British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about anyone else, but I am brushing up on my Labi Siffre lyrics in preparation for tomorrow's press conference. That will be enough to see me through I have been told. I will try to be strong. That being said, if you care to Google "Shirley and Company" I think you will find that their one hit wonder is entirely more suitable for the situation that has been presented by the union 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what Forward Galley, I truly do expect the union to dance at tomorrow's press conference, referring to "loans" as savings, etc., etc., and I'm sure the word "machismo" will be used at one time or another...
But right now I'm thinking of all of those Cabin Crew with bills to pay, groceries to buy, lives to lead, who are going "What??".
This has gone past the point of just being so much Union sloganeering and bonding through an accentuated feeling of injustice, and it is on the verge of being very real world for many individuals who have been rather powerless through this situation.
I have no doubt that it will be brutal for many...and while I worry about the stock price I'm also thinking of those who are worried about staff travel, worried about what they should do personally, and are truly at the mercy of larger forces.
Many Cabin Crew have been caught up in this tempest when all they really want to do is fly.
But right now I'm thinking of all of those Cabin Crew with bills to pay, groceries to buy, lives to lead, who are going "What??".
This has gone past the point of just being so much Union sloganeering and bonding through an accentuated feeling of injustice, and it is on the verge of being very real world for many individuals who have been rather powerless through this situation.
I have no doubt that it will be brutal for many...and while I worry about the stock price I'm also thinking of those who are worried about staff travel, worried about what they should do personally, and are truly at the mercy of larger forces.
Many Cabin Crew have been caught up in this tempest when all they really want to do is fly.
Last edited by Diplome; 10th Mar 2010 at 20:44. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rover90, there is a huge difference from 43K after some 36 years in the company to 55K.
We are talking about a very small and ever diminishing percentage of very senior CSDs which in an accounting view point are not the alleged drain on BA fortune and some have accepted the need for change and/or the possibility of still earning a living by working harder and cooperating with the company, including myself.
To portrait that in general CSDs earn that kind of money is irresponsible and not mirroring reality.
We are talking about a very small and ever diminishing percentage of very senior CSDs which in an accounting view point are not the alleged drain on BA fortune and some have accepted the need for change and/or the possibility of still earning a living by working harder and cooperating with the company, including myself.
To portrait that in general CSDs earn that kind of money is irresponsible and not mirroring reality.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well. Lets hope that CC vote with their feet, come into work and by doing so maintain their pay and T&Cs (and perks of course !) that BASSA seem determined to sell down the river for the good of a few of their reps.
Absolutely shocking representation. I hope its a quick death for BASSA and the PCCC gets to where it should be. And maybe, just maybe, something good will have come from all this crap.
Absolutely shocking representation. I hope its a quick death for BASSA and the PCCC gets to where it should be. And maybe, just maybe, something good will have come from all this crap.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rover90, there is a huge difference from 43K after some 36 years in the company to 55K.
We are talking about a very small and ever diminishing percentage of very senior CSDs which in an accounting view point are not the alleged drain on BA fortune and some have accepted the need for change and/or the possibility of still earning a living by working harder and cooperating with the company, including myself.
To portrait that in general CSDs earn that kind of money is irresponsible and not mirroring reality.
We are talking about a very small and ever diminishing percentage of very senior CSDs which in an accounting view point are not the alleged drain on BA fortune and some have accepted the need for change and/or the possibility of still earning a living by working harder and cooperating with the company, including myself.
To portrait that in general CSDs earn that kind of money is irresponsible and not mirroring reality.
However, its those CSDs who don't fit the description in Bold above who have caused all the problems which are coming to a head now.
As i said in my previous post, i hope its all over with quickly and decent, hard-working CC like yourself can get back to work without the stress of this hanging over you. The rest of BA (inc myself) can also stop worrying about what BASSA will strike over next !!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur, your final sentence is the 'Crown Jewel' as far as BA is concerned. The castration of a witless 'raging' bull should mean that we can all move on with renewed, unhindered, purpose.
nurj
nurj
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly, my statement was:
This is achieved in 25 years service. Since Oct 2006, the compulsory retirement age was increased for 55 to 65 so in point of fact, the number on the top pay point will increase before it decreases.
