British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shakespeare had a word [or two] for it
Please excuse another bit of levity, but this just came to mind [and thank you Google for filling the gaps in my memory].
Clever bu66er, wasn't he - who would have thought he would have foretold all this nonsense?
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
What exactly has WW achieved since he took on the post as CEO? ..................... Look at what he has done to our service
I think that the present dispute is disastrous for the survival of the airline, no matter which side of the fence you choose to sit, but if it means the downfall of WW then I for one will be delighted - what goes around comes around.
Sad.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post, VV ... you are giving us a great insight into the 'inner you'. 
So, where we we? Oh, yes:
1. BA want to switch the LHR CC ToS to those used by LGW crews for the last 5 years.
2. BASSA/UNITE say NO!
3. Staff payments are unchanged, it's just that the CSD has to do more/any work, and that CC complements are reduced by ONE to the levels already [legally] in use by LGW crews working for the same company.
4. The paying customer can be exposed to strike action at any time.
Am I getting anything wrong so far?
So, where we we? Oh, yes:
1. BA want to switch the LHR CC ToS to those used by LGW crews for the last 5 years.
2. BASSA/UNITE say NO!
3. Staff payments are unchanged, it's just that the CSD has to do more/any work, and that CC complements are reduced by ONE to the levels already [legally] in use by LGW crews working for the same company.
4. The paying customer can be exposed to strike action at any time.
Am I getting anything wrong so far?
How much did T5 cost last year? I suspect it actually brought in millions upon millions of extra custom
Why would they choose to fly through T.5 to somewhere they had no interest in, when in fact they only really wanted to fly to another destination that departed from T.3 ?
ref: Shakespeare .... Clever bu66er, wasn't he - who would have thought he would have foretold all this nonsense?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin Crew
When the cabin crew voted for strike action a few years ago one of the cabin crew told me she had voted for the strike because "if she didn't then BA would end up putting 2 cabin crew to a room down route." BA had no plans whatsoever to do this, it was just something that BASSA had subtly dropped into one of their missives as an example of what BA might do in the future if the cabin crew did not show strength.
In the present dispute like many cabin crew you have voted for a strike based solely because you are worried about what BA might do in the future. Like many cabin crew you are inventing non-existent 30% pay cuts. Talk about a preemptive strike in every sense of the word.
BA are an excellent employer although you will never believe it. They have honoured agreements and not imposed any pay cuts on flying staff despite being in dire straits.
One diversion and unscheduled night stop can cost up to a million pounds. It would be a nice gesture if during the present crisis cabin crew could work to scheme and not industrial limits. They could also waive the 2 local nights after a diversion. Reserving club seats on long sector flights for cabin crew if the bunks are unusable is another expense that could be saved until (if?) the company ever become profitable again.
Although it would never recoup the losses caused by the recent strike ballot it would be a great gesture of goodwill from the cabin crew towards the airline and passengers.
When the cabin crew voted for strike action a few years ago one of the cabin crew told me she had voted for the strike because "if she didn't then BA would end up putting 2 cabin crew to a room down route." BA had no plans whatsoever to do this, it was just something that BASSA had subtly dropped into one of their missives as an example of what BA might do in the future if the cabin crew did not show strength.
In the present dispute like many cabin crew you have voted for a strike based solely because you are worried about what BA might do in the future. Like many cabin crew you are inventing non-existent 30% pay cuts. Talk about a preemptive strike in every sense of the word.
BA are an excellent employer although you will never believe it. They have honoured agreements and not imposed any pay cuts on flying staff despite being in dire straits.
One diversion and unscheduled night stop can cost up to a million pounds. It would be a nice gesture if during the present crisis cabin crew could work to scheme and not industrial limits. They could also waive the 2 local nights after a diversion. Reserving club seats on long sector flights for cabin crew if the bunks are unusable is another expense that could be saved until (if?) the company ever become profitable again.
Although it would never recoup the losses caused by the recent strike ballot it would be a great gesture of goodwill from the cabin crew towards the airline and passengers.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would they choose to fly through T.5 to somewhere they had no interest in, when in fact they only really wanted to fly to another destination that departed from T.3 ?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still a BASSA member (I know I know - should have resigned weeks ago after sending ballot as I said I would) I personally feel I want to be part of a union for backing should anything happen so I am ''legally covered'' and represented if you like. However everything else that BASSA does particularly with their weak attempt at ''negotiations'' I do not agree with and I just wish there was a BIG change within BASSA/Unite or another.
