British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Cabin crew. You have been openly discussing your duty travel seat entitlements on this forum which is accessible by non BA staff who may be BA passengers". Absolutely correct!
You are not doing yourself any favours. You are just enhancing the opinion of many pax that some cabin crew regard themselves as more important than the pax they serve. That is also true. It was the subject of discussion amongst disgruntled and delayed pax in the JFK Terraces Lounge a couple of weeks ago.
My neighbour told me yesterday that his company are switching all their business away from BA because they can't risk a strike in Feb. Again, this is true. My company has taken a conscious decision not to place any more business with BA because of instability among its cabin crew.
They are not switching it back to BA after Feb either. No, we are not. Why throw good money after bad?
Very sad news.
You are not doing yourself any favours. You are just enhancing the opinion of many pax that some cabin crew regard themselves as more important than the pax they serve. That is also true. It was the subject of discussion amongst disgruntled and delayed pax in the JFK Terraces Lounge a couple of weeks ago.
My neighbour told me yesterday that his company are switching all their business away from BA because they can't risk a strike in Feb. Again, this is true. My company has taken a conscious decision not to place any more business with BA because of instability among its cabin crew.
They are not switching it back to BA after Feb either. No, we are not. Why throw good money after bad?
Very sad news.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
You stated you (and presumably everyone else with you) were recruited to fly long haul routes only. i note you state you have been with BA 15 years.
Perhaps a glance at your contract might be useful to you, as so much has been said about contractual matters.
I think you might find your contract states you can fly on any route and aircraft type operated by BA. You and others' with you were recruited on to long haul flying because that is where BA had the vacancies when you were recruited.
There were people who could only fly long or short haul when we were 2 seperate airline which were called BOAC and BEA. I was one of those people.
BA is one airline now, we moved away from BOAC and BEA 1978 ish.
There are some very experienced cabin crew both currently employed as cabin crew and some ex cabin crew in other jobs who would jump at the opportunity to join New Fleet. BA would have no problem finding SCCM for their new fleet, there are 100's of them out there in-waiting.
You stated you (and presumably everyone else with you) were recruited to fly long haul routes only. i note you state you have been with BA 15 years.
Perhaps a glance at your contract might be useful to you, as so much has been said about contractual matters.
I think you might find your contract states you can fly on any route and aircraft type operated by BA. You and others' with you were recruited on to long haul flying because that is where BA had the vacancies when you were recruited.
There were people who could only fly long or short haul when we were 2 seperate airline which were called BOAC and BEA. I was one of those people.
BA is one airline now, we moved away from BOAC and BEA 1978 ish.
There are some very experienced cabin crew both currently employed as cabin crew and some ex cabin crew in other jobs who would jump at the opportunity to join New Fleet. BA would have no problem finding SCCM for their new fleet, there are 100's of them out there in-waiting.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 2010 will be upon us soon with a new CEO no doubt and plenty more bull from the BA press office
And no doubt you will be demanding sympathy when it happens.
Talk to the hand....
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overstress,
Crew are holding onto T&Cs because once they are gone they'll never come back!
SlideBustle,
NewFleet would eventually replace both EF and WW. It might be voluntary at the beginning and surely some existing crew would go over for quicker promotion and no seniority system but sooner or later when most of our destinations have moved over those of us on mainline will be stuck on endless blocks of standby. BF's suggestion for a monthly payment (which would even out our monthly payments) is just a carrot for us to accept so that they can go ahead with NewFleet but once most of the destinations have gone over they'll come back for new negotiations, or should I say give an ultimatum, that either we resign or go over to NewFleet but on a new contract. Why? Because paying a travel payment every month for crew on a fleet with almost no destinations is not economical they'd say. Don't you think it will be a "starvation of work" case?
Jean-Lill,
You are right. The contract states that we can be moved to any fleet where there is operational demand but fortunately we do have transfer lists as some protection. That's true but the fact also remains that when I was recruited in -95 there were different fleets yet one airline. But, there are many airlines with separate fleets and it's working for them. I don't doubt for a second that there are many people who would happily accept NewFleet and those T&C but what the company is doing to existing crew is destructive.
Crew are holding onto T&Cs because once they are gone they'll never come back!
