British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two-Tone-Blue,
What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Spare me the sarcasm, please.
Albert Salmon,
You set the bar when you said I was not in totally possession of the facts of flying life.
Doors 5 refers to the fifth doors on the left (5L) and right (5R) sides of 747. It's the same with doors 4, they are the fourth doors on the left (4L) and right (4R) sides.
Jpax,
Most crew, except 1 crew member at doors 4, are out in the cabin during the safety demo. This crew member can't leave that space either as need to be close to doors 4 when numbers 5 and 10 are securing the cabin from the back and forward.
What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Spare me the sarcasm, please.
Albert Salmon,
You set the bar when you said I was not in totally possession of the facts of flying life.
Doors 5 refers to the fifth doors on the left (5L) and right (5R) sides of 747. It's the same with doors 4, they are the fourth doors on the left (4L) and right (4R) sides.
Jpax,
Most crew, except 1 crew member at doors 4, are out in the cabin during the safety demo. This crew member can't leave that space either as need to be close to doors 4 when numbers 5 and 10 are securing the cabin from the back and forward.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Salmon,
The treatment you've received from some crew and from bassa is truly awful. I'd like to apologise for that. I know that it won't make much of a difference, if any, unfortunately. You were obviously a big customer of BA and you will be missed.
Miss M,
I'm amazed at your way of thinking, I really am. You need to do something about your customer skills. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you need to remember that customer comes first. You also need to remember that you're employed by BA to do a job.
Unions were set up years and years ago to promote a better treatment of employees. That was in an era where employment law wasn't really around. Nowadays we have employment laws that protect the workers, and therefore there are very few reasons a union should take their members on a mission to strike.
Please consider what you've written, as it doesn't show you in a good light at all. I know you agree that something needs to change in regards to the disruption agreement. A change is highly necessary, I'm sure you agree. When you mentioned 777s and 747s doing the CDG run, you forgot to mention that the crew get 2 mbts after a little there-and-back. Not productive. The main issue with current agreements is that it doesn't focus on getting customers, aircraft and cc to the right place asap after disruption. Scheme protects cc (against fatigue etc), and in cases of disruption, I personally think that scheme should apply.
In regards to cover of doors 5 on the 747. Do you seriously think that some manager in BA had a thought that these doors didn't need to be covered and therefore BA went ahead with it? It's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that the company have contacted CAA to check regulations. Any airline worth their salt would've done this.
I understand your worries about NewFleet. What you do need to understand is the union's unwillingness in negotiating about this. A really good and water-tight agreement could've been done, if the union had been willing to negotiate. Others have explained this in more detail, so I won't repeat what they've said.
Another think you really do need to remember, is that WW said earlier this year (over 6 months ago) that the deadline for negotiation was 30th June. If no agreement was reached, he would impose. Everyone was told about this, but the union decided not to heed to this. My guess is that the union is so used to getting their own way, that they thought they would drag their feet and throw toys for long enough to get their way. WW is (with help from legal team and other managers) a ruthless and clever business man. He's not to be underestimated. He's clearly had legal advice about crewing levels and this is why this was imposed. Why? Because it is not part of each cc's individual contract, and therefore is perfectly legal. It cannot be contested, even though the unions are trying their best to do so. WW isn't scared of the union, and that's part of why he got the job with BA in the first place.
Seriously, we need to do something, and quickly. We cannot afford to lose more customers such as Mr Salmon. We cannot afford to be led by a union that is hell-bent on wreaking havoc with the airline (I'm not led by a union, as I resigned). Something's gotta give. We need to cut costs and urgently. We need to bring BA back to an airline people want to fly with and we need to provide excellent, consistent and reliable customer service. It doesn't matter what happened however many years ago, or what might happen in years to come. What matters is now.
Gg
The treatment you've received from some crew and from bassa is truly awful. I'd like to apologise for that. I know that it won't make much of a difference, if any, unfortunately. You were obviously a big customer of BA and you will be missed.
