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
MissM ... I posted in a fit of pique. Please accept my apology.
So ... LHR CC won't accept the LGW arrangements.
Please explain what is the "Big Issue".
Is it manning, or is it money, or what?
This is a public forum, and the paying public deserve to know what the problem really is.
You are part of the LHR CC system - what's the "Big Issue"?
So ... LHR CC won't accept the LGW arrangements.
Please explain what is the "Big Issue".
Is it manning, or is it money, or what?
This is a public forum, and the paying public deserve to know what the problem really is.
You are part of the LHR CC system - what's the "Big Issue"?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M wrote:
MissM - have you asked your beloved Union about this? I have - and they were not in the least bit interested. I agree with you that this needs to be looked into - but the Union don't care because they really ARE in it for themselves are not bothered about the individual needs of you and I.
You have unwittingly put forward another argument in favour of getting rid of this Union - they do NOTHING for the individual, they do nothing to ensure that employment rights are being met, they do nothing to ensure that individual rights are upheld. All the people who transferred to LHR from EOG, MAN, BHX, GLA etc - did they keep their seniority, rank, etc. NO. Why - because the UNION didn't want them to.
Desertia - your idea about an EGM is a good one - in an ideal world. But in this frightening world of bullyboy Unionism I'm afraid we wouldn't stand a chance. I really can't impress on people enough about how intimidating and frightening it is being in the middle of this. Don't forget there are 14000 cabin crew, 10000 belong to UNITE so it is not a drop in the ocean. It is a HUGE monster, and we are just a few who dare to speak out.
The only way to tame it, is to cut off it's lifeline - the membership fees. Stop paying them. Slidebustle - save yourself the dosh mate - the Union won't help you if anything happened - look at the above examples. They protect themselves. If you need anything - pm me. We can work through it together. Anyway, I doubt you would ever need it.
We need proper representation. Representatives that will battle for the rights of part-time workers, representatives that will listen to what the members want, and representatives that will listen and negotiate with the company, in order to provide a dedicated and motivated workforce.
This union does not provide that representation. Time for a change. Time for a modern, forward thinking Union.
I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own view and not that of BA.
If it means anything I'm already working more than my part-time percentage and yet get paid part-time salary. It applies to many of those crew on part-time.
You have unwittingly put forward another argument in favour of getting rid of this Union - they do NOTHING for the individual, they do nothing to ensure that employment rights are being met, they do nothing to ensure that individual rights are upheld. All the people who transferred to LHR from EOG, MAN, BHX, GLA etc - did they keep their seniority, rank, etc. NO. Why - because the UNION didn't want them to.
Desertia - your idea about an EGM is a good one - in an ideal world. But in this frightening world of bullyboy Unionism I'm afraid we wouldn't stand a chance. I really can't impress on people enough about how intimidating and frightening it is being in the middle of this. Don't forget there are 14000 cabin crew, 10000 belong to UNITE so it is not a drop in the ocean. It is a HUGE monster, and we are just a few who dare to speak out.
The only way to tame it, is to cut off it's lifeline - the membership fees. Stop paying them. Slidebustle - save yourself the dosh mate - the Union won't help you if anything happened - look at the above examples. They protect themselves. If you need anything - pm me. We can work through it together. Anyway, I doubt you would ever need it.
We need proper representation. Representatives that will battle for the rights of part-time workers, representatives that will listen to what the members want, and representatives that will listen and negotiate with the company, in order to provide a dedicated and motivated workforce.
This union does not provide that representation. Time for a change. Time for a modern, forward thinking Union.
I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own view and not that of BA.
Heavy Heavy, #725
I appreciate your comments, and agree that this is not the forum to discuss S.T. 2009, but I didn’t start it, someone else introduced the topic so I felt it important for a few facts to be laid before the readers before ill-informed statements stared coming. I helped found the Staff Travel Working Group to fight the injustice to the selected few – and we haven’t given up.
