British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Europe
Age: 53
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it goes without saying that while BASSA are quick to point at the pilots and demand they get what we've been given, they never look at the other side of the coin and see what it cost us to get what we have.
p.s. Plodding along - you forgot the cheese & fruit tray.
p.s. Plodding along - you forgot the cheese & fruit tray.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing that rattles me...... Only the other day a steward said "we offered £174million in savings and Willie wouldn't take it."
Point 1. Why would any union take a £140 million target and then offer £174 million of savings from their members? Yeah thanks BASSA, give the company more than they asked for, doh.
Point 2. £174 million is a very exact figure, must have been carefully calculated no? I mean it wasn't £170 million or £180 million, no it was £174 million exactly.
Point 3. PWC then valued it at £54 million, only a slight difference then!
Point 4. The early BASSA/UNITE news letters all harped on about the £174 million which made crew think the union had made a fair deal.
A few months later in a BASSA/UNITE newsletter they talked about the offer being "just over £100 million".
A little while later they talked of it being "tens of millions"
The UNITE press release that went out last week actually AGREED with the PWC valuation of £54 million. Go look it up.
My main point is that two strike ballots have been called with crew being told their union had offered over and above the required savings, now they finally agree it wasn't and are the crew being corrected?
Answer, NO, most still believe the original figure.
If BASSA calculated £174 million when it was actually £54 then what hope does their latest back of a fag packet, dreamt up in 3 days proposal have of being accurate?
Please people, look this stuff up, print and keep the newsletters and the lies then become apparent.
Do some research.
Point 1. Why would any union take a £140 million target and then offer £174 million of savings from their members? Yeah thanks BASSA, give the company more than they asked for, doh.
Point 2. £174 million is a very exact figure, must have been carefully calculated no? I mean it wasn't £170 million or £180 million, no it was £174 million exactly.
Point 3. PWC then valued it at £54 million, only a slight difference then!
Point 4. The early BASSA/UNITE news letters all harped on about the £174 million which made crew think the union had made a fair deal.
A few months later in a BASSA/UNITE newsletter they talked about the offer being "just over £100 million".
A little while later they talked of it being "tens of millions"
The UNITE press release that went out last week actually AGREED with the PWC valuation of £54 million. Go look it up.
My main point is that two strike ballots have been called with crew being told their union had offered over and above the required savings, now they finally agree it wasn't and are the crew being corrected?
Answer, NO, most still believe the original figure.
If BASSA calculated £174 million when it was actually £54 then what hope does their latest back of a fag packet, dreamt up in 3 days proposal have of being accurate?
Please people, look this stuff up, print and keep the newsletters and the lies then become apparent.
Do some research.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plodding along..
I complete agree with you and honestly think that all cabin crew should be whipped until they perform better.
I also think that the effects of spending your working life in a pressurised tube does not shorten your life span (despite much evidence to the contrary).
Also, that doing back to backs with minimum rest (really they should be capable of just coming back straight away) are really good for your health.
But of course the 1st class cheese board (most pre cut these days) makes up for all that.
My partner for 20 odd years was a pilot and after he died withina few minutes the doctors all agreed on one thing: that working for over thirty years in a pressurised environment seriously damaged his life expectancy and health.
He loved his work, but there is no getting away with the fact that flying is not 'ordinairy' not usual, not run of the mill, and should therefore, not be treated as such.
I complete agree with you and honestly think that all cabin crew should be whipped until they perform better.
I also think that the effects of spending your working life in a pressurised tube does not shorten your life span (despite much evidence to the contrary).
Also, that doing back to backs with minimum rest (really they should be capable of just coming back straight away) are really good for your health.
But of course the 1st class cheese board (most pre cut these days) makes up for all that.
My partner for 20 odd years was a pilot and after he died withina few minutes the doctors all agreed on one thing: that working for over thirty years in a pressurised environment seriously damaged his life expectancy and health.
He loved his work, but there is no getting away with the fact that flying is not 'ordinairy' not usual, not run of the mill, and should therefore, not be treated as such.
Plodding Along,
Very well put. It is not until you see some of the more ludicrous and restrictive rules laid down like that that you realise just how out of date the cabin crew scheduling rules are.
Litebulbs,
A lot of the time your comments are valid. Alas, too many of them lately have been along the 'bassa 100% ra ra ra' style.
You have made comments over the last few pages about how unfair the cabin crew targets are! You state that since economic recovery is here that the savings attributable to cabin crew should be reduced.
As has been stated before many times - the company-wide savings were targetted, based on how much fat each department had. As can be seen from the 'inefficiencies' that Plodding Along highlights the reason that cabin crew have a bigger target is because of these inefficiencies. Over the years bassa have given nothing, but now it is time to pay and the cuts therefore 'appear' larger than other 'leaner' departments who have already endured cuts and changes to Ts & Cs.
