British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[MissM]

So, to paraphrase, Agreements are there to be adhered to, but we can extend our duty if necessary? Two conflicting statements

.

We can extend our duty (scheme limit). To extend scheme we need 3 hours bunk rest to extend it. It's all in our extend scheme and out of hours table.

I'm sorry but that's exactly how you come across. I think that's why the British public poured so much scorn on cc post ballot.

So be it as it can be difficult over the web.

Cake and eating it spring to mind.
And why do you feel you work at Bassa's behest?

Not really. If UNITE would negotiate such agreement it wouldn't be cake and eating it, would it? I don't feel I work for BASSA but they are my union and they have an industrial agreement with BA and we work along with it despite what its context says.

Yes of course you can.

No, we can't. Our agreement says "you CANNOT exceed your Industrial Agreement even with Captain's discretion, under any circumstances".

But you do feel part of Bassa.

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.

Wouldn't you be scared of losing something you've had for a long time?

[MissM]

Two-Tone-Blue

Doesn't anyone clear up the cabin as we go along? Or patrol with water/juice top-ups like MaxJet used to?

It sounds like you had one of those crew but most crew would do it as we do regular juice rounds and cabin supervision every half an hour. We also do toilet checks every 20 minutes but if sitting in Club you wouldn't really see the toilets as they are next to the galleys and obviously not notice the crew either.

I can't really say anything about the service between 1st and 2nd service because that's what BA offers. If you want anything else to eat or drink there's always Club Kitchen.

[midman]

Originally Posted by MissM

I understand your point but the issue is that we have been taught and told years after years not to ever leave ours doors unattended. All of the sudden when it's time to save money it absolutely fine to do it by removing a crew member and re-organising crew positions.

Correct. These things happen in all sorts of industries - at least airlines have the Regulator to ensure they don't go too far, and the CAA have approved this change.

Originally Posted by MissM

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.

You've done all you can do. But the CAA agree it's safe enough.

Keep passing the reports if you feel it's necessary, but please don't do as some of your colleagues have done and make public statements that they are striking out of safety concerns. You can't strike because you think a CAA approved crew reduction is unsafe, as the CAA would still approve a further two crewmember reduction. Pop up to the flight deck and we'll show you.

Imposition is the only issue on the table.

[SlideBustle]

Isn't the rules that we should stand in the vicinity of each pair of doors except when completing a safety related task?? That's the rules on CAA and I have seen similar questions asked on the CHIRP newsletter and rules are always that the safety video and cabin secure are exceptions.... But if it is possible someone should guard the rear doors ideally but don't have to, but should at all other times. It is slightly flawed I must say but take the concern through the normal channels including the CAA rather than using it against BA as part of the strike when BA is still working within regulations.

[midman]

Originally Posted by MissM

No, we can't. Our agreement says "you CANNOT exceed your Industrial Agreement even with Captain's discretion, under any circumstances".

You used a truism earlier, now you quote a tautology - the two no-nos of debating if I recall!

Of course the agreement says you can't exceed that agreement! Think about it!

We have agreements with the company, but I use my own intelligence to decide when to apply them, and I and my colleagues suffer no adverse consequence.

Originally Posted by MissM

Wouldn't you be scared of losing something you've had for a long time?

Nope. Done it often enough.

Try it, it's easier than you think, and might keep us all in a job.

[midman]

WWW, Here's your post again, this time with punctuation etc.

"Simple facts:
In BASSA we trust;
We can't afford to trust the other side.

Just look how they have behaved in recent weeks, like taking the press out and feeding them with the bull we all know is false, (such as crew wages).

I couldn't care less what people think of us; in the same situation they would fight to save terms and conditions that would otherwise turn this into nothing but a robotic job, which they want it to be and a very basic wage at that.

So when you drive home to your Surrey mock-georgian mansions, spare a thought for the cabin crew who deal with the day to day grief along with our underpaid ground staff.
Hats off to you all"


It's now easier to read, but still makes no sense here in in the 21st century.

[vanHorck]

MissM versus Watersidewonker

Where MissM is trying at least to have normal conversation and making attempts at seeing both sides of the story (though she is being naive in trusting the agenda of her union and she's not directing her union but being directed by it)
Watersidewonker is nothing but a self centered old school union lass....: let's pluck the company for every penny we can, never mind the industry has changed and the jobs are at risk for tens of thousands, let's just go for the short term...

[MissM]

vanHorck,

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I don't listen to everything BASSA says. I don't like everything they do either. It's the same thing with out management.

If I weren't given a brain or a mouth, would I be saying that I would love to see that an agreement is reached today? I'm not denying that changes need to be made. I'm not denying that those changes need to be permanent.

[wobble2plank]

So when you drive home to your Surrey mock Georgian mansions spare a thought for the cabin crew who deal with the day to day grief along with our underpaid ground staff (hats off to you all )

Is that after getting overtaken by all of the CC in their new shiny cars in the crew car park? Oooops, another 'fact' out in the open!

WatersideWonker, if you are going to contribute then supply some proper 'facts' such as how, exactly, BASSA are going to provide the required CC department savings?

Preferably without the usual BASSA accounting lies this time please.

Otherwise your idle diatribe is getting rather dull.

[MissM]

You used a truism earlier, now you quote a tautology - the two no-nos of debating if I recall!

Of course the agreement says you can't exceed that agreement! Think about it!

We have agreements with the company, but I use my own intelligence to decide when to apply them, and I and my colleagues suffer no adverse consequence.

