British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PVMW remarked: "Its noticeable that all the pro- strike lemmings ,WWW etc, have not once addressed the comments made on here by their customers - in particular those walking away from BA. Clearly customers are of no interest to them, as long as they can hold on to their terms and conditions".
I sent an email to BASSA, outlining my views on the proposed strike and that my company no longer had any faith in the future of BA as a result of that union's actions. I was rewarded by being told that my message was "threatening" in its nature, and that the union had reported my message and me to the police. Boy, am I shivering with fear!
It is clear proof - if any proof was needed - that BASSA does not care a toss about BA's passengers in the slightest. Threats of that nature do nothing to engender any sympathy from the travelling public in general or the horrid people in particular.
Juan Tugoh (a wonderful nom d'ecran!) suggested: "if you do as you have stated you will do, and take your company travel budget away from BA as a result of WWW's post, please write to BA with the details and evidence of why you are doing it
I have done so, and I would urge every single member of the horrid people who fly or have flown regularly with BA to do likewise.
What BASSA has done and continues to do is to endanger the livelihoods not only of its members, not only of all the other employees of BA in every department and section, but also those of BA's suppliers and contractors.
BASSA is not only cutting off the branch on which its duped members sit, but is also poisoning the entire tree.
Let's revisit this thread on Boxing Day 2010 and see how many horrid people will not be flying with BA, because it may not even exist - except as a bitter memory for BASSA and its (former) members.
BASSA members' Christmases will not be “upset” because they were not on strike and as a consequence the airline was functioning and they had to work as rostered; they will be living on means tested benefits and thumbing lifts to get to their nearest Job Centres to go through the humiliation of having to sign on.
But their union reps will continue their parasitical existence, living in clover off the subscriptions paid by others. They know that, even if BA is bankrupted and passes to the hands of liquidators, there are other British airlines for them to sink their fangs into.
I sent an email to BASSA, outlining my views on the proposed strike and that my company no longer had any faith in the future of BA as a result of that union's actions. I was rewarded by being told that my message was "threatening" in its nature, and that the union had reported my message and me to the police. Boy, am I shivering with fear!
It is clear proof - if any proof was needed - that BASSA does not care a toss about BA's passengers in the slightest. Threats of that nature do nothing to engender any sympathy from the travelling public in general or the horrid people in particular.
Juan Tugoh (a wonderful nom d'ecran!) suggested: "if you do as you have stated you will do, and take your company travel budget away from BA as a result of WWW's post, please write to BA with the details and evidence of why you are doing it
I have done so, and I would urge every single member of the horrid people who fly or have flown regularly with BA to do likewise.
What BASSA has done and continues to do is to endanger the livelihoods not only of its members, not only of all the other employees of BA in every department and section, but also those of BA's suppliers and contractors.
BASSA is not only cutting off the branch on which its duped members sit, but is also poisoning the entire tree.
Let's revisit this thread on Boxing Day 2010 and see how many horrid people will not be flying with BA, because it may not even exist - except as a bitter memory for BASSA and its (former) members.
BASSA members' Christmases will not be “upset” because they were not on strike and as a consequence the airline was functioning and they had to work as rostered; they will be living on means tested benefits and thumbing lifts to get to their nearest Job Centres to go through the humiliation of having to sign on.
But their union reps will continue their parasitical existence, living in clover off the subscriptions paid by others. They know that, even if BA is bankrupted and passes to the hands of liquidators, there are other British airlines for them to sink their fangs into.
Last edited by Albert Salmon; 26th Dec 2009 at 11:59.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, MissyM, I sadly have to concentrate on cooking now ... but before I leave you on your Planet please consider the following points:
1. Those travelling on the flights to CDG and GVA possibly booked their Christmas more than 2 weeks ago. And those full ac would have been the victims of IA. Is that a complicated concept to grasp?
2. From my experience pax have long memories - this one certainly does. And individuals and businesses have short budgets these days.
Enjoy putting you head in the sand; I must go and put meat in an oven.
1. Those travelling on the flights to CDG and GVA possibly booked their Christmas more than 2 weeks ago. And those full ac would have been the victims of IA. Is that a complicated concept to grasp?
2. From my experience pax have long memories - this one certainly does. And individuals and businesses have short budgets these days.