I feel tempted to put my point of view on BASSA/Crew Forums but as the admin/mods knows your staff number/name (as they verify it to ensure no managers have access) I feel it leaves me open for a ''witch-hunt'' or ban... But something needs to be done!! Sense needs to be knocked into these people. I am too scared to ''go it alone'' (ie. resign) but don't want to be represented by these hardliners who want to protect some of their very good 1970s agreements, even when the company is struggling!! Staggering quite frankly! You may say, well ask Lizanne to change her approach - are you having a laugh? BASSA will send a witch-hunt! Tiramisu was spot on about the forums are like the Ku Ku Klan! They are very much a cult! Something needs to be done as I AM proud to work for BA, I personally believe despite the cutbacks, our product is still a good one (some cutbacks I don't agree with and improvements in certain cabins are needed but we are not the new ryanair like some BASSA people say and... besides this dispute is not about birdseed!!) I may be regarded as pro-company I suppose I am, I am pro-customer aswell, shame more crew weren't!! I know many are! But many are the opposite!
Wake up!!! You are working harder onboard - MOST flights it works fine, some flights may be a challenge but just feed it back to the company, they may well tweak it, but for the majority of flights it is ok so I have heard and experienced (although only experienced 3 crew on 319 once or twice! but have experienced other changes to the matrix - high club loads with no trigger!!) Remember pax do not hate LGW flights or crew because of the similar crew complements! Remember that the crew complements still meet or in some cases exceed the minimum legal safety requirement of crew even with up to 2 crew off! New Fleet - company is open to discussions, Unite won't unless BA restore crew complements. Company willing to negotiate alternatives (new agreements for us) or New Fleet but certain packages to protect us current crew. The union just see it as a threat and brainwash and scaremonger crew so everyone thinks we will be forced onto it or starved of work. Also, any LGW crew here?? (Glamgirl et al) Is it truly that bad that it is ''slave labour'' - we won't even be forced onto New Fleet if we don't want, plus even if we were we would still probably be reasonably paid and EMPLOYED cabin crew (although obviously some crew would struggle so don't advocate that unless it was really desperate)
Wake up please BASSA and it's militants, before it is too late.
I feel tempted to put my point of view on BASSA/Crew Forums but as the admin/mods knows your staff number/name (as they verify it to ensure no managers have access) I feel it leaves me open for a ''witch-hunt'' or ban... But something needs to be done!! Sense needs to be knocked into these people. I am too scared to ''go it alone'' (ie. resign) but don't want to be represented by these hardliners who want to protect some of their very good 1970s agreements, even when the company is struggling!! Staggering quite frankly! You may say, well ask Lizanne to change her approach - are you having a laugh? BASSA will send a witch-hunt! Tiramisu was spot on about the forums are like the Ku Ku Klan! They are very much a cult! Something needs to be done as I AM proud to work for BA, I personally believe despite the cutbacks, our product is still a good one (some cutbacks I don't agree with and improvements in certain cabins are needed but we are not the new ryanair like some BASSA people say and... besides this dispute is not about birdseed!!) I may be regarded as pro-company I suppose I am, I am pro-customer aswell, shame more crew weren't!! I know many are! But many are the opposite!
Wake up!!! You are working harder onboard - MOST flights it works fine, some flights may be a challenge but just feed it back to the company, they may well tweak it, but for the majority of flights it is ok so I have heard and experienced (although only experienced 3 crew on 319 once or twice! but have experienced other changes to the matrix - high club loads with no trigger!!) Remember pax do not hate LGW flights or crew because of the similar crew complements! Remember that the crew complements still meet or in some cases exceed the minimum legal safety requirement of crew even with up to 2 crew off! New Fleet - company is open to discussions, Unite won't unless BA restore crew complements. Company willing to negotiate alternatives (new agreements for us) or New Fleet but certain packages to protect us current crew. The union just see it as a threat and brainwash and scaremonger crew so everyone thinks we will be forced onto it or starved of work. Also, any LGW crew here?? (Glamgirl et al) Is it truly that bad that it is ''slave labour'' - we won't even be forced onto New Fleet if we don't want, plus even if we were we would still probably be reasonably paid and EMPLOYED cabin crew (although obviously some crew would struggle so don't advocate that unless it was really desperate)
Wake up please BASSA and it's militants, before it is too late.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"if she didn't then BA would end up putting 2 cabin crew to a room down route."
One diversion and unscheduled night stop can cost up to a million pounds. It would be a nice gesture if during the present crisis cabin crew could work to scheme and not industrial limits. They could also waive the 2 local nights after a diversion.
Reserving club seats on long sector flights for cabin crew if the bunks are unusable is another expense that could be saved until (if?) the company ever become profitable again.
If we want to go that far there is another expensive which is a reserved seat for flight crew seat in First on certain trips.
gl
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something needs to be done as I AM proud to work for BA, I personally believe despite the cutbacks, our product is still a good one
BA CC have collectively made themselves look complete idiots, have caused massive financial damage to the company that keeps a roof over their heads, and yet still we get moronic comments on here, crowing about "the peasantry" etc.
