British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having began by observing the previous “locked” thread and now this one, along with following other forums and the media from the perspective of a “neutral” there seems to be a number of possible options:
- BA management capitulate and give in to the Bassa “nuclear option”, in which case the airline will die a painful death. Odds. About as likely as me living to be the oldest person on this plant.
- Bassa withdrawing their threat of another strike by way of the next ballot. Withdrawing from the court case and returning to the negotiations with a sensible approach. For this to come to pass the Bassa/Unite hierarchy would appear to need a brain transplant and I am not sure there is enough time left for the operations to take place. Undoubtedly, this would be the best solution for CC. In time the Company may return to its former glory. Odds. About as likely as me living to be the oldest person on this plant.
- The current situation continues that will ensure the annihilation of BASSA. Recent past performance of both the CC and pilot unions indicate that the Company’s legal team is a cut above theirs. So far the results are BA 1 Bassa 0 and BA 1 Balpa 0. Although Balpa had the brains to realise they were on a hiding to nothing and returned to the negotiating table to conclude a satisfactory deal. On the balance of probabilities Bassa will have their tails between their legs when they next leave the High Court.
- Bassa win in court, then follow their usual tactics and the BA cost base remains unsustainable as losses continue running at £1m per day until the airline ceases trading.
- BA does a Swissair. All employees on new contracts and working to the legal limitations with not an industrial agreement in sight. Legally difficult to do because of the pension deficit millstone around its neck.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
Well, I think you misunderstand it.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
The original ballot was cast because BASSA said the BA had breached the contracts by imposing changes that were contractual.
The court action was started for the alleged breach of contract from your quote.
Originally Posted by Lalalady
Unite issues legal challenge to BA over imposed changes to contracts
Unite the union is to take legal action to stop British Airways’ plans imposing contractual changes on crew without agreement.
The challenge, in the High Court, is over the imposition of contractual changes, including the reduction of crewing levels, which BA said it will force cabin crew to work to from 16 November. Unite is seeking an injunction against this imposition.
The High Court hearing is currently set for Thursday, November 5th
This action is separate to the ballot for industrial action which Unite announced this week it is intending to carry out.
Unite the union is to take legal action to stop British Airways’ plans imposing contractual changes on crew without agreement.
The challenge, in the High Court, is over the imposition of contractual changes, including the reduction of crewing levels, which BA said it will force cabin crew to work to from 16 November. Unite is seeking an injunction against this imposition.
The High Court hearing is currently set for Thursday, November 5th
This action is separate to the ballot for industrial action which Unite announced this week it is intending to carry out.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
The only option BASSA would have is to now claim the new strike is about something else entirely. I don't think even the strongest BASSA supporters on here would accept that.
IMHO!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MC,
There is a difference between what they say and what is legally the case.
AFAIK BASSA claims that BA have imposed unilateral changes that are contractual. BA does not dispute the imposition, only that they are contractual.
The last couple of weeks a lot of discussion has taken place over subjects that were (legally) not part of the problem. BASSA has proposed different changes based on the assumption that the changes were contractual. BA refused to discuss this (logically) since they say the changes are not contractual and therefore there is no need to discuss them (or for BASSA to offer alternatives).
So, although BASSA makes us believe they are protesting the changes, they are in fact saying that BA is in breach of contract. A strike is not the way to settle such an issue, a legal case is. That is what is being decided Feb 1st.
BASSA can no more strike about non contractual changes than they can strike over what aircraft BA decides to buy. The real issue is therefore if the changes are contractual or not. If they are not, than BASSA has no legal grounds for a strike. It really is end of story then. Ballot or no ballot.
I do not know how to explain it more clearly.
There is a difference between what they say and what is legally the case.
AFAIK BASSA claims that BA have imposed unilateral changes that are contractual. BA does not dispute the imposition, only that they are contractual.
The last couple of weeks a lot of discussion has taken place over subjects that were (legally) not part of the problem. BASSA has proposed different changes based on the assumption that the changes were contractual. BA refused to discuss this (logically) since they say the changes are not contractual and therefore there is no need to discuss them (or for BASSA to offer alternatives).