Miss M,
I'm amazed at your way of thinking, I really am. You need to do something about your customer skills. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you need to remember that customer comes first. You also need to remember that you're employed by BA to do a job.
Unions were set up years and years ago to promote a better treatment of employees. That was in an era where employment law wasn't really around. Nowadays we have employment laws that protect the workers, and therefore there are very few reasons a union should take their members on a mission to strike.
Please consider what you've written, as it doesn't show you in a good light at all. I know you agree that something needs to change in regards to the disruption agreement. A change is highly necessary, I'm sure you agree. When you mentioned 777s and 747s doing the CDG run, you forgot to mention that the crew get 2 mbts after a little there-and-back. Not productive. The main issue with current agreements is that it doesn't focus on getting customers, aircraft and cc to the right place asap after disruption. Scheme protects cc (against fatigue etc), and in cases of disruption, I personally think that scheme should apply.
In regards to cover of doors 5 on the 747. Do you seriously think that some manager in BA had a thought that these doors didn't need to be covered and therefore BA went ahead with it? It's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that the company have contacted CAA to check regulations. Any airline worth their salt would've done this.
I understand your worries about NewFleet. What you do need to understand is the union's unwillingness in negotiating about this. A really good and water-tight agreement could've been done, if the union had been willing to negotiate. Others have explained this in more detail, so I won't repeat what they've said.
Another think you really do need to remember, is that WW said earlier this year (over 6 months ago) that the deadline for negotiation was 30th June. If no agreement was reached, he would impose. Everyone was told about this, but the union decided not to heed to this. My guess is that the union is so used to getting their own way, that they thought they would drag their feet and throw toys for long enough to get their way. WW is (with help from legal team and other managers) a ruthless and clever business man. He's not to be underestimated. He's clearly had legal advice about crewing levels and this is why this was imposed. Why? Because it is not part of each cc's individual contract, and therefore is perfectly legal. It cannot be contested, even though the unions are trying their best to do so. WW isn't scared of the union, and that's part of why he got the job with BA in the first place.
Seriously, we need to do something, and quickly. We cannot afford to lose more customers such as Mr Salmon. We cannot afford to be led by a union that is hell-bent on wreaking havoc with the airline (I'm not led by a union, as I resigned). Something's gotta give. We need to cut costs and urgently. We need to bring BA back to an airline people want to fly with and we need to provide excellent, consistent and reliable customer service. It doesn't matter what happened however many years ago, or what might happen in years to come. What matters is now.
Gg
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle,
I won't argue with what you have written because it's pretty much accurate as to what has happened. UNITE dealt with the ballot process extremely poorly and as I wrote in one my first messages I have never been so humiliated of the outcome.
I also know that BASSA presented a proposal which was only worth around a third of what BA wants. I didn't agree with all of the things in their proposal and especially not their suggestion for Middle East B2Bs. We already have enough of them and I hate them as the plague.
I don't think UNITE is the only one to blame. I think BA has also played a really nasty game with their Project Columbus trick for the past two years only to create unneccessary anxiety and worry amongst us crew. BA has also probably been arrogant in their negotiations and I have to be honest and say that I haven't got too much faith in our management any longer. Well, they lost my faith a couple of years ago. Once bitten, twice bitten syndrome. There always seems to be ulterior motive with everything they do and that's why I don't believe for a second what BF is saying about protecting our pay through a travel payment. That's only a temporary measurement until they come back for more.
I couldn't afford to go over to NewFleet and I'm not sure if I would even want to if I could. I don't want to do mixed flying. It's hard enough doing long-haul solely. I can't comment about what other airlines pay but probably not and I suppose this is also why BA receives thousands of applications every time they are recruiting.
I won't argue with what you have written because it's pretty much accurate as to what has happened. UNITE dealt with the ballot process extremely poorly and as I wrote in one my first messages I have never been so humiliated of the outcome.
I also know that BASSA presented a proposal which was only worth around a third of what BA wants. I didn't agree with all of the things in their proposal and especially not their suggestion for Middle East B2Bs. We already have enough of them and I hate them as the plague.
