British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree very much with A Lurker, it is very offensive to some people to see the word cancer used when descibing anything to do with this topic. You never know if anyone reading these threads is suffering from cancer or lost someone to it.
Like Lurker I lost both my parents this time of year.
Please try and use alternative words to decribe opinions.
Like Lurker I lost both my parents this time of year.
Please try and use alternative words to decribe opinions.
Last edited by Jean-Lill; 21st Dec 2009 at 00:33. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker, my mother died of a heart attack, does that mean we can't use the words "heart" or "attack" in our posts?
Romans,
Romans, you don't get it. BA CANNOT remove imposition. It cannot afford to. The company has lost about 1 billion pounds in the year up to last June. It is probably still losing 50 million pounds a month. It has a pension deficit of 3.7 Billion. The company is valued at (optimistically) 2.2 Billion. It has cash reserves of 2 Billion to draw on (borrowed at disadvantageous rates due to it's weak credit rating) which are needed for new aircraft if it is to survive.
Are you still not getting the point?
No doubt Lizanne tells you that 2 Billion is a "fighting fund" or some such nonsense. Well the answer is, it isn't there to fund the cushy lives of BASSA members.
I actually wonder if BA will be able to reveal even provisional figures for 2009 before your union next attempt to destroy the company. A figure of 500-600 million pounds lost would normally make people think twice.
I prefer to think of BASSA as a parasite on the company. Those who've lost relatives to tapeworm, you have my deepest sympathy.
And for the odious Malone, Rudyard Kipling? For God's sake woman, how long before you and your bumbling colleagues start quoting Rupert Brooke?
Which would be ironic, because you are the generals sending the privates to the slaughter.
Notwithstanding the potential destruction of a great company, I suppose there is very little point in banging one's head against a wall.
Who's for a game of football between the trenches?
Ironic that we talk of early deaths on the morning young Brittany Murphy collapsed and died of cardiac arrest at the too young age of 32.
May I wish the very best for the festive season to all PPRUNER's, and hope and pray that some common sense prevails, and that this isn't the last Christmas we will be talking about British Airways in its current form.
Romans,
I am pretty sure that if the company removed the imposition tomorrow BASSA would not expect things to return to normal overnight. As I said in previous posts, there are ways of going around it, especially as the winter schedule is coming. I truly believe that, were there is a will there is a way.
Are you still not getting the point?
No doubt Lizanne tells you that 2 Billion is a "fighting fund" or some such nonsense. Well the answer is, it isn't there to fund the cushy lives of BASSA members.
I actually wonder if BA will be able to reveal even provisional figures for 2009 before your union next attempt to destroy the company. A figure of 500-600 million pounds lost would normally make people think twice.
I prefer to think of BASSA as a parasite on the company. Those who've lost relatives to tapeworm, you have my deepest sympathy.
And for the odious Malone, Rudyard Kipling? For God's sake woman, how long before you and your bumbling colleagues start quoting Rupert Brooke?
Which would be ironic, because you are the generals sending the privates to the slaughter.
Notwithstanding the potential destruction of a great company, I suppose there is very little point in banging one's head against a wall.
Who's for a game of football between the trenches?
Ironic that we talk of early deaths on the morning young Brittany Murphy collapsed and died of cardiac arrest at the too young age of 32.
May I wish the very best for the festive season to all PPRUNER's, and hope and pray that some common sense prevails, and that this isn't the last Christmas we will be talking about British Airways in its current form.
Last edited by Desertia; 21st Dec 2009 at 03:40. Reason: Lizanne's rubbish
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the ruling on the Metrobus case, of which BA were clearly aware. What mystifies me is how UNITE didn't know this was coming. Wasn't John Hendy the QC representing them last week?
.