Absolutely no problem with your statement that many CSD's are not earning anything like £56k with meal allowances and box payments, but it is being achieved by a significant number and that is what a LGW CM would find hard to accept when asked to take a pay cut.
The top pay point for a full time WW LHR CSD on the original pre-97 contract is £43k.
Absolutely no problem with your statement that many CSD's are not earning anything like £56k with meal allowances and box payments, but it is being achieved by a significant number and that is what a LGW CM would find hard to accept when asked to take a pay cut.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New BASSA / UNITE statement at . COST SAVING TALKS PAGE 2
Talks have ended – A dispute is now inevitable- The TUC Deadline has expired, despite agreeing an extension, in the end this did not produce a positive outcome.
Since January we have been locked in an intensive negotiation on your behalf to try and reach an agreement that would bring a welcome and long over due peace to all who work as British Airways cabin crew.
To that end we have not been successful. British Airways has rejected our formal proposal, after the extension.
Although the current dispute is over imposition of revised crew complements and related issues, a potential solution has had to encompass a broader number of items. The talks have covered these specific areas:
- Cost savings target set by British Airways of £62 million.
- Return of crew complements.
- A guarantee for current crew regarding existing agreements, future/current routes and earnings.
- Ongoing commitment to ops and choice and right to transfer.
- Ongoing commitment for current crew to have access to promotion.
- Introduction of a new mixed flying fleet at LHR (New Fleet)
To reach a resolution that both sides would be happy with, agreement would need to be reached in all areas. This has not happened.
To be absolutely clear this is not a choice between cost savings- one off the aircraft etc- OR new fleet, this is NOT an option - British Airways has demanded both- NOT one or the other.
Cost savings
- The target set was £62 million of permanent savings per year.
- Unite proposed savings of £62.97m. British Airways would not accept £11.77m of this as they have refused to allow the savings achieved by the introduction of a new fleet to be given as part of our figure.
-Additionally they would also not allow the enforced two year basic and variable pay freeze to be acknowledged within the cost savings target, as British Airways wanted these in addition to the £62 million. British Airways would also only agree a £1million saving for a two year freeze on meal allowances.
The £11.77 million shortfall is the only part of our proposal that is disputed by British Airways. All of the other figures involved have been agreed by British Airways. We know that the savings are way in excess of this but British Airways have consistently refused to acknowledge that fact.
“New mixed fleet” at LHR
British Airways are determined to introduce a new fleet at LHR that will operate to scheme, on vastly reduced terms and conditions. All of your work will gradually be moved over a period of time to this fleet. Recruitment and promotion on current fleets will end, thus allowing the new fleet to grow.
Your future
We sought solid guarantees that would actually protect you. The main areas for discussion were based on the following items:
Your current earnings
Your days off
Your ability to be promoted to purser or CSD/CM
Future routes
Future aircraft types
Process to move existing routes to new fleet
It is obvious that without these, it will simply be the beginning of the end.
Crew Complements
It was agreed that the crewing levels would be restored to pre November levels, with some exceptions on both worldwide and Eurofleet. This was subject to the stated financial target set by British Airways being accepted by us and delivered.
A Cabin Crew charter
An assurance that existing crew will be treated fairly and with respect in the future, helping to make British Airways a great place to work once again for everybody, not just managers.
The full proposals are available by clicking ******LINK here
PLEASE READ OUR PROPOSALS THOROUGHLY AND IN FULL. THEN COMPARE THEM TO WHAT BILL FRANCIS WANTS YOU TO ACCEPT.
Our proposals are necessarily detailed and do exactly what they say they will.
Mr Francis thinks these are not necessary and to simply “trust” that he won’t do anything to breach agreements in the future. Understandably with his record of not honouring our current agreements, we are slightly sceptical.
As you will see our package of proposed changes are detailed, thorough, fair, and equally importantly they deliver significant and permanent cost savings.
The difference, even if you accept British Airways figures, which we unequivocally do not, is only £11.77m. Compare this against a £3 billion a year fuel bill or the £550 million paid in fines and you go some way to comprehending the level of intransigence that we have faced.
To repeat again some people have said they may consider accepting the removal of a crew member in return for not having new fleet, this is NOT an option …….. British Airways require both.