Part of the reason that the company losses have been seen to reduce is because all the other departments have made their contributions. Most of us therefore demand that cabin crew make their contribution as well.
I also hope that WW keeps his promise and ensures that all the additional costs that BA have had to endure also comes out of the cabin crew budget. It would be totally wrong that the rest of us should be made to pay for the intransegence of one group.
Reagrding the Tuesday 'decision'. I am sure that the bassa militants who do not give a stuff about the normal cabin crew members, but are only interested in preserving their power-base, will think that a strike on St Patricks Day will work! I hope that the adults in Unite (definitely not McLunk) will see sense!
Very well put. It is not until you see some of the more ludicrous and restrictive rules laid down like that that you realise just how out of date the cabin crew scheduling rules are.
Litebulbs,
A lot of the time your comments are valid. Alas, too many of them lately have been along the 'bassa 100% ra ra ra' style.
You have made comments over the last few pages about how unfair the cabin crew targets are! You state that since economic recovery is here that the savings attributable to cabin crew should be reduced.
As has been stated before many times - the company-wide savings were targetted, based on how much fat each department had. As can be seen from the 'inefficiencies' that Plodding Along highlights the reason that cabin crew have a bigger target is because of these inefficiencies. Over the years bassa have given nothing, but now it is time to pay and the cuts therefore 'appear' larger than other 'leaner' departments who have already endured cuts and changes to Ts & Cs.
Part of the reason that the company losses have been seen to reduce is because all the other departments have made their contributions. Most of us therefore demand that cabin crew make their contribution as well.
I also hope that WW keeps his promise and ensures that all the additional costs that BA have had to endure also comes out of the cabin crew budget. It would be totally wrong that the rest of us should be made to pay for the intransegence of one group.
Reagrding the Tuesday 'decision'. I am sure that the bassa militants who do not give a stuff about the normal cabin crew members, but are only interested in preserving their power-base, will think that a strike on St Patricks Day will work! I hope that the adults in Unite (definitely not McLunk) will see sense!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sussex2,
of course flying takes it's toll. No shift work is good for you, alas that is what airport work is all about.
Engineers can work four twelve hour night shifts in a row, flying staff don't.
Remember the CAA deems 900 hours to be a safe limit per year, shorthaul pilots are well below at about 750, why do the cc only do about 500?
Back to backs are horrible but crew WANT them for the money. Remember that the original BASSA proposal offered middle east back to backs.
Why would they do that if it results in an early grave?
Because of the free hotel at Heathrow, the extra days worth of UK meal allowances and of course the £196 back to back payment!!!
You can't justify the inefficient practices and refuse to make savings by using the "we work in an aluminium tube at altitude" excuse all the time.
The best quote I ever saw was a crew member saying an hour in the air was worth four on the ground, "imagine working a 44 hour shift every time you go to work" she said.
Yeah right!!!
of course flying takes it's toll. No shift work is good for you, alas that is what airport work is all about.
Engineers can work four twelve hour night shifts in a row, flying staff don't.
Remember the CAA deems 900 hours to be a safe limit per year, shorthaul pilots are well below at about 750, why do the cc only do about 500?
Back to backs are horrible but crew WANT them for the money. Remember that the original BASSA proposal offered middle east back to backs.
Why would they do that if it results in an early grave?
Because of the free hotel at Heathrow, the extra days worth of UK meal allowances and of course the £196 back to back payment!!!
You can't justify the inefficient practices and refuse to make savings by using the "we work in an aluminium tube at altitude" excuse all the time.
The best quote I ever saw was a crew member saying an hour in the air was worth four on the ground, "imagine working a 44 hour shift every time you go to work" she said.
Yeah right!!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the time your comments are valid. Alas, too many of them lately have been along the 'bassa 100% ra ra ra' style.
You have made comments over the last few pages about how unfair the cabin crew targets are! You state that since economic recovery is here that the savings attributable to cabin crew should be reduced.
As has been stated before many times - the company-wide savings were targetted, based on how much fat each department had. As can be seen from the 'inefficiencies' that Plodding Along highlights the reason that cabin crew have a bigger target is because of these inefficiencies. Over the years bassa have given nothing, but now it is time to pay and the cuts therefore 'appear' larger than other 'leaner' departments who have already endured cuts and changes to Ts & Cs.
Part of the reason that the company losses have been seen to reduce is because all the other departments have made their contributions. Most of us therefore demand that cabin crew make their contribution as well.
I also hope that WW keeps his promise and ensures that all the additional costs that BA have had to endure also comes out of the cabin crew budget. It would be totally wrong that the rest of us should be made to pay for the intransegence of one group.