So, although BASSA makes us believe they are protesting the changes, they are in fact saying that BA is in breach of contract. A strike is not the way to settle such an issue, a legal case is. That is what is being decided Feb 1st.
BASSA can no more strike about non contractual changes than they can strike over what aircraft BA decides to buy. The real issue is therefore if the changes are contractual or not. If they are not, than BASSA has no legal grounds for a strike. It really is end of story then. Ballot or no ballot.
I do not know how to explain it more clearly.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heckybaby,
I understand exactly what you saying, but I think you are confusing the court case and the ballot - they are separate issues according to Bassa.
The court case is concerned with whether the changes are contractual or not.
Agreed - but Bassa are not balloting over contractual or non-contractual changes.
Bassa are balloting over the fact that changes have been imposed.
It matters not what the actual changes are - just the fact that changes have been made.
This is conversation is going around in circles, I don't know if Bassa's point of view is legally correct and I certainly don't agree with balloting again, Bassa believe that they can strike over any issue they disagree with, this is their stance at the moment
I understand exactly what you saying, but I think you are confusing the court case and the ballot - they are separate issues according to Bassa.
The court case is concerned with whether the changes are contractual or not.
BASSA can no more strike about non contractual changes than they can strike over what aircraft BA decides to buy. The real issue is therefore if the changes are contractual or not. If they are not, than BASSA has no legal grounds for a strike. It really is end of story then. Ballot or no ballot.
Bassa are balloting over the fact that changes have been imposed.
It matters not what the actual changes are - just the fact that changes have been made.
This is conversation is going around in circles, I don't know if Bassa's point of view is legally correct and I certainly don't agree with balloting again, Bassa believe that they can strike over any issue they disagree with, this is their stance at the moment
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MC,
Don't know what to tell ya... It seems simple to me. BASSA cannot prevent changes it has no (for lack of a better term) jurisdiction over. As I said, they cannot strike because the don't like the aircraft that BA buys.
That is why they are not striking about the actual changes (since it is unclear whether or not they are entitled to) but about the process BA followed.
This is exactly why this strike business was so misplaced to begin with and why there is no legal foundation for it...
I can still understand the crew not liking some of the changes but maybe they simply have no say in the matter. Legally that is.
If a judge rules that the changes are non contractual and thus outside of BASSA's realm, then any strike over the changes or their imposition is illegal and will cost strikers their job and Unite their war chest.
Why is WW so adamant in his strategy? He has the law on his side.
Don't know what to tell ya... It seems simple to me. BASSA cannot prevent changes it has no (for lack of a better term) jurisdiction over. As I said, they cannot strike because the don't like the aircraft that BA buys.
That is why they are not striking about the actual changes (since it is unclear whether or not they are entitled to) but about the process BA followed.
This is exactly why this strike business was so misplaced to begin with and why there is no legal foundation for it...
I can still understand the crew not liking some of the changes but maybe they simply have no say in the matter. Legally that is.
If a judge rules that the changes are non contractual and thus outside of BASSA's realm, then any strike over the changes or their imposition is illegal and will cost strikers their job and Unite their war chest.
Why is WW so adamant in his strategy? He has the law on his side.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management have allowed the CC unions to run the roost over many many years, I cannot see the CC unions changing all of sudden, just looks like they are trying to maintain T+Cs for their members, and non members.
From what I read, CC appear to be getting hit the hardest by far, yes I know they have high T+Cs, but other sections appear to getting treated much better with little changes to their deals.
Good luck to all the CC.
From what I read, CC appear to be getting hit the hardest by far, yes I know they have high T+Cs, but other sections appear to getting treated much better with little changes to their deals.
Good luck to all the CC.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I read, CC appear to be getting hit the hardest by far, yes I know they have high T+Cs, but other sections appear to getting treated much better with little changes to their deals.
If you listen to BASSA that is the impression you get. However you have to take into account the over the past 10 years or so ALL other departments in BA have rationalised their T's & C's.
Flight crew merged allowances, down route payments, box payments etc. etc. etc. 5 years ago. Ground staff, push back drivers, ground handling staff, baggage staff changed their T's & C's with the move to T5 and the Engineers have had their T's & C's altered beyond all recognition over the past decade.