SlideBustle,
NewFleet would eventually replace both EF and WW. It might be voluntary at the beginning and surely some existing crew would go over for quicker promotion and no seniority system but sooner or later when most of our destinations have moved over those of us on mainline will be stuck on endless blocks of standby. BF's suggestion for a monthly payment (which would even out our monthly payments) is just a carrot for us to accept so that they can go ahead with NewFleet but once most of the destinations have gone over they'll come back for new negotiations, or should I say give an ultimatum, that either we resign or go over to NewFleet but on a new contract. Why? Because paying a travel payment every month for crew on a fleet with almost no destinations is not economical they'd say. Don't you think it will be a "starvation of work" case?
Jean-Lill,
You are right. The contract states that we can be moved to any fleet where there is operational demand but fortunately we do have transfer lists as some protection. That's true but the fact also remains that when I was recruited in -95 there were different fleets yet one airline. But, there are many airlines with separate fleets and it's working for them. I don't doubt for a second that there are many people who would happily accept NewFleet and those T&C but what the company is doing to existing crew is destructive.
MissM
Okay, so we know what you won't change, but something's got to give...is there any part of your T&Cs/pay/allowances that in your opinion would be open to negotiation?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy,
A 2 year pay freeze as suggested by UNITE. I could even take a pay cut even though I have been against it since UNITE put it forwards as 2.61% is quite a lot. I can't speak for everyone else and especially not the majority who are on the new contract post -97. Their basic salary is a lot lower than ours on pre-97 contract.
They can have the telephone allowance. It's only a quid anyway. They can also change the time for ERD. It only applies to 3 or 4 trips and the day before when your sby starts in the morning.
The Disruption Agreement can be changed. I hate hotels and spending two local nights after a diversion or disruption in a dump somewhere is vile. It has happened to me every single year since -95. Most crew want to get home anyway and I think most crew also know that this agreement is a bit outdated and not very fair on BA's customers.
All crew going, or already have gone, down to part-time will soon realize how hard BA will work you when you're part-time. Someone said 75% should be around 675 hrs. My hrs are that + almost a full-time month. Paying part-time salaries and using crew than part-time more must be worth some quid. That's a good investment for BA.
A 2 year pay freeze as suggested by UNITE. I could even take a pay cut even though I have been against it since UNITE put it forwards as 2.61% is quite a lot. I can't speak for everyone else and especially not the majority who are on the new contract post -97. Their basic salary is a lot lower than ours on pre-97 contract.
They can have the telephone allowance. It's only a quid anyway. They can also change the time for ERD. It only applies to 3 or 4 trips and the day before when your sby starts in the morning.
The Disruption Agreement can be changed. I hate hotels and spending two local nights after a diversion or disruption in a dump somewhere is vile. It has happened to me every single year since -95. Most crew want to get home anyway and I think most crew also know that this agreement is a bit outdated and not very fair on BA's customers.
All crew going, or already have gone, down to part-time will soon realize how hard BA will work you when you're part-time. Someone said 75% should be around 675 hrs. My hrs are that + almost a full-time month. Paying part-time salaries and using crew than part-time more must be worth some quid. That's a good investment for BA.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert Salmon,
if you do as you have stated you will do, and take your company travel budget away from BA as a result of WWW's post, please write to BA with the details and evidence of why you are doing it. Give them the chance to investigate this and take any appropriate action against this individual they feel necessary to protect their brand image. Despite this being an anonymous forum, it is like any other forum subject to the law - a point that BASSA should be now well aware of after being prevented from striking due to a large degree by the evidence that came from a posting by the BASSA chairman. In this case there may be no legal infraction, there may be sufficient evidence for BA to act against the cancer that grows within our fine company and do what a good surgeon would do and cut it out.
if you do as you have stated you will do, and take your company travel budget away from BA as a result of WWW's post, please write to BA with the details and evidence of why you are doing it. Give them the chance to investigate this and take any appropriate action against this individual they feel necessary to protect their brand image. Despite this being an anonymous forum, it is like any other forum subject to the law - a point that BASSA should be now well aware of after being prevented from striking due to a large degree by the evidence that came from a posting by the BASSA chairman. In this case there may be no legal infraction, there may be sufficient evidence for BA to act against the cancer that grows within our fine company and do what a good surgeon would do and cut it out.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So unite suggest a 2.61% pay cut. You're not happy with the union for that.
Yet you and your ilk are happy with the lies that the union are putting out about 'bent judges' and non negotiating management etc? You can't have it both ways.
Why can't CC wake up and realise that their union is doing them a disservice? Irrespective of what you feel, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that BASSA/UNITE are not fit for purpose, yet the sheep continue to follow them, causing more and more damage to BA as a viable business.