I have no difficulty with present staff receiving better benefits than I enjoyed whilst working, Life moves on, I just want what I was promised – and worked for. Had WW decided to remove S.T. from everyone then so be it, it is the inequity that is so cruel. . What you should be worried about is that if BA can treat me and my colleagues so cavalierly – what are they going to do to you before too long !!
If anyone wants a full, and accurate, background of our campaign pls. P.M. me. It is well documented.
When the final curtain falls on our Staff Travel in 2014, BA will either be history, so no contest, or back to profitability and a more enlightened and sympathetic management may treat us with a but more compassion. One lives in hope.
Thank you,
Big Brutha
Sentiments reciprocated, may you never retire, and never have to suffer such comment from those who.." couldn't give a stuff.. "
If I thought for one moment that denying a few old buffers the ability to purchase rebate tickets, and maybe enjoy the occasional so-called "free" trip -only in otherwise empty seats - would save the company and with it my pension, I'd be first in line, but when I see that at the same time benefits have been increased, and the pool of participants enlarged - and good luck to the new benificiaries - forgive me for being cynical.
I would have loved to have worked with the airlines to 65, not sure about 70, but at 75 I’m still flying, and instructing, albeit voluntarily unpaid , for the local Coastguard
I actually have some sympathy with the concept of S.T. 2009, and had it been applied to everyone equally, starting on 1.4.09 you would never have heard of me.
Best of luck, I sincerely hope the airline survives – our pensions need it - I'm still saving for the rocking chair. ( my pension was set in 1982 - you work it out )
Wiggy,
Not a problem, but not here, I agree, all I can do is sit on the sidelines and hope that this present mess gets sorted out.
Two-Tone-Blue / Albert Salmon
Yes, NZ. - and thank you for your understanding.
.
I appreciate your comments, and agree that this is not the forum to discuss S.T. 2009, but I didn’t start it, someone else introduced the topic so I felt it important for a few facts to be laid before the readers before ill-informed statements stared coming. I helped found the Staff Travel Working Group to fight the injustice to the selected few – and we haven’t given up.
I have no difficulty with present staff receiving better benefits than I enjoyed whilst working, Life moves on, I just want what I was promised – and worked for. Had WW decided to remove S.T. from everyone then so be it, it is the inequity that is so cruel. . What you should be worried about is that if BA can treat me and my colleagues so cavalierly – what are they going to do to you before too long !!
If anyone wants a full, and accurate, background of our campaign pls. P.M. me. It is well documented.
When the final curtain falls on our Staff Travel in 2014, BA will either be history, so no contest, or back to profitability and a more enlightened and sympathetic management may treat us with a but more compassion. One lives in hope.
Thank you,
Big Brutha
.......couldn't give a stuff......
Sentiments reciprocated, may you never retire, and never have to suffer such comment from those who.." couldn't give a stuff.. "
If I thought for one moment that denying a few old buffers the ability to purchase rebate tickets, and maybe enjoy the occasional so-called "free" trip -only in otherwise empty seats - would save the company and with it my pension, I'd be first in line, but when I see that at the same time benefits have been increased, and the pool of participants enlarged - and good luck to the new benificiaries - forgive me for being cynical.
I would have loved to have worked with the airlines to 65, not sure about 70, but at 75 I’m still flying, and instructing, albeit voluntarily unpaid , for the local Coastguard
I actually have some sympathy with the concept of S.T. 2009, and had it been applied to everyone equally, starting on 1.4.09 you would never have heard of me.
Best of luck, I sincerely hope the airline survives – our pensions need it - I'm still saving for the rocking chair. ( my pension was set in 1982 - you work it out )
Wiggy,
……….at worse lead to some fairly robust replies.
Two-Tone-Blue / Albert Salmon
Yes, NZ. - and thank you for your understanding.
Back to your Cabin Crew discussions
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 29th Dec 2009 at 23:45.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
The reasons removal of imposition isn't an option:
1. BA cannot afford to bring part-time contracts back to full time, it's too costly, to put it bluntly.
2. We haven't got the correct amount of crew (on current contracts) to put the crew members back on the aircraft. We would need to recruit, and I think we all realise that this would be a quick-step to NewFleet.