The only ones who have successfully failed to budge are the CC. Whilst this may be seen as a victory for BASSA it can also be seen as a symptom of weak management. Sadly for BASSA Willie Walsh is anything but weak and wants to redress the balance hence the supposedly 'disproportionate' savings.
It is difficulty for a company to continue to pay 'Central Area Turnaround' payments when the CAT doesn't exist anymore!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
Don't know what to tell ya... It seems simple to me. BASSA cannot prevent changes it has no (for lack of a better term) jurisdiction over. As I said, they cannot strike because the don't like the aircraft that BA buys.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
I can still understand the crew not liking some of the changes but maybe they simply have no say in the matter. Legally that is.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
If a judge rules that the changes are non contractual and thus outside of BASSA's realm, then any strike over the changes or their imposition is illegal and will cost strikers their job and Unite their war chest.
BASSA haven't exactly been totally forthcoming with the facts and most crew believe if they don't make a stand now BA will crucify them in the future. Bassa can't call a strike on what might happen in the future which is why I believe they have chosen the rather vague reason they have used.
When you talk to crew they don't appear to know what the actual ballot is for, let alone the details of the company offer.
Just how do BA deal with people like that?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobble2plank, I agree other sections have made change over many years, but I think it's been slow and amount of change is small.
Yes, the CC need to live in the real world, but the reason why the company want such big changes in such a small time is due to a long history of weak management looking after the CC.
The CC are in a very tight spot, they have great T+Cs and would find it hard to match them in the real/outside world, this is why they will fight tooth and nail to keep as much as possible.
CC have hugh contact time with customers, I think a balance is needed, I think changers are too big and too fast, we all need to remember CC are people with family and bills etc etc.
2010 will be a bad year for many airlines, we will see some big headlines this year, good luck to all staff in all the airlines, none more so than the company CC.
Yes, the CC need to live in the real world, but the reason why the company want such big changes in such a small time is due to a long history of weak management looking after the CC.
The CC are in a very tight spot, they have great T+Cs and would find it hard to match them in the real/outside world, this is why they will fight tooth and nail to keep as much as possible.
CC have hugh contact time with customers, I think a balance is needed, I think changers are too big and too fast, we all need to remember CC are people with family and bills etc etc.
2010 will be a bad year for many airlines, we will see some big headlines this year, good luck to all staff in all the airlines, none more so than the company CC.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joetom wrote:
I know that we are just going around in circles here, but it has to be said.
The trouble is that if they fight too hard they may well have to try to match them in the real world.
The changes being asked for are what?
No pay cut
Incremental rises for many of 2-7%
No change to allowances
No change to box/CAT/LDP payments
No change to reduced rest downroute
Work a little bit harder on some flights (for some people)
If you consider those big changes then I concede to you. If, like the majority of people you consider them very reasonable and minimal changes to help an employer stay solvent and continue paying you those 'great T+C's', then stop whinging about the imposition and get on with your life. After all, the imposition only occurred because BASSA wouldn't negotiate at all for 9 months, it has been commented on that if BASSA had proposed these changes that they would have been acceptable.
The CC are in a very tight spot, they have great T+Cs and would find it hard to match them in the real/outside world, this is why they will fight tooth and nail to keep as much as possible.
CC have hugh contact time with customers, I think a balance is needed, I think changers are too big and too fast, we all need to remember CC are people with family and bills etc etc.
CC have hugh contact time with customers, I think a balance is needed, I think changers are too big and too fast, we all need to remember CC are people with family and bills etc etc.
The trouble is that if they fight too hard they may well have to try to match them in the real world.
The changes being asked for are what?