I don't think UNITE is the only one to blame. I think BA has also played a really nasty game with their Project Columbus trick for the past two years only to create unneccessary anxiety and worry amongst us crew. BA has also probably been arrogant in their negotiations and I have to be honest and say that I haven't got too much faith in our management any longer. Well, they lost my faith a couple of years ago. Once bitten, twice bitten syndrome. There always seems to be ulterior motive with everything they do and that's why I don't believe for a second what BF is saying about protecting our pay through a travel payment. That's only a temporary measurement until they come back for more.
would you rather be out of a job, on the dole, or on New Fleet?? If you applied to any other airline would it be better than New Fleet??
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter what happened however many years ago, or what might happen in years to come. What matters is now.
Remember when Bill invited us to fill out surveys as to what was important to us about our job/career/prospects etc and what wasn't, and to talk to him, email him about ideas for savings etc. I was going to and thought what a great idea! The union hasn't consulted me and he's willing to listen. I didn't in the end as BASSA said it would mean that they could use it against us
(This was before I started to lose faith in them!) What BASSA really was scared of is crew would have actually consulted their employer rather than BASSA being able to control the company and have power. That's why they were concerned. There are many things I would be willing to consider giving up, as some crew have posted ideas on here, if BA were to implement them New Fleet would most probably not be necessary!! Before someone says ''but what about Unite they gave a proposal'' as we have stated time and time again - it was a 1/3 of what BA wanted so we have to come up with new ideas. Rather than whinge and whine as to why we have to make up savings, and coming out with all the drivel BASSA does, why can't we be constructive. Alot of crew say ''I understand change is needed we are flexible by our nature'' but can't for the life of them consider giving anything up other than maybe the measly telephone allowance and other Unite proposals (although maybe that is a start!)
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
I shall spare you, and also spare you further sarcasm about your altruism in giving WT+ pax your few left-over hot towels. That was a noble gesture, above and beyond the call of duty, which I'm sure they appreciated deeply.
You have almost convinced me to switch back to BA ... but not quite.
My company's policy is now to avoid BA as far as practicable, and my personal policy is in complete accord with that. [Ooops - sarcasm again, it must be the hot towels].
Please feel free to continue discussing the detail of doors 5 L/R. But, as Glamgirl said ...
You [or some of your colleagues] don't actually do the job very well, MissM. You have inflated ideas about your status as saviours of the flying public. Your job titles reflect what you are and what you do - Cabin Service Director [not Flight Safety Coordinator], Purser [not Senior Door Supervisor] and Cabin Crew [not Door Monitor]. It may come as surprise, but the majority of staff in the public sector, and in private companies, also carry significant secondary safety responsibilities.
MissM, at the moment you are summarising to everyone reading this thread a litany of reasons why [a] the paying pax are unimpressed with BA LHR CC on long-haul, and [b] why you won't be greeting us at the door with those charming faux smiles in the future.
Still, I'll still be flying with someone when all this is over. Will you?
Two-Tone-Blue, What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Spare me the sarcasm, please.
You have almost convinced me to switch back to BA ... but not quite.
My company's policy is now to avoid BA as far as practicable, and my personal policy is in complete accord with that. [Ooops - sarcasm again, it must be the hot towels].
Please feel free to continue discussing the detail of doors 5 L/R. But, as Glamgirl said ...
... you need to remember that customer comes first. You also need to remember that you're employed by BA to do a job.
MissM, at the moment you are summarising to everyone reading this thread a litany of reasons why [a] the paying pax are unimpressed with BA LHR CC on long-haul, and [b] why you won't be greeting us at the door with those charming faux smiles in the future.
Still, I'll still be flying with someone when all this is over. Will you?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply,
You work to your agreements because they are in place? What about working beyond them because that's what the customer needs to happen on a given day, and is of benefit to the company as well for commercial and operational reasons.
