British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
As requested by many of you:
Case Digest
According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike.
Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.
Held:
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009
Case Digest
Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience
Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .
According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike.
Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.
Held:
(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite.
Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.
Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.
(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA.
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.
Application granted.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm delighted that BA manged to get an injunction against Unite to prevent strike action. Sadly we will be damged through lost bookings to our competitors. Strike action isn't the way forward, get your Unions to negotiate, negotiate and negotiate!
I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's.
I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's.
Did Ottergirl ever get a reply to her pension question (#6532 I think ?)
Presume NAPS is a defined benefit scheme for which I would think you become effectively a 'deferred' pensioner with your entitlement fixed in terms of number of years and salary but adjusted each year in line withe the rules (eg by rpi up to maximum of x% or, if you are luckly, fully indexed). Same as if you left the company. You could transfer out but be very very careful you understand what you are giving up (strong default is to stay put).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots attempted industrial action was injuncted over the issues that they had chosen to ballot over - ours was not.
It was obtained by exploiting a legal loophole by a judge who was willing to allow, what is in essence a technicality, to push the balance of the law even further towards an employer that without conscience, was willing to use it.
The law is designed to make it as hard as possible for ordinary people to take industrial action; this ruling has made it even harder.
It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action
It was obtained by exploiting a legal loophole by a judge who was willing to allow, what is in essence a technicality, to push the balance of the law even further towards an employer that without conscience, was willing to use it.
The law is designed to make it as hard as possible for ordinary people to take industrial action; this ruling has made it even harder.
It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action
There is no verb, to my knowledge, to injuct. So one cannot injunct, or be injuncted. It is a noun (injunction) or adjective (injunctive).
So not content with making up content, are we now making up verbs?
"A technicality?" Err no, it is the law. Are all laws technicalities then? Sorry your honour for drink driving and causing mayhem on the roads, it was just a technicality.
"The law is designed to make it as hard as possible." INCORRECT. EMPLOYMENT law is designed to make it as easy as possible and Industrial Tribunals are written in clear language so that any individual can pursue one.
"It stemmed from a new and far reaching procedure" INCORRECT. It stemmed from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .
1992 - so the same ballot procedure BASSA used in 1997 and again 2007.
So not so new and far reaching.
I could go on, but WHAT IS THE POINT?.
As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time.
We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame.
A couple of weeks ago, my CV looked quite good with my years of BA experience and the different things I have done here. Now it is not worth the paper it is written on. And that is entirely BASSA's fault. Members of BASSA are paying for their own demise with their subscription fees. And they have achieved absolutely nothing.
If they cannot see that by now, then I'm afraid the cancer does, as stated earlier, need to be surgically removed.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pension
Thank you Mr O,
One of the other contributors kindly sent me a PM explaining the future if the pension fund is closed. I think I understand the position better and am resolved to read up further.
Thanks again.
One of the other contributors kindly sent me a PM explaining the future if the pension fund is closed. I think I understand the position better and am resolved to read up further.
Thanks again.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a non-CC BA worker and have been lurking around here for quite some time.
As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time.
We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame.
We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame.
But I don't think that many Cabin Crew will be changing their mind. If the second ballot will go ahead, I'll expect a very strong YES result once again. BASSA have been brainwashing crew very well and I believe that CC will be even more militant than before.
Passengers will think twice before booking with BA, as our future is very uncertain at this stage. I'm not recommending BA to friends anymore and I've stopped selling Hotlines to them, as I couldn't bear the thought of them being stuck in IA or unable to go on holiday because of this very selfish fraction of our company. I used to be very proud of working for BA, but have become very embarrassed of what has become of it. Not only that the strike threat has given us a bad name, but the recent change of our inflight product make us look rather poor, too.
I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?! Doesn't it make the CC look ridiculous and a target for abuse from passengers? Customer at the heart of the business? Customer = person who pays for our wages???
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they see these 'fat cats' sitting pretty on decent terms and conditions of employment
I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the length of this post, but hopefully it sums up where we are at the moment. Perhaps useful at the start of a new thread?!