In regards to your other question, I have no reason to have "some sort of revenge" on anyone. I predicted this would happen purely because it makes business sense financially for a company. It doesn't bring me pleasure that LHR crew now have to work harder. The only thing about this whole thing that will bring me pleasure is a solution to our problems as a company.
I'll ask you again, what do you suggest we do next? (Please don't mentioned imposition again. I'd really like a useful suggestion. Thank you)
Gg
It's actually an option and possible if BA wants to. Think about all those crew who are sat at home on endless blocks of 24 even though their hours are low.
Or, is it not an option because it's working at LGW?
Don't take this the wrong way but I remember reading a post of yours in which you said that some of you at LGW have been waiting for this to happen at LHR since it happened down there. Is this some sort of revenge?
Or, is it not an option because it's working at LGW?
Don't take this the wrong way but I remember reading a post of yours in which you said that some of you at LGW have been waiting for this to happen at LHR since it happened down there. Is this some sort of revenge?
The reasons removal of imposition isn't an option:
1. BA cannot afford to bring part-time contracts back to full time, it's too costly, to put it bluntly.
2. We haven't got the correct amount of crew (on current contracts) to put the crew members back on the aircraft. We would need to recruit, and I think we all realise that this would be a quick-step to NewFleet.
In regards to your other question, I have no reason to have "some sort of revenge" on anyone. I predicted this would happen purely because it makes business sense financially for a company. It doesn't bring me pleasure that LHR crew now have to work harder. The only thing about this whole thing that will bring me pleasure is a solution to our problems as a company.
I'll ask you again, what do you suggest we do next? (Please don't mentioned imposition again. I'd really like a useful suggestion. Thank you)
Gg
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a strange thing to bet on; are there not enough horse or dog races going on at the moment?
Perhaps Paddy Power could be persuaded to raise odds on Wonker finding gainful employment (2000/1, if you could find a retarded bookmaker), after BA (to his apparent glee) comes in at 11/1! But maybe he doesn't work for BA: nobody can be that stupid, surely?
Perhaps Paddy Power could be persuaded to raise odds on Wonker finding gainful employment (2000/1, if you could find a retarded bookmaker), after BA (to his apparent glee) comes in at 11/1! But maybe he doesn't work for BA: nobody can be that stupid, surely?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rochdale
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this internet world, I'll take Paddy Power on and lay some side side bets against Monarch going pop. PM me for the up-to-date odds.
Sheez, I think it's time for some people to drop a real pill.
Sheez, I think it's time for some people to drop a real pill.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WatersideWonker, with respect to you, can you post anything except old school union rhetoric?? Rantings about, ''Willie and Billy'', how the big corporates are out to get us and flight crew is just frustrating! You also seem to be using this forum as a platform for being negative and venting anger towards your flight crew colleagues. I know a minority can have lack of CRM and disrespecful towards us but in my experience it is a vast MINORITY. I respect the majority of Flight crew and personally think your attitude (which can be seen alot on the BASSA forum) is worrying!!
Anyway, rather than replying with rhetoric or ''we will fight this regime'' etc etc. Can you answer this
1/First off are we in a major recession which is affecting the airline industry?
2/Do you or do you not agree MAJOR change is needed in all departments in BA (other d'pts have made or are making their savings NOW!) Also, don't start with why do we have to save more than pilots etc etc - all departments have different cost and flt ops is probably more competitive and market based. Let's not deny that we are paid well above market rate and haven't changed much since privatisation hence why it is a big hit!
3/If you agree changes MUST be made, what then could be considered. Don't start with the ''Unite counter-proposal'' business - unless that proposal is changed it saves just a 1/3 of what is needed. So what else could be changed for savings? Fixed links? Reduced rest? New disruption agreement? Reduced crew complements which they have done? Do you think BA can save £140m in 2 years by just getting rid of a telephone allowances and allowing you to have middle east B2Bs, the 767 trips you don't like on WW being given to us on EF! Oh and a few swaps of PSR/MC grades?
