British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[jetset lady]

Originally Posted by polax52

I'm totally behind the crew, though this thread so far doesn't indicate that they are behind themselves.

Doesn't that tell you something? Could there, possibly, be a damn good reason for that? Maybe somewhere along the lines of the fact that the union certainly weren't behind a large group of us three years ago. And that they now want US to take a pay cut so that THEY can get a crew member back. Or possibly even because they have behaved with all the maturity of a Primary school class throughout this whole fiasco? In fact, do you actually know any of the details involved in this dispute at all or have you just taken the stance that no matter what, the Company must be wrong and the Union right!

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by ArthurScargill

So, as to your point above. I think employee representation is more relevant today than UNIONs can ever be. Hopefully, the PCCC can provide this.

This would be true, if the law backed up all representative groups. I have commented before about the difference between negotiation and effective consultation. It is huge and I know, because I am in the middle of it at the moment.

I fully understand that the PCCC are at an early stage in their development, but it would also be fair to say that unless BA grant them a voluntary recognition agreement, they will not be a negotiating body for quite some time; well at least 1250 members and a successful 50% +1 ballot, after de-recognising Unite.

[Stoic]

polax52

I'm totally behind the crew

Noted that you post from California. Real BASSA leading from the front potential there!

[Openclimb]

Don't you understand that even if only 10% of flights were cancelled the strike would be extremely effective. Airlines cannot afford to sit any aircraft on the ground for any unscheduled length of time. A typical aircraft costs 700,000 dollars a month to lease or finance and airports charge by the hour to sit aircraft on the ground and its not cheap, passengers have to be accommodated and compensated, or flights paid for on other airlines. If BA really are as close to bankruptcy as is suggested, they have either to give in or allow the company to go out of business, which of course they will not do.

No, you're wrong.

If only 10% of flights were cancelled then the strike would be totally ineffective. Cabin crew cant afford to stay on strike for any length of time either, either financially or in consideration of not wanting to be among the last left on strike when the crew start going back to work during the first hours of a strike.

I hear that BASSA have rented a football pitch near to the airport to use as "Strike HQ". Well at least they will all have a good view of the constant stream of BA aircraft taking off and landing from there.

You should realise that BA have no choice other than to make sure they get the necessary savings from cabin crew. The current financial situation makes it so and other staff groups that have signed up to savings will want their money back if the CC fail to meet their savings target.

Willie Walsh cannot afford to lose this and moreover, he will not lose - I guarantee it.

[Openclimb]

I'm totally behind the crew

Yeah, several thousand miles behind them!

Noted that you post from California. Real BASSA leading from the front potential there!

Perhaps our friend poleaxed is lizannes husband, giving her a bit of much needed support?

[Litebulbs]

The Unite agreement with probably have a clause to state that Unite have the sole negotiating rights. BA would have to serve notice on the agreement I believe.

[Openclimb]

The Unite agreement with probably have a clause to state that Unite have the sole negotiating rights. BA would have to serve notice on the agreement I believe.

I doubt they would find it a particular hardship to do so.

[Basil]

and now, a little light relief

Matt of the Daily Telegraph

[midman]

This post is a great example of the myopic Bassa world-view of what's been going on.

Originally Posted by ba.husband

No mention at all of the havoc wreaked by unilateral bullying management with no regard for staff loyalty or indeed welfare.

The company has a responsibility to protect any worker from intimidation, whether they are a baggage handler, pilot, manager, purser. The same policy applies to all. It's staff loyalty and welfare the application of these policies protects.
Please give an example of such 'bullying'.

Originally Posted by ba.husband

Most crew, or at least 4-5000 on duty during strike days don't strike. WW withdraws staff travel from the crew that are ill, or do strike. The airline's losses from the strike are entirely due to ill-conceived plans laid up to break the strike. I say ill conceived because I don't think it will be possible, for all sorts of technical reasons from visas through to public safety, insurance etc, to run the airline solely based on the recently trained temporary crew.