These threads have gone so far. I'm giving up reading them now; there is no point. It's been done to death, everything has been said several times over, and I fancy my chances in the job-market higher that Wonker's, when he/her and his ilk bankrupt BA.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle,
No, LGW isn't slave labour or wages. Some people seem to think it is, but they either haven't had a "real" job in the "real" world or have no connection to LGW apart from wearing the same uniform.
The difference in pay is unfair, but I came to terms with that years ago. What I haven't come to terms with is that the union is claiming new crewing levels are detrimental to health and safety of customers and crew. It's insulting to both customers and us crew who've been working these crew complements for years - without any major dramas. An example:
A friend of mine was on a flight where a passenger suffered a suspected heart attack. Another crew member or even 10 more crew members wouldn't have saved this passenger's life, according to my friend.
There are so many crew who say that because of the new crewing levels, in a case of a medical emergency, the cabin service will have to suffer. Well, doh, of course it will! It isn't a valid reason to keep another crew member on board "just in case" of a medical emergency/nutter/etc. The CAA have set the rules for the minimum crew levels for a reason, and most of the time, we have more crew than the legal limit.
It can be hard work at times, but if all crew is organised and efficient, and know their stuff, then it is workable. It's rare that we don't get a break of some sort. The crewing levels have been in place for over 3 years for us, and I've never had a flight where the cabin service wasn't finished (even with 60 in CE to JER
), nor have I ever had a go-around due to crew.
Basically what I'm trying to say (in a long-winded way), is that as long as everyone does their job as they're supposed to do, then there is no problem. I'd love to be paid more - who wouldn't, but I know it's not going to happen. For anyone to claim we're on slave wages is insulting to anyone with a brain.
Back to topic: Anyone got more ideas for cost savings, how to make the union use a brain, or how to improve service?
Gg
No, LGW isn't slave labour or wages. Some people seem to think it is, but they either haven't had a "real" job in the "real" world or have no connection to LGW apart from wearing the same uniform.
The difference in pay is unfair, but I came to terms with that years ago. What I haven't come to terms with is that the union is claiming new crewing levels are detrimental to health and safety of customers and crew. It's insulting to both customers and us crew who've been working these crew complements for years - without any major dramas. An example:
A friend of mine was on a flight where a passenger suffered a suspected heart attack. Another crew member or even 10 more crew members wouldn't have saved this passenger's life, according to my friend.
There are so many crew who say that because of the new crewing levels, in a case of a medical emergency, the cabin service will have to suffer. Well, doh, of course it will! It isn't a valid reason to keep another crew member on board "just in case" of a medical emergency/nutter/etc. The CAA have set the rules for the minimum crew levels for a reason, and most of the time, we have more crew than the legal limit.
It can be hard work at times, but if all crew is organised and efficient, and know their stuff, then it is workable. It's rare that we don't get a break of some sort. The crewing levels have been in place for over 3 years for us, and I've never had a flight where the cabin service wasn't finished (even with 60 in CE to JER
), nor have I ever had a go-around due to crew. Basically what I'm trying to say (in a long-winded way), is that as long as everyone does their job as they're supposed to do, then there is no problem. I'd love to be paid more - who wouldn't, but I know it's not going to happen. For anyone to claim we're on slave wages is insulting to anyone with a brain.
Back to topic: Anyone got more ideas for cost savings, how to make the union use a brain, or how to improve service?
Gg
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to topic: Anyone got more ideas for cost savings, how to make the union use a brain, or how to improve service?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MissM
BASSA was probably only using it as an example as to what BA could do if there were no unions in the company.
In BASSA's proposal they suggested that diversion should go to 1 local night instead of 2 local night. I think that was a fair suggestion.
If we want to go that far there is another expensive which is a reserved seat for flight crew seat in First on certain trips.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle
If you raised your opinion on CrewForum they wouldn't ban you. They wouldn't pass on your details to BASSA or even less make them public because I'm sure that would be against the law. ET is a nice and responsible guy and who would never do it. He only needs to know your name and staff number to aviod unauthorized people getting access. If I were you I would only prepare myself for an intense and tough debate with other members.
A certain package will only exist until they have moved every single trip from EF and WW. What do you think they will do after that? Keep paying us and keep us on months of standby? As I pointed out earlier they will give you an ultimatum to either resign OR sign a new contract which would mean a huge pay cut and move over to New Fleet.
BA has said that the package will be market rate + 10%. If we take Virgin's salary which is said to be around £14000 a year and use that as an example. If I had to go over from my current contract to NewFleet that would mean a pay cut of over 40%!