Please answer intelligently these questions and just think about these points. If you don't agree change must be made then that is your opinion - even though I would love to have some of what you're on
I really do wonder what crew in other airlines who are paid much less and work harder think of us BA crew they must think we are extremely PRECIOUS. As that is what the hardliners sound like!!
Anyway, rather than replying with rhetoric or ''we will fight this regime'' etc etc. Can you answer this
1/First off are we in a major recession which is affecting the airline industry?
2/Do you or do you not agree MAJOR change is needed in all departments in BA (other d'pts have made or are making their savings NOW!) Also, don't start with why do we have to save more than pilots etc etc - all departments have different cost and flt ops is probably more competitive and market based. Let's not deny that we are paid well above market rate and haven't changed much since privatisation hence why it is a big hit!
3/If you agree changes MUST be made, what then could be considered. Don't start with the ''Unite counter-proposal'' business - unless that proposal is changed it saves just a 1/3 of what is needed. So what else could be changed for savings? Fixed links? Reduced rest? New disruption agreement? Reduced crew complements which they have done? Do you think BA can save £140m in 2 years by just getting rid of a telephone allowances and allowing you to have middle east B2Bs, the 767 trips you don't like on WW being given to us on EF! Oh and a few swaps of PSR/MC grades?
Please answer intelligently these questions and just think about these points. If you don't agree change must be made then that is your opinion - even though I would love to have some of what you're on
I really do wonder what crew in other airlines who are paid much less and work harder think of us BA crew they must think we are extremely PRECIOUS. As that is what the hardliners sound like!!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
midman,
75% of full-time!
Two-Tone-Blue,
As pointed out it was not agreed between UNITE and BA and working with 1, and sometimes 2, less crew onboard is hard work. Service takes a really long time to complete. A full service in Club takes over 3 hrs to complete. I brought in a 747 with 13 crew two weeks after imposition and it was really hard work. We also have concern about the covering of doors 5 on 747 as they are not manned during safety demo. Some will claim that it has been approved by CAA and they set the regulations but facts remain that BA has been telling us for years that doors must always be covered. Now they are having a change of heart.
Why can't we work to the same crewing level as LGW? It's not because we are inferior. Some crew will say it's because LGW has many leisure pax and LHR has many business pax. Partly that and partly a safety issue.
75% of full-time!
Two-Tone-Blue,
As pointed out it was not agreed between UNITE and BA and working with 1, and sometimes 2, less crew onboard is hard work. Service takes a really long time to complete. A full service in Club takes over 3 hrs to complete. I brought in a 747 with 13 crew two weeks after imposition and it was really hard work. We also have concern about the covering of doors 5 on 747 as they are not manned during safety demo. Some will claim that it has been approved by CAA and they set the regulations but facts remain that BA has been telling us for years that doors must always be covered. Now they are having a change of heart.
Why can't we work to the same crewing level as LGW? It's not because we are inferior. Some crew will say it's because LGW has many leisure pax and LHR has many business pax. Partly that and partly a safety issue.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer14
As I have pointed out I don't always agree with everything BASSA does. I didn't know that crew from GLA and MAN never got to keep their seniority or grade when their bases closed down and were transferred to LHR but I do think that they should have been allowed to keep it. Not the ground staff offered CC, though, because they're in a different department and not IFCE.
Glamgirl,
BA could remove the imposition if they want to. They have enough crew on both EF and WW. I never suggested that they should offer full-time for part-time crew and I doubt very few would accept it. I for one would never do it. If I want extra cash I'd apply for W2W.
To your question with what should be done to meet the savings. Go back to original crewing levels, change the disruption agreement, remove telephone allowance and a two year pay freeze. Remove New Fleet and introduce a new contract on existing fleet, as originally suggested by UNITE, but there must be a clause that prevents new recruits from taking work from us and scheduling should be monitored to secure that. Seniority should remain and promotion should be based upon that on ALL contracts.