Ah yes, I checked:
Where an employer sought an injunction to restrain a strike, a union’s failure to comply with its obligation under s 231A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practicable of the result of the ballot could justify the grant of an injunction restraining the strike. S 231A, and also ss 226 and 234A, were not disproportionate restrictions on the rights of association conferred by art 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The obligations under those sections could not be regarded as onerous so that they could be said to constitute a serious impediment on a union’s ability to call a strike.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the defendant, Unite the Union, from the decision of King J on 9 October 2008 by which he granted an interim injunction restraining Unite from calling a strike by members who were bus drivers working for, inter alia, the claimant, Metrobus Ltd. The judge found that there were fatal defects in the notice of the ballot, in the two strike notices, and in the failure of Unite to notify Metrobus sufficiently promptly of the result of the ballot. Unite contended that the grounds on which the judge granted the injunction constituted a serious impediment on its ability and that of any other union to call a strike.
LLOYD LJ said that Unite submitted that the provisions of the 1992 Act as regards industrial action were to be seen in the light of fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association including the right to form and to join trade unions conferred in art 11 of the Convention. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that collective bargaining and strike action were important means by which a citizen’s rights might be protected without any formal recognition of either as an essential element of the art 11 right (see Unison v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497) and had now recognised that the right to collective bargaining was an essential element in that right: see Demir and Baykara v Turkey(Application No 34503/97) 12 November 2008. Unite also submitted that EC law recognised the fundamental nature of the right to strike: see International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line (Case C-438/05) [2008] ICR 741. Unite submitted that the relevance of the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction was that restrictions on the ability of a trade union to call a strike had to stand up to scrutiny under art 11. Were they appropriate? Such restrictions could be justified in the interests of members of the union, who were entitled to be protected against the calling of a strike which did not have the support of a majority of the relevant members, not that such restrictions could be a necessary protection for employers. In his Lordship’s view the legislation did take account of the legitimate interests of employers. A balance was necessary between the rights afforded to workers by art 11 on the one hand and the rights of the employer under art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention on the other. The binding effect of art 11 did not restrict the scope for a wide variety of different legislative approaches. Such variety was to be expected and was permitted by the margin of appreciation permitted to member states as regards conformity with the Convention.
Section 231A of the 1992 Act imposed a freestanding obligation on the union to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practical of the outcome of the ballot, regardless of the union’s decision as to industrial action, and His Lordship agreed with the judge that the union had not complied with it. This point affected also the ballot notice and the strike notices. Unite might have misunderstood the application of s 226A(2C)(ii). If so, it ignored the assistance provided by the Code of Practice. In assessing the reasonableness of the legislation it was legitimate to take account of the fact that that code was there to help in cases of doubt or difficulty. The requirement of an explanation was not an onerous obligation. Nor was it unreasonable for a trade union, when supplying information from its own sources, to be obliged to say something about how the information supplied had been arrived at. Assessing the requirements imposed by ss 226A and 234A, it did not seem to His Lordship that the obligation to provide an explanation of the figures could be said to be unreasonable, excessively onerous or disproportionate.
MAURICE KAY LJ and SIR MARK POTTER P delivered judgments concurring in the result
Appearances: John Hendy QC and Simon Gorton (instructed by EAD Solicitors LLP, Liverpool ) for the union; Charles Béar QC and Paul Gott (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell ) for the employer.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the defendant, Unite the Union, from the decision of King J on 9 October 2008 by which he granted an interim injunction restraining Unite from calling a strike by members who were bus drivers working for, inter alia, the claimant, Metrobus Ltd. The judge found that there were fatal defects in the notice of the ballot, in the two strike notices, and in the failure of Unite to notify Metrobus sufficiently promptly of the result of the ballot. Unite contended that the grounds on which the judge granted the injunction constituted a serious impediment on its ability and that of any other union to call a strike.