That's the way I debate.

We operate on different agreements and ours say that it can't be exceeded and not even by captain's discretion. Simple as that.

Try it, it's easier than you think, and might keep us all in a job.

I wouldn't worry if I were you. You will still be flying next year. And the year after. And the year after.

[midman]

MissM

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here, so three questions:

1. If your agreement says you can't exceed your agreement's limits, but the Air Navigation Order (the law) say that you have to follow any lawful instruction from the Captain, what do you do, if say on a downroute diversion to Irkutsk, the Captain, having checked your legal limits and rest patterns decides to continue the flight, which would take you beyond union limits.

2. What would happen if you decided to exceed union limits on a disrupted service.

3. What would you do if your agreement said that the agreement must NEVER be adhered to. (Not a silly question - I'm trying to demonstrate the logic of your argument.)

Thanks

[SlideBustle]

Jeez just been on BASSA forum and am seriously depressed!! There are a few members on there who said to BASSA they are disappointed and will find it hard to trust bassa in future and the bassa thugs were on to them; ''get a life'' ''see how you cope on your own'' ''you are a plank mate'' ''we don't need scabs like you'' were just some of the milder comments made by people to these members. Truly scary how some of them are and it NEEDS TO STOP. I am not particularly anti or pro Willie Walsh, I don't know him so I cannot comment, but when he said about this old style union militancy needs to stop - agree 110% there!! Frightening. They were on about following whatever BASSA tells us - uh no shouldn't members be telling the union leaders!!

Think (hope) alot of people will have seen BASSA for who they are and hopefully more may resign.

[MissM]

midman

1. If your agreement says you can't exceed your agreement's limits, but the Air Navigation Order (the law) say that you have to follow any lawful instruction from the Captain, what do you do, if say on a downroute diversion to Irkutsk, the Captain, having checked your legal limits and rest patterns decides to continue the flight, which would take you beyond union limits.

As much as I would want to continue with the flight I would have to refer to our industrial agreement which clearly states that we can't exceed our agreement and not even with captain's discretion.

2. What would happen if you decided to exceed union limits on a disrupted service.

I think you know the answer to this yourself.

Assume it would happen. There would have to be a very good reason but I wouldn't be afraid of any possible consequences from BASSA for breaching our agreements. Name and shame. Let them do it. Reprimand? Let them do it but I can guarantee that I won't sit there all silent and good.

3. What would you do if your agreement said that the agreement must NEVER be adhered to. (Not a silly question - I'm trying to demonstrate the logic of your argument.)

In that case the agreement should not be adhered to.

[wiggy]

MissM

So whilst you personally would like to continue with the Flight and save yourself and x hundred pax being stranded in Irkutsk you feel have to refer to your Industrial Agreement....


I would suggest you don't have to, you choose to....

[MissM]

wiggy,

Should it ever happen I'm certain that I wouldn't have to take that decision as there would be 13 other crew members on the aircraft. I don't think anybody likes disruptions or diversions. Personally I hate them and would be more than happy to continue but the industrial agreement is in place and we work along with it. And, just because I'm saying that doesn't mean I'm all 100% BASSA.

I won't deny that operational wise we are not as flexible as we could be and this is why I have also said that our disruption agreement should be re-negotiated. I know that many crew agree on this. I wouldn't have a problem to work after a diversion instead of positioning back to LHR as per disruption agreement and especially as it is now with 2 local nights.

[SlideBustle]

Just had a look at the WW manual as am not familiar being a euroboy. It does state in there aout Captain's discretion;

''In an off-schedule situation the Captain may extend the Flying Duty Period (FDP) by using Captain's discretion.

Your industrially agreed off-schedule maximum duty periods as defined elsewhere in the Worldwide manual cannot be exceeded by the use of Commander's discretion. So you operate to BA scheme or your relevant Industrial Agreements whichever are the more limiting''

It obviously goes on to he should consider the rest of the crews working week, any sectors flown and whether anyone is fatigued which are obvious.

[SlideBustle]

Personally in an off schedule situation, diversion, delay, unscheduled nighstop etc and situations resulting from such things like the snow last week - I would happily go into discretion and operate to the legal limits to get home!!!

[Glamgirl]

I've just had a look at the world wide agreement as well, and the industrial agreement states that a maximum of 19.15 hours can be implemented. No duties are rostered that long, which means Captain's discretion CAN be used, just not over 19.15 hours.

That's how I read it anyways.

Gg

Ps. On the question of juice rounds/cabin patrol during long haul flights: Yes these should be done regularly.

[MissM]

No, you are right Glamgirl. You can't be rostered to work for that long. I think our longest planned duty is SIN. But, to be able to extend our scheme limit to industrial we need at least 3 hours crew rest. Otherwise we are not allowed to do it. If we get less than 3 hours we can work to scheme as long as we get crew rest. I can't remember the exact times but 2:30 or so for a box 2 trip.

[Jpax]

I always thought once the aircraft left the stand the cabin crew operated under the authority of the commander.

Reading these post it appears that may not always be the case if a union has such power and control and can order an aircraft to divert when the cabin crew are still within legal limits but outside industrial agreements.

I am sure a lot of the cabin crew would agree to some flexibilty when events such as weather cause problems but they are too afraid of their union to do so.

With respect to those who stick regidly to industrial agreements, it was BA who agreed those conditions with the unions in the first place.

It's astounding no flexibility was agreed especially as aircraft are moving objects and therefore may well be subject to delays for a number of reasons.