We now have no alternative but to carry out industrial action to protect you.
We have tried everything possible to avoid this outcome as we promised we would do. We have gone the extra mile because we know that nobody, including us, wants a strike. As a last ditch gesture we have even offered a one year pay cut of 2.6% in the form of a “fully repayable loan” similar to flight deck, alongside all the other savings, but that was as far as we were prepared to go.
It is important to remember that although this dispute is over imposition, British Airways have stated that the agreed outcome of any new fleet, whether we like it or not, is entwined with any solution.
We need to allay the fears of New Fleet for you. The acceptance of our document by British Airways would go some way to do this. Although far from ideal and not without risk, it would boil down to us having to trust that they would honour the TUC guarantee.
Without an agreement and by accepting imposition, your future will without doubt be uncertain from this point onwards.
We wanted your agreements and these guarantees to be contractually binding. This was flatly rejected, so as a compromise we proposed that any agreement be registered with the TUC in the form of a “Guarantee”. Once again British Airways rejected this option.
You will not have another opportunity to influence the outcome of this dispute and we strongly suggest you take action now.
We know that participating in strike action will cause concern and anxiety to you and your families and indeed to our passengers. If we could have reached a deal we would have, but unfortunately we could not.
We have made a massive gesture even going so far as proposing a pay cut in an effort to resolve this dispute.
We have virtually given British Airways everything humanly possible, and at one point a deal seemed likely. However it would appear in the end the stumbling block, regrettably was our CEO’s much publicised statement that “over his dead body” would he put crew back on the aircraft. The fact that his team at the TUC conceded that this could happen in an official TUC document appeared to have eluded him. In the end he had staked his reputation as the corporate “hard man” on this and so was unwilling to allow his own negotiating team to honour their earlier commitment.
It goes without saying that had we been able to achieve an agreement with British Airways that protected you and your future, then YOU and only YOU would have had the final say on the acceptance or rejection of that agreement.
There comes a time when enough is enough and so it is with deep regret we are at a point where a call for industrial action is the next step.
Talks have ended – A dispute is now inevitable- The TUC Deadline has expired, despite agreeing an extension, in the end this did not produce a positive outcome.
Since January we have been locked in an intensive negotiation on your behalf to try and reach an agreement that would bring a welcome and long over due peace to all who work as British Airways cabin crew.
To that end we have not been successful. British Airways has rejected our formal proposal, after the extension.
Although the current dispute is over imposition of revised crew complements and related issues, a potential solution has had to encompass a broader number of items. The talks have covered these specific areas:
- Cost savings target set by British Airways of £62 million.
- Return of crew complements.
- A guarantee for current crew regarding existing agreements, future/current routes and earnings.
- Ongoing commitment to ops and choice and right to transfer.
- Ongoing commitment for current crew to have access to promotion.
- Introduction of a new mixed flying fleet at LHR (New Fleet)
To reach a resolution that both sides would be happy with, agreement would need to be reached in all areas. This has not happened.
To be absolutely clear this is not a choice between cost savings- one off the aircraft etc- OR new fleet, this is NOT an option - British Airways has demanded both- NOT one or the other.
Cost savings
- The target set was £62 million of permanent savings per year.
- Unite proposed savings of £62.97m. British Airways would not accept £11.77m of this as they have refused to allow the savings achieved by the introduction of a new fleet to be given as part of our figure.
-Additionally they would also not allow the enforced two year basic and variable pay freeze to be acknowledged within the cost savings target, as British Airways wanted these in addition to the £62 million. British Airways would also only agree a £1million saving for a two year freeze on meal allowances.
The £11.77 million shortfall is the only part of our proposal that is disputed by British Airways. All of the other figures involved have been agreed by British Airways. We know that the savings are way in excess of this but British Airways have consistently refused to acknowledge that fact.
“New mixed fleet” at LHR
British Airways are determined to introduce a new fleet at LHR that will operate to scheme, on vastly reduced terms and conditions. All of your work will gradually be moved over a period of time to this fleet. Recruitment and promotion on current fleets will end, thus allowing the new fleet to grow.