Can I suggest that you wouldn't go beyond the union limit because:
1. You are afraid of what the union would say to you, and
2. You believe that the company would in future roster you to such limits every working day.
Why do they have to be renegotiated before you will work to higher limits? Bassa represent you, they do what you say, not the other way round. If you think you'd be be willing to work beyond existing limits (as with the hot towels), then why not do so, and tell your reps what you're prepared to accept, and tell them to negotiate on that basis. Or doesn't Bassa work like that?
But only to the extent you and your colleagues feel acceptable? Is that how you described your commitment to the company at your job interview? Not really convincing is it?
How about "I recognise the unique commercial pressures the industry is facing, and in particular those faced by an airline targetting the premium market. I appreciate the need for flexibility in my working arrangements which will allow the company to compete in a rapidly changing industry. Agreements between employer and employee can form a basis for developing overall working practices, but adherence to them should be tempered according to the situation on the day."
Isn't that a truism?
Yet again a comment that reflects the balance between the commitment you give to the company and your union. I have read no comment by you that suggests any commercial awareness in your attitude to your work. You wish to do what you can for the customer, but as for the company's needs, or even those of IFCE....?
It's almost as if business needs are dirty words in cabin crew circles, something those nasty fat cats get involved with, not us.
As an aside - Do you feel part of IFCE? Are you proud of being a part of IFCE? Or do you feel that IFCE are 'the management', a separate entity towards which you have little or no affiliation, commitment or loyalty?
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply,
Can I suggest that you wouldn't go beyond the union limit because:
1. You are afraid of what the union would say to you, and
2. You believe that the company would in future roster you to such limits every working day.
How about "I recognise the unique commercial pressures the industry is facing, and in particular those faced by an airline targetting the premium market. I appreciate the need for flexibility in my working arrangements which will allow the company to compete in a rapidly changing industry. Agreements between employer and employee can form a basis for developing overall working practices, but adherence to them should be tempered according to the situation on the day."
It's almost as if business needs are dirty words in cabin crew circles, something those nasty fat cats get involved with, not us.
As an aside - Do you feel part of IFCE? Are you proud of being a part of IFCE? Or do you feel that IFCE are 'the management', a separate entity towards which you have little or no affiliation, commitment or loyalty?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not who you know . . .
"Finncapt - remember those days the old Friend of Sir Colin/Lord King? - made me smile!"
I seem to have missed a trick here. I am the next door neighbour of Sir Giles Guthrie's widow.
[For anyone under the age of 55: GG was a former chairman of BOAC in the 1950's.]
I seem to have missed a trick here. I am the next door neighbour of Sir Giles Guthrie's widow.
[For anyone under the age of 55: GG was a former chairman of BOAC in the 1950's.]
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Union is playing a very clever game by offering unrealistic solutions and blaming Ba for not accepting them, they don t want a solution because any sign of a compromise will translate in loss of membership, sign of weakness and dilution of their control, by fighting on they can assure a strong membership.
It is extremely sad that so many crew are not able to understand and really see what is really going on.
It is simply a power struggle by the Union only interested in its own survival regardless of the consequences.
It is extremely sad that so many crew are not able to understand and really see what is really going on.
It is simply a power struggle by the Union only interested in its own survival regardless of the consequences.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to do something about your customer skills.
I'm amazed at your way of thinking, I really am. You need to do something about your customer skills. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you need to remember that customer comes first. You also need to remember that you're employed by BA to do a job.
All I do is working to agreements which have been agreed by BA. If both parties changes the agreements I will happily work to them too. Everybody probably feels the same way.
Unions were set up years and years ago to promote a better treatment of employees. That was in an era where employment law wasn't really around. Nowadays we have employment laws that protect the workers, and therefore there are very few reasons a union should take their members on a mission to strike.
When you mentioned 777s and 747s doing the CDG run, you forgot to mention that the crew get 2 mbts after a little there-and-back. Not productive.
In regards to cover of doors 5 on the 747. Do you seriously think that some manager in BA had a thought that these doors didn't need to be covered and therefore BA went ahead with it? It's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that the company have contacted CAA to check regulations. Any airline worth their salt would've done this.
