British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do have a clue that I will never accept NewFleet. Good answer enough?
Better make it a very well paid job tho', you'll need the money if you plan to be spending several years in court fighting BA.
What alternative reality do you people exist in? You have understood nothing that has been said to you.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly Miss M
We may not have a choice. If we don't start negotiating, then we definately won't. If we learn nothing else out of this whole debacle, it should be the danger of a fleet set up with different T&C's! SF LGW will yet be the undoing of LHR.
As for winning a court case by sending in lots of reports on how we can't cope with reduced crewing levels, high levels of stress, increased safety concerns, etc., the whole thing is laughable when just round the M25 our colleagues are managing just fine! We need our unions talking not plotting!
As for winning a court case by sending in lots of reports on how we can't cope with reduced crewing levels, high levels of stress, increased safety concerns, etc., the whole thing is laughable when just round the M25 our colleagues are managing just fine! We need our unions talking not plotting!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM states the bleeding obvious - again
MissM really underestimates her readers' intelligence:
Well, well, well! If MissM had not told us that we would never have worked that out for ourselves.
If they have resigned from BASSA they have lost their vote. They can't forward their opinions either although I'm not sure if they would have even if they still had been members.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really obvious at all, Albert. After all, the BASSA chair told people who were leaving the employ of BA that it would be OK to vote in the recent ballot.
Perhaps over at BASSA its OK to vote if you've resigned, as long as you vote the right way?
Perhaps over at BASSA its OK to vote if you've resigned, as long as you vote the right way?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pvmw
Don't worry because I have been saving money since my very first month with BA and would be able to support myself for a long time.
I think most of us understand what has been said to us. Don't trust BA!
Don't worry because I have been saving money since my very first month with BA and would be able to support myself for a long time.
I think most of us understand what has been said to us. Don't trust BA!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watersidewonker #1037
Once again I repeat too many people who are not cabin crew seem to be trying to lay down the options when they are just trying to influence everyone around with views that are at best found on a local landfill site.
They are:
1 Free speech
2 Democracy
This is a public forum, in case that had escaped your notice - not the BASSA website or CF.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
By making this about due process (e.g. objecting to BA imposing changes they should have been involved in) they shot themselves in the foot if the judge says "but dear BASSA, you don't need to agree to these changes! Off you go!". How can they still strike if the judge deems them outside of their influence?
So then they have to change the reason for the strike. It is no longer about the way of imposing the changes but about the changes themselves.
As I understand it, no matter how they spun it in the media, the legal motivation for the strike was not the changes themselves, or am I wrong?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert Salmon
Is that all you can contribute? If I were you I would have saved myself the energy from writing that on the keyboard.
Is that all you can contribute? If I were you I would have saved myself the energy from writing that on the keyboard.
Don't worry, MissM; your time will come. And when it does BA's long-suffering, paying long-haul customers, who have been b******d about by you and your ilk since November, will be cheering outside T5.
See you outside the JobCentre, MissM!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am going to give this one last try: you are BA!
If you do not trust your employer you have but one cause of action: quit. Seriously. If you do not want to quit that is because you like your job better than you like your alternatives. This is logic and not debatable. Therefore your company, which BASSA tells you not to trust, employs you in a way that you have deemed to be better than all other possible alternatives.
...
Does something click yet?
If you do not trust your employer you have but one cause of action: quit. Seriously. If you do not want to quit that is because you like your job better than you like your alternatives. This is logic and not debatable. Therefore your company, which BASSA tells you not to trust, employs you in a way that you have deemed to be better than all other possible alternatives.
...
Does something click yet?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over on crazyland the latest work of fiction from Fume Event has been posted:
This is fairly typical of the fantasy posts that our cabin crew slavishly digest and believe. I'm sure Big Brutha will be along shortly to tell us how many members have actually left. I'm guessing it'll be single figures, if any at all.
A large number of BA pilots have given up with BALPA in disgust at they way the association has rolled over in its dealings with BA, and have joined the Civil Air Transport section of UNITE.
For a Captain, membership dues have dropped from over £96.00 monthly to £10.76!!
Many pilots have viewed BALPA as being too sycophantic in its dealings with Walsh and want better representation. One Captain told me how he admired the way that the cabin crew are standing up to BA and its imposition.
Dont' believe what you read on PPRUNE, the pilots in BA are split.
For a Captain, membership dues have dropped from over £96.00 monthly to £10.76!!