Your future
We sought solid guarantees that would actually protect you. The main areas for discussion were based on the following items:
Your current earnings
Your days off
Your ability to be promoted to purser or CSD/CM
Future routes
Future aircraft types
Process to move existing routes to new fleet
It is obvious that without these, it will simply be the beginning of the end.
Crew Complements
It was agreed that the crewing levels would be restored to pre November levels, with some exceptions on both worldwide and Eurofleet. This was subject to the stated financial target set by British Airways being accepted by us and delivered.
A Cabin Crew charter
An assurance that existing crew will be treated fairly and with respect in the future, helping to make British Airways a great place to work once again for everybody, not just managers.
The full proposals are available by clicking ******LINK here
PLEASE READ OUR PROPOSALS THOROUGHLY AND IN FULL. THEN COMPARE THEM TO WHAT BILL FRANCIS WANTS YOU TO ACCEPT.
Our proposals are necessarily detailed and do exactly what they say they will.
Mr Francis thinks these are not necessary and to simply “trust” that he won’t do anything to breach agreements in the future. Understandably with his record of not honouring our current agreements, we are slightly sceptical.
As you will see our package of proposed changes are detailed, thorough, fair, and equally importantly they deliver significant and permanent cost savings.
The difference, even if you accept British Airways figures, which we unequivocally do not, is only £11.77m. Compare this against a £3 billion a year fuel bill or the £550 million paid in fines and you go some way to comprehending the level of intransigence that we have faced.
To repeat again some people have said they may consider accepting the removal of a crew member in return for not having new fleet, this is NOT an option …….. British Airways require both.
We now have no alternative but to carry out industrial action to protect you.
We have tried everything possible to avoid this outcome as we promised we would do. We have gone the extra mile because we know that nobody, including us, wants a strike. As a last ditch gesture we have even offered a one year pay cut of 2.6% in the form of a “fully repayable loan” similar to flight deck, alongside all the other savings, but that was as far as we were prepared to go.
It is important to remember that although this dispute is over imposition, British Airways have stated that the agreed outcome of any new fleet, whether we like it or not, is entwined with any solution.
We need to allay the fears of New Fleet for you. The acceptance of our document by British Airways would go some way to do this. Although far from ideal and not without risk, it would boil down to us having to trust that they would honour the TUC guarantee.
Without an agreement and by accepting imposition, your future will without doubt be uncertain from this point onwards.
We wanted your agreements and these guarantees to be contractually binding. This was flatly rejected, so as a compromise we proposed that any agreement be registered with the TUC in the form of a “Guarantee”. Once again British Airways rejected this option.
You will not have another opportunity to influence the outcome of this dispute and we strongly suggest you take action now.
We know that participating in strike action will cause concern and anxiety to you and your families and indeed to our passengers. If we could have reached a deal we would have, but unfortunately we could not.
We have made a massive gesture even going so far as proposing a pay cut in an effort to resolve this dispute.
We have virtually given British Airways everything humanly possible, and at one point a deal seemed likely. However it would appear in the end the stumbling block, regrettably was our CEO’s much publicised statement that “over his dead body” would he put crew back on the aircraft. The fact that his team at the TUC conceded that this could happen in an official TUC document appeared to have eluded him. In the end he had staked his reputation as the corporate “hard man” on this and so was unwilling to allow his own negotiating team to honour their earlier commitment.
It goes without saying that had we been able to achieve an agreement with British Airways that protected you and your future, then YOU and only YOU would have had the final say on the acceptance or rejection of that agreement.
There comes a time when enough is enough and so it is with deep regret we are at a point where a call for industrial action is the next step.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite are claiming Bill Francis has lied today in saying that crews' cut in pay would be £2700pa for next year for a WW CSD and £1000 for main crew LGW.
Unite claim 2.6% reduction in pay (basic and variables) represents £800pm or £960pa after tax for WW CSDs and £21pm or £252pa for main crew LGW.
I did a quick calculation, based on my pay and Unite seemed to have the maths about right,
Puzzled by the apparent discrepancy, I asked Bill Francis personally to explain.
It would seem that BA has valued Unite's total package of savings £11m LESS than they do, so Bill's higher figures represent the extra £11m they would need to find by cutting crew pay (ie. By much MORE than 2.6%).