That should give them enough savings.
As I have pointed out I don't always agree with everything BASSA does. I didn't know that crew from GLA and MAN never got to keep their seniority or grade when their bases closed down and were transferred to LHR but I do think that they should have been allowed to keep it. Not the ground staff offered CC, though, because they're in a different department and not IFCE.
Glamgirl,
BA could remove the imposition if they want to. They have enough crew on both EF and WW. I never suggested that they should offer full-time for part-time crew and I doubt very few would accept it. I for one would never do it. If I want extra cash I'd apply for W2W.
To your question with what should be done to meet the savings. Go back to original crewing levels, change the disruption agreement, remove telephone allowance and a two year pay freeze. Remove New Fleet and introduce a new contract on existing fleet, as originally suggested by UNITE, but there must be a clause that prevents new recruits from taking work from us and scheduling should be monitored to secure that. Seniority should remain and promotion should be based upon that on ALL contracts.
That should give them enough savings.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
I've heard though, that certain leisure routes, including those on LGW are demanding?? And LGW seem to manage to achieve service standards and good ratings.
Your last point which says LGW can have reduced crew but LHR can't partly because it's a safety issue is laughable! So LGW does not have medical emergencies, safety issues etc???
Why can't we work to the same crewing level as LGW? It's not because we are inferior. Some crew will say it's because LGW has many leisure pax and LHR has many business pax. Partly that and partly a safety issue.
Your last point which says LGW can have reduced crew but LHR can't partly because it's a safety issue is laughable! So LGW does not have medical emergencies, safety issues etc???
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, MissM, at least you tried... Your suggestions sound very much like the union's suggestions, but I guess this is the best answer we'll get from you.
About this though:
Do you realise how insulting that is? I find it incredibly rude, to be honest. I've heard this quite a few times, and the people who say it are arrogant in my opinion. Do you possibly realise that the business-type customer uses the lounge, travels regularly and spend their time on-board either working or resting? Compared to the leisure-type customer who tend to want "everything" we can possibly offer. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as it's what they paid for, and who could blame them, as they've saved up for a long time and want to enjoy it. This is why I find leisure market flights harder work, and that is why I find your above statement offensive.
Funnily enough, according to my friends on WWLHR, the routes they least like doing is leisure routes, as "they're such hard work". Go figure, eh?
Gg
About this though:
Why can't we work to the same crewing level as LGW? It's not because we are inferior. Some crew will say it's because LGW has many leisure pax and LHR has many business pax. Partly that and partly a safety issue.
Funnily enough, according to my friends on WWLHR, the routes they least like doing is leisure routes, as "they're such hard work". Go figure, eh?
Gg
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
I think there would be enough pursers to reinstate PSRs on longhaul, well maybe not now they've promoted some to CSD but don't know about other crew. I am not aware of anyone on more AV,SBY than normal, I have a few more days but usually do in the winter.
The savings you said would certainly not save enough!!! Can't that be accepted??
Also, why should seniority for promotion remain? I 1PERSONALLY think it's an unfair and outdated system (my opinion) - ask your colleagues on WW who have not been able to be First Class trained yet after 12 years let alone PSR. Say if a campaign opened on WW it would probably require 9 years seniority let's say for PSR - what if someone who had done 8 and a half years at BA which is more than enough experience can't apply - yet could be one of the crew with the most potential and make the best PSR!! The last LGW campaign apparently was done on merit, alot of people didn't like that (saw the thread on CF!) as there were lots of young PSRs (people said they wouldn't be good
) 'but it is moving forward, allowing everyone an equal shot depending on their ability!! Obviously experience is required I'm not disputing that but, the CAA requires 1 or 2 years anyway which is enough depending on an individual.
Obviously seniority does have it's place - VR lists, part time, transfer of fleets and maybe leave etc but promotion? Nah! The ability to do a job well is not necassarily based on ''oh you should have done 10 years plus''. Don't know why ''seniority'' is the bee all end all to some people!
Does anyone agree? Or is it just me?
