British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 many BA flights cabin crew take more than the minimum required rest, leaving only half (or less) of the cabin crew on duty. The minimum required rest can often be achieved by splitting the breaks into 3, leaving two thirds of the crew on duty at any one time. Would soberthought consider enforcing this 3 break regime whenever possible to maximise safety, or is safety only an issue when BASSA wishes to make it one?
In the end it is not the views of soberthought that matter. It is the view of the regulator and the view of the aircraft manufacturer that matter.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LONDON
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes i would most definetly prefer a 3 break system and have stated this many times.....No matter, the same number of crew are accessible whether on break or not, they are not accessible if they are NOT there!
ps i cannot see my response to previous posts, yet you have quoted from it. Strange.
ps i cannot see my response to previous posts, yet you have quoted from it. Strange.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soberthought
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.
We will shortly be doing a LGW-TPA-LGW so will be able to compare the LGW product. No doubt it will be as slick as ever. I'll report back.
I suppose it is like everything in life. Some employees are hard working, trustworthy & willing to go the extra mile. The others go on strike!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 49° 11′ 0″ N, 2° 7′ 0″ W
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
According to reports on this thread, the flight attendants' field marshal has been on prolonged sick leave. Why should she bother to come to the battle field?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to reports on this thread, the flight attendants' field marshal has been on prolonged sick leave. Why should she bother to come to the battle field?
Wouldn't do to have her hobbling about on her gammy leg now would it.
Just as an aside, is this the reason that ingrowing toenails were factored into the last EG300 bullying strike mandate????
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is La La Land Lizzie still sunning herself in her pad in LA or did she just hop on a BA taxi to 'see how things were progressing?' How is her foot, poor thing.
The sooner BASSA goes the better.
The sooner BASSA goes the better.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Das Uberfuhrer, I am rather hoping that this little spat is forcing her to spend more time than she would wish back in good old Blighty.
I'm fairly certain some bod at HMRC has someone counting the number of midnights she spends there ..... snigger
I'm fairly certain some bod at HMRC has someone counting the number of midnights she spends there ..... snigger
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re doors and cabin crew
As I thought from my recollections of air law, the requirement for the number of cc required is based only on the number of pax and has nothing to do with the number of doors.
From JAR-OPS 1 Subpart O
Therefore if the 747-400 (in Slidebustle's example) was certified with 524 seats and evacuated in the required time with 11 CC and BA now operates it with only 337 seats in a mid-J config then you would need only 7 CC.
If the CAA have tighter regs with regards to doors I couldn't find them, but I am happy to be corrected.
Regards
From JAR-OPS 1 Subpart O
JAR-OPS 1.990 Number and composition of cabin crew
(a) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 19, when carrying one or more passengers, unless at least one cabin crew member is included in the crew for the purpose of performing duties, specified in the Operations Manual, in the interests of the safety of passengers.
(a) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 19, when carrying one or more passengers, unless at least one cabin crew member is included in the crew for the purpose of performing duties, specified in the Operations Manual, in the interests of the safety of passengers.
(b) When complying with sub-paragraph (a) above, an operator shall ensure that the minimum number of cabin crew is the greater of:
(1) One cabin crew member for every 50, or fraction of 50, passenger seats installed on the same deck of the aeroplane; or
(2) The number of cabin crew who actively participated in the aeroplane cabin during the relevant emergency evacuation demonstration, or who were assumed to have taken part in the relevant analysis, except that, if the maximum approved passenger seating configuration is less
than the number evacuated during the demonstration by at least 50 seats, the number of cabin crew may be reduced by 1 for every whole
multiple of 50 seats by which the maximum approved passenger seating configuration falls below the certificated maximum capacity.
(1) One cabin crew member for every 50, or fraction of 50, passenger seats installed on the same deck of the aeroplane; or
(2) The number of cabin crew who actively participated in the aeroplane cabin during the relevant emergency evacuation demonstration, or who were assumed to have taken part in the relevant analysis, except that, if the maximum approved passenger seating configuration is less
than the number evacuated during the demonstration by at least 50 seats, the number of cabin crew may be reduced by 1 for every whole
multiple of 50 seats by which the maximum approved passenger seating configuration falls below the certificated maximum capacity.
If the CAA have tighter regs with regards to doors I couldn't find them, but I am happy to be corrected.
Regards
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that soberthought feels LGW is less safe, but BASSA in their infinite wisdom agreed to the crewing levels and allows its members to crew the flights. If it's good enough for BASSA (LGW), why isn't it good enough for BASSA(LHR).
As has previously been said, the CAA/FAA/JAA are the people who decide what is safe or not in Civil Aviation. Also please remember that the evacuation requirements on A/C design are that all pax leave the plane within 90 seconds using only HALF the doors. The idea of needing a CC per door is non-sensicle.