Hope that clears that up for anyone pondering that one.
PWC anybody?
Unite claim 2.6% reduction in pay (basic and variables) represents £800pm or £960pa after tax for WW CSDs and £21pm or £252pa for main crew LGW.
I did a quick calculation, based on my pay and Unite seemed to have the maths about right,
Puzzled by the apparent discrepancy, I asked Bill Francis personally to explain.
It would seem that BA has valued Unite's total package of savings £11m LESS than they do, so Bill's higher figures represent the extra £11m they would need to find by cutting crew pay (ie. By much MORE than 2.6%).
Hope that clears that up for anyone pondering that one.
PWC anybody?
Having perused the Unite "offer" kindly linked by Flaps, I've a couple of observations.
The "saving" is calculated by Unite at £62.97M. However, there appears to be some err "inaccuracies" in the total savings claimed.
First -the infamous 2.6% pay cut is assessed at a saving of £7.1M. However, Unite expect this sum to be repaid as a bonus in 2013. Over 2 years therefore, there's next to no saving at all from this (Assuming BA's finance charges are say 5%, £7M deferred for 2 years would equate to a saving of around £0.7M in total, £0.35M per year). That's already knocked more tham £6M off the calculation then.
Second, a significant chunk of the savings (>£10M) requires the significant assuption that extension of part time opportunities would lead to a reduction totalling 600 crew. Clearly however, Unite can offer no guarantees about this - their offer is for voluntary rather then enforced headcount reduction. I would think that BA would have to err on the side of caution, and at best, might value the potential saving of £5M.
That's already £11M short, which supports Bill Francis' comments to Beagle.
Also, there does not appear to be anything in the figures regarding the cost to BA of reinstating crewing levels. (I wouldn't be surprised if there's other "errors" in there relating to the various allowance changes discussed too).
It doesn't appear unduly surprising that BA rejected the offer.
The "saving" is calculated by Unite at £62.97M. However, there appears to be some err "inaccuracies" in the total savings claimed.
First -the infamous 2.6% pay cut is assessed at a saving of £7.1M. However, Unite expect this sum to be repaid as a bonus in 2013. Over 2 years therefore, there's next to no saving at all from this (Assuming BA's finance charges are say 5%, £7M deferred for 2 years would equate to a saving of around £0.7M in total, £0.35M per year). That's already knocked more tham £6M off the calculation then.
Second, a significant chunk of the savings (>£10M) requires the significant assuption that extension of part time opportunities would lead to a reduction totalling 600 crew. Clearly however, Unite can offer no guarantees about this - their offer is for voluntary rather then enforced headcount reduction. I would think that BA would have to err on the side of caution, and at best, might value the potential saving of £5M.
That's already £11M short, which supports Bill Francis' comments to Beagle.
Also, there does not appear to be anything in the figures regarding the cost to BA of reinstating crewing levels. (I wouldn't be surprised if there's other "errors" in there relating to the various allowance changes discussed too).
It doesn't appear unduly surprising that BA rejected the offer.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEAGLE9
Thanks for that it does help and shows 2 things:
1) BA have put spin on some of their comms but much worse than that
2) BASSA are basically lying about their cost saving proposals. Who do they think they are idding ?!
The worst bit about the pay cut proposal is that in order for it to be fair, it should be staggered according to cost.
Something like:
LHR CSD - 5% cut
WWF - 4% cut
EF - 3.5% cut
LGW - 0% cut
If they wanted to represent their Whole membership correctly of course
1) BA have put spin on some of their comms but much worse than that
2) BASSA are basically lying about their cost saving proposals. Who do they think they are idding ?!
The worst bit about the pay cut proposal is that in order for it to be fair, it should be staggered according to cost.
Something like:
LHR CSD - 5% cut
WWF - 4% cut
EF - 3.5% cut
LGW - 0% cut
If they wanted to represent their Whole membership correctly of course
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rver90
It is always a very difficult task to quantify and especially justify ones worth, I can only say that I know what I signed for, where when and why and I am prepared for my employer to extract more value for money and efficiencies from my role.