I think Henky is pretty much spot on when he says that this isn't about money.
If it were, then I think it would be pretty easy to come to some sort of agreement after some hard negotiating.
In fact, the problems are more deep seated and will take longer to correct, IMHO.
Henky mentions that many of the cabin crew on here refer to BA as another entity, separate from themselves, rather than being part of BA itself and therefore part of the problem and its solution. The post today from Bassa describes cabin crew being the face of BA, yet most comments I hear from cabin crew refer to BA being the 'other side', the 'enemy', with them being on the side of Bassa who are the good guys in this fight. It's BA, those other guys, who have conducted nasty tricks, screwed up fuel hedging, messed up T5 etc. They don't see themselves as having ownership of the problems within the company, and as having a part to play in the recovery of the company.
The blame doesn't just lie with Bassa. When I joined I was amazed how the company abrogates most personnel management responsibilities and allows the unions to operate as the admin executives for many basic personnel functions. I myself experienced it a few years ago when I had to decide whether to take a short haul command or stay right seat long haul. I needed lots of info regarding pay scales, seniority levels, fleet movement etc. The manager I went to just said 'Ask your union'.
This applies in IFCE to an even greater extent where the union is seen as the source of unbiased fact ("the company will just tell you what suits it best, probably to your disadvantage") and the company allows this to continue. Any problems are referred to the union in the first instance, even to the extent that the union is contacted on board the aircraft if there is any discrepancy between what the Captain wants the crew to do and what they might want. Firstly, on board, the Captain should be the authority, and secondly, if anyone should be contacted, the cabin crew should ask to use the phone to speak to management. But that rarely happens - Bassa decide.
Bassa has also enjoyed an over-inflated influence over the operation, unknown in any other airline, to the extent that aircraft are diverted in flight, or flights are cancelled, purely in the defence of cabin crew agreements.
The problem with this set up is that, whilst it keeps management and admin costs down (the union phone line gets more use than the cabin crew admin line, I would imagine), there is a problem building up for the time when established practices have to change. Especially in a crisis when change has to happen quickly.
The time has now come where the company can no longer afford the downside of the strength of the union, and has to make the company more efficient. That means more work or less pay, and some specific inefficiencies have to be addressed.
This disconnect between the cabin crew and the company means that when the company has a financial problem, the cabin crew don't empathise with the company. They look to their union for the facts. However, the union has a different problem.
The changes that will increase efficiency also mean that the union is now facing the prospect of losing its influence and the status that its representatives enjoy. They come to work each day and know that they can influence the operation themselves, delays, disruption, cancellations, sicknesses are referred to the reps who can decide what happens.
WW has decided that this arrangement is a luxury that he cannot afford to allow to continue. The appalling effect that such decisions had on our operational effectiveness last February during the snow disruption were the final straw. The argument that Ottergirl uses that the adherence to such agreements makes for a fairer system as it avoids nepotism is a totally spurious one. The avoidance of nepotism is hardly an argument for commercial inefficiency.
So how do we move forward? I can only suggest a way of avoiding the problem in the future.
Henky says that the employees need to be more involved in the decision making in the company. I agree, but don't feel that is part of the union's role.
Cabin crew regularly complain that their leadership comprises very few experienced cabin crew members - to me that is a fundamental problem. The line between the cabin crew and the running of the department should be much more fuzzy, more on the lines of Flt Ops, where most of the managers are pilots - not just ex-pilots, but current pilots. There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. I was immensely proud that until recently there was a pilot on the Board, (there's still an ex-pilot there!!!), and I'm sure cabin crew would respect and trust their leaders much more if they knew the guys running their department. (At the moment they see their union as their leaders.)
There would be a greater connect between the two groups if they were effectively blended together at the edges, with mixing between the two.
The upside of this is that there isn't any need for union agreement - their influence will atrophy, but that will happen organically, without revolution. They will return to being just the guys who sort out the pay deal, and speak for the workforce on a few big issues, but will lose ther day to day input and importance.