Reagrding the Tuesday 'decision'. I am sure that the bassa militants who do not give a stuff about the normal cabin crew members, but are only interested in preserving their power-base, will think that a strike on St Patricks Day will work! I hope that the adults in Unite (definitely not McLunk) will see sense!
You have made comments over the last few pages about how unfair the cabin crew targets are! You state that since economic recovery is here that the savings attributable to cabin crew should be reduced.
As has been stated before many times - the company-wide savings were targetted, based on how much fat each department had. As can be seen from the 'inefficiencies' that Plodding Along highlights the reason that cabin crew have a bigger target is because of these inefficiencies. Over the years bassa have given nothing, but now it is time to pay and the cuts therefore 'appear' larger than other 'leaner' departments who have already endured cuts and changes to Ts & Cs.
Part of the reason that the company losses have been seen to reduce is because all the other departments have made their contributions. Most of us therefore demand that cabin crew make their contribution as well.
I also hope that WW keeps his promise and ensures that all the additional costs that BA have had to endure also comes out of the cabin crew budget. It would be totally wrong that the rest of us should be made to pay for the intransegence of one group.
Reagrding the Tuesday 'decision'. I am sure that the bassa militants who do not give a stuff about the normal cabin crew members, but are only interested in preserving their power-base, will think that a strike on St Patricks Day will work! I hope that the adults in Unite (definitely not McLunk) will see sense!
With regard to fat, any department paying above the minimum wage and working less than legislation hours has fat that legally can be trimmed. Their is no legal obligation for any business to remunerate particular employees for training costs that may have been accrued prior to employment.
I think the term now in use is "sweating your assets", and the most fundamental point of a union is to protect and improve working conditions, as I understand it.
I try to give my opinion without towing any union line. I get accused of lying, being negligent, not having a basic appreciation employment law etc. but I suppose that goes with the territory of posting opposite views, to the majority of members on this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus, and yes, you can use the flying in an aluminium tube argument. If there is anything on these forums, as a total, it is that flying in an aluminium tube is different, very different, not at all the usual.
You cannot compare it to anything else.
You cannot compare it to anything else.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sussex,
I do agree, but why do cc flying in the tube need more restrictive agreements than the guys actually flying the tube??
Hence the argument that cc have been unfairly targeted does not hold water.
Pay for aircrew is generally higher than for ground crew, but why then are ba CC costs (doesn't mean wages) double the market rate of other airlines' AIRCREW?
Are BA's aluminium tubes different from everyone else's tubes?
I don't mean to sound argumentative but everytime cc are asked to share in the cost savings their union says no. CC are not a special, exempt from everything case.
I do agree, but why do cc flying in the tube need more restrictive agreements than the guys actually flying the tube??
Hence the argument that cc have been unfairly targeted does not hold water.
Pay for aircrew is generally higher than for ground crew, but why then are ba CC costs (doesn't mean wages) double the market rate of other airlines' AIRCREW?
Are BA's aluminium tubes different from everyone else's tubes?
I don't mean to sound argumentative but everytime cc are asked to share in the cost savings their union says no. CC are not a special, exempt from everything case.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think sussex2 might be referring to the cabin crew urban myth that the 777 is somehow 'bad' for you.
Rather like the myth that BASSA would 'fine' crew who broke their agreements, it is so entrenched amongst some that it may as well be true
Rather like the myth that BASSA would 'fine' crew who broke their agreements, it is so entrenched amongst some that it may as well be true
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikemaster
I think you'll find that Page 1 of the shorthaul cabin crew scheduling agreement states that anyone operating outside it may be subject to disciplinary by BASSA (yes really!) and BA (I know, utter madness)
Hence, in my time up at LHR, every time there was any sort of delay, the crew attitude was how can we use the rules to get off this aeroplane.
The basic premise of taking care of the pax and trying to get them to where they want to go, was not considered.
I'd be trying to organise getting us airborne and they'd be phoning the DOM trying to get off the aircraft.
Can anyone who works in BA shorthaul deny they haven't witnessed this?
I don't want to generalise. This normally happened on only 90% of occasions!
I think you'll find that Page 1 of the shorthaul cabin crew scheduling agreement states that anyone operating outside it may be subject to disciplinary by BASSA (yes really!) and BA (I know, utter madness)
Hence, in my time up at LHR, every time there was any sort of delay, the crew attitude was how can we use the rules to get off this aeroplane.
The basic premise of taking care of the pax and trying to get them to where they want to go, was not considered.
I'd be trying to organise getting us airborne and they'd be phoning the DOM trying to get off the aircraft.
Can anyone who works in BA shorthaul deny they haven't witnessed this?