The safety argument is a scare mongering way of trying to defend the indefensible
CB
As has previously been said, the CAA/FAA/JAA are the people who decide what is safe or not in Civil Aviation. Also please remember that the evacuation requirements on A/C design are that all pax leave the plane within 90 seconds using only HALF the doors. The idea of needing a CC per door is non-sensicle.
The safety argument is a scare mongering way of trying to defend the indefensible
CB
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The safety argument is a scare mongering way of trying to defend the indefensible
For me, I dont want unions deciding what is safe and what isnt, I'll take the CAA thankyouverymuch.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's please put the safety issue to bed. The CAA mandates the crew complement, individual airlines may choose to exceed the minima for the purposes of customer service... not safety.
If, God forbid, you had to evacuate an aircraft due to cabin fire, I'd argue that working one or two down is safer as it is less people to get out. A bit of a silly statemement maybe, but more true than trying to claim that working above CAA minima, but below previous BA staffing levels, is unsafe.
The safety issue is just another attempt by BASSA to muddy the waters. It only seems to be working on the diehard 'Yes' voters - the public have seen through it.
If you are going to vote 'Yes' make it for real reasons, not made up lies.
If, God forbid, you had to evacuate an aircraft due to cabin fire, I'd argue that working one or two down is safer as it is less people to get out. A bit of a silly statemement maybe, but more true than trying to claim that working above CAA minima, but below previous BA staffing levels, is unsafe.
The safety issue is just another attempt by BASSA to muddy the waters. It only seems to be working on the diehard 'Yes' voters - the public have seen through it.
If you are going to vote 'Yes' make it for real reasons, not made up lies.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Soberthought
.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
If reducing the crew in the cabin, unnecessarily, whether through BA reducing crew complements or 'sleepy cold tired' commuters slacking off in the bunks, has a detrimental effect on safety, then surely you would agree that on all flights not requiring rest, the Captain should lock the bunk areas to remove the terrible risk to safety of people taking unnecessary rest when they could be patrolling the cabins and checking for fire? I'm sure that change to SOPs would go down very well with your colleagues, especially the crew who have got up 10hrs before their duty even started to come in from BCN/LYS/NCE.
Fortunately the CAA decides what's safe, not Loopy Lizzy, and for that we can all be thankful.
Also, I'm pretty certain that safety levels are not one of the things that BASSA are calling a strike over....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by goaround200
8Dumb question from SLF - don't the lavs have smoke detectors anyway?
The bins also usually have an extinguisher that works by detecting when the bin gets very hot and firing an extinguishing agent in to the bin, but by then you are already in a bit of trouble.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex,
locking the bunker to prevent lala's storm trooper taking rest their not entitled to, there is a sobering thought! Love it!
How long before somebody brings up controlled rest again complaining how unsafe it is?
locking the bunker to prevent lala's storm trooper taking rest their not entitled to, there is a sobering thought! Love it!
How long before somebody brings up controlled rest again complaining how unsafe it is?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as good ideas go... I particularly liked this one I read at 'another place'
Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...
Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.
Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!
Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...
Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.
Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!
Last edited by FlexSRS; 28th Jan 2010 at 13:51. Reason: sp.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as good ideas go... I particularly liked this one I read at 'another place'
Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...
Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.
Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!
Basically, if you can't legally take away strikers staff travel permanently (which, incidentally I think seeing as BASSA asked their lawyers, and they have subsequently gone quiet, I imagine you can), what you do is this...
Let the strikers keep their staff travel, but reset the date of joining to the day they come back to work! Not only will this punish all the strikers, and make sure the rest of the BA workforce get a reward for negotiating by being ahead of the striking cabin crew for ever in terms of onload, but it will precipitate a massive stampede back to work as self interests kick in, and commuters will be first in that rush to make sure they don't lose out.
Sounds like a brilliant solution to me!
I am BA Cabin Crew. These thoughts are my own, not those of my employer.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's generally one cabin crew member per 50 fitted seats, irrespective of actual passenger load (there are few exceptions due to cabin visibility requirements).
eg. a 100 seat aircraft requires 2 cabin crew but a 101 seat aircraft requires 3, etc.
TorC,
If staff travel is removed, so is the jumpseat facility. You need a ST ticket to travel on those.
eg. a 100 seat aircraft requires 2 cabin crew but a 101 seat aircraft requires 3, etc.
TorC,
If staff travel is removed, so is the jumpseat facility. You need a ST ticket to travel on those.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a bit of fantasy, as I for one, think the permanent withdrawl option to be the best.
I am BA Cabin Crew. These thoughts are my own, not those of my employer.
Last edited by TorC; 28th Jan 2010 at 14:08. Reason: disclaimer added