The downside is that it won't happen overnight.
My argument won't solve our current issues but I believe it might give us a way of avoiding them in the future. And I think it explains why it's not about money, as Henky says.
I think Henky is pretty much spot on when he says that this isn't about money.
If it were, then I think it would be pretty easy to come to some sort of agreement after some hard negotiating.
In fact, the problems are more deep seated and will take longer to correct, IMHO.
Henky mentions that many of the cabin crew on here refer to BA as another entity, separate from themselves, rather than being part of BA itself and therefore part of the problem and its solution. The post today from Bassa describes cabin crew being the face of BA, yet most comments I hear from cabin crew refer to BA being the 'other side', the 'enemy', with them being on the side of Bassa who are the good guys in this fight. It's BA, those other guys, who have conducted nasty tricks, screwed up fuel hedging, messed up T5 etc. They don't see themselves as having ownership of the problems within the company, and as having a part to play in the recovery of the company.
The blame doesn't just lie with Bassa. When I joined I was amazed how the company abrogates most personnel management responsibilities and allows the unions to operate as the admin executives for many basic personnel functions. I myself experienced it a few years ago when I had to decide whether to take a short haul command or stay right seat long haul. I needed lots of info regarding pay scales, seniority levels, fleet movement etc. The manager I went to just said 'Ask your union'.
This applies in IFCE to an even greater extent where the union is seen as the source of unbiased fact ("the company will just tell you what suits it best, probably to your disadvantage") and the company allows this to continue. Any problems are referred to the union in the first instance, even to the extent that the union is contacted on board the aircraft if there is any discrepancy between what the Captain wants the crew to do and what they might want. Firstly, on board, the Captain should be the authority, and secondly, if anyone should be contacted, the cabin crew should ask to use the phone to speak to management. But that rarely happens - Bassa decide.
Bassa has also enjoyed an over-inflated influence over the operation, unknown in any other airline, to the extent that aircraft are diverted in flight, or flights are cancelled, purely in the defence of cabin crew agreements.
The problem with this set up is that, whilst it keeps management and admin costs down (the union phone line gets more use than the cabin crew admin line, I would imagine), there is a problem building up for the time when established practices have to change. Especially in a crisis when change has to happen quickly.
The time has now come where the company can no longer afford the downside of the strength of the union, and has to make the company more efficient. That means more work or less pay, and some specific inefficiencies have to be addressed.
This disconnect between the cabin crew and the company means that when the company has a financial problem, the cabin crew don't empathise with the company. They look to their union for the facts. However, the union has a different problem.
The changes that will increase efficiency also mean that the union is now facing the prospect of losing its influence and the status that its representatives enjoy. They come to work each day and know that they can influence the operation themselves, delays, disruption, cancellations, sicknesses are referred to the reps who can decide what happens.
WW has decided that this arrangement is a luxury that he cannot afford to allow to continue. The appalling effect that such decisions had on our operational effectiveness last February during the snow disruption were the final straw. The argument that Ottergirl uses that the adherence to such agreements makes for a fairer system as it avoids nepotism is a totally spurious one. The avoidance of nepotism is hardly an argument for commercial inefficiency.
So how do we move forward? I can only suggest a way of avoiding the problem in the future.
Henky says that the employees need to be more involved in the decision making in the company. I agree, but don't feel that is part of the union's role.
Cabin crew regularly complain that their leadership comprises very few experienced cabin crew members - to me that is a fundamental problem. The line between the cabin crew and the running of the department should be much more fuzzy, more on the lines of Flt Ops, where most of the managers are pilots - not just ex-pilots, but current pilots. There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. I was immensely proud that until recently there was a pilot on the Board, (there's still an ex-pilot there!!!), and I'm sure cabin crew would respect and trust their leaders much more if they knew the guys running their department. (At the moment they see their union as their leaders.)
There would be a greater connect between the two groups if they were effectively blended together at the edges, with mixing between the two.
