British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AL,
I'm sort of with you - insofar as I don't agree that simply badmouthing our colleagues will get us anywhere. I hope you'll understand that I posted that because it displayed a singularly underwhelming attitude towards our customers and thus becomes writ much larger than the inter-departmental spatting that goes on here and elsewhere.
I'm sort of with you - insofar as I don't agree that simply badmouthing our colleagues will get us anywhere. I hope you'll understand that I posted that because it displayed a singularly underwhelming attitude towards our customers and thus becomes writ much larger than the inter-departmental spatting that goes on here and elsewhere.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
BA should identify this person and discipline or even fire them.Who would want to be on a plane with this kind of poisonous individual?
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
BA should identify this person and discipline or even fire them.Who would want to be on a plane with this kind of poisonous individual?
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
Those “horrid people “ are your customers. Without them you would have no job. The way you are driving them away you will soon have no job anyway.
Do I care? Not in the slightest, I’ll just use the competition. Do you care? You, should, ‘cos soon you’ll be flipping burgers at the local McD.
Whoever wrote that should certainly be fired. Would I want service from someone who has that attitude to their customers. Not bloody likely.
Goodbye BA. With staff having an attitude like yours you won’t be missed
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a customer, I’ve watched but not spoken, until now…………
Those “horrid people “ are your customers. Without them you would have no job. The way you are driving them away you will soon have no job anyway.
Do I care? Not in the slightest, I’ll just use the competition. Do you care? You, should, ‘cos soon you’ll be flipping burgers at the local McD.
Whoever wrote that should certainly be fired. Would I want service from someone who has that attitude to their customers. Not bloody likely.
Goodbye BA. With staff having an attitude like yours you won’t be missed
Those “horrid people “ are your customers. Without them you would have no job. The way you are driving them away you will soon have no job anyway.
Do I care? Not in the slightest, I’ll just use the competition. Do you care? You, should, ‘cos soon you’ll be flipping burgers at the local McD.
Whoever wrote that should certainly be fired. Would I want service from someone who has that attitude to their customers. Not bloody likely.
Goodbye BA. With staff having an attitude like yours you won’t be missed
Interesting that you should focus on that point A Lurker! Shouldn't you be more conecerned about how a notable number of the cabin crew community are making statements like this about passengers - the very source of revenue that pays the wages? Having people like that weeded out is a valid point.
But then, you have already had one vicious post removed today, have you not? At least Desertia made a valid point!
But then, you have already had one vicious post removed today, have you not? At least Desertia made a valid point!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
I work in the service industry as well and also have feelings like that to the OCCASIONAL customer but the issue here is that they have written this on a forum which is easily accessed by the media and now also "Horrid" people like myself.
The inference which is a very strong one is that it applies to ALL of the people flying with BA this Christmas. At least by flying EY I can sleep easily realising that the crew on my flight will not hold me in such disdain or at least not before they meet me
.
There was another great posting and along similar lines on the SLF forum last night which thankfullt was removed.
I work in the service industry as well and also have feelings like that to the OCCASIONAL customer but the issue here is that they have written this on a forum which is easily accessed by the media and now also "Horrid" people like myself.
The inference which is a very strong one is that it applies to ALL of the people flying with BA this Christmas. At least by flying EY I can sleep easily realising that the crew on my flight will not hold me in such disdain or at least not before they meet me
.There was another great posting and along similar lines on the SLF forum last night which thankfullt was removed.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another strike in prospect?
Most who contribute to this forum seem to have voted against the strike but with another threatened you are going to have to face a possibly embittered “for” voter who will not be open to discussion. It is therefore imperative that you can persuade them of the counter argument. Or to put it more correctly persuade them to see that there is a counter argument and that it might be better for them. However, with my business experience hat on may I make some suggestions.
When you come across someone who was clearly angry at the judgement don’t retaliate by arguing but just ask them what they felt would have happened if the strike had gone ahead. Let them talk. Then ask them how did they feel that would have affected them personally. Let them talk. Then ask them against the background of the company’s parlous state what do they feel that would have done for the company. Let them talk.
When they have had their say ask them how they feel the company would have reacted to a strike. Let them talk. Ask them how the resulting company action might have affected them. Let them talk
Finally, simply say to them that you feel that with the present financial situation of the company you would not wish to jeopardise your own future nor that of your colleagues by disrupting the company’s earnings. In very, very many instances people in these situations talk themselves into a more rational response and that would be not to strike. That is why I emphasise time and time again that you must let the other person think through and talk through ALL the consequences of their action.