LLOYD LJ said that Unite submitted that the provisions of the 1992 Act as regards industrial action were to be seen in the light of fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association including the right to form and to join trade unions conferred in art 11 of the Convention. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that collective bargaining and strike action were important means by which a citizen’s rights might be protected without any formal recognition of either as an essential element of the art 11 right (see Unison v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497) and had now recognised that the right to collective bargaining was an essential element in that right: see Demir and Baykara v Turkey(Application No 34503/97) 12 November 2008. Unite also submitted that EC law recognised the fundamental nature of the right to strike: see International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line (Case C-438/05) [2008] ICR 741. Unite submitted that the relevance of the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction was that restrictions on the ability of a trade union to call a strike had to stand up to scrutiny under art 11. Were they appropriate? Such restrictions could be justified in the interests of members of the union, who were entitled to be protected against the calling of a strike which did not have the support of a majority of the relevant members, not that such restrictions could be a necessary protection for employers. In his Lordship’s view the legislation did take account of the legitimate interests of employers. A balance was necessary between the rights afforded to workers by art 11 on the one hand and the rights of the employer under art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention on the other. The binding effect of art 11 did not restrict the scope for a wide variety of different legislative approaches. Such variety was to be expected and was permitted by the margin of appreciation permitted to member states as regards conformity with the Convention.
Section 231A of the 1992 Act imposed a freestanding obligation on the union to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practical of the outcome of the ballot, regardless of the union’s decision as to industrial action, and His Lordship agreed with the judge that the union had not complied with it. This point affected also the ballot notice and the strike notices. Unite might have misunderstood the application of s 226A(2C)(ii). If so, it ignored the assistance provided by the Code of Practice. In assessing the reasonableness of the legislation it was legitimate to take account of the fact that that code was there to help in cases of doubt or difficulty. The requirement of an explanation was not an onerous obligation. Nor was it unreasonable for a trade union, when supplying information from its own sources, to be obliged to say something about how the information supplied had been arrived at. Assessing the requirements imposed by ss 226A and 234A, it did not seem to His Lordship that the obligation to provide an explanation of the figures could be said to be unreasonable, excessively onerous or disproportionate.
MAURICE KAY LJ and SIR MARK POTTER P delivered judgments concurring in the result
Appearances: John Hendy QC and Simon Gorton (instructed by EAD Solicitors LLP, Liverpool ) for the union; Charles Béar QC and Paul Gott (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell ) for the employer.
Ah yes, I checked:
In response on Thursday, John Hendy QC for Unite said the union had been "assiduous" in its efforts to comply with the law.
Last edited by Desertia; 21st Dec 2009 at 05:54. Reason: Added John Hendy comment.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion piece from Graham Robertson:
And one from Greg Hunt:
British Airways crew dig the hole even deeper
By Graham Robertson
Its hard to look anywhere these days without hearing about the British Airways strike. I was very reluctant to write yet another post about something that’s been covered to death in both mainstream media as well as in the blogesphere, but now that the strike as been called off I feel I can add my two cents.
So what caused the flight crew to walk off the job over Christmas? Mainly, BA’s proposal to cut one staff per flight and freeze pay for two years. To be totally honest, I don’t think even that would be enough to stop the bleeding - BA lost £401m last year and it looks like it’s only going to get worse.
My first reaction to this was disappointment. Those of us that actually work in the travel industry have been through one of the worst years anyone can remember. We’ve all made sacrifices, we’ve all taken on more work than we thought we could handle and we did it happily because we had faith in our organizations as well as our industry to rebound. It will be very sad if these unions have destroyed BA’s chance to recover in 2010. There has already been murmurings that the strike may only have been postponed, further damaging consumer trust with the vague threat of a strike still looming.
I am all for employee rights and it’s never a good thing when someone loses their job, but sometimes these things cannot be avoided. Hopefully BA can get through this without any lasting effects; if not they will join the ranks of the many other UK airlines to go bust this year.
By Graham Robertson
Its hard to look anywhere these days without hearing about the British Airways strike. I was very reluctant to write yet another post about something that’s been covered to death in both mainstream media as well as in the blogesphere, but now that the strike as been called off I feel I can add my two cents.