Enjoy putting you head in the sand; I must go and put meat in an oven.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
Almost certainly the reason those widebodies were full or even on the routes is due to one simple issue that was the headline in many newspapers and every TV channel
EUROSTAR
Nothing to do with people suddenly falling in live with BA again
The narrowmindedness of some people beggars belief
Almost certainly the reason those widebodies were full or even on the routes is due to one simple issue that was the headline in many newspapers and every TV channel
EUROSTAR
Nothing to do with people suddenly falling in live with BA again
The narrowmindedness of some people beggars belief
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
IF you agree that BA need to save large amounts of money in order to be competitive....
I can hardly think of a better way of doing it, while inflicting as little pain upon individuals (you), than what has been imposed.
The only big loser here is BASSA, which has been completely bypassed, and THAT is why you are going to war with BA.
You can't go on strike over what BA might do in the future...
Your best defense is to be seen by BA as being competitively priced in the marketplace, and then there's simply no incentive to attack your T's & C's.
Willie doesn't care about how much each individual is paid - it's the overall cost of the department + its flexibility that concerns him.
The impositions achieve BA's desired cost without affecting your pay, is this not a win/win?
Regarding operational flexibility....
Pilots are rostered to agreements, but inevitably work to legal limits on the day.
It works. It's satisfying. It's very rare to meet anyone who wants to walk off a job half-done unless they absolutely have to.
It doesn't ruin your life, and if this is all it takes to get BA off your back I think it would be a price well worth paying.
IF you agree that BA need to save large amounts of money in order to be competitive....
I can hardly think of a better way of doing it, while inflicting as little pain upon individuals (you), than what has been imposed.
The only big loser here is BASSA, which has been completely bypassed, and THAT is why you are going to war with BA.
You can't go on strike over what BA might do in the future...
Your best defense is to be seen by BA as being competitively priced in the marketplace, and then there's simply no incentive to attack your T's & C's.
Willie doesn't care about how much each individual is paid - it's the overall cost of the department + its flexibility that concerns him.
The impositions achieve BA's desired cost without affecting your pay, is this not a win/win?
Regarding operational flexibility....
Pilots are rostered to agreements, but inevitably work to legal limits on the day.
It works. It's satisfying. It's very rare to meet anyone who wants to walk off a job half-done unless they absolutely have to.
It doesn't ruin your life, and if this is all it takes to get BA off your back I think it would be a price well worth paying.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a surprise as I also wrote that previous flights have been full too. I did operate a half full 777 to ATL in October...
For an example, I flew with BA return LHR-SIN-SYD in September for £215 all inclusive - less than the taxes on the route! OK that was a special promotion but it indicates how desperate airlines are to get seats filled.
week and a half ago people were furious over crew and three days ago BA did CDG and GVA with chock-a-block 747 and 777
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM - #246
"We do have a responsibility for our passengers and one great concern is covering doors 5 on 747".
Five doors x 2 CC/door = 10 CC.
That leaves five other CC "doorless", making 15 in total.
So where lies your problem, MissM?
One point I would like to make in favour of all CC on all flights on all airlines, and, that concerns the safety briefing.
I flew JER-LGW and then LHR-MAD on 23 December. (Neither flight was with BA: BASSA has made that company totally unreliable. flyBE and Iberia on that occasion, as they were not under threat from the unions). Apart from one other passenger and me, not a single person appeared to be paying any attention to the safety briefing. Being studiously immersed in the newspapers is seemingly now de rigeur.
Can you ask your employers to lobby Parliament to make it an offence not to heed the safety instructions?
Five doors x 2 CC/door = 10 CC.
That leaves five other CC "doorless", making 15 in total.
So where lies your problem, MissM?
One point I would like to make in favour of all CC on all flights on all airlines, and, that concerns the safety briefing.
I flew JER-LGW and then LHR-MAD on 23 December. (Neither flight was with BA: BASSA has made that company totally unreliable. flyBE and Iberia on that occasion, as they were not under threat from the unions). Apart from one other passenger and me, not a single person appeared to be paying any attention to the safety briefing. Being studiously immersed in the newspapers is seemingly now de rigeur.
Can you ask your employers to lobby Parliament to make it an offence not to heed the safety instructions?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAOREY,
I thought it was obvious it had to do with Eurostar which is why I didn't even mention it!
Two-Tone-Blue,
I don't know when they booked their tickets. A difficult concept to grasp? Obviously.
dave747436,
The impositions achieve BA's cost savings? The only imposition which we have so far is crew reduction. If you are talking about NewFleet, that's another story. It will mean the end to EF and WW and it doesn't matter what you, BF or anyone else say or insinuate, that's exactly what will happen. Why would they admit it? BA will starve us to work. It won't happen over a night or a fortnight but sooner or later that time is here and that's when they will throw an ultimatum in your face. Accept a new contract on NewFleet or resign.