Remember those who voted for the strike simply had another view – possibly driven by the union who do not have the same agenda as most employees. The fact that they sided with the union merely means that they did not comprehend, did not wish to listen –we are all guilty of that sometimes – or had had a difficult situation with the company at some time and they are “getting their own back”. They are just coming from another angle.
You have a great deal of work to do. Good luck.
When you come across someone who was clearly angry at the judgement don’t retaliate by arguing but just ask them what they felt would have happened if the strike had gone ahead. Let them talk. Then ask them how did they feel that would have affected them personally. Let them talk. Then ask them against the background of the company’s parlous state what do they feel that would have done for the company. Let them talk.
When they have had their say ask them how they feel the company would have reacted to a strike. Let them talk. Ask them how the resulting company action might have affected them. Let them talk
Finally, simply say to them that you feel that with the present financial situation of the company you would not wish to jeopardise your own future nor that of your colleagues by disrupting the company’s earnings. In very, very many instances people in these situations talk themselves into a more rational response and that would be not to strike. That is why I emphasise time and time again that you must let the other person think through and talk through ALL the consequences of their action.
Remember those who voted for the strike simply had another view – possibly driven by the union who do not have the same agenda as most employees. The fact that they sided with the union merely means that they did not comprehend, did not wish to listen –we are all guilty of that sometimes – or had had a difficult situation with the company at some time and they are “getting their own back”. They are just coming from another angle.
You have a great deal of work to do. Good luck.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AL,
Almost, I didn't say that it would drive passengers away, the passenger posting did so - I merely highlighted the fact and the sense of outrage the previous statement can cause in our fare paying public.
Like so many things in this world, perception is everything and, right now, the public perception of the CC is generally rather negative. Statements like the one I've posted above only serve to reinforce that point of view and, like it or not, the public do get to choose ultimately. Despite your assertion of the CEO's "Ratnerisation" of the airline (a lovely analogy, by the way), it's not a view that's widely held by many people outside of the CC community. The city is strongly backing the CEO's plans, most of our passengers (whether through skilful use of the media - not BASSA/Unite's strong suit in this dispute) believe the fault for this mess lies at the door of the crew and their union, rightly or wrongly and it's really only a few select (and mostly ultra left-wing) commentators who are backing the crew. I'm sure you've seen, just as I have, the seizing upon articles by the crew that they normally, with their political leanings, wouldn't give house room to? George Galloway, Socialist Worker, Daily Star and an op-ed internet piece on the Guardian.
I'd argue that the old "It'd be a great job if it weren't for the passengers" (which I've heard said in many a galley and fully understand it's a joke) is a little different from wishing misery on all the "horrid" people and hoping their plans are ruined. That, of course, is merely my take on it. We all respond and react differently to the use of certain words and phrases which makes the written word such a complex and pitfall-laden area of communication.
Almost, I didn't say that it would drive passengers away, the passenger posting did so - I merely highlighted the fact and the sense of outrage the previous statement can cause in our fare paying public.
Like so many things in this world, perception is everything and, right now, the public perception of the CC is generally rather negative. Statements like the one I've posted above only serve to reinforce that point of view and, like it or not, the public do get to choose ultimately. Despite your assertion of the CEO's "Ratnerisation" of the airline (a lovely analogy, by the way), it's not a view that's widely held by many people outside of the CC community. The city is strongly backing the CEO's plans, most of our passengers (whether through skilful use of the media - not BASSA/Unite's strong suit in this dispute) believe the fault for this mess lies at the door of the crew and their union, rightly or wrongly and it's really only a few select (and mostly ultra left-wing) commentators who are backing the crew. I'm sure you've seen, just as I have, the seizing upon articles by the crew that they normally, with their political leanings, wouldn't give house room to? George Galloway, Socialist Worker, Daily Star and an op-ed internet piece on the Guardian.
I'd argue that the old "It'd be a great job if it weren't for the passengers" (which I've heard said in many a galley and fully understand it's a joke) is a little different from wishing misery on all the "horrid" people and hoping their plans are ruined. That, of course, is merely my take on it. We all respond and react differently to the use of certain words and phrases which makes the written word such a complex and pitfall-laden area of communication.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have BA scored a massive own goal by publishing alleged pay of their crew and turning the media/press/public against them
I think a lot of the crew are actually apprehensive about the flights they are due to take out and they are building it up in their own minds that people are actually going to be horrible to them.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AL,
BigBrutha's referring to the judge who heard Unite's injunction some months ago who declared at the start of the trial he had trips to CapeTown booked, not Justice Cox.
MrB
BigBrutha's referring to the judge who heard Unite's injunction some months ago who declared at the start of the trial he had trips to CapeTown booked, not Justice Cox.