Many pilots have viewed BALPA as being too sycophantic in its dealings with Walsh and want better representation. One Captain told me how he admired the way that the cabin crew are standing up to BA and its imposition.
Dont' believe what you read on PPRUNE, the pilots in BA are split.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM said;
Don't worry because I have been saving money since my very first month with BA and would be able to support myself for a long time.
Don't worry because I have been saving money since my very first month with BA and would be able to support myself for a long time.
Contemptible?? That is an understatement.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it - MissM is an old contract stewardess - if she had been full-time her basic salary would have been £28.000 - she's 75% so do your maths - why would she quit voluntarily?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watersidewonker
You are so self-absorbed that clearly you have not taken the trouble to have even glanced at my previous messages. It's not difficult to do, you know: all you need is to click on my name to the left of this message.
If you had done so, you would know that I am not a BASSA member. I never was and I never will be.
In fact, I am a long suffering, long-haul J-class passenger. You must know who we are, because it is us, the regular travellers, who pay your wages.
Actually, the truth is that I was a regular punter - until you and your BASSA cronies decided on this Gotterdammerung of a strike.
Because of your union's crass stupidity, coupled with its leaders' apparent inability to organise a pass-up in a duty-free trolley I, and many other (similarly non-BASSA type) passengers will no longer take the risk of flying with an airline where the inmates seem to think they can take over the asylum.
So, Watersidewonker, thanks to you and your pals the only cheque I shall hand over - in the context of this thread - is the cheque not being written in favour of British Airways. Any other carrier - yes.
My company's travel budget (last year's spend with BA alone was a quarter of a million pounds) will now go to other carriers but NOT to British Airways.
This evening I flew from JER to LGW with flyBE. Unlike BA, they do not have a separate business class, but they got me into London without any threats of industrial action and no long, sullen, faces as I all too often get on my regular LHR-LAX trips with BA.
But that won't happen again - ever. My firm will not use your unreliable and downright unpleasant company any more. I am fed up with being regarded during my journeys as a nuisance that hampers you and your bolshie colleagues in the pursuance of garnering as many allowances for as little service as is humanly possible.
So, not a single farthing of my firm's money will pass to BA. That's a hell of a lot of farthings, you know, Watersidewonker - but you are clearly not worried.
And in case you had not noticed yet, Watersidewonker, I am not the only dissatisfied business traveller to have contributed to this thread.
Just wake up to the cold, hard, facts. When (not if) you lose your job you will find that having worked for British Airways will cause doors to be slammed in your face. You, and the rest of the BASSA-led group, will not be employable in any meaningful occupation ever again. No, that's not correct: perhaps you might get a job doing some menial and disgusting task that not even illegal immigrants would be ready to undertake.
And another thing: when you wrote to tell me "you are a disgrace to your fellow workers so don't try to defend yourself shame on you" you really made yourself look a total prat.
But that's par for the course for you, Watersidewonker.
And to the rest of BA's cabin crew, who have demonstrated in this thread that they cherish their jobs, and that they care for their passengers, my apologies. You do not deserve to be treated in this shameful way by your selfish and self-centred union bosses.
You are so self-absorbed that clearly you have not taken the trouble to have even glanced at my previous messages. It's not difficult to do, you know: all you need is to click on my name to the left of this message.
If you had done so, you would know that I am not a BASSA member. I never was and I never will be.
In fact, I am a long suffering, long-haul J-class passenger. You must know who we are, because it is us, the regular travellers, who pay your wages.
Actually, the truth is that I was a regular punter - until you and your BASSA cronies decided on this Gotterdammerung of a strike.
Because of your union's crass stupidity, coupled with its leaders' apparent inability to organise a pass-up in a duty-free trolley I, and many other (similarly non-BASSA type) passengers will no longer take the risk of flying with an airline where the inmates seem to think they can take over the asylum.
So, Watersidewonker, thanks to you and your pals the only cheque I shall hand over - in the context of this thread - is the cheque not being written in favour of British Airways. Any other carrier - yes.
My company's travel budget (last year's spend with BA alone was a quarter of a million pounds) will now go to other carriers but NOT to British Airways.
This evening I flew from JER to LGW with flyBE. Unlike BA, they do not have a separate business class, but they got me into London without any threats of industrial action and no long, sullen, faces as I all too often get on my regular LHR-LAX trips with BA.