I think there would be enough pursers to reinstate PSRs on longhaul, well maybe not now they've promoted some to CSD but don't know about other crew. I am not aware of anyone on more AV,SBY than normal, I have a few more days but usually do in the winter.
The savings you said would certainly not save enough!!! Can't that be accepted??
Also, why should seniority for promotion remain? I 1PERSONALLY think it's an unfair and outdated system (my opinion) - ask your colleagues on WW who have not been able to be First Class trained yet after 12 years let alone PSR. Say if a campaign opened on WW it would probably require 9 years seniority let's say for PSR - what if someone who had done 8 and a half years at BA which is more than enough experience can't apply - yet could be one of the crew with the most potential and make the best PSR!! The last LGW campaign apparently was done on merit, alot of people didn't like that (saw the thread on CF!) as there were lots of young PSRs (people said they wouldn't be good
) 'but it is moving forward, allowing everyone an equal shot depending on their ability!! Obviously experience is required I'm not disputing that but, the CAA requires 1 or 2 years anyway which is enough depending on an individual. Obviously seniority does have it's place - VR lists, part time, transfer of fleets and maybe leave etc but promotion? Nah! The ability to do a job well is not necassarily based on ''oh you should have done 10 years plus''. Don't know why ''seniority'' is the bee all end all to some people!
Does anyone agree? Or is it just me?
Last edited by SlideBustle; 30th Dec 2009 at 00:43.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
I'm also interested as to which way you think the reduced crewing levels impact on safety? Please do not mention doors 5 again, we've done that already. Most other airlines operate with less crew than BA, and the ones that have more crew pay their crew rather a lot less than LHR crew.
CAA has authority over legal crewing levels, and no British airline can deviate from that. I know you keep going on about what you learnt through SEP over the years, but procedures change and rules change. It's called moving with the times, simple as that. As an example, will you not use an ELT just because we didn't have those 10 years ago? Will you still insist on using the ambu-bag even though we're not supposed to use it anymore, just because that's what you learned years ago?
Gg
I'm also interested as to which way you think the reduced crewing levels impact on safety? Please do not mention doors 5 again, we've done that already. Most other airlines operate with less crew than BA, and the ones that have more crew pay their crew rather a lot less than LHR crew.
CAA has authority over legal crewing levels, and no British airline can deviate from that. I know you keep going on about what you learnt through SEP over the years, but procedures change and rules change. It's called moving with the times, simple as that. As an example, will you not use an ELT just because we didn't have those 10 years ago? Will you still insist on using the ambu-bag even though we're not supposed to use it anymore, just because that's what you learned years ago?
Gg
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
I think it's a fair deal and most crew would probably share that opinion. I can't see the problem for a new contract instead of a new fleet. I think it would beneficial for BA and save them a lot of trouble. They couldn't handle MidFleet when it was up and running and what makes them so confident that they will be able to deal with NewFleet? Or was it BASSA who had too much to say about what destinations they'd be going to? Some will tell you that.
I share your opinion that business pax do spend time in the lounge but most of them also know the service by heart and can be very demanding. Many of them work and don't want to be disturbed. Many also eat before boarding to be able to go straight to sleep because they've got important business meetings to attend and want to be fully rested. Do you think it's fair in such case for us to do a full service which takes over 3 hours to complete, switch off the lights for a few hours and then put them back on a long time before landing because otherwise we won't be able to finish in time?
I think it's a fair deal and most crew would probably share that opinion. I can't see the problem for a new contract instead of a new fleet. I think it would beneficial for BA and save them a lot of trouble. They couldn't handle MidFleet when it was up and running and what makes them so confident that they will be able to deal with NewFleet? Or was it BASSA who had too much to say about what destinations they'd be going to? Some will tell you that.