I understand your worries about NewFleet. What you do need to understand is the union's unwillingness in negotiating about this. A really good and water-tight agreement could've been done, if the union had been willing to negotiate.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have almost convinced me to switch back to BA ... but not quite. 
My company's policy is now to avoid BA as far as practicable, and my personal policy is in complete accord with that. [Ooops - sarcasm again, it must be the hot towels].
My company's policy is now to avoid BA as far as practicable, and my personal policy is in complete accord with that. [Ooops - sarcasm again, it must be the hot towels].
You [or some of your colleagues] don't actually do the job very well, MissM.
[a] the paying pax are unimpressed with BA LHR CC on long-haul
[b] why you won't be greeting us at the door with those charming faux smiles in the future.
Still, I'll still be flying with someone when all this is over. Will you?
Still, I'll still be flying with someone when all this is over. Will you?
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 ... no, I have no idea who you are, other than CC. And I agree, some CC are good [especially LGW short-haul] - but it only takes a few to sour the entire barrel, if you'll forgive that metaphor.
I have indeed taken the decision to shift all business away from BA - for the same reasons that others have mentioned. An industrial dispute hotbed is not the place to 'invest' in air tickets which may not be honoured on the appointed day. And, as you know from this thread, I'm not alone. That is where we are, and there's no point in debating whose fault it is, because the paying customers basically don't care. We just want a value for money service that will happen as advertised [obviously weather and ac serviceability permitting] - and other carriers are offering that.
Why is there an "obvious reason" for pax being unimpressed with LHR BA long-haul crews? The only one that springs to my mind is that the J-class service is usually, in my experience, sub-standard. What is your "obvious reason"?
And indeed, time will tell. The bell is tolling for someone, whether BA or BASSA or CC I neither really know - nor care. I and my company staff have other trans-Atlantic options, so it certainly isn't tolling for me.
I have indeed taken the decision to shift all business away from BA - for the same reasons that others have mentioned. An industrial dispute hotbed is not the place to 'invest' in air tickets which may not be honoured on the appointed day. And, as you know from this thread, I'm not alone. That is where we are, and there's no point in debating whose fault it is, because the paying customers basically don't care. We just want a value for money service that will happen as advertised [obviously weather and ac serviceability permitting] - and other carriers are offering that.
Why is there an "obvious reason" for pax being unimpressed with LHR BA long-haul crews? The only one that springs to my mind is that the J-class service is usually, in my experience, sub-standard. What is your "obvious reason"?
And indeed, time will tell. The bell is tolling for someone, whether BA or BASSA or CC I neither really know - nor care. I and my company staff have other trans-Atlantic options, so it certainly isn't tolling for me.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
midman
Agreements are in place for a reason. What's the point of having them if you intend to work outside of them? We can extend our duty if needed. It's not completely impossible.
Why wouldn't I go beyond the union limit? It takes two to tango and I think it would be very difficult to find a whole set of crew willing to operate outside of our agreements.
I am anything but selfish but as long as we have these agreements I will stick to them. As I said if they are re-negotiated so for instance that concerned crew on a certain trip can decide if they want to extend their duty or continue after minimum rest without permission from BASSA I would work according to that.
Because we cannot exceed our agreements (even at captain's discretion) and I honestly think they should be re-negotiated and permanent to allow such. As long as it's legal and you get adequate rest.
IFCE is definitely the management. I can't say that I feel part of the department itself. More as a number but I actually enjoy being anonomous at work.
I feel proud working for BA for many reasons but at the same time ashmed about what is happening to its brand and service. For those of us who have been here for a long time can definitely see which was it has gone and it's not uphills! I can't really say that things have improved at all since WW took over.
gl
You work to your agreements because they are in place? What about working beyond them because that's what the customer needs to happen on a given day, and is of benefit to the company as well for commercial and operational reasons.