I'd like to think that the likes of WatersideWonker were in the minority, but although I believe that he/she/it might be either a wind up merchant or at the extreme end of the spctrum, I do despair that so many CC seem to swallow BASSA missives hook line and sinker.
Yet you and your ilk are happy with the lies that the union are putting out about 'bent judges' and non negotiating management etc? You can't have it both ways.
Why can't CC wake up and realise that their union is doing them a disservice? Irrespective of what you feel, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that BASSA/UNITE are not fit for purpose, yet the sheep continue to follow them, causing more and more damage to BA as a viable business.
I'd like to think that the likes of WatersideWonker were in the minority, but although I believe that he/she/it might be either a wind up merchant or at the extreme end of the spctrum, I do despair that so many CC seem to swallow BASSA missives hook line and sinker.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can have the telephone allowance. It's only a quid anyway.......
I hate hotels and spending two local nights after a diversion or disruption in a dump somewhere is vile. It has happened to me every single year since -95
Its noticeable that all the pro- strike lemmings ,WWW etc, have not once addressed the comments made on here by their customers - in particular those walking away from BA. Clearly customers are of no interest to them, as long as they can hold on to their terms and conditions.
Face the facts, www and your ilk. Even if you do win, the result will be the loss of your jobs. Personally I won't give a stuff, I hope you enjoy life on the dole of in Burger King - it's what you deserve (tho' you won't last long there - behave as you do at BA and you'll be out the door befoew your trial period is over).
With any luck, WW's new year resolution will be to sack all cabin crew, and then recruit and re-employ. The good ones who are proud of their job, Tiramsu etc, will be re-employed. The rest of you can go hang.
Then, just perhaps, the customers will return.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ pvmw ...
That is, of course, assuming that happens, and that BA can afford to wait until customer confidence is restored, and that standards of service [LHR long-haul] improve. Talking to friends and family over the [festive] season there is a perception that BA is holed below the waterline already.
Good luck to all of you who are trying to save the company.
With any luck, WW's new year resolution will be to sack all cabin crew, and then recruit and re-employ. The good ones who are proud of their job, Tiramsu etc, will be re-employed. The rest of you can go hang.
Then, just perhaps, the customers will return.
Then, just perhaps, the customers will return.
Good luck to all of you who are trying to save the company.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off-topic, I know, but this came in on another Web forum overnight ...
The CC dispute apparently is only part of the problem with BA.
Had the most interesting chat with my uncle today. We're all sat around and I ask him if he's happy BA didn't strike (he's a baggage handler), and he told me in his own words how it really is.
He turns up for his first day at work, limitless ethusiasm and some guys there already told him "just find somewhere to sleep and don't worry, I'll wake you up when its time for break". So my uncle turned around and said "I can't do that! I'll get the sack!" "Don't worry, we all do it, thats how it is here, just go and sleep and I'll wake you up when its time for break"
You can see why he loves his job so much.
No wonder BA lose so much money
He turns up for his first day at work, limitless ethusiasm and some guys there already told him "just find somewhere to sleep and don't worry, I'll wake you up when its time for break". So my uncle turned around and said "I can't do that! I'll get the sack!" "Don't worry, we all do it, thats how it is here, just go and sleep and I'll wake you up when its time for break"
You can see why he loves his job so much.
No wonder BA lose so much money
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whils pax may or may not be usuing other airlines at the moment, in fear of a strike, I am not sure that this will really damage a company which seems impervious.
Even given recent catastrophic figures not to mention the elephant in the room, that unfillable pension 'hole', the city continues to love the company.
BA will never fail, because it will not be allowed to.
And WW must know it. so he can be as bullish as he likes, with whoever it might be that is trying to rock the boat.
So let CC do, and say what they will. Its effect will be little more than a blip, and will only make the financial position marginally worse than it is overall.
Doom-sayers about CC breaking the company are wqasting their breath - the company is unbreakable, just as the banks were.
Even given recent catastrophic figures not to mention the elephant in the room, that unfillable pension 'hole', the city continues to love the company.
BA will never fail, because it will not be allowed to.
And WW must know it. so he can be as bullish as he likes, with whoever it might be that is trying to rock the boat.
So let CC do, and say what they will. Its effect will be little more than a blip, and will only make the financial position marginally worse than it is overall.
Doom-sayers about CC breaking the company are wqasting their breath - the company is unbreakable, just as the banks were.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ flyluke ...
The Titanic was also unsinkable, as were Lehman Bros and a few others besides 
And whilst The City may love BA, one key criterion is whether the pax do - and continue to pay their fares to BA instead of other carriers. Government intervention to save major financial institutions is a different matter to bailing out an airline. Otherwise a lot of those carriers who folded over the last 18 months would still be operating.