So what caused the flight crew to walk off the job over Christmas? Mainly, BA’s proposal to cut one staff per flight and freeze pay for two years. To be totally honest, I don’t think even that would be enough to stop the bleeding - BA lost £401m last year and it looks like it’s only going to get worse.
My first reaction to this was disappointment. Those of us that actually work in the travel industry have been through one of the worst years anyone can remember. We’ve all made sacrifices, we’ve all taken on more work than we thought we could handle and we did it happily because we had faith in our organizations as well as our industry to rebound. It will be very sad if these unions have destroyed BA’s chance to recover in 2010. There has already been murmurings that the strike may only have been postponed, further damaging consumer trust with the vague threat of a strike still looming.
I am all for employee rights and it’s never a good thing when someone loses their job, but sometimes these things cannot be avoided. Hopefully BA can get through this without any lasting effects; if not they will join the ranks of the many other UK airlines to go bust this year.
Tampa, Florida - A little winter sun was being spoiled by the possibility of having to deal with the mayhem caused by the planned 12 day British Airways (BA) cabin crew strike.
I believe a public service organisation, such as an airline, taking action at one of the major holiday periods of the year is nothing short of disgusting. And, anyone who takes part in such an action should lose their job - not that I have strong feelings.
Designed to pile pressure on management of the airline, the only losers would have been the one million stranded customers - but it could also bring the airline down.
Gordon Brown’s government would not allow BA to buckle under the pressure as it would trumpet an avalanche of similar actions.
The main arguments behind this strike action for the union members is a pay freeze and the reduction of one crew member on long haul flights - from fifteen to fourteen.
My only question - is the union complaining because the crew reduction would put passengers in danger, or does it mean that cabin crew would have to work harder?
If it’s the latter, well boo hoo! Now suck it up and get on with your job, at least you have one. If it is the former and it can be proved the airline management will have no other option than to acquiesce - which they haven’t.
You should also know that BA cabin crew, according to British Civil Aviation Authority figures earn, based on average total pay, twice as much as Virgin crew and more than £9,000 per year more than the next closest airline crew. Seems they could have afforded a 12 day unpaid holiday/strike. And, maybe that financial comfort is part of the problem. Conversely, BA is already facing some poor financials and the loss of £300 million revenue would certainly not have helped.
No employee is indispensable and every company is vulnerable. A 12 day strike is the sort of action that can cause irreparable damage to a company and anyone that cannot see that probably has the ego of a person who heads a large union.
Unite union leaders, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, would have you believe that strike action is the last option in their arsenal and nothing to do with the media attention they get.
Even after admitting that the proposed strike action is, “probably over the top”, they expect you to believe they have exhausted all avenues for discussion and that it was pure bad luck that a strike was scheduled for the most inconvenient time of the year.
Well, they have already been proved cheats by the High Court. The strike ballot was illegal and therefore so is the strike.
Maybe they are scumbag liars too.
Well, I won’t be in Florida longer than expected, but my view would still be let the strike go ahead and even let the airline collapse.
Let the 92 per cent of union members who voted for strike action join the ranks of the unemployed. I can always fly with another airline; let’s see how unemployment pay compares to having to do with one less crew member on a long haul flight. With the existing £3.7 billion deficit in the BA pension fund they may also find themselves stacking tins of chicken or fish on supermarket shelves in their retirement. Be careful what you wish (or vote) for.
I believe a public service organisation, such as an airline, taking action at one of the major holiday periods of the year is nothing short of disgusting. And, anyone who takes part in such an action should lose their job - not that I have strong feelings.
Designed to pile pressure on management of the airline, the only losers would have been the one million stranded customers - but it could also bring the airline down.
Gordon Brown’s government would not allow BA to buckle under the pressure as it would trumpet an avalanche of similar actions.
The main arguments behind this strike action for the union members is a pay freeze and the reduction of one crew member on long haul flights - from fifteen to fourteen.