If you raised your opinion on CrewForum they wouldn't ban you. They wouldn't pass on your details to BASSA or even less make them public because I'm sure that would be against the law. ET is a nice and responsible guy and who would never do it. He only needs to know your name and staff number to aviod unauthorized people getting access. If I were you I would only prepare myself for an intense and tough debate with other members.
certain packages to protect us current crew
plus even if we were we would still probably be reasonably paid and EMPLOYED cabin crew
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The First seat is an alleviation from BALPA. What do you think might be the alternative for BA if they didn't want that alleviation?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl have PM'd you - understand your post and I most certainly do not have the opinion you are on slave labour conditions. Have spoken to some LGW crew who say it still is a good job and better than other airlines (in some ways!!)
MissM yes I hear what you are saying loud and very clear with regards to moving work over etc... However they said (I know it is hard to trust management sometimes etc but let go of all those feelings first) they would only transfer work based on when crew on EF and WW leave/retire etc and all new routes, new aircraft will go on the New Fleet. So say they launch an extra JFK for example - that may be crewed by New Fleet, along with GVA, CDG, HKG, BOS, BCN, TXL for example (I just used the first routes that popped into my head!!! lol) only when there is a gap in manpower on current fleets for the amount of routes, that gap in manpower would be replaced by New Fleet crew and the required amount of routes to cover those routes would move over. Bill said the work would follow the movement/gap of people not routes going over BEFORE people leave which would be a concern I agree. OK, that 52 week clause IS a concern I would agree, but all we need is a new MOA that would state that it wouldn't come to that, and that is referring to something else.
Oh and I understand your last point, it would probably more more for you on Old Contract, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to be forced over there (UNLESS it was either that or company going bust) but I was just making the point that we would not have slave labour conditions on New Fleet like some people claim. It would be for new crew and all crew who want promotion. None of us know what they are basing market rate on?
New Fleet is not set in stone anyway and Willie did write to unite, but unite went ahead with balloting against imposition. It was not if BA imposed like that - they did talk for 9 months, they could have done many things many companies have done this year pay cuts etc etc.
Maybe I have swallowed the pill! lol.
MissM yes I hear what you are saying loud and very clear with regards to moving work over etc... However they said (I know it is hard to trust management sometimes etc but let go of all those feelings first) they would only transfer work based on when crew on EF and WW leave/retire etc and all new routes, new aircraft will go on the New Fleet. So say they launch an extra JFK for example - that may be crewed by New Fleet, along with GVA, CDG, HKG, BOS, BCN, TXL for example (I just used the first routes that popped into my head!!! lol) only when there is a gap in manpower on current fleets for the amount of routes, that gap in manpower would be replaced by New Fleet crew and the required amount of routes to cover those routes would move over. Bill said the work would follow the movement/gap of people not routes going over BEFORE people leave which would be a concern I agree. OK, that 52 week clause IS a concern I would agree, but all we need is a new MOA that would state that it wouldn't come to that, and that is referring to something else.
Oh and I understand your last point, it would probably more more for you on Old Contract, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to be forced over there (UNLESS it was either that or company going bust) but I was just making the point that we would not have slave labour conditions on New Fleet like some people claim. It would be for new crew and all crew who want promotion. None of us know what they are basing market rate on?
New Fleet is not set in stone anyway and Willie did write to unite, but unite went ahead with balloting against imposition. It was not if BA imposed like that - they did talk for 9 months, they could have done many things many companies have done this year pay cuts etc etc.
Maybe I have swallowed the pill! lol.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has said that the package will be market rate + 10%. If we take Virgin's salary which is said to be around £14000 a year and use that as an example. If I had to go over from my current contract to NewFleet that would mean a pay cut of over 40%!
Or is it just because "You're worth it!"? Listening to our customers on here, it doesn't sound like many of you are. And in the meantime, I fail to see why the rest of the BA workforce should subsidise your overinflated opinion of yourself.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the tried and tested union tactic of scaremongering.
The First seat is an alleviation from BALPA. What do you think might be the alternative for BA if they didn't want that alleviation?
I only stated out that flight crew is entitled to rest in First on certain trips and that's expensive too and especially when draglift pointed out the equivalent for cabin crew in Club.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no one has asked you to take a pay cut, yet. In the meantime, you might reflect on the fact that BA do not charge 40% more than Virgin for their tickets, so how do you expect them to pay you 40% more? It's not even "Economics 101", is it?
Or is it just because "You're worth it!"? Listening to our customers on here, it doesn't sound like many of you are. And in the meantime, I fail to see why the rest of the BA workforce should subsidise your overinflated opinion of yourself.
Or is it just because "You're worth it!"? Listening to our customers on here, it doesn't sound like many of you are. And in the meantime, I fail to see why the rest of the BA workforce should subsidise your overinflated opinion of yourself.
I was recruited on a specific contract with a stated salary and I have formed my life based on that. It doesn't mean that I drive around in an expensive and flashy car as apparently some crew do as suggested by some people here. One of my friends is a teacher and she drives a BMW. Does that really mean anything? Apparently not.
Are you suggesting pay should be reviewed yearly and changed accordingly based on what competetitors are charging for their services?