History was cancelled about 12 months ago for those parallel universes of Finance and Business. THAT is when the future started again from zero, and there's a long way to go before we clearly know what that future will look like. I wouldn't care to predict whether that would include BA or not.
... the company is unbreakable, just as the banks were.
And whilst The City may love BA, one key criterion is whether the pax do - and continue to pay their fares to BA instead of other carriers. Government intervention to save major financial institutions is a different matter to bailing out an airline. Otherwise a lot of those carriers who folded over the last 18 months would still be operating.
History was cancelled about 12 months ago for those parallel universes of Finance and Business. THAT is when the future started again from zero, and there's a long way to go before we clearly know what that future will look like. I wouldn't care to predict whether that would include BA or not.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even given recent catastrophic figures not to mention the elephant in the room, that unfillable pension 'hole', the city continues to love the company.
BA will never fail, because it will not be allowed to
BA will never fail, because it will not be allowed to
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pvmw,
By removing the telephone allowance it will at least do SOME saving.
What do you want us crew to say to the customers? That we are sorry for trying to protect our lifehoods? I'm sorry if they've had their travel plans completely ruined but I won't apologise for trying to protect my job.
WW could always try and sack all cabin crew.
People are still flying with BA. My last flight over Christmas was been chock-a-block which my previous flights also have been despite recession, financial crisis etc.
By removing the telephone allowance it will at least do SOME saving.
What do you want us crew to say to the customers? That we are sorry for trying to protect our lifehoods? I'm sorry if they've had their travel plans completely ruined but I won't apologise for trying to protect my job.
WW could always try and sack all cabin crew.
People are still flying with BA. My last flight over Christmas was been chock-a-block which my previous flights also have been despite recession, financial crisis etc.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watersidewonker wrote:
Who, other than your union has suggested that you should lose any of your wage? The company has suggested that LHR crews fall in line with manning levels which are working perfectly well at other centres. This may affect the details of who pours the coffee etc., but think yourself lucky that you are not (so far) being made compulsorily redundant like so many of your colleagues and thousands of other workers throughout other industries. Wake up and do your bit to save your jobs.
Miss M
Your flights may well have been full, but what is important is the revenue gained from the flight, not how many pax are aboard. The likes of Ryanair but bums on seats at a very low unit cost, but they do not have the staffing idiosyncrasies that BA seem to have. Stick to your guns and you may find out the hard way.
Edited to add: In our office we had a sign on the wall that we ignored at our peril:
"THE CUSTOMER IS KING!"
The thing that sometimes gets me is that if you are earning a good wage for what you do why would you want to lose that
Miss M
Your flights may well have been full, but what is important is the revenue gained from the flight, not how many pax are aboard. The likes of Ryanair but bums on seats at a very low unit cost, but they do not have the staffing idiosyncrasies that BA seem to have. Stick to your guns and you may find out the hard way.
Edited to add: In our office we had a sign on the wall that we ignored at our peril:
"THE CUSTOMER IS KING!"
Last edited by Dawdler; 26th Dec 2009 at 11:23.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ MissM ... yes, its busy at Christmas. There's a surprise. Families do tend to gather around this time of year. Businesses tend to be closed, of course.
Have you been reading the other pax posts in here? Businesses are going elsewhere, including the poster with the £250,000 travel budget. And you only know about those who post on PPRuNe; how many others are going to abandon BA ... AFTER Christmas.
Have you been reading the other pax posts in here? Businesses are going elsewhere, including the poster with the £250,000 travel budget. And you only know about those who post on PPRuNe; how many others are going to abandon BA ... AFTER Christmas.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two-Tone-Blue,
Not a surprise as I also wrote that previous flights have been full too. I did operate a half full 777 to ATL in October...
From my experience passengers have short memory. They may abandon BA for the time being but sooner or later they will come back. If they don't, it's their choice. I can't do anything but to my best at work. A week and a half ago people were furious over crew and three days ago BA did CDG and GVA with chock-a-block 747 and 777.
Not a surprise as I also wrote that previous flights have been full too. I did operate a half full 777 to ATL in October...
From my experience passengers have short memory. They may abandon BA for the time being but sooner or later they will come back. If they don't, it's their choice. I can't do anything but to my best at work. A week and a half ago people were furious over crew and three days ago BA did CDG and GVA with chock-a-block 747 and 777.