My only question - is the union complaining because the crew reduction would put passengers in danger, or does it mean that cabin crew would have to work harder?
If it’s the latter, well boo hoo! Now suck it up and get on with your job, at least you have one. If it is the former and it can be proved the airline management will have no other option than to acquiesce - which they haven’t.
You should also know that BA cabin crew, according to British Civil Aviation Authority figures earn, based on average total pay, twice as much as Virgin crew and more than £9,000 per year more than the next closest airline crew. Seems they could have afforded a 12 day unpaid holiday/strike. And, maybe that financial comfort is part of the problem. Conversely, BA is already facing some poor financials and the loss of £300 million revenue would certainly not have helped.
No employee is indispensable and every company is vulnerable. A 12 day strike is the sort of action that can cause irreparable damage to a company and anyone that cannot see that probably has the ego of a person who heads a large union.
Unite union leaders, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, would have you believe that strike action is the last option in their arsenal and nothing to do with the media attention they get.
Even after admitting that the proposed strike action is, “probably over the top”, they expect you to believe they have exhausted all avenues for discussion and that it was pure bad luck that a strike was scheduled for the most inconvenient time of the year.
Well, they have already been proved cheats by the High Court. The strike ballot was illegal and therefore so is the strike.
Maybe they are scumbag liars too.
Well, I won’t be in Florida longer than expected, but my view would still be let the strike go ahead and even let the airline collapse.
Let the 92 per cent of union members who voted for strike action join the ranks of the unemployed. I can always fly with another airline; let’s see how unemployment pay compares to having to do with one less crew member on a long haul flight. With the existing £3.7 billion deficit in the BA pension fund they may also find themselves stacking tins of chicken or fish on supermarket shelves in their retirement. Be careful what you wish (or vote) for.
BASSA's latest missive, posted at #6595 on the other preceding thread (now closed), is a tour de force in untruths - plain and simple.
Wrong! BASSA broke the law by allowing members, who were taking voluntary redundancy, to ballot for a strike which would be called for after those members had left the company. That is illegal! You can only ballot members who have a direct interest in the the strike and its outcome.
BASSA had a copy of a spreadsheet (info regarding union members and salary deductions) and that included the names and leaving date (30 November 2009) of all BASSA members who were taking that voluntary redundancy, and Liz Malone had personally seen it. BA warned Unite that it was risking invalidating the ballot. Someone asked on the BASSA forums if a person taking VR could vote - Liz Malone personally replied on the forum, that such people could vote. Malone screwed up! Despite being warned at least once in person, and twice in writing, by BA, Unite chose not to ensure that BASSA members taking VR were given a clear warning not to vote. Unite screwed up! Between them, Malone and Unite transgressed the law, as clearly stated in the judgement.
If BASSA and/or it's members can't be arsed with keeping the records accurate, that sends a clear signal about apathy for detail. The devil is in the detail and if you don't look after the detail it bites you on the bum!
Wrong again! The spreadsheet mentioned already provided that information (see above). Malone and BASSA didn't bother to do anything with it.
Bad luck on using poor legal advice! The law is pretty darn clear.
Irrelevant! The law was broken even if one person taking redundancy was allowed to vote! Law broken, so entire ballot invalid. And law was broken by incompetents who, despite several clear warnings, chose to do nothing about it. That problem of attention to detail, again.
Utter nonsense - BASSA and Liz Mallone had a spreadsheet from BA which had a leaving date of 30 November 2009 against the names of those leaving. So, BASSA didn't work very hard at all, did they?
Really? No empirical evidence provided for that sweeping statement. Has BASSA and Unite counted up all the opinions of the legal correspondents and experts and found an astonished majority? Utter tripe!
I think you'll find that the 'Yes' voters brought that upon themselves. Unfortunately, the 'No' voters and non-union members will get lumped together with the militants. And BASSA militants forget that that they are first-rate at vilifying any in the cabin crew community who don't toe their outrageous line. Pot calling kettle!