Can I suggest that you wouldn't go beyond the union limit because:
1. You are afraid of what the union would say to you, and
2. You believe that the company would in future roster you to such limits every working day.
Can I suggest that you wouldn't go beyond the union limit because:
1. You are afraid of what the union would say to you, and
2. You believe that the company would in future roster you to such limits every working day.
Why wouldn't I go beyond the union limit? It takes two to tango and I think it would be very difficult to find a whole set of crew willing to operate outside of our agreements.
I am anything but selfish but as long as we have these agreements I will stick to them. As I said if they are re-negotiated so for instance that concerned crew on a certain trip can decide if they want to extend their duty or continue after minimum rest without permission from BASSA I would work according to that.
Why do they have to be renegotiated before you will work to higher limits? Bassa represent you, they do what you say, not the other way round. If you think you'd be be willing to work beyond existing limits (as with the hot towels), then why not do so, and tell your reps what you're prepared to accept, and tell them to negotiate on that basis. Or doesn't Bassa work like that?
You wish to do what you can for the customer, but as for the company's needs, or even those of IFCE....?
As an aside - Do you feel part of IFCE? Are you proud of being a part of IFCE? Or do you feel that IFCE are 'the management', a separate entity towards which you have little or no affiliation, commitment or loyalty?
As an aside - Do you feel part of IFCE? Are you proud of being a part of IFCE? Or do you feel that IFCE are 'the management', a separate entity towards which you have little or no affiliation, commitment or loyalty?
I feel proud working for BA for many reasons but at the same time ashmed about what is happening to its brand and service. For those of us who have been here for a long time can definitely see which was it has gone and it's not uphills! I can't really say that things have improved at all since WW took over.
gl
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two-tone-blue
Two-tone-blue as you know I am against BASSA's stance on these issues and voted No to strike etc. Without sounding petty I do disagree with what you said here
I can see what you mean and know where you are going with this and can agree to an extent. But, without wishing to sound pedantic, safety IS our primary function onboard. If there was zero service onboard we would still have to have 3 on a 319, 12 on a 747 etc.... for safety responsibilities. That is why we undergo SEP/Avmed training on initial course and annually. Of course I recognise we may actually go through an entire career without once even needing to open a door in auto, and shout our commands, but as many incidents have shown this year and last BA38, the PHX evac, the BCN evac, a few of what we called ''NITS'' breifings with full emergency landings, some smoke incidents and decompressions, it is more than just ''secondary'' safety responsibilities like knowing where the fire exits are. In addition to being trained and knowing our emergency drills and equipment inside and out we are required to enforce safety regs which sometimes can make us look like jobsworths but they are regs and are there for everyones safety and benefit. Safety comes first!
However, having said all the above, I do agree that a large portion of our job is service oriented, it is actually secondary though, despite being most of our most routine tasks that our customers see. Plus, it is important for us to ensure that we don't forget high standards of customer service, especially as a full service airline. There is a balance where we can provide excellent customer service, but also keep ourselves and you guys safe and secure first and foremost!! Safety is good customer service! Corny I know, didn't know how else to put it!!
You [or some of your colleagues] don't actually do the job very well, MissM. You have inflated ideas about your status as saviours of the flying public. Your job titles reflect what you are and what you do - Cabin Service Director [not Flight Safety Coordinator], Purser [not Senior Door Supervisor] and Cabin Crew [not Door Monitor]. It may come as surprise, but the majority of staff in the public sector, and in private companies, also carry significant secondary safety responsibilities.
However, having said all the above, I do agree that a large portion of our job is service oriented, it is actually secondary though, despite being most of our most routine tasks that our customers see. Plus, it is important for us to ensure that we don't forget high standards of customer service, especially as a full service airline. There is a balance where we can provide excellent customer service, but also keep ourselves and you guys safe and secure first and foremost!! Safety is good customer service! Corny I know, didn't know how else to put it!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember it very well that when I started in -95 the instructors pointed out not to EVER leave any doors unmanned includings doors 5 on 747. Many crew will agree me and this is why we are repeating this! I also remember a previous CSD and SEP instructor who gave a crew member a really hard time on the crew bus in front of the whole crew because he left doors 5 unattended after they had been armed and the aircraft was taxiing.