But that won't happen again - ever. My firm will not use your unreliable and downright unpleasant company any more. I am fed up with being regarded during my journeys as a nuisance that hampers you and your bolshie colleagues in the pursuance of garnering as many allowances for as little service as is humanly possible.
So, not a single farthing of my firm's money will pass to BA. That's a hell of a lot of farthings, you know, Watersidewonker - but you are clearly not worried.
And in case you had not noticed yet, Watersidewonker, I am not the only dissatisfied business traveller to have contributed to this thread.
Just wake up to the cold, hard, facts. When (not if) you lose your job you will find that having worked for British Airways will cause doors to be slammed in your face. You, and the rest of the BASSA-led group, will not be employable in any meaningful occupation ever again. No, that's not correct: perhaps you might get a job doing some menial and disgusting task that not even illegal immigrants would be ready to undertake.
And another thing: when you wrote to tell me "you are a disgrace to your fellow workers so don't try to defend yourself shame on you" you really made yourself look a total prat.
But that's par for the course for you, Watersidewonker.
And to the rest of BA's cabin crew, who have demonstrated in this thread that they cherish their jobs, and that they care for their passengers, my apologies. You do not deserve to be treated in this shameful way by your selfish and self-centred union bosses.
Last edited by Albert Salmon; 3rd Jan 2010 at 00:24.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert,
That's a valiant attempt at explaining the situation in a rational and reasoned way, but the problem with WatersideW and the rest of the Bassa lemmings is that they don't actually see themselves as part of BA.
Their allegiance, loyalty, trust and future lie with Bassa. BA are the enemy out to destroy them, and their status, and if people stop buying tickets and cause BA to fail, that's fine by them.
All that's important is that Walsh fails, and Bassa will provide for them in the future.
Don't try to think this through, logic plays no part in their fight. They are Bassa and the demise of WW and BA in its present form is their aim.
That's a valiant attempt at explaining the situation in a rational and reasoned way, but the problem with WatersideW and the rest of the Bassa lemmings is that they don't actually see themselves as part of BA.
Their allegiance, loyalty, trust and future lie with Bassa. BA are the enemy out to destroy them, and their status, and if people stop buying tickets and cause BA to fail, that's fine by them.
All that's important is that Walsh fails, and Bassa will provide for them in the future.
Don't try to think this through, logic plays no part in their fight. They are Bassa and the demise of WW and BA in its present form is their aim.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salmon when you say you won't/don't fly BA anymore you are the foolish one here as BA owns a 15% stake in Flybe so money is making it's way to Villie anyway. So stick your 1/4 mil somewhere else I couldn't care less about the type of person you and your company employ it's small fry smokie. The reballot is coming and that's all that matters.
Wonker can not tell a BA passenger (now definitely an ex-passenger after that little outburst) or anyone else, for that matter, what he can or can not do with his money.
Notwithstanding your assertion that flyBE is partially owned by BA, I do not see any of their cabin crew supporting your strike, Wonker. In fact, the flyBE CC who sat opposite me on the train to London hooted with laughter at the very thought of it. So no solidarity among the workers there, it would seem.
Whether my flyBE fare goes to "Villie", as you call your Chief Executive, or to the man in the moon, does not matter in the slightest to me or any other passenger. What is important is a reliable service that can be depended upon. No more and no less.
And thank you, Wonker, for your kind permission for me to "stick my 1/4 mil somewhere else": I will and I have.
Thanks also for your caring thoughts about my staff and myself. That really is an indicator of your selfishness and lack of concern for the people who would still be flying with your employer if it were not for your obvious apathy and cynicism.
But as I wrote earlier, if my firm's money, rolled up with all the other customers Wonker has p1ssed off, does not suit her, so be it. Some other flight attendant, in some other air carrier, will have his/her job security assured, while Wonker will sit at home, penniless, unemployable, and drawing state benefits.
Shame about the "reballot", Wonker. But if your BASSA saviours had got it right in the first place there would be no need for a "reballot" now. But it's your subscriptions to BASSA that will pay BA's legal costs - not BA's profits derived from my fares.
Given Wonker's shameful response, it really is a pity that - under the rules of this forum - she cannot be publicly identified. The poisonous bile being emitted by this person is a disgrace to her employer, her colleagues - and also to BASSA.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given Wonker's shameful response, it really is a pity that - under the rules of this forum - she cannot be publicly identified. The poisonous bile being emitted by this person is a disgrace to her employer, her colleagues - and also to BASSA.