Conveniently forgetting that this info could have easily come from the disaffected within their own community.
Spot on! BASSA and Unite are the biggest source of untruths going at the moment. All the above refers!
Hysterical! Vote for a 12-day strike over Christmas and New Year, and you want support and sympathy? Who do BASSA and Unite think they are? Unbelievable! Since when did the public owe that to you?
Well, if it was that simple, why wasn't it done with the first ballot? Incompetents.
Plenty of confirmatory evidence in this latest BASSA scribbling of the root of the problem - that it is never BASSA's fault. It is always everbody else's fault - the law's fault, the court/judge's fault, or a dirty tricks campaign by the company, or some such other hallucination. BASSA and Unite are never going to get anywhere until they take some clear responsibility for their own serious, and very public, shortcomings.
(And as for reporting pilots to BASSA for telling the public that the strike is off - good grief! Just goes to show the level of the idiots the company is dealing with.)
Firstly, we need to clearly state that the legal injunction received by British Airways was absolutely and categorically nothing to do with the legality of the issues over which the ballot was held ....
BASSA had a copy of a spreadsheet (info regarding union members and salary deductions) and that included the names and leaving date (30 November 2009) of all BASSA members who were taking that voluntary redundancy, and Liz Malone had personally seen it. BA warned Unite that it was risking invalidating the ballot. Someone asked on the BASSA forums if a person taking VR could vote - Liz Malone personally replied on the forum, that such people could vote. Malone screwed up! Despite being warned at least once in person, and twice in writing, by BA, Unite chose not to ensure that BASSA members taking VR were given a clear warning not to vote. Unite screwed up! Between them, Malone and Unite transgressed the law, as clearly stated in the judgement.
This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge.
However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave.
British Airways declined to provide that information.
British Airways declined to provide that information.
Legal advice indicated that as they were employed at the time of the ballot and as their leaving date/offer was not guaranteed, they were entitled to vote; therefore excluding them could, in itself, be grounds for a legal challenge.
Our QC - one of the most respected experts in industrial law - was confident that the inclusion or indeed exclusion, had not affected the ballot in any significant way; after all, the disputed number was only some 800 people and over 9514 people had supported the yes vote, with just 772 voting no - a 92.49% unequivocal vote.
On top of that, the union had worked very hard to ensure that our lists were as accurate as possible, given that is was an almost impossible task to individually identify these people.
Virtually all of the media’s own legal correspondents universally agreed that BA had no case, yet somehow they won; most experts were astonished.
The vilification that crew suffered was simply outrageous; most of it deliberately induced and inspired by our own management who were more than willing to publish misleading and inflated salaries and comparisons, to assist and actively encourage this false reporting with an unprecedented “dirty tricks” style campaign.
They even went so far as to leak personal details to The Daily Mail, in an attempt to smear your Chairperson and other reps.
They say the first casualty of war is truth, and this has proven to be the case.
Public support would have been nice and we didn’t get it, ....
If we had received more public support, ....
If we had received more public support, ....
Unite has already notified British Airways of our intention to re-ballot at the beginning of January; the process will be arranged during the Christmas break and database checking will take place, through the night if required.
Plenty of confirmatory evidence in this latest BASSA scribbling of the root of the problem - that it is never BASSA's fault. It is always everbody else's fault - the law's fault, the court/judge's fault, or a dirty tricks campaign by the company, or some such other hallucination. BASSA and Unite are never going to get anywhere until they take some clear responsibility for their own serious, and very public, shortcomings.
(And as for reporting pilots to BASSA for telling the public that the strike is off - good grief! Just goes to show the level of the idiots the company is dealing with.)
A Lurkers post didn't last long at all! Goodness gracious me!