I share your opinion that business pax do spend time in the lounge but most of them also know the service by heart and can be very demanding. Many of them work and don't want to be disturbed. Many also eat before boarding to be able to go straight to sleep because they've got important business meetings to attend and want to be fully rested. Do you think it's fair in such case for us to do a full service which takes over 3 hours to complete, switch off the lights for a few hours and then put them back on a long time before landing because otherwise we won't be able to finish in time?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle
I won't shoot you down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I think if you'd read the Roster Party threads on Crew Forum you would see the amount of 24 hr blocks some crew are rostered and some without their hrs being high. I don't know which fleet you are on so can't comment but definitely on WW.
Promotion should be on promotion because that's fair. You still need to undergo assessments and they wouldn't just pick you because you've been flying for 31 yrs. You still need the ability and qualities to do the job.
I won't shoot you down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I think if you'd read the Roster Party threads on Crew Forum you would see the amount of 24 hr blocks some crew are rostered and some without their hrs being high. I don't know which fleet you are on so can't comment but definitely on WW.
Promotion should be on promotion because that's fair. You still need to undergo assessments and they wouldn't just pick you because you've been flying for 31 yrs. You still need the ability and qualities to do the job.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM, well... BASSA may feel it is a fair deal but it saves a third of what BA need... unfortunately. In an ideal world we would all be earning a fortune, there would be no recession and there would be no poverty, suffering or hunger in the world. It isn't an ideal world, so we have to be realistic and do the best with what we got.... and realise and put things into perspective.
New contract is more than fair, but as BA said they need productivity savings - they couldn't have half the crew on a nightstop - the other crew on a double night, similarly in disruption they couldn't have some crew having 15 hours, others having minimum 11!! Also, as I have stated above myself (and some collegues) feel moving to a merit approach for promotion is not necassarily a bad thing like I posted above.
New contract is more than fair, but as BA said they need productivity savings - they couldn't have half the crew on a nightstop - the other crew on a double night, similarly in disruption they couldn't have some crew having 15 hours, others having minimum 11!! Also, as I have stated above myself (and some collegues) feel moving to a merit approach for promotion is not necassarily a bad thing like I posted above.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm on EF, so maybe it is different. If it is true that many crew are on 24hrs etc etc (I'm not doubting you) then I agree that is unfair, it's abit like the situation regarding EF CSDs where they have lots of availables and airport SBYs as obviously they are only generally rostered trips with at least 1 sector being on a Boeing (which there are less of them now with the 757 being gradually removed, we have around 5!!) generally only on an airbus if the trip is a mixture of airbus/boeing or if they are called from SBY/Avail due to shortage of PSRs.
I can see what you mean about seniority and of course you are entitled to your opinion. Seniority has it's place as I said before. And of course I know they don't just promote anyone who has high seniority it is performance related aswell. Just, I think all crew who have the required minimum experience should be given the oppurtunity. I heard on the last round of ww promotions, some crew could apply, then were given a letter saying they couldn't due to their seniority, even though they were experienced.
I can see what you mean about seniority and of course you are entitled to your opinion. Seniority has it's place as I said before. And of course I know they don't just promote anyone who has high seniority it is performance related aswell. Just, I think all crew who have the required minimum experience should be given the oppurtunity. I heard on the last round of ww promotions, some crew could apply, then were given a letter saying they couldn't due to their seniority, even though they were experienced.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
Doors 5 is a perfect example of a safety issue. Or, it's more about BA changing its mind over something that has been pushed into our heads year after year. It was even mentioned at my SEP 6 months ago that doors must never be left unattended. Other airlines could have different procedures, what do I know? Maybe BA should do what they did to doors 3 on 747 Classic and seal them up!
I would use the ELT because we have been trained about how and when to use it and sometimes it's even covered in briefing. It's different from doors 5!
Doors 5 is a perfect example of a safety issue. Or, it's more about BA changing its mind over something that has been pushed into our heads year after year. It was even mentioned at my SEP 6 months ago that doors must never be left unattended. Other airlines could have different procedures, what do I know? Maybe BA should do what they did to doors 3 on 747 Classic and seal them up!
I would use the ELT because we have been trained about how and when to use it and sometimes it's even covered in briefing. It's different from doors 5!