If a BA employee is bringing the company into disrepute on this forum, can't BA force disclosure of the poster's identity to pursue appropriate action?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henkybaby in post #1053 says:
I believe that he is wrong.
My understanding is that certain named individuals, with the backing of BASSA, sought an injunction that would place BA in contempt of court if it imposed cabin crew complement reductions. The basis of the claim is that BA is contractually bound to maintain the cabin crew strength at certain levels, above the numbers prescribed by the CAA. The BA case appears to be that the agreement with BASSA is not part of any cabin crew contract of employment. This case is not yet decided, but will come to court in February.
After the initial hearing on the first case, BA imposed the reduced cabin crew numbers. BASSA thereupon initiated a ballot among its members requesting approval of industrial action (generally accepted as being a strike). However, they provided ballot papers to members who were not affected by the changes, principally members who would have left the employment of BA by the time any resulting action began, and BASSA officials encouraged such members to vote.
Whilst possibly not illegal under criminal law, the ballot, because of the inclusion of ineligible members, fell foul of (civil) labour relations law. Any instruction to BASSA members (or other Unite members) to strike would not have been protected by the law, and thus rendered the union liable to action by BA for inducing breach of contract. Hence the second court case, won by BA.
If the court decides the first action in BA's favour, declaring that cabin crew complements are not a contractual matter, it would still be open to BASSA to demand that contracts are amended to include them, and, subject to due process, take strike action in support of that demand. Similarly for any other changes or requested changes to contracts. But by then, BA might be sufficiently disenchanted with BASSA to send out those 90-day notices.
A final thought - since Gatwick CC and Heathrow CC are on different contracts, would a ballot about an imposition that affected only Heathrow staff be valid if it included Gatwick staff?
Ok, but isn't that exactly the point? BASSA can only object to BA imposing changes unilaterally if they should legally be the bilateral party. BASSA cannot object to BA switching banks or issuing extra shares now, can it?
By making this about due process (e.g. objecting to BA imposing changes they should have been involved in) they shot themselves in the foot if the judge says "but dear BASSA, you don't need to agree to these changes! Off you go!". How can they still strike if the judge deems them outside of their influence?
So then they have to change the reason for the strike. It is no longer about the way of imposing the changes but about the changes themselves.
As I understand it, no matter how they spun it in the media, the legal motivation for the strike was not the changes themselves, or am I wrong?
By making this about due process (e.g. objecting to BA imposing changes they should have been involved in) they shot themselves in the foot if the judge says "but dear BASSA, you don't need to agree to these changes! Off you go!". How can they still strike if the judge deems them outside of their influence?
So then they have to change the reason for the strike. It is no longer about the way of imposing the changes but about the changes themselves.
As I understand it, no matter how they spun it in the media, the legal motivation for the strike was not the changes themselves, or am I wrong?
My understanding is that certain named individuals, with the backing of BASSA, sought an injunction that would place BA in contempt of court if it imposed cabin crew complement reductions. The basis of the claim is that BA is contractually bound to maintain the cabin crew strength at certain levels, above the numbers prescribed by the CAA. The BA case appears to be that the agreement with BASSA is not part of any cabin crew contract of employment. This case is not yet decided, but will come to court in February.
After the initial hearing on the first case, BA imposed the reduced cabin crew numbers. BASSA thereupon initiated a ballot among its members requesting approval of industrial action (generally accepted as being a strike). However, they provided ballot papers to members who were not affected by the changes, principally members who would have left the employment of BA by the time any resulting action began, and BASSA officials encouraged such members to vote.
Whilst possibly not illegal under criminal law, the ballot, because of the inclusion of ineligible members, fell foul of (civil) labour relations law. Any instruction to BASSA members (or other Unite members) to strike would not have been protected by the law, and thus rendered the union liable to action by BA for inducing breach of contract. Hence the second court case, won by BA.
If the court decides the first action in BA's favour, declaring that cabin crew complements are not a contractual matter, it would still be open to BASSA to demand that contracts are amended to include them, and, subject to due process, take strike action in support of that demand. Similarly for any other changes or requested changes to contracts. But by then, BA might be sufficiently disenchanted with BASSA to send out those 90-day notices.
A final thought - since Gatwick CC and Heathrow CC are on different contracts, would a ballot about an imposition that affected only Heathrow staff be valid if it included Gatwick staff?