So the losses aren't due to cabin crew failing to turn up for work?
As for your technical reasons:
Visas - Issued. No problem due to a fast track temporary crew version in use.
Public Safety - Entrusted to the Civil Aviation Authority, who have approved and supervised both ground and airborne training.
Insurance - Why if all are trained to CAA mandated standards would there be a problem? None encountered so far.
Recently trained cabin crew will be augmented by the thousands of cabincrew who will turn up to work. Only 7500 voted to strike, of which I estimate 2500 will not turn up. So out of 13500 cc, there will be 11000 available, plus a thousand volunteers.
Problem?

Originally Posted by ba.husband

Immediately WW declares an imagined sum to cover these losses and any other costs he can assign to it. He announces that there will have to be a permanent 2.6% pay cut across the board in addition to previous changes. Additionally he declares that all 'expensive' routes will go to a new long haul fleet and away from LHR WW.
In other words, crew lose out big time, and the eventual result will be the decimation of the current crew either to the four winds or to a new, much lower paid fleet. One that will only support single people living at home or in shared accommodation.

Can't disagree with much of that.

Originally Posted by ba.husband

The strike is all but universally observed.

'Fat chance' is probably my most detailed reply available.

Originally Posted by ba.husband

I think they're generally in profit.

Argument severely weakened by that one misconception.

Originally Posted by ba.husband

Certainly the claimed £60m of savings isn't going to sway it significantly in either direction. In the medium term, a more reasonable management style is introduced and much of the wasteful crew agreements are eroded away item by item. Larger savings are made and BA remains in it's niche of being a full service, full destination list premium airline.

Not one business analyst in the city agrees with you. Where do you get your insight?

Originally Posted by ba.husband

prognosis for BA as a budget airline? Wouldn't last 5 years. Aer Lingus hasn't lasted that long after WW wreaked havoc there has it?

It's never been suggested that it will be a budget airline. You can have a full service airline with cheaper staff. See Virgin.

[cym]

Jetset lady

Sorry, I was answering a specific question for Litebulbs, ie in my experience

Do I agree with the post you've made? HELL YES - hit the nail right the head!

We are deffo on the same page!

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Openclimb

I doubt they would find it a particular hardship to do so.

It is strange a week away from action. Maybe their is something going on at the very top table?!

[Re-Heat]

I think much of the current losses are the amortization and write down of assets in a clever way to exaggerate losses. I think they're generally in profit.

I have to say that this is fanciful at best and an attempt to mislead those without financial knowledge at worst. Depreciation and amortisation represent real costs incurred, and have not changed markedly this year in any real way.

Revenues are markedly down, cashflow is down and costs have yet to be cut to meet that limited revenue. Simple.

Speaking as an outsider, I just want to say- don't cave, WW is playing a game of bluff. If BA go down it will not be because of this dispute. If this action was really going to bring BA down- WW would cave before the strike

So...what you are saying is that if the action was to cause bankruptcy, the company would cave in. That directly equates to the fact that the action will not cause bankruptcy, and therefore why would the company cave in...think about it.

Of course crew costs in isolation won't make the company bankrupt, but the company earns nothing for its shareholders in dividends, and every other employee has taken cost reduction to match costs to reduced revenues.

It is a case or fairness and preparation of the cost base for the future. The real point is a question of why the reps are so prepared to offer pay cuts simply to preserve the CSDs' present position (remember - those excess staff have already happily applied for redundancy and left the company).

Think of it what you will - the real struggle is and has always been about who actually manages the company, and not at all about crew pay or customer safety.

[polax52]

Its not poleaxed52 and I'm not Liz whatevers husband

Just remember that the 1 day Lufthansa pilot strike cost LH 50,000,000 euro, and that was only about 50% effective. A strike by crew is not the same as a strike by bus drivers, its a very expensive high stakes game. If they don't bottle it they will win, unless ww vindictively allows BA to go bankrupt. I do agree with you that I expect the crew to bottle it, but if they don't they will win. look at my history I've been out on a pilot strike before, I know what its like, I know how management behave, and also their weakness of their position.

[Re-Heat]

I know how management behave, but also their weakness of position

A bit broad brush - they are people at the end of the day trying to get a job done. In this dispute, they are trying ultimately to run the business more effectively at minimum cost to crew wages.

You really need a better sense of how arcane the present collection of working practices truly is to understand why the dispute has ended up here.