No pay cut
Incremental rises for many of 2-7%
No change to allowances
No change to box/CAT/LDP payments
No change to reduced rest downroute
Work a little bit harder on some flights (for some people)
If you consider those big changes then I concede to you. If, like the majority of people you consider them very reasonable and minimal changes to help an employer stay solvent and continue paying you those 'great T+C's', then stop whinging about the imposition and get on with your life. After all, the imposition only occurred because BASSA wouldn't negotiate at all for 9 months, it has been commented on that if BASSA had proposed these changes that they would have been acceptable.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
101917
You wrote:
"I have a minimum of 12 flights planned for this year; fortunately, the first 2 are on BA that will not be affected by the next possible strike. All the others are going to be booked with other airlines for the following reasons. BA is now an unreliable carrier with a low morale workforce. But, more importantly I have doubts about the airline being able to deliver a safe operation and I regret to say that this opinion has been brought about by the selflessness of those employees who are prepared to see disaster strike and have no respect for the authority gradient when at work or the company they work for. How can I be sure that they will do their job in a conscientious and professional manner?"
You are of course fully entitled to your own opinion and to make your own decision.
I think you may be making a big mistake in assessing the airline and its safety on what you read on this forum. The cabin crew are undoubtably militant in defending their terms and conditions but I think when you fly you will find the entire operation including the cabin crew very professional and safe. As a flight crew member I have no animosity towards cabin crew and do not receive any from them. You are seeing some extreme views here and you are perceiving that to be the norm.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topbunk, well said.
I still think changes are too much and fast from the CC point of view, other sections of staff seem over happy for the CC to take the lot, some sections stand out in their views ???
Any changes will just be the first cut, look at the pension story, stop new staff getting it, then reduce it, and this year the slice will be the biggest ever seen, so I can well understand why the CC are being so strong.
I still think changes are too much and fast from the CC point of view, other sections of staff seem over happy for the CC to take the lot, some sections stand out in their views ???
Any changes will just be the first cut, look at the pension story, stop new staff getting it, then reduce it, and this year the slice will be the biggest ever seen, so I can well understand why the CC are being so strong.
henkybaby
I heartily agree with most of your analysis of the present dispute, but there is one area on which we differ, and, with respect, one point where I believe you are not correct.
The BASSA ballot was not about whether contractual changes had been imposed. BASSA left that to the lawyers and the Court, thus far rather unsuccessfully!
The ballot was about BASSA’s objection to any change being imposed unilaterally, rather than negotiated, regardless of whether that change was contractual or non-contractual, major or trifling.
The court case is about whether BA’s imposed changes are contractual changes or not.
BA will argue that they are not contractual changes, and need not have been negotiated. BASSA will argue that they are contractual changes and should have been negotiated.
On the 05th November, (correction courtesy of Meal Chucker) BASSA applied for an injunction to prevent BA imposing certain changes until the case had been heard in full, but the application was refused.
BA imposed the changes, the full case will be heard in the High Court next month, and we will learn the judge’s ruling in due course.
If BASSA win, BA will not be allowed to maintain those changes, and will face a claim for damages as well as being required either to reverse the changes or rapidly reach a negotiated solution with BASSA.
If BA wins, then this will mean that BASSA will not have any legal grounds on which to oppose those changes.
Now, if BA should win the case, you appear sure that BASSA cannot ballot over non-contractual matters.
I don’t think that is correct. One commentary on UK industrial legislation puts it this way:
I’m told that the case law that has built up on the relevant legislation does not confine the term trade dispute to mean solely contractual matters. Just that it has to be a dispute between workers and their employer, which has arisen out of their employment, no matter how trivial or inconsequential others may think it.
Provided BASSA observe the technical requirements of UK industrial legislation (something that has singularly proved beyond them so far) such as balloting the correct people and asking the correct question on the ballot paper, it seems to me that a judgment in BA’s favour in February would not preclude BASSA from opposing these changes industrially.
BASSA has already indicated that its members will be re-balloted in mid-January.
As to the wisdom of, support for, or likely effectiveness of any such future industrial action, I leave that for you to comment on, from the safe distance of Sydney!
Happy New Year
Bellerophon
I heartily agree with most of your analysis of the present dispute, but there is one area on which we differ, and, with respect, one point where I believe you are not correct.
...The original ballot was cast because BASSA said the BA had breached the contracts by imposing changes that were contractual. It was not about the changes themselves mind you, it was about due process...
The ballot was about BASSA’s objection to any change being imposed unilaterally, rather than negotiated, regardless of whether that change was contractual or non-contractual, major or trifling.