I can't speak for EF but are you saying that cabin crew on WW are not flexible and working their hours? We can work to Scheme or Industrial if needed. We can't do any more hours. I'm 75% and my hrs are around 750 which is a lot more than what I'm supposed to do. Part-time salary but not working part-time.
I thought it was obvious it had to do with Eurostar which is why I didn't even mention it!
Two-Tone-Blue,
I don't know when they booked their tickets. A difficult concept to grasp? Obviously.
dave747436,
The impositions achieve BA's cost savings? The only imposition which we have so far is crew reduction. If you are talking about NewFleet, that's another story. It will mean the end to EF and WW and it doesn't matter what you, BF or anyone else say or insinuate, that's exactly what will happen. Why would they admit it? BA will starve us to work. It won't happen over a night or a fortnight but sooner or later that time is here and that's when they will throw an ultimatum in your face. Accept a new contract on NewFleet or resign.
I can't speak for EF but are you saying that cabin crew on WW are not flexible and working their hours? We can work to Scheme or Industrial if needed. We can't do any more hours. I'm 75% and my hrs are around 750 which is a lot more than what I'm supposed to do. Part-time salary but not working part-time.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from one other passenger and me, not a single person appeared to be paying any attention to the safety briefing. Being studiously immersed in the newspapers is seemingly now de rigeur.
Can you ask your employers to lobby Parliament to make it an offence not to heed the safety instructions?
Can you ask your employers to lobby Parliament to make it an offence not to heed the safety instructions?
]is the only operator I can recall where pax are ordered to "SIT DOWN" until the seatbelt lights go off at the Gate. At least they've read the "... primarily for your safety" bit in their ToR.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Five doors x 2 CC/door = 10 CC.
That leaves five other CC "doorless", making 15 in total.
So where lies your problem, MissM?
That leaves five other CC "doorless", making 15 in total.
So where lies your problem, MissM?
My, and many other crews problem, is that we have more or less been brainwashed both in training and onboard to NEVER leave any door unattended. You could always leave your door as long as you were no longer away than five seat rows.
BA has now changed their mind and don't see a problem with numbers 5 and 10 leaving their doors some 15 seat rows away for safety demo. BA Safety Department replied and said that passengers will have paid attention to the safety demo and will also remain seated should an emergency occur.
Do you honestly think people will stay in their seats like well-behaved children if there's smoke development in the cabin? Good luck getting to your door.
There LIES the problem.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jersey, CI
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM - #246: continued
Somehow, I am beginning to think that MissM is not totally in possession of the facts of flying life.
In her #246 she clearly stated:
"We do have a responsibility for our passengers and one great concern is covering doors 5 on 747. We were taught in training and been more or less brainwashed not to leave those doors unmanned at any time. Now, all of the sudden it's all right to leave them once they have been armed as "passengers will remain seated and would have paid attention to the safety demo and know how to operate the door". It's rubbish"
Are there five doors or twelve doors, MissM? Please make your mind up/
I prefer seat 62K on a B747 flight. The only time a crew member (or two) is anywhere near the adjacent door is for take-off and landing.
In her #246 she clearly stated:
"We do have a responsibility for our passengers and one great concern is covering doors 5 on 747. We were taught in training and been more or less brainwashed not to leave those doors unmanned at any time. Now, all of the sudden it's all right to leave them once they have been armed as "passengers will remain seated and would have paid attention to the safety demo and know how to operate the door". It's rubbish"
Are there five doors or twelve doors, MissM? Please make your mind up/
I prefer seat 62K on a B747 flight. The only time a crew member (or two) is anywhere near the adjacent door is for take-off and landing.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
No, I'm not referring to NewFleet, I'm referring to the removal of the crew-member.
That is the extent of the imposition, do you agree?
You've skipped over my whole post & gone off on a tangent - you can't strike over something BA may do in the future.
I tried to address this with my comments about market rate...
...but you seem to have missed this.
Any thoughts?
Are you saying you stay on the aircraft until the legal limit at base?
I'm not saying CC don't work hard (they do!), but that is not the same as operational flexibility.
I'm trying to be constructive, but you're responding as though I'm being aggressive - that is not my intention.
Is this not true?
If it is, I stand by my comment
The impositions achieve BA's cost savings? The only imposition which we have so far is crew reduction. If you are talking about NewFleet...
That is the extent of the imposition, do you agree?
You've skipped over my whole post & gone off on a tangent - you can't strike over something BA may do in the future.
I tried to address this with my comments about market rate...
