British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity, why are we discussing the salaries of pilots, co-pilots or those in ticketing.
They aren't relevant to this situation at all.
To the best of my knowledge BA has not asked CC to accept a wage reduction. Am I misinformed on this or has something changed?
They aren't relevant to this situation at all.
To the best of my knowledge BA has not asked CC to accept a wage reduction. Am I misinformed on this or has something changed?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: england
Age: 60
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is disputing that the figures have very different ways of interpretation.
It all depends what you wish to show.
Some of you have defended your department costs and stated how the figures are not factual as actual salaries.
Get on board thats the sort of stuff I have been trying to defend for a few years now.
Trust me BA will be looking at those figures as soon as they have finished with the cabin crew.
It all depends what you wish to show.
Some of you have defended your department costs and stated how the figures are not factual as actual salaries.
Get on board thats the sort of stuff I have been trying to defend for a few years now.
Trust me BA will be looking at those figures as soon as they have finished with the cabin crew.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you Google the following
Cabin Crew £29,900
You will see that Mr Walsh himself is quoting that total figure as salary in a number of publications - so is Mr Walsh misleading the public and media? Either the £29,900 is salary or it is a cost - Mr Walsh seems to believe it is salary...
British Airways cabin crew strike planned for next month | Mail Online
Therefore the other figures in the CAA documentation must therefore also be salary - or is Mr Walsh not being factual, I for one do not believe he would try to mislead the public, media and fellow workers
Cabin Crew £29,900
You will see that Mr Walsh himself is quoting that total figure as salary in a number of publications - so is Mr Walsh misleading the public and media? Either the £29,900 is salary or it is a cost - Mr Walsh seems to believe it is salary...
British Airways cabin crew strike planned for next month | Mail Online
Therefore the other figures in the CAA documentation must therefore also be salary - or is Mr Walsh not being factual, I for one do not believe he would try to mislead the public, media and fellow workers
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
biteme:
You stated:
Even if that were to be proven true in the future it is still not relevant to the issue at hand.
Can you explain exactly what settlement you would deem reasonable? What savings would you offer BA, under what terms?
Its Cabin Crew and their representatives who are sitting at the negotiating table (or hopefully doing so). What do you most strongly object to that has been proposed so far (by both sides) and what do you find reasonable?
I'd seriously like to hear from Cabin Crew exactly what it is they want, not what is wrong with everyone else, not what's going to happen in the future, what do they want regarding the issues they keep voting to strike over?
You stated:
Trust me BA will be looking at those figures as soon as they have finished with the cabin crew.
Can you explain exactly what settlement you would deem reasonable? What savings would you offer BA, under what terms?
Its Cabin Crew and their representatives who are sitting at the negotiating table (or hopefully doing so). What do you most strongly object to that has been proposed so far (by both sides) and what do you find reasonable?
I'd seriously like to hear from Cabin Crew exactly what it is they want, not what is wrong with everyone else, not what's going to happen in the future, what do they want regarding the issues they keep voting to strike over?
Last edited by Diplome; 8th Mar 2010 at 15:52. Reason: spelling, as usual.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bashareholder
My understanding would be that in this context 'earn' and 'cost' are very similar, at any given instant of time.
The problem occurs when you try and compare these costs over a time period, and is then compounded when you try to compare the result to another work group.
IF, no one left, retired, took part time, unpaid leave, no increments and no recruitment (and the Main Crew/Purser/CSD ratio remained the same), you would be able to compare the 2001 & 2008 figures, and it would give you an individuals average pay rise.
Without knowing all of those things, for both work groups, comparisons over a time period are impossible.
If it is true, as suggested above, that these assumptions are not being queried in 'other places', perhaps you could ask the appropriate questions?
The problem occurs when you try and compare these costs over a time period, and is then compounded when you try to compare the result to another work group.
IF, no one left, retired, took part time, unpaid leave, no increments and no recruitment (and the Main Crew/Purser/CSD ratio remained the same), you would be able to compare the 2001 & 2008 figures, and it would give you an individuals average pay rise.
Without knowing all of those things, for both work groups, comparisons over a time period are impossible.
If it is true, as suggested above, that these assumptions are not being queried in 'other places', perhaps you could ask the appropriate questions?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bashareholder:
The article you linked to did not contain a direct quote.
The most direct comment by Mr. Walsh that I can find is
The article you linked to did not contain a direct quote.
The most direct comment by Mr. Walsh that I can find is
'the best paid in the country by some way'
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=500551&in_page_id=3#ixzz0hbV2cHgn
Do you have a link with the direct video or quote?
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=500551&in_page_id=3#ixzz0hbV2cHgn
Do you have a link with the direct video or quote?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will see that Mr Walsh himself is quoting that total figure as salary in a number of publications - so is Mr Walsh misleading the public and media? Either the £29,900 is salary or it is a cost - Mr Walsh seems to believe it is salary...
It does not equate to salary - it includes tax, NI, cost allocations from other areas, travel, expenses, CAA fees, examinations, uniforms, medicals and all kinds of other expenses that are directly attributable to the personnel in each category.
COST of £29,700 for 500 hours; £14,400 for 900 hours at Virgin = Virgin are around 375% more productive - same employee group type and similar expected other costs within the line item.
As a union, it can negotiate to deal with that at no cost to its members by eliminating the inefficiency on the ground on turnarounds.
What is so wrong with focussing on that, the issue at hand? Why are the union diverting into diversionary discussions on other issues?