I think the point that was being made by Desertia was that, as tragic as it is to have someone close to you lost to cancer, it really is not a reason to stop using the word 'cancer', here on this forum or anywhere else. If one is easily offended by the word, then bow out and stay away. No problem.
I think the point that was being made by Desertia was that, as tragic as it is to have someone close to you lost to cancer, it really is not a reason to stop using the word 'cancer', here on this forum or anywhere else. If one is easily offended by the word, then bow out and stay away. No problem.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weathermap/Tiramisu - couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ?
For information sake, how often, and by whom, do BA cabin crew get checked on revenue flights? And how on earth did they allow BASSA to get away with not allowing managers to listen in on pre-flight briefs? Incredible! Seems like a lot of the old-school types have some deficiencies to hide? And if that is the case, it says that annual SEP training days are even more 'cosy' than they seem!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bye 4 now
I'm off to sunnier destinations today. All of it on BA.
One last word about the way (some of) you conduct yourselves here. Don't focus so much on who is right or wrong. As we by now have established the truth is a very subjective matter. Establishing who is right or wrong will only make things worse.
Ask yourself if you would rather be right or rather be happy?
Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!)
I wish you all the best and remember: an important difference between us and animals is that we can choose how we react.
One last word about the way (some of) you conduct yourselves here. Don't focus so much on who is right or wrong. As we by now have established the truth is a very subjective matter. Establishing who is right or wrong will only make things worse.
Ask yourself if you would rather be right or rather be happy?
Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!)
I wish you all the best and remember: an important difference between us and animals is that we can choose how we react.
#6521 on the previous, now closed, forum.
Tercarley .......... Spot on !
If it weren't for a continued desire to see my pension cheque arrive each month, after the way we have been treated by B.A. and W.W. with S.T. 2009, part of me would actually like them to go to the wall - at least W.W. would also lose his - lifetime you note, unlike us - staff travel concessions, too. As well as his 750k salary.
He can also forget getting my support for the 3rd runway, unless of course there is a quid pro quo - and we get the concessions we worked for re-instated - everything is negotiable !
Wot chance ?
Tercarley .......... Spot on !
If it weren't for a continued desire to see my pension cheque arrive each month, after the way we have been treated by B.A. and W.W. with S.T. 2009, part of me would actually like them to go to the wall - at least W.W. would also lose his - lifetime you note, unlike us - staff travel concessions, too. As well as his 750k salary.
He can also forget getting my support for the 3rd runway, unless of course there is a quid pro quo - and we get the concessions we worked for re-instated - everything is negotiable !
Wot chance ?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ?
Now there's a surprise!
When the CAA audited our pr-flight briefings at BA we failed. Hence the new 'Inflight Service Preflight Briefing Checklist' was brought in to ensure consistency. I'm surprised as Slidebustle mentioned in an earlier post, that this mandatory part of the briefing is not carried out. Managers are supposed to audit our briefings twice a year, I had mine two months ago. Unfortunately, some SCCMs perform on the day just to pass. No one is taking responsibility.
I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
henkybaby!
I love your posts and will miss reading them!
Please come and work for BA!
We could do with someone like you!
Very best wishes for a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!
I love your posts and will miss reading them!
Please come and work for BA!
We could do with someone like you!
Very best wishes for a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!
Last edited by Tiramisu; 21st Dec 2009 at 09:09. Reason: Spelling!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romans44
Romans44...
On the previous incarnation of this thread you replied to a comment about the pilots 'SCOPE' clause, pointing out that CC had a similar agreement of their own.
(my bold)
Just to recap the pilots SCOPE clause...
"Any aircraft with 100 seats or more operating from a UK airfield will be flown by BA pilots from the master seniority list" (Paraphrased)
Contrast with the CC agreement....
"We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight, with regard to passenger load, destination and other factors" (Paraphrased)
The difference between these two arrangements is perhaps best illustrated by an example:
BA schedule a B777 flight from LHR to JFK.
It is operated by 2 non-BA pilots and 10 non-BA cabin crew.