Your best defense is to be seen by BA as being competitively priced in the marketplace, and then there's simply no incentive to attack your T's & C's.
Willie doesn't care about how much each individual is paid - it's the overall cost of the department + its flexibility that concerns him.
Willie doesn't care about how much each individual is paid - it's the overall cost of the department + its flexibility that concerns him.
Any thoughts?
are you saying that cabin crew on WW are not flexible and working their hours?
I'm not saying CC don't work hard (they do!), but that is not the same as operational flexibility.
I'm trying to be constructive, but you're responding as though I'm being aggressive - that is not my intention.
The impositions achieve BA's desired cost (savings) without affecting your pay, is this not a win/win?
If it is, I stand by my comment
The only big loser here is BASSA, which has been completely bypassed, and THAT is why you are going to war with BA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational Flexibility
MissM.
Operational flexibility...... let me give you an example.
In BOS before Christmas. Huge snowstorm headed our way. Biggest in decades.
FO and I want to reduce to minimum rest (10 hrs) in the hotel to get back onto schedule & avoid the incoming storm (which would definately have seen the flight canceled, it was enormous.)
I phone London. Reduce rest?
No can do. - cabin crew agreements, no reduction of rest permitted.
Legal? Yes.
Permitted by CC agreements? NO.
Did we reduce rest to get the operation back on schedule & avoid getting snowed in? NO.
This is what I mean by operational flexibility....
It would cost you NOTHING, but would be of great value to BA.
Win/Win.
Operational flexibility...... let me give you an example.
In BOS before Christmas. Huge snowstorm headed our way. Biggest in decades.
FO and I want to reduce to minimum rest (10 hrs) in the hotel to get back onto schedule & avoid the incoming storm (which would definately have seen the flight canceled, it was enormous.)
I phone London. Reduce rest?
No can do. - cabin crew agreements, no reduction of rest permitted.
Legal? Yes.
Permitted by CC agreements? NO.
Did we reduce rest to get the operation back on schedule & avoid getting snowed in? NO.
This is what I mean by operational flexibility....
It would cost you NOTHING, but would be of great value to BA.
Win/Win.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I'm not referring to NewFleet, I'm referring to the removal of the crew-member.
Willie doesn't care about how much each individual is paid - it's the overall cost of the department + its flexibility that concerns him.
Are you saying you stay on the aircraft until the legal limit at base?
The impositions achieve BA's desired cost (savings) without affecting your pay, is this not a win/win?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of volume vs yield, short-haul Band 1-3 flights were declassified to a one class EuroTraveller configuration on (I think) 23-24 December to accommodate displaced pax due to cancellations. That's a lot of money to be paid to premium pax for refunds and downgrade compensation.
Also, BA cancelled many of its own CDG and GVA services, some on the same day it was operating widebodies on these routes.
Also, BA cancelled many of its own CDG and GVA services, some on the same day it was operating widebodies on these routes.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Concerning your door problem.
Like many of your colleagues you are making the mistake of believing that as cabin crew you are entitled to dictate policy as to what is safe and what is not safe.
Your job is to do as you are told and not query what aircraft manufacturers and airlines decide is safe. Company policy on safety matters changes continually depending on various things like experience, manufacturer's guidelines and other operators incidents.
Many contributors on this thread display a lack of company loyalty but attempt to camouflage it by claiming it is about safety when it is more about pursuing their own self interest. Fewer cabin crew on the aircraft means more work and less promotional prospects.
Concerning your door problem.
Like many of your colleagues you are making the mistake of believing that as cabin crew you are entitled to dictate policy as to what is safe and what is not safe.
Your job is to do as you are told and not query what aircraft manufacturers and airlines decide is safe. Company policy on safety matters changes continually depending on various things like experience, manufacturer's guidelines and other operators incidents.
Many contributors on this thread display a lack of company loyalty but attempt to camouflage it by claiming it is about safety when it is more about pursuing their own self interest. Fewer cabin crew on the aircraft means more work and less promotional prospects.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I mean by operational flexibility....
It would cost you NOTHING, but would be of great value to BA.
Win/Win
It would cost you NOTHING, but would be of great value to BA.
Win/Win
No, it wouldn't cost us anything to get the operation back on track with minimum rest and there are probably bits in the agreement which can be negotiated. Things have improved. Think about the diversion to the Azores earlier. Crew had minimum rest and continued to wherever it was bound (PHX?).
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draglift, I see no problems in staff querying a safety matter or something about their way of working. It may mean the reasons for it are much clearer following further explanation.