The upside of this is that there isn't any need for union agreement - their influence will atrophy, but that will happen organically, without revolution. They will return to being just the guys who sort out the pay deal, and speak for the workforce on a few big issues, but will lose ther day to day input and importance.
The downside is that it won't happen overnight.
My argument won't solve our current issues but I believe it might give us a way of avoiding them in the future. And I think it explains why it's not about money, as Henky says.
Last edited by midman; 20th Dec 2009 at 22:11.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA.
There is no reason why a CC member should not rise to be the DFO - all they would need to do is understand the operational side of the airline. In the more dysfunctional BA model the CC generally have a great understanding of the IFCE side of things but generally a very poor grasp of operational matters. This is largely due to there being no need for them to have an understanding of the more technical side of the airline business - it certainly does not imply any lack of ability, more a lack of opportunity. Similarly the FC community are generally less aware of the day to day stuff that CC have to deal with for the same reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Jadzia
wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?!
Ottergirl replied,
Like we had any say over that! As you say, its us that take the stick so we would hardly be choosing to serve something you speak of with derision! Believe me, its been hard to convince the crew to go out and deliver it with pride.
wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?!
Ottergirl replied,
Like we had any say over that! As you say, its us that take the stick so we would hardly be choosing to serve something you speak of with derision! Believe me, its been hard to convince the crew to go out and deliver it with pride.
Well said, Ottergirl!
In most aspects of product changes to customers, we have very little or no say at all. That said, BA does work with us on the delivery aspects. The removal of sandwiches which was replaced by Skybites( birdseed) was part of the product cost savings. Naturally feedback on behalf of our customers has been given back to the company .
I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midman
In the eighties and ninties there was the role of Fleet Director .They still flew as crew mostly to check out the CSD/PSR but they were part of the seniority list and flying agreement.It was a more friendly type of crew manager .However BA felt that the Performance Management of crew wasn't strong enough so the role changed to MCS (Manager Customer Service)some had flown so came in new to BA they were not part of the flying agreement. A slightly tougher stance was taken.
I can understand what you say and do agree in principle with you .However putting it into practice won't work (just my opinion) .
The problem with the crew community is winging is part of the culture it always has been and always will be.I would say most crew don't even like their CSD's on the day.It is part of the culture.When i was on Longhaul you would often see the CSD having breakfast by themselves.I have seen pretty nasty behaviour towards CSD's /PSR's who performance manage onboard crew don't like it .The easy way out now for crew is "your a bully"
I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.
There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew they think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.
IFS is a mess in BA.Take BMI cabin crew the enviroment is much more polished especially with SEP and uniform standards etc.Crew are not managed properly that is the problem.Please don't get me wrong cabin crew need to be managed in a supportive caring way beating someone with a stick is NOT the correct approach .However cabin crew need to take onboard that they work for BA .BA does not work for them .
In the eighties and ninties there was the role of Fleet Director .They still flew as crew mostly to check out the CSD/PSR but they were part of the seniority list and flying agreement.It was a more friendly type of crew manager .However BA felt that the Performance Management of crew wasn't strong enough so the role changed to MCS (Manager Customer Service)some had flown so came in new to BA they were not part of the flying agreement. A slightly tougher stance was taken.
I can understand what you say and do agree in principle with you .However putting it into practice won't work (just my opinion) .
The problem with the crew community is winging is part of the culture it always has been and always will be.I would say most crew don't even like their CSD's on the day.It is part of the culture.When i was on Longhaul you would often see the CSD having breakfast by themselves.I have seen pretty nasty behaviour towards CSD's /PSR's who performance manage onboard crew don't like it .The easy way out now for crew is "your a bully"
I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.
There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew they think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.
IFS is a mess in BA.Take BMI cabin crew the enviroment is much more polished especially with SEP and uniform standards etc.Crew are not managed properly that is the problem.Please don't get me wrong cabin crew need to be managed in a supportive caring way beating someone with a stick is NOT the correct approach .However cabin crew need to take onboard that they work for BA .BA does not work for them .