Has BA broken the pilots agreement? YES (this is why Openskies could not be based at LHR)
Has BA broken the CC agreement? NO (this is why New Fleet is potentially such an issue for current crew)
To the best of my knowledge the current CC agreements dictate how many BA CC are required on each aircraft - but doesn't stipulate that it must be BA CC in order to comply with the agreement.
I believe the original poster who raised this issue was just trying to point out that a SCOPE clause for CC would be a desirable thing for BASSA to achieve as it would mitigate the effect of New Fleet on existing crew.
Hope that makes some sense!
On the previous incarnation of this thread you replied to a comment about the pilots 'SCOPE' clause, pointing out that CC had a similar agreement of their own.
We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight. This number is determined by the delivery of the product and the workload required by each crew member......
Just to recap the pilots SCOPE clause...
"Any aircraft with 100 seats or more operating from a UK airfield will be flown by BA pilots from the master seniority list" (Paraphrased)
Contrast with the CC agreement....
"We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight, with regard to passenger load, destination and other factors" (Paraphrased)
The difference between these two arrangements is perhaps best illustrated by an example:
BA schedule a B777 flight from LHR to JFK.
It is operated by 2 non-BA pilots and 10 non-BA cabin crew.
Has BA broken the pilots agreement? YES (this is why Openskies could not be based at LHR)
Has BA broken the CC agreement? NO (this is why New Fleet is potentially such an issue for current crew)
To the best of my knowledge the current CC agreements dictate how many BA CC are required on each aircraft - but doesn't stipulate that it must be BA CC in order to comply with the agreement.
I believe the original poster who raised this issue was just trying to point out that a SCOPE clause for CC would be a desirable thing for BASSA to achieve as it would mitigate the effect of New Fleet on existing crew.
Hope that makes some sense!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never thought I would post this .I don't blame BASSA anymore.I blame BA they are far to soft in their approach in dealing with BASSA.WW needs to get tougher far tougher with BASSA and IFS.Cut out all the pandering to them. Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,.This is what is wrong with this workforce theyhave been pandered to for far to long.Weed out the p...takers there are genuine cases however they are outnumbered by p... takers.It's a holiday camp retirement home rolled into one .
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action.
This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge. However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave.
This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge. However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave.
Apparently there was no defence whatsoever when the BASSA QC was questioned as to whether reasonable measures had been taken to ensure that those accepting VR packages or those who had left or leaving the Union were informed they were not eligible to vote.
Injunction granted.
Oddly enough many of us 'ranting' pilots warned of this discrepancy almost a day after the initial ballot issue.
But then what do we know in the face of the BASSA mantra machine.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,.
Now, can anyone explain how Lalalady has managed to be off sick for 12 months without any apparent sanction, and now miraculessly is fit for work again, just when it appears BA are after her and 5/6 other BASSA reps on a disciplinary?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!)
How about BASSA accept the need for the changes during this disastrous financial period for the company, and withdraw the strike motion to avoid any further damage.
But then ask BA for some kind of profit sharing, or shares agreement, so that their hard work during this period of great difficulty is rewarded when their efforts lead the company back into financial success?
Let's not forget that during a three year period when BA reported a profit of one billion pounds, they paid 1.8 billion pounds into the pension fund which is still teetering on the brink.
Does that not seem like a reasonable idea? How about it BASSA supporters?
Last edited by Desertia; 21st Dec 2009 at 09:28. Reason: Spulling mistokes.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another gem from another place. This is the surreal nature of what BA are dealing with.
too hope the snow brings misery to all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period, people have no idea whats happening and have only there own interests at heart.. I would love to see the tables turned onto them.. but the snow will do for now BRING IT ON
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am rolling on the floor with laughter at that - after some of the postings on here from supposed colleagues - that has made my day
Last edited by Desertia; 21st Dec 2009 at 09:58. Reason: ambiguous use of the word "You"