That is how the union stands up for its members' interests. Not by offering a 3.4% paycut!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if your partner is a WW CSD or whatever, other employees, the company and the public are not out to get him/her. Indeed, the company set out trying to find a means of reducing costs without impacting people's lives - which clearly impacts upon you.
Gross inefficiencies in mashed-up BOAC/BEA/BCal working practices are the root of the problem, which the union seems not to want to address.
If take-home were the same, and you saw your partner/familymember twice as much - how can you argue with such an outcome? Limited new recruitment for a while, and some more people able to go part-time / take VR achieves the cost saving, while everyone else works harder on the aircraft for the same take-home.
What is not to like, given the rest of the economy is suffering mass redundancies?
I honestly don't get it.
Gross inefficiencies in mashed-up BOAC/BEA/BCal working practices are the root of the problem, which the union seems not to want to address.
If take-home were the same, and you saw your partner/familymember twice as much - how can you argue with such an outcome? Limited new recruitment for a while, and some more people able to go part-time / take VR achieves the cost saving, while everyone else works harder on the aircraft for the same take-home.
What is not to like, given the rest of the economy is suffering mass redundancies?
I honestly don't get it.
Last edited by Re-Heat; 8th Mar 2010 at 15:53.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not equate to salary - it includes tax, NI, cost allocations from other areas, travel, expenses, CAA fees, examinations, uniforms, medicals and all kinds of other expenses that are directly attributable to the personnel in each category.
I am not trying to suggest that this figure is relevent to BA but it is offered as an explanation of salary vs cost.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London,England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bashareholder
I am at a loss to understand the relevance of your figures. What does it matter in the current debate what people were paid in 2001 and subsequent costs to the company (in fact all they suggest to me is that BA Cabin Crew must have been paid even more above the market rate in 2001 than they are now).
Surely what is relevant is what each group costs to the company now, their productivity, and how that compares with the rest of the industry today.
I am at a loss to understand the relevance of your figures. What does it matter in the current debate what people were paid in 2001 and subsequent costs to the company (in fact all they suggest to me is that BA Cabin Crew must have been paid even more above the market rate in 2001 than they are now).
Surely what is relevant is what each group costs to the company now, their productivity, and how that compares with the rest of the industry today.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: england
Age: 60
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diplome
I did not say it was relevant to the issue in hand.
I was just speaking my mind.
What I would settle for is my business. I think that at this sensitive time showing ones hand would not be a wise thing to do.
You will hear from cabin crew this weak.
Our union will be putting forward the outcome of the negotiations for us to vote on.
I hope we will find a common ground and take this company forward.
I just hope the few who enjoy debate with their cabin crew colleges feel the same when the shoe is in the other foot.
I did not say it was relevant to the issue in hand.
I was just speaking my mind.
What I would settle for is my business. I think that at this sensitive time showing ones hand would not be a wise thing to do.
You will hear from cabin crew this weak.
Our union will be putting forward the outcome of the negotiations for us to vote on.
I hope we will find a common ground and take this company forward.
I just hope the few who enjoy debate with their cabin crew colleges feel the same when the shoe is in the other foot.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wake up before its too late
ladies and Gents,
I travel a lot and I am not CC< however BA is second only to SQ in service and is realy important and means a lot>
you are killing the golden goose and you will have a much thinner BA company soon if you dont wake up>
The Union chaps are only out for themselves to keep them in a Job....its your life.
It used to be said thse that can... do...and......those that cant teach...i think it should be those that cant become Union staff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think about it its your life.
I travel a lot and I am not CC< however BA is second only to SQ in service and is realy important and means a lot>
you are killing the golden goose and you will have a much thinner BA company soon if you dont wake up>
The Union chaps are only out for themselves to keep them in a Job....its your life.
It used to be said thse that can... do...and......those that cant teach...i think it should be those that cant become Union staff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think about it its your life.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our union will be putting forward the outcome of the negotiations for us to vote on.
Ask them - why don't they find a means to restructuring the inefficiencies in scheduling at no financial cost to yourself whatsoever?
A very sensible post
There was a very sensible post some pages back - I can't find it right now, which pointed out that if BA CC gave up all their "Spanish practices" then they would probably get a salary increase, not a reduction.
Sounds a good way forward.
Sounds a good way forward.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem that bashareholder is somewhat selective with his statistics.
Not wishing to incur the wrath of Flaps40, considering only CC costs and I specifically emphasize costs!
Selecting a 10 year period using CAA data for 1998 and 2008 (those links go to the actual data)
BA: 1998 £18.1k; 2008 £29.9k a 65% increase
BMI: 1998 £17k; 2008 £18.3k an 8% increase
VS: 1998 £11.8k; 2008 £14.4k a 22% increase
So it would seem that bashareholder does have a very valid point we should look at cost increases over time when comparing CC costs.
Another BA Shareholder.
Not wishing to incur the wrath of Flaps40, considering only CC costs and I specifically emphasize costs!
Selecting a 10 year period using CAA data for 1998 and 2008 (those links go to the actual data)
BA: 1998 £18.1k; 2008 £29.9k a 65% increase
BMI: 1998 £17k; 2008 £18.3k an 8% increase
VS: 1998 £11.8k; 2008 £14.4k a 22% increase
So it would seem that bashareholder does have a very valid point we should look at cost increases over time when comparing CC costs.
Another BA Shareholder.