I don't want to generalise. This normally happened on only 90% of occasions!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...round and round we go, in ever decreasing circles. Roll on Tuesday.
Plodding Along's synopsis @ post #2048 goes someway to reveal the extent that inefficiency has strangled progress over the years. Previous BA management, in my view, should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be cajoled (held to ransom) into agreeing such tripe. Yup, it's all about the money - but, to justify such extravagant hosing, then you need to damn well earn it by being PRODUCTIVE. The irony is, had BASSA been pro-active in negotiation throughout recent times, they could have contributed to the re-design of a modern working pattern fit to compete with the Asian upstarts as well as the American Chapter 11 mob and the Luftys, Air Frances, KLMs. The airline would have been better postioned to expand, opportunities for all would have arisen - simplistic economics. The BA brand remains strongish (the flag's looking tatty at the edges though) but it's screaming out for change. There is no room anymore for arcain practices. Walsh is going to deliver those changes - he has to.
nurj
Plodding Along's synopsis @ post #2048 goes someway to reveal the extent that inefficiency has strangled progress over the years. Previous BA management, in my view, should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be cajoled (held to ransom) into agreeing such tripe. Yup, it's all about the money - but, to justify such extravagant hosing, then you need to damn well earn it by being PRODUCTIVE. The irony is, had BASSA been pro-active in negotiation throughout recent times, they could have contributed to the re-design of a modern working pattern fit to compete with the Asian upstarts as well as the American Chapter 11 mob and the Luftys, Air Frances, KLMs. The airline would have been better postioned to expand, opportunities for all would have arisen - simplistic economics. The BA brand remains strongish (the flag's looking tatty at the edges though) but it's screaming out for change. There is no room anymore for arcain practices. Walsh is going to deliver those changes - he has to.
nurj
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to fat, any department paying above the minimum wage and working less than legislation hours has fat that legally can be trimmed. Their is no legal obligation for any business to remunerate particular employees for training costs that may have been accrued prior to employment.
The problem is that, for all the BASSA crap about "crews living on social support" BA cabin crew are in fact very well remunerated. They can't leave BA because no other airline or industry offers the same work/reward ratio.
Last edited by Lord Bracken; 7th Mar 2010 at 16:19.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Bracken
The problem is that, for all the BASSA crap about "crews living on social support" BA cabin crew are in fact very well remunerated. They can't leave BA because no other airline or industry offers the same work/reward ratio.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My boss when I worked in London was on £50k+ per year and he qualified for tax credits.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Europe
Age: 53
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New contract pay is hardly well-remunerated by any London standard and most families would qualify for working tax credits.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, and how are crew feeling about the pay cut that is being negiotated for them? In favour or against?
Willie did say that he couldn't believe 13 crew would want a paycut to get the CSD back to doing what he used to do, (let along all the shorthaul crew and Gatwick crew who won't even benefit from the revised levels).
Surely BASSA isn't doing the opposite of what Willie wants just to be awkward is it?
Any thoughts from current crew on this new path BASSA are taking?
A final point:
As only 55% of total crew ticked the yes box, and that was before:
a: the high court summary revealed to everyone the infighting and lack of negiotation that had gone on over the previous year.
b: The judge declared the changes to crewing levels NON contractual
c: Unite admitted that their original £174 million proposal was only worth £54 million.
and d: BASSA changed tack and offered everyone a paycut,
are there likely to be any crew left still willing to stand by their yes vote and go on strike?
Willie did say that he couldn't believe 13 crew would want a paycut to get the CSD back to doing what he used to do, (let along all the shorthaul crew and Gatwick crew who won't even benefit from the revised levels).
Surely BASSA isn't doing the opposite of what Willie wants just to be awkward is it?
Any thoughts from current crew on this new path BASSA are taking?
A final point:
As only 55% of total crew ticked the yes box, and that was before:
a: the high court summary revealed to everyone the infighting and lack of negiotation that had gone on over the previous year.
b: The judge declared the changes to crewing levels NON contractual
c: Unite admitted that their original £174 million proposal was only worth £54 million.
and d: BASSA changed tack and offered everyone a paycut,
are there likely to be any crew left still willing to stand by their yes vote and go on strike?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Suggest you use the Virgin figure for CC. Best comparision, both fly ex LHR and comparable in terms of Long Haul - from what I recall, and I am open to being corrected the average for VS was circa £14k.
Please bare in mind that the BA figure will also include shorthaul so logic suggests that their average should be lower than VS and not significantly higher as is the case.
Believe actuals are available from CAA website
Please bare in mind that the BA figure will also include shorthaul so logic suggests that their average should be lower than VS and not significantly higher as is the case.
Believe actuals are available from CAA website