The court case is about whether BA’s imposed changes are contractual changes or not.
BA will argue that they are not contractual changes, and need not have been negotiated. BASSA will argue that they are contractual changes and should have been negotiated.
On the 05th November, (correction courtesy of Meal Chucker) BASSA applied for an injunction to prevent BA imposing certain changes until the case had been heard in full, but the application was refused.
BA imposed the changes, the full case will be heard in the High Court next month, and we will learn the judge’s ruling in due course.
If BASSA win, BA will not be allowed to maintain those changes, and will face a claim for damages as well as being required either to reverse the changes or rapidly reach a negotiated solution with BASSA.
If BA wins, then this will mean that BASSA will not have any legal grounds on which to oppose those changes.
Now, if BA should win the case, you appear sure that BASSA cannot ballot over non-contractual matters.
...It seems simple to me. BASSA cannot prevent changes it has no (for lack of a better term) jurisdiction over...
... If the changes are non-contractual BASSA can not call a strike over the changes themselves either...
... If the changes are non-contractual BASSA can not call a strike over the changes themselves either...
I don’t think that is correct. One commentary on UK industrial legislation puts it this way:
...For a dispute to be lawful it must be a 'trade dispute'. This means it must be a dispute between workers and their own employer and it must be wholly concerned about employment related matters, e.g. pay, working conditions, jobs, discipline etc...
Provided BASSA observe the technical requirements of UK industrial legislation (something that has singularly proved beyond them so far) such as balloting the correct people and asking the correct question on the ballot paper, it seems to me that a judgment in BA’s favour in February would not preclude BASSA from opposing these changes industrially.
BASSA has already indicated that its members will be re-balloted in mid-January.
As to the wisdom of, support for, or likely effectiveness of any such future industrial action, I leave that for you to comment on, from the safe distance of Sydney!
Happy New Year
Bellerophon
Last edited by Bellerophon; 2nd Jan 2010 at 20:40. Reason: Incorrect date cited, corrected by Meal Chucker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bellerophon
On the 17th December 2009, BASSA applied for an injunction, in front of Mrs. Justice Cox, to prevent BA imposing certain changes until the case had been heard in full, but the application was refused.
The injunction to stop the change to new service routines etc. that Bassa applied for was denied on Nov 5th.
Tom100, post *990
Your analysis is spot on.
BA now have to destry Bassa. No other outcome will work. They'll use the 90 day SOSR all-go, and then "re-interview for own job" technique that most UK majors use.
The moderate CC on here will get through.
The response of Unite, which is going through turmoil currently, and an election for its Gen Sec will be interesting.
BA now have to destry Bassa. No other outcome will work. They'll use the 90 day SOSR all-go, and then "re-interview for own job" technique that most UK majors use.
The moderate CC on here will get through.
The response of Unite, which is going through turmoil currently, and an election for its Gen Sec will be interesting.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 101917 ... your Post 999.
I agree wholeheartedly with [my bold above] - "unreliable in terms of customer delivery" [i.e. the flight actually happens]. It is for that reason that I shall be making my last personal round-trip journey with BA in April/May, and that I have directed that my company ceases using BA for business purposes unless completely unavoidable.
Tenuous agreement on "low morale workforce", other than as manifested by poor customer service on-board [long-haul LHR, others exempt]. I think they have very good morale on the whole; it's just that some of the CC derive their morale exclusively from excessively favourable T&C. "World's Favourite Airline"? Perhaps for the LHR CC, but not necessarily for the customers
Disagree with safety aspects - the Captain will ensure safety, regardless of what else may be happening down the back with 1st Class canapes etc. Miming to the on-board Safety Brief and executing "Doors to manual and cross-check" is not the most intellectually challenging Flight Safety exercise.
If I exaggerate some aspects, like FS, it's only for impact. But some people need to realise that, regardless of the Legal and Industrial Relations aspects, the paying customers can no longer rely on BA getting them from A to B. Simples?
