carry less pax than allowed. (Even A321s - charter airlines carry 220 pax we carry around 190!)

Again I am not advocating BA removing even more crew from our flights, and I am actually quite fussy over safety/security issues as I think it is very important. Give me a valid example as how it makes us unsafe?

[soberthought]

You mention safety as one of your issues in regards to reduced crew levels. If the "one down" payment is given to each crew member, would it be more safe or less safe?

I genuinely don't understand the question? Payment has no relevance to safety. Ideally a flight should have it's full crew compliment rather than leave one down, for both customer service reasons and safety issues. Circumstances do happen in large organisations whereby standard operating procedures have on occasions to be circumvented but this should be the exception and not the rule for exactly the reasons mentioned.

you mention that there are airlines that are to CAA minimums. Do you deem the BA LGW operation as less safe than BA LHR operation? I would certainly hope you don't.

Yes I believe BA LHR WW operated flights to have a greater built in safety margin compared to BA LGW as a direct result of having an extra crew member. It has nothing to do with the individual skills or abilities of each crew member.

I'm not sure as to what kind of safety you are specifically concerned about. For example, there are 8 doors on a B777, the minimum crew, leaving base, 3 class, is 10. That means there are 2 crew members more than doors. I'm not advocating that the crew levels should be cut further, by the way.

You want me to paint a possible scenario? I never wish anything like this to occur! ...eg. A medical instance on board during service, 1 crew attends flight deck to talk with medlink, 2 other crew dealing with the medical instant, other crew in cabin maintaining the service, a toilet fire occurs just after the last check in one of the rear toilets and goes unnoticed for AT LEAST 20mins until the next check as there is no presence in the rear galley as all out in the cabin(smoke filled cabin is time dependent)....My point is that there is a 'healthy' number of cabin crew to have on board over and above the minimum. Any decent 'system' has 'layers' of safety as back up. Do you have an alarm on your house? Do you leave the doors open? It's unlikely you will be burgled the very night you turn your alarm off and leave your doors open, but it's better to have layers of safety precautions is it not?.....At it's crudest, more crew = more eyes and ears for dealing with and avoiding potential problems. I believe we are either getting very close to or indeed are at an 'unhealthy' low number of crew. A layer of safety has been taken away with the new proposals.

As regards the customer experience and standards they expect of the British Airways brand, again this in my opinion is most definetly compromised by reduced crew.

Please bear in mind that it is the CAA's rules we have to adhere to. If the CAA deems it safe, then that's the way it is. I really don't understand why, after LGW has operated with fewer crew for 3 1/2 years, that all of a sudden it's not deemed safe in your eyes. Please explain how you come to such a conclusion if you don't mind.

There is nothing "sudden" in my belief that LGW is inherently a less safe operation than LHR through no fault of the crew operating the service.

[etrang]

[QUOTE]Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind/QUOTE]

Good for you. You should stand up for what you believe. In any case you can always vote YES now and then decide whether to strike/go sick/work later on.

[soberthought]

Again I am not advocating BA removing even more crew from our flights, and I am actually quite fussy over safety/security issues as I think it is very important. Give me a valid example as how it makes us unsafe?

My response to Gg summarises my answer to your question. I have never stated that BA is "unsafe". They would not be legal or hold a 'license' to operate as a carrier. I believe the proposals make BA less safe than before, in my opinion 'significantly'...It's is a sliding scale.

On the 747, during the safety demo, it genuinely worries me that the rear doors are unguarded. If for any reason there was a 'panic' scenario and passengers got up and blocked the aisle preventing the crew member from reaching the door to enable escape this could have disastrous consequences. Unlikely, yes, but it only has to happen once.

[Glamgirl]

Sober,

My response to Gg summarises my answer to your question

I'm sorry, but I can't see your response. Feel free to pm it, if you wish.

In regards to doors 5 on the 747, we've discussed that on this thread before (many pages back), and the CAA has deemed the current demo positions as perfectly acceptable. Whether any of us agree or disagree with that, isn't the point.

Gg

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Desertia]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Do I believe that said poster intends to throw away their ST by actually striking?

No chance.

Which probably speaks for a significant number of "Yes" voters.

They can talk the talk (albeit not very well), but when it comes to walking the walk, we will be playing "spot the striker".

Can't wait to see Loopy Lizzie out there leading the line. I hope BA are ready to roster all reps for work if there is ever a strike date given. Let these "leaders" show how much they "represent" the members.