Without wishing to disparage, I have noted in the past that cabin crew have a rather 'black and white' approach to safety, which in a sense is ok because they aren't paid to make commercially important decisions. That approach is, 'I perceive a reduction in safety, therefore it's unsafe'. I have had several instances where comments have been passed to us on the flight deck about a smell. bang, odd passenger, scorpion(!), or whatever, and we have assessed the risk, taking in all available info, and decided to continue.
Those decisions have attracted adverse comment from the cabin crew. But it's the Captain's decision - he always has 51% of the vote, even on an A380!
The point I make is that although you were taught to maximise safety by never leaving your door, it doesn't follow that it is unsafe to do so. Those managers paid to assess risk and balance that risk with commercial imperatives do so knowing they have to comply with the Regulators statutory requirements, and that they are accountable for those decisions.
If cabin crew have concerns over safety issues, they should refer them upwards, just as they do on the aeroplane, to those paid to take the responsibilty.
They shouldn't use such arguments to try to bolster an industrial argument.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ SlideBustle - I'm glad you got my point. I could have expressed it more sensitively, and I DO understand the safety aspects, believe me.
However, on a routine 8-hour LHR-IAD, the majority of the time [dare I say 95%?] is "customer service" time. OK, someone might have a baby occasionally, or smoke in the lavvy, but you know what I mean.
The 'customer service' bit doesn't happen much in J on LHR-IAD once the tray has been passed to you over the divider. After the first 3 hours, CC are almost invisible - simple as that, until the last-minute [really last minute] top-up tray before landing.
Doesn't anyone clear up the cabin as we go along? Or patrol with water/juice top-ups like MaxJet used to?
However, on a routine 8-hour LHR-IAD, the majority of the time [dare I say 95%?] is "customer service" time. OK, someone might have a baby occasionally, or smoke in the lavvy, but you know what I mean.
The 'customer service' bit doesn't happen much in J on LHR-IAD once the tray has been passed to you over the divider. After the first 3 hours, CC are almost invisible - simple as that, until the last-minute [really last minute] top-up tray before landing.
Doesn't anyone clear up the cabin as we go along? Or patrol with water/juice top-ups like MaxJet used to?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
MissM, ref to post 524 first thank's for answering in a reasoned way. I may not agree to some of your opinions, you may not agree with some of mine but that's life as long as you don't get attacked for your opinions everythings great ey!! Anyway, I would agree that both sides probably have a lot to blame for the situation. For a start both sides have had a little of a reluctance to budge. Although, in my opinion, BA did listen to some concerns of crew and try to change the proposals, even though alot of what they want does seem abit of a threat and a hard pill to swallow for some. Also the union refused to negotiate, threw toys out of the pram BA imposed, BA is in a serious situation in a worldwide recession so is just making some cost savings hence I voted no.... after much though mind you!!
Your last point I do agree. To expect everyone to go over to New Fleet like that would mean peoples livelihoods would be compromised mortgages, cars, etc. As I haven't been here nearly as long as you, I wouldn't be as worse off, however for anyone who has been here for longer than 12 years on the old contract that would be say around a 30-40% to be on a similar rate to LGW. The point I was making is IF and a big IF it got that bad where they had to force everyone on a new contract, I personally would rather be on New Fleet than have no job... That's just me, many people wouldn't be able to as they couldn't afford it, that's fair... But savings need to be made, a seperate New Fleet where we don't have to go over at least in the short term or savings on current fleets is probably the only options we have..
Your last point I do agree. To expect everyone to go over to New Fleet like that would mean peoples livelihoods would be compromised mortgages, cars, etc. As I haven't been here nearly as long as you, I wouldn't be as worse off, however for anyone who has been here for longer than 12 years on the old contract that would be say around a 30-40% to be on a similar rate to LGW. The point I was making is IF and a big IF it got that bad where they had to force everyone on a new contract, I personally would rather be on New Fleet than have no job... That's just me, many people wouldn't be able to as they couldn't afford it, that's fair... But savings need to be made, a seperate New Fleet where we don't have to go over at least in the short term or savings on current fleets is probably the only options we have..