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously depressed now. Just read lala's latest missive and I'm lost for words. No matter how much you hate ww/daily mail/thatcher/capitalism/pilots you would have to be beyond help if you are unable to see past the lies, half truths and childish spin that it contains.
I now don't see what option the company had but to just fight bassa with it's own tactics. Go nuclear, hang the consequences. Remove the csd role, make them re-apply for their jobs and sack the ones you dint want to keep. 'cut out the disease.' Hey use the money saved (66% of the pay going to 33% of crew, solidarity sisters and brothers, but some pigs are more equal, Orwell not offence) to let the new contraact crew, most of you, keep what you've got. What options have unite/bassa left ww with? The constant mantra of negotiation not imposition flies totally in the face of the last years worth of talks, that cc are proud of their union after it's latest debacle is insanity on a stick!
I now expect that we won't survive. I was ready to strike over OS but that was before the present meltdown. Right now I'd pretty much give my right nut to keep this job being paid the same as my mates at easy and virgin but having read the likes of watersidew, fume, otter, pib etc etc I've accepted that I'll be starting again at BAOC mk2 on less than I've got now. Only time will tell if watching the crew live in the new reality will make my pill easier to swallow.
I retire from this thread wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas and a reflective and peaceful new year, one none of us in BA deserve. I hope we use the time to watch a country find hope in difficult times whilst in the company of family and loved ones and remeber that we where prepared to destroy that to prove a point whilst hastening our end.
I hope that I'm wrong but I'll be flying aircraft full of passengers who resent us
and crew who hold us all in contempt. Henky is right, we will get the future we deserve.
Adios amigo's, I loved it, I really did.
I now don't see what option the company had but to just fight bassa with it's own tactics. Go nuclear, hang the consequences. Remove the csd role, make them re-apply for their jobs and sack the ones you dint want to keep. 'cut out the disease.' Hey use the money saved (66% of the pay going to 33% of crew, solidarity sisters and brothers, but some pigs are more equal, Orwell not offence) to let the new contraact crew, most of you, keep what you've got. What options have unite/bassa left ww with? The constant mantra of negotiation not imposition flies totally in the face of the last years worth of talks, that cc are proud of their union after it's latest debacle is insanity on a stick!
I now expect that we won't survive. I was ready to strike over OS but that was before the present meltdown. Right now I'd pretty much give my right nut to keep this job being paid the same as my mates at easy and virgin but having read the likes of watersidew, fume, otter, pib etc etc I've accepted that I'll be starting again at BAOC mk2 on less than I've got now. Only time will tell if watching the crew live in the new reality will make my pill easier to swallow.
I retire from this thread wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas and a reflective and peaceful new year, one none of us in BA deserve. I hope we use the time to watch a country find hope in difficult times whilst in the company of family and loved ones and remeber that we where prepared to destroy that to prove a point whilst hastening our end.
I hope that I'm wrong but I'll be flying aircraft full of passengers who resent us
and crew who hold us all in contempt. Henky is right, we will get the future we deserve.
Adios amigo's, I loved it, I really did.
Last edited by the heavy heavy; 20th Dec 2009 at 23:13.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few yrs ago BMI got rid of all their CSD's .I don't think that is the way to go .However i do think that the CSD's and PSR's who are wingers and not performing should be weeded out .The tone of the day starts from the briefing.Call me old fashioned but i do think that if you are doing a job it should be done properly .
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Weather Map
I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.
There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew crew think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.
I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there.
There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew crew think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly.
Inconsistency is one of our biggest problems and in all my years of flying, it's never changed and it never will. There are set standards in all procedures and aspects of our role, however many see the job as a popularity contest and won't performance manage.
I agree with you that it starts at the top, and those CSDs and Pursers who don't perform should be performance managed themselves.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker
Is that in the same way I find bassa's use of war poetry and imagery offence. I've had the pleasure of being part of a real one which had ethnic cleansing, mass murder random rape and destruction. I watched hate, lies, distrust and misunderstanding destroy a country and now I get to see it destroy my company.