[polax52]

Sorry- you really need a sense of how arcaic what your saying really is. The beancounters have been cutting away at crew terms and conditions for the last 30 years. At some point they have to expect a stand. whether its at Virgin, BA, United, American, Ryan or wherever. At some point crews have to put their own lives ahead of these disgusting management bonuses.

[Openclimb]

Just remember that the 1 day Lufthansa pilot strike cost LH 50,000,000 euro, and that was only about 50% effective. A strike by crew is not the same as a strike by bus drivers, its a very expensive high stakes game. If they don't bottle it they will win, unless ww vindictively allows BA to go bankrupt. I do agree with you that I expect the crew to bottle it, but if they don't they will win. look at my history I've been out on a pilot strike before, I know what its like, I know how management behave, but also their weakness of position.

Yes but that was a pilot strike at LH which, as you say was 50% effective.

We are discussing a cabin crew strike here which is not going to be anywhere near 50% effective. Not when you factor in the volunteers and the non strikers and the wet leasing etc etc etc.

Anyway, you said it; even you think they will bottle it.

Thats precisely what they will do and then they will be stuck with an extra 20 or 30 million cost saving for each day the strike lasted (so in practice, about 10 million).

PS congratulations on not being Liz whateverhernameis's husband.

[winstonsmith]

As promised - BASSA's interpretation of BA's latest proposal:

http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloa...DFFile-842.pdf

[keel beam]

Further backlash from Lord Adonis's interview on the Andrew Marr show.

From the Daily Mail.

Lord Adonis dares to condemn BA strikes as 'totally unjustified' | Mail Online

In particular:

Privately, union officials were said to be 'livid' with Lord Adonis, one saying he had 'blundered' into the dispute without knowing all the facts.

I would have thought he has a fair grasp of the facts

and next paragraph!:

Unite boss Derek Simpson said: ‘I’d be quite upset if I thought he knew what he was talking about.’


Of course he would be, he has been found out!

This dispute has always had the hint of an internal powerplay. Now it has gone external and the government is becoming embarassed.

Polax52

If it was a test of who could hold their breath the longest, BASSA and the CC would last only a few seconds. Though the strike is not a foregone conclusion, if it goes ahead, I cannot seeing it lasting for long due to the striking CC returning to work (assuming of course they went on strike in the first place!).

[polax52]

Openclimb- My view is that they will bottle it, if I'm wrong then I think they will win.

[Re-Heat]

Sorry- you really need a sense of how arcaic what your saying really is. The beancounters have been cutting away at crew terms and conditions for the last 30 years. At some point they have to expect a stand. whether its at Virgin, BA, United, American, Ryan or wherever. At some point crews have to put their own lives ahead of these disgusting management bonuses.

I don't think you understand; regardless of what you think of management bonuses (which are relatively small compared to what you are used to in the US), BA is hampered by contracts that have evolved from the days of BOAC / BEA and predecessor airlines.

Before even starting with the disruption agreement, which is largely used by the union to extract maximum allowances to the detriment of getting home (before even the customers are considered), let me explain it thus:

- Flight crews spend more time in the air but less total time at work than cabin crews on the European fleets - whereby flight crews take the same aircraft back out at London, cabin crews spend inordinate amounts of time on the ground at London, leaving one aircraft and then boarding another far later.

It is not to the detriment of crews to eliminate that inefficiency (which was validly created by BEA to allow crews to be fed, before on-board galleys existed), and would allow them to get home earlier to spend more time with their families. Pay would not even change.

Allowances are highly variable and cause people to game the system, and create huge back office inefficiency in their complex calculation. Again, as other employee groups did, replacing them with a monthly travel payment (taxed at a lower rate than salary), crews do not lose out.

Similarly, complex allowances had valid grounding when stewardesses were left in remote locations for a week, and needed a higher allowance to survive while awaiting the subsequent freighter rotation than someone on a one-nightstop trip to Manchester - now, with few long layovers, they are obsolete as the flying is mare more even across the workforce.

Understand this, and you will understand where management are trying to drag the airline.

If course, you are totally right that if all the crew left the job and stayed together, a strike would be effective. Without clarity over what the strike is about, compounded by union misdirection and lying, it simply won't succeed. Shot in the foot basically.