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two conflicting statements.
And why do you feel you work at Bassa's behest?
Yes of course you can.
The nub of the problem.
I have to hand it to Bassa, that's what they've always wanted, and that's what they're scared of losing of they don't get rid of WW.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twotoneblue, see I knew we both agreed it was just a different way of putting it 
With regards to patrols etc... I am not on longhaul but I am sure they are supposed to do regular juice/walkarounds and a regular cabin patrol every 30 mins outside of service activity is actually a safety requirement. On our longer flights where we have time on shorthaul we usually come through with a tray obviously monitoring the cabin for safety reasons and also so we can collect rubbish and if anyone asks for ad hoc drinks... if I am in Club on a longer fight I may ask everyone individual if they are ok and would they like anything else. Not sure about service standards on longhaul but I doubt they are to just to the service at the beginning and end of the flights with no water/juice in between!
Longhaul people, hiflyer, Glamgirl etc al may enlighten you!
With regards to patrols etc... I am not on longhaul but I am sure they are supposed to do regular juice/walkarounds and a regular cabin patrol every 30 mins outside of service activity is actually a safety requirement. On our longer flights where we have time on shorthaul we usually come through with a tray obviously monitoring the cabin for safety reasons and also so we can collect rubbish and if anyone asks for ad hoc drinks... if I am in Club on a longer fight I may ask everyone individual if they are ok and would they like anything else. Not sure about service standards on longhaul but I doubt they are to just to the service at the beginning and end of the flights with no water/juice in between!
Longhaul people, hiflyer, Glamgirl etc al may enlighten you!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
I respect your views although i disagree with them strongly, but to execute agreements just because they are there is outright dangerous.
Most people would want staff who also THINK about the applicability of the "Agreement" in any given situation.
Furthermore I think you can safely assume some of the "agreements" in place were "Agreed" under the duress of strikes.
Both management and the unions in the UK are to blame for this duress in the past and both should change their attitude (a result of the two party system? perhaps you could do with a few polders in your country), but perhaps given the economics of the situation and the irreparable damage being done to the once favorite airline, the unions should be the ones taking away the duress and start talking in good faith aiming towards a healthy competitive company. In that company everybody would benefit, crews, passengers, management, shareholders and unions alike.
But please don t stick to agreements just because they are there... You were given a brain and a mouth for a very good reason. Learn to see both ends of the story
a SLF
I respect your views although i disagree with them strongly, but to execute agreements just because they are there is outright dangerous.
Most people would want staff who also THINK about the applicability of the "Agreement" in any given situation.
Furthermore I think you can safely assume some of the "agreements" in place were "Agreed" under the duress of strikes.
Both management and the unions in the UK are to blame for this duress in the past and both should change their attitude (a result of the two party system? perhaps you could do with a few polders in your country), but perhaps given the economics of the situation and the irreparable damage being done to the once favorite airline, the unions should be the ones taking away the duress and start talking in good faith aiming towards a healthy competitive company. In that company everybody would benefit, crews, passengers, management, shareholders and unions alike.
But please don t stick to agreements just because they are there... You were given a brain and a mouth for a very good reason. Learn to see both ends of the story
a SLF
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I make is that although you were taught to maximise safety by never leaving your door, it doesn't follow that it is unsafe to do so. Those managers paid to assess risk and balance that risk with commercial imperatives do so knowing they have to comply with the Regulators statutory requirements, and that they are accountable for those decisions.
I work as 5 on most of my 747 trips and it's a concern. I wouldn't be able to get to my door if anything happens when I'm not there. Many of us have passed on reports about it. Response from BA was that passengers pay attention during the safety demo and will remain seated until instructed otherwise. Talk about being naive.