I lost my mother to it a young age and given it's effect on my life I fully understand it's a word that carries emotion. It's about as perfect a word as I can find to describe the actions of your union within our company.
No disrespect intended to your loss, I'm sure we both hate the word given what it's cost us. I feel it's appropriate, I respect you don't. I in no way seek to trivialise it but given I have no desire to upset you it's changed.
Rgds.
Ps. Really am off, will miss you 2.
Edit due to a change of heart and in respect of the too many mums and dads lost to early.
I lost my mother to it a young age and given it's effect on my life I fully understand it's a word that carries emotion. It's about as perfect a word as I can find to describe the actions of your union within our company.
No disrespect intended to your loss, I'm sure we both hate the word given what it's cost us. I feel it's appropriate, I respect you don't. I in no way seek to trivialise it but given I have no desire to upset you it's changed.
Rgds.
Ps. Really am off, will miss you 2.
Edit due to a change of heart and in respect of the too many mums and dads lost to early.
Last edited by the heavy heavy; 20th Dec 2009 at 23:16.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by A Lurker in response to Weather Map
Some good points - whenever I pull crew over their uniform or the various attachments that they adorn their bags with they look at me as if I am an alien!
The problem is - crew have never been managed correctly - again due to the fact that there has been a weak 'manage down' policy within BA
Some good points - whenever I pull crew over their uniform or the various attachments that they adorn their bags with they look at me as if I am an alien!
The problem is - crew have never been managed correctly - again due to the fact that there has been a weak 'manage down' policy within BA
Uniform standards has been and is one of our biggest problems. It's one where I really draw the line, it's either black or white in my case. The trouble with crew when they are 'corrected' on the day as I call it, they'll fly with someone else the next day who'll take a different stance and it's all back to square one if you know what I mean.
(This is really getting scary as I find myself agreeing with you yet again!
I promise it is the last time!)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance Managing
Weather Map I TOTALLY agree with you. There are MANY truly excellent CSDs and PSRs and they need to be commended and rewarded as such to motivate them to continue. These are the ones who lead by example, have high standards in both safety and service standards and who encourage and motivate other crew to have the same and manage any crew who do not perform. Unfortunately speaking as a main crew member who do have many poor performing CSDs and PSRs which is actually frustrating for me as a main crew member as I do like to do things properly and do hate complacency particularly with SEP standards, but also with service. I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now 
who do make me proud to work for BA!
Shame not all are like that but as Tiramisu says it is a long standing problem - and probably is at many other airlines although I think a new performance management system for these people should be introduced, as some people do not peform as they know they can get away with it!
who do make me proud to work for BA! Shame not all are like that but as Tiramisu says it is a long standing problem - and probably is at many other airlines although I think a new performance management system for these people should be introduced, as some people do not peform as they know they can get away with it!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside, I'm sure I've read somewhere some airline like Virgin and either qantas or Air New Zealand have their CSD/FSMs who fly with crew but also have some management responsibilities. I don't know but that could be a good idea to keep the CSD role ''alive'' if you know what I mean and also give PSRs another level to reach and also means that managers actually fly with crew on the line. Obviously there would be a problem that CTMs (crew team managers) would be out of a job but couldn't they work purely on the ground just managing the CSDs. Just an idea. I know this is slightly off track but it is still slightly related lol.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now 
who do make me proud to work for BA!
who do make me proud to work for BA! Both you and I know that every pre-flight briefing should be carried out as per 'Inlight Service Preflight Safety Briefing Checklist' which every CSD/Purser should be in possession of. It is a 'Red Notice/OMN' and a mandatory part of every briefing.
If the SCCM does not carry out this required part of the briefing, they should be reported by CC.
I know this is easier said than done!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Tiramisu, it is easier said than done though. I know lot's of fellow crew love it if a sccm doesn't ask these questions but it is mandatory. Personally, I don't actually mind being asked questions, it keeps you thinking about your drills so they are fresh in your mind but that is just me!! But yeah they should be reported. However it can be hard especially as MC to report someone more senior. Although it shouldn't be as we all have a responsibility to SEP.