MrB
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- have BA scored a massive own goal by publishing alleged pay of their crew and turning the media/press/public against them -
However much in your deluded mind you may wish it, the media/press/public haven’t turned against BA.
The media/press/public have turned quite clearly against BASSA and the dinosaurs of the Union movement, who seem fixated in the politics of the ‘70s. Read the posts on here from your customers. Read the comments pages of the papers. Don’t believe and parrot the nonsense spouted by the union.
Every argument you have made on this forum has been shot down by the few remaining people with common sense. Your response has been abuse and vilification. If you are truly representative of BASSA then there are only two outcomes I, as a (probably ex) passenger can see;
1. BASSA is destroyed and replaced by a union with a modicum of intelligence.
2. BA ceases to exist and you end up serving in McDonalds
Which is your preferred outcome??
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Are you still not getting the point?
No, I guess I am not getting the point just like you are not getting mine.
Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you?
I believe that the only way forward is for both parties to come to some sort of agreement on how these talks can start again.
I believe that removing the imposition slowly over a period of time, while BASSA provides other savings, it is possible.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why remove imposition slowly over time? The only thing thats been imposed is the reduction in crewing levels. Nothing else. Are you saying that if BA restore existing crew levels then BASSA will provide equivalent savings? If you're not prepared to make the savings through productivity measures then are you willing take the hit in your pay packet?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above was your first post in June, nothing more until Dec 18th, now the count is 50+?
BASSA put-up merchant/hardliner or what?
Whatever is the case, you still haven't earned the art of reading and listening.
BASSA put-up merchant/hardliner or what?
Whatever is the case, you still haven't earned the art of reading and listening.
If I may say, your reply is so typical of someone who is not interested in hearing both sides of the argument...
I have been attacked left and right on this forum but I still listen to what people have to say. I respect their point of view and I certainly don't offend them because they don't agree with me.
I have sent you a private message explaining why I have not been on this forum since December
A Lurker
Your comment that passengers should not be offended by nasty remarks that any cabin crew make about them doesn't fit with your outburst earlier today (subsequently deleted), about how offended you were with someone else's, posting. You can't have it both ways!
And if you still don't get it, thats fine. Shouldn't ask to much should we.
I genuinely do not get your point - unless you do not see the point I am making!
And if you still don't get it, thats fine. Shouldn't ask to much should we.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why remove imposition slowly over time? The only thing thats been imposed is the reduction in crewing levels. Nothing else. Are you saying that if BA restore existing crew levels then BASSA will provide equivalent savings? If you're not prepared to make the savings through productivity measures then are you willing take the hit in your pay packet?
Yes, I am saying that.
BASSA has already said that a while ago. Of course I wouldn't expect it to see it on this forum...
BASSA has offered a pay cut, the company is simply not interested in us offering a pay cut for the simple reason that they are after our T&Cs. My apologies for repeating myself but a question was asked.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I guess I am not getting the point just like you are not getting mine.
Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you?
I believe that the only way forward is for both parties to come to some sort of agreement on how these talks can start again. I believe that removing the imposition slowly over a period of time, while BASSA provides other savings, it is possible.
BASSA have had the best part of nine months to come up with alternative savings, but have failed to do so.
So why do you think they are capable of coming up with the required amount now?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrrr their comment was about Cancer which I find highly offensive and do please get it right - I don't do outbursts - I made a comment
But indignation at the use of the word in a different context means either one should not be participating in a forum that is too tough for one, which is the choice of the individual, or perhaps one is trying to get posts they don't like removed, such as the Jeremy Clarkson story, even though it was a cross-post from a reputed newspaper (I assume).
Please let's not get off topic here with semantics.
I was hoping I could get a comment from you and Romans on Post #41. I am interested in hearing your respective points of view on the subject.
Regards,
D
Added:
Judges send down hardened criminals who hurl abuse - and you think that because a plate layer says something on a forum they would investigate? That is pure quality mate
Perhaps this is the reason. Without seeing the posts in question, I couldn't say.
What BA might do if they can legally be given access to this information, I don't know. What the press would do with it, I do.
A Lurker,
No, again, not correct. That poster used the word 'cancer', sure, and you had an outburst. The word was used in a sense that had nothing to do with your personal situation, but you chose to jump aboard the Outrage Express. You didn't need to, the word was used in the context of its meaning, but your entire post was in bold and amounted to an outburst. If it was just a 'comment', why was the post deleted?
Errrrr their comment was about Cancer which I find highly offensive and do please get it right - I don't do outbursts - I made a comment