With regard to my options. I have a minimum of 12 flights planned for this year; fortunately, the first 2 are on BA that will not be affected by the next possible strike. All the others are going to be booked with other airlines for the following reasons. BA is now an unreliable carrier with a low morale workforce. But, more importantly I have doubts about the airline being able to deliver a safe operation and I regret to say that this opinion has been brought about by the selflessness of those employees who are prepared to see disaster strike and have no respect for the authority gradient when at work or the company they work for. How can I be sure that they will do their job in a conscientious and professional manner?
Tenuous agreement on "low morale workforce", other than as manifested by poor customer service on-board [long-haul LHR, others exempt]. I think they have very good morale on the whole; it's just that some of the CC derive their morale exclusively from excessively favourable T&C. "World's Favourite Airline"? Perhaps for the LHR CC, but not necessarily for the customers
Disagree with safety aspects - the Captain will ensure safety, regardless of what else may be happening down the back with 1st Class canapes etc. Miming to the on-board Safety Brief and executing "Doors to manual and cross-check" is not the most intellectually challenging Flight Safety exercise.
If I exaggerate some aspects, like FS, it's only for impact. But some people need to realise that, regardless of the Legal and Industrial Relations aspects, the paying customers can no longer rely on BA getting them from A to B. Simples?
Last edited by Two-Tone-Blue; 2nd Jan 2010 at 17:26.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two-Tone-Blue
Miming to the safety briefing? What are you going on about? You say that arming the door is not the most intellectually challenging "flight safety exercise". Do you know what happens to the door when doing it? And, do you know how to do it yourself or do you think it's all about moving your arms a bit, touching a few bits on the door and giving the impression that you are actually doing SOMETHING?
Why are you always slagging off cabin crew for their duties? Do you actually know what we are doing? Except miming to the safety briefing and doing less intellectual challenges of course.
Manifasted poor customer service onboard? Only at LHR WW?
Miming to the safety briefing? What are you going on about? You say that arming the door is not the most intellectually challenging "flight safety exercise". Do you know what happens to the door when doing it? And, do you know how to do it yourself or do you think it's all about moving your arms a bit, touching a few bits on the door and giving the impression that you are actually doing SOMETHING?
Why are you always slagging off cabin crew for their duties? Do you actually know what we are doing? Except miming to the safety briefing and doing less intellectual challenges of course.
Manifasted poor customer service onboard? Only at LHR WW?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiramisu
BA is your employer and pays you every month but who has negotiated all these different allowances and payments for you? Do you think BA came up with them themselves?
BA is your employer and pays you every month but who has negotiated all these different allowances and payments for you? Do you think BA came up with them themselves?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again, MissM. Paying customer calling.
The cartoon briefing is on the video screen - the CC point at the nearest doors [the first thing I check personally, and cross-check with the OH].
Technically no, other than it is something you are told to do by the Captain of the Aircraft. My guess ... it's related to auto-deployment of slides against possible ground hazards? Oh, BTW, I assiduously read the Emergency Cards to ensure I know how to get out if the CC are unconscious. My life depends on that ... and the pilot.
I'm not "always slagging off" ... I am DEEPLY disappointed in the standards of BA Cabin Service in J on L-H out of LHR. Oh, and of course the fact that BA CC are trying to disrupt my travel plans and potentially lose me holidays, and business trips, and money ... but don't let that worry you, please. Continue to be "primarily for my safety" if the flight I booked and paid for actually happens.
Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?
Superb service JER-LGW, despite the time constraints on a very short sector.
Excellent service LGW-MLA, friendly and cheerful.
Consistently inconsistent and sub-standard LHR-IAD.
Next question to your paying customer, please.
Miming to the safety briefing? What are you going on about?
You say that arming the door is not the most intellectually challenging "flight safety exercise". Do you know what happens to the door when doing it? And, do you know how to do it yourself or do you think it's all about moving your arms a bit, touching a few bits on the door and giving the impression that you are actually doing SOMETHING?
Why are you always slagging off cabin crew for their duties? Do you actually know what we are doing? Except miming to the safety briefing and doing less intellectual challenges of course.
Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?
Manifasted poor customer service onboard? Only at LHR WW?
Excellent service LGW-MLA, friendly and cheerful.
Consistently inconsistent and sub-standard LHR-IAD.
Next question to your paying customer, please.