I could argue about pilots pay (not my intention) and how cheaply or expensively you might have acquired such qualification in comparison to others but that would probably divert the conversation yet again to unfamiliar (for me) circumstances and facts.
The reason why some people are luckier than others comes down to having been in the right place at the right time or the other way around, the secret remains to be able to identify change where change is needed and fully cooperate and understand that reality is no longer what used to be but today.
It is always a very difficult task to quantify and especially justify ones worth, I can only say that I know what I signed for, where when and why and I am prepared for my employer to extract more value for money and efficiencies from my role.
I could argue about pilots pay (not my intention) and how cheaply or expensively you might have acquired such qualification in comparison to others but that would probably divert the conversation yet again to unfamiliar (for me) circumstances and facts.
The reason why some people are luckier than others comes down to having been in the right place at the right time or the other way around, the secret remains to be able to identify change where change is needed and fully cooperate and understand that reality is no longer what used to be but today.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rver90
It is always a very difficult task to quantify and especially justify ones worth, I can only say that I know what I signed for, where when and why and I am prepared for my employer to extract more value for money and efficiencies from my role.
I could argue about pilots pay (not my intention) and how cheaply or expensively you might have acquired such qualification in comparison to others but that would probably divert the conversation yet again to unfamiliar (for me) circumstances and facts.
The reason why some people are luckier than others comes down to having been in the right place at the right time or the other way around, the secret remains to be able to identify change where change is needed and fully cooperate and understand that reality is no longer what used to be but today.
It is always a very difficult task to quantify and especially justify ones worth, I can only say that I know what I signed for, where when and why and I am prepared for my employer to extract more value for money and efficiencies from my role.
I could argue about pilots pay (not my intention) and how cheaply or expensively you might have acquired such qualification in comparison to others but that would probably divert the conversation yet again to unfamiliar (for me) circumstances and facts.
The reason why some people are luckier than others comes down to having been in the right place at the right time or the other way around, the secret remains to be able to identify change where change is needed and fully cooperate and understand that reality is no longer what used to be but today.
I think we all (as BA employees) should think like this.Bottom line is, we get paid a salary. If we don't like the labour or the salary, we look for another job. We work for BA (a large company enduring difficult trading circumstances), not the other way round and are big enough and ugly enough (well i am) to look after ourselves if we're not happy.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AurthurScargill
I'm not sure whether this particular BA comm from Bill was spin or just a bit unclear. Todays comm from Bill would have been much better if it had more detail as to how his figures came about, but maybe the sensitivity of the situation meant he had to be guarded about what he said.
Either way, if it was spin, it backfired because it enabled Unite to spin it in turn, so that it looked like THEY hold the moral high ground.
I suspect that Bill will give more detail when he is able.
I'm not sure whether this particular BA comm from Bill was spin or just a bit unclear. Todays comm from Bill would have been much better if it had more detail as to how his figures came about, but maybe the sensitivity of the situation meant he had to be guarded about what he said.
Either way, if it was spin, it backfired because it enabled Unite to spin it in turn, so that it looked like THEY hold the moral high ground.
I suspect that Bill will give more detail when he is able.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would the airport ground to a standstill ?
There'll be zero wildcat/sympathy strikes and WW has confirmed he has 6-7K CC to work the planes. In reality there'll be much more than that.
I'm not underestimating the strike, it will have terrible effects on bookings but it certainly won't ground anything to a halt at all.
There'll be zero wildcat/sympathy strikes and WW has confirmed he has 6-7K CC to work the planes. In reality there'll be much more than that.
I'm not underestimating the strike, it will have terrible effects on bookings but it certainly won't ground anything to a halt at all.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an example of the simple, basic things that make thinking people look at what BASSA is putting out and shake their heads.
In their statement they agree that both parties agree that permanent change is needed to achieve changes and they go on to reference the appendix as displaying how those savings will occur.
In the appendix they credit a significant £7.1 Million to a reduction in wages with no acknowledgement that this is not true savings, but in effect, a loan which equates to increased debt on any business' books.
Their wish to gather in New Fleet's proposed savings into their offering is ridiculous on its face. BA is looking for savings from the existing CC framework.
If you take the time to read the document linked to by FlapsForty of some amusement will also be the considerable effort by Unite to, rather than keep the priority of negotiations protecting the interests of its members, look for every opportunity to maintain or increase their influence in operations and insist on guarantees of exclusive representations for new hires.
I'm truly stunned at the ineptitude shown in the drafting of this proposed agreement. BASSA is like the proverbial bull in a china shop.
What makes it truly tragic is that individuals are going to be hurt over the results of their actions. I can advocate BA's position in this instance, can actually look forward to a strikebeing called, but I will take no pleasure in watching the harm that will come to BASSA's members.
In their statement they agree that both parties agree that permanent change is needed to achieve changes and they go on to reference the appendix as displaying how those savings will occur.
In the appendix they credit a significant £7.1 Million to a reduction in wages with no acknowledgement that this is not true savings, but in effect, a loan which equates to increased debt on any business' books.
Their wish to gather in New Fleet's proposed savings into their offering is ridiculous on its face. BA is looking for savings from the existing CC framework.
If you take the time to read the document linked to by FlapsForty of some amusement will also be the considerable effort by Unite to, rather than keep the priority of negotiations protecting the interests of its members, look for every opportunity to maintain or increase their influence in operations and insist on guarantees of exclusive representations for new hires.
I'm truly stunned at the ineptitude shown in the drafting of this proposed agreement. BASSA is like the proverbial bull in a china shop.
What makes it truly tragic is that individuals are going to be hurt over the results of their actions. I can advocate BA's position in this instance, can actually look forward to a strikebeing called, but I will take no pleasure in watching the harm that will come to BASSA's members.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£11m
It looks as if the £11m difference between BA and Unite is due to Unite's inclusion of the New Fleet's savings in their calculations. However, BA wants these savings to be in addition to the £62m per annum target.
I think that Unite should accept that working one down is here to stay, and to call a strike over £11m is bound to be both damaging and fruitless.
I think that Unite should accept that working one down is here to stay, and to call a strike over £11m is bound to be both damaging and fruitless.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW, the airport will not grind to a halt. BA are not the sole operators at LHR, only at T5. BA will not grind to a halt, they have had plenty of time to plan for a BASSA strike, sure it will take a day or two for everything to run smoothly, but so what? By then the ever increasing number of cabin crew coming in to work will allow the volunteers back to their daytime jobs. By the end of day 4 or 5 BASSA will be part of history along with the NUM.
From the moment of the first strike WW will effectively impose a lockout as well.
His argument will be that strikers have caused so much hassle to the operation, that rather than try and fit them into any period when they choose to come back to work, WW will inform them that they are not required until the end of the IA. Of course they will not be paid during this time AND they have already kissed goodbye to staff travel for ever.
I read the whole document that Flaps 40 was good enough to 'link' for us. The muppets of bassa have learnt zip over this whole debacle. They keep on insisting that they have a say in every aspect of the operation. THAT is why it is essential, for every other worker in BA, that the dreadful cancer that is the senior bassa reps is eliminated.
I also agree with AS that savings should be minimised at LGW. They have already been screwed over by bassa in a previous life, but as quoted in an altered poem:
"WHEN THEY CAME FOR LGW I DIDN'T CARE.........
........... BECAUSE I WAS AT LHR"
bassa lalaland have played straight into WWs hands. I most certainly believe that he will take this golden opportunity with both hands etc etc.
His argument will be that strikers have caused so much hassle to the operation, that rather than try and fit them into any period when they choose to come back to work, WW will inform them that they are not required until the end of the IA. Of course they will not be paid during this time AND they have already kissed goodbye to staff travel for ever.
I read the whole document that Flaps 40 was good enough to 'link' for us. The muppets of bassa have learnt zip over this whole debacle. They keep on insisting that they have a say in every aspect of the operation. THAT is why it is essential, for every other worker in BA, that the dreadful cancer that is the senior bassa reps is eliminated.
I also agree with AS that savings should be minimised at LGW. They have already been screwed over by bassa in a previous life, but as quoted in an altered poem:
"WHEN THEY CAME FOR LGW I DIDN'T CARE.........
........... BECAUSE I WAS AT LHR"
bassa lalaland have played straight into WWs hands. I most certainly believe that he will take this golden opportunity with both hands etc etc.