British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ottergirl
all fair points , which just highlights that with a very small amount of negotiation some more relevant arrangement for EF could be found.
It still looks like a good solution for WW.
In fact some crew have said to me that they would much prefer a system that equalised earnings, and means they don't have to bid " just for money".
all fair points , which just highlights that with a very small amount of negotiation some more relevant arrangement for EF could be found.
It still looks like a good solution for WW.
In fact some crew have said to me that they would much prefer a system that equalised earnings, and means they don't have to bid " just for money".
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say no-one voted not to negotiate, but wasn't there in fact a wholly un-democratic 'show of hands' at one of the Sandown meetings where BASSA decided not to negotiate?
Instead of saying 'it won't work we don't want it', how about 'it could work if we did it like this...'
In fact some crew have said to me that they would much prefer a system that equalised earnings, and means they don't have to bid " just for money".
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet both groups will earn the same amount of monthly travel pay!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who spend more time away from base (probably the fairest description of "work") get more hourly rate.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, sitting by a pool in BCN is not quite the same as slogging back and forth to DME with 80 Club. I know which sort of work I prefer!!
Likewise on shorthaul when destinations matter less, I can predict my take home pay within about 5% each month, before I bid - and I'm junior.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl
Thanks for your posts, Ottergirl, they really help to understand the issues for EF.
What do you think of the pilots system?
Roughly translated it would be a monthly payment, a FLYING hour rate(FHR), and an AWAY FROM BASE hourly rate (TAFB).
So (for example) the 'easy' 2-sector domestics wouldn't trigger much in the way of TAFB or FHR.
The 2 sector standovers would trigger TAFB, but less FHR.
The arduous DME's would clean up on the FHR, and would probably earn the most in a £ per day-at-work calculation.
The exact balance for work/reward could be tweaked (by negotiation) by the FHR & TAFB rate. (for pilots FHR is roughly 3xTAFB)
There would still be 'best' trips, of course - but I doubt there exists a system with no anomalies at all.
ATB
What do you think of the pilots system?
Roughly translated it would be a monthly payment, a FLYING hour rate(FHR), and an AWAY FROM BASE hourly rate (TAFB).
So (for example) the 'easy' 2-sector domestics wouldn't trigger much in the way of TAFB or FHR.
The 2 sector standovers would trigger TAFB, but less FHR.
The arduous DME's would clean up on the FHR, and would probably earn the most in a £ per day-at-work calculation.
The exact balance for work/reward could be tweaked (by negotiation) by the FHR & TAFB rate. (for pilots FHR is roughly 3xTAFB)
There would still be 'best' trips, of course - but I doubt there exists a system with no anomalies at all.
ATB
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bids
Ottergirl then surely you would all benfit by a better and DIFFERENT bid system being introduced in conjunction with the attendance allowances, by the way NOT based on seniority. There are some about and used by other airlines and there was the rotating bid system used by the now defunct MID FLEET. As the companys` proposal is for mixed flying maybe it is time to have another look at that.
The union (which ever is remaining after this fiasco) should have put the purchase and/or development of a fair bid system as a condtion of agreeing to the attendance allowance.
What you will have and the same applies for WW is that crew will go sick for the least `desireable` trips. Again there will have to be something built in to prevent this.
My suggestion is that you have some sort of points system or CAP incorporated into the system which prevents people going sick based on actual duty hours flown. If people go sick they will not earn points and therefore at the next point of rostering/bidding will be rostered or given a CAP to achieve (individual) and have to base their bids on that.
Food for thought?
Dave excellent post and surely there is a way forward
The union (which ever is remaining after this fiasco) should have put the purchase and/or development of a fair bid system as a condtion of agreeing to the attendance allowance.
What you will have and the same applies for WW is that crew will go sick for the least `desireable` trips. Again there will have to be something built in to prevent this.
My suggestion is that you have some sort of points system or CAP incorporated into the system which prevents people going sick based on actual duty hours flown. If people go sick they will not earn points and therefore at the next point of rostering/bidding will be rostered or given a CAP to achieve (individual) and have to base their bids on that.
Food for thought?
Dave excellent post and surely there is a way forward
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cranebank Update
Around 80 people (from all walks of the airline) at Cranebank today, training up to be Cabin Crew. They outnumbered the real Cabin Crew.
Willie is deadly serious about breaking this strike and is spending millions making sure he can ride it out.
So what's he getting in terms of a Cabin Crew workforce? I'll need some help here people, so please fill in the blanks and make corrections as you see fit.
Non-Union Cabin Crew = 2000??
Union CC who voted NO and turn up to work = 1000 last time, higher this time?
Union CC who voted YES but will come to work = 1000+?
Pilots volunteers = 600?
Other staff volunteers = 600?
Returning Temps = 600
So my guesstimate is a minimum of 6000 crew to call upon. We're normally manned by 14000 or so crew, I think. So now, reduce each flight to minimum legal crew. e.g B777 from 11 to 8, B747 from 14 to 12 etc and you can reduce the 14000 requirement down to say 12000. Next, only fly selected, Premium routes, amalgamate flights and put our codeshare passengers onto our Codeshare partners' flights and Willie has quite an arsenal at his disposal.
I'm not sure he's too worried with all this in place. Discuss.
Mods: This is a post that began with facts from Cranebank today and I would hope it will result in some more realistic figures and discussion as to how well BA are positioned to break the strike. I can see no rules that I've broken, so please allow it to stay. A good few of my posts have disappeared lately, for no reason I can fathom.
Willie is deadly serious about breaking this strike and is spending millions making sure he can ride it out.
So what's he getting in terms of a Cabin Crew workforce? I'll need some help here people, so please fill in the blanks and make corrections as you see fit.
Non-Union Cabin Crew = 2000??
Union CC who voted NO and turn up to work = 1000 last time, higher this time?
Union CC who voted YES but will come to work = 1000+?
Pilots volunteers = 600?
Other staff volunteers = 600?
Returning Temps = 600
So my guesstimate is a minimum of 6000 crew to call upon. We're normally manned by 14000 or so crew, I think. So now, reduce each flight to minimum legal crew. e.g B777 from 11 to 8, B747 from 14 to 12 etc and you can reduce the 14000 requirement down to say 12000. Next, only fly selected, Premium routes, amalgamate flights and put our codeshare passengers onto our Codeshare partners' flights and Willie has quite an arsenal at his disposal.
I'm not sure he's too worried with all this in place. Discuss.
Mods: This is a post that began with facts from Cranebank today and I would hope it will result in some more realistic figures and discussion as to how well BA are positioned to break the strike. I can see no rules that I've broken, so please allow it to stay. A good few of my posts have disappeared lately, for no reason I can fathom.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, the people who bid to work 3 day trips (for whatever reason), with STR and long days will often work over 10 hour days. When they compare their variable pay to the monthly travel payment will find they are out of pocket, as the reality is that this group rightly earn considerably more than the other.
Additionally you highlight that it includes long day payments and STRs. Initially, when first introduced, it did not include the STR payment. Had Unite jumped up and grabbed it at the time, EF would have been quids in. If we had skilled negotiators
, surely it would be down to them to negotiate which payments are included and which are not?I'm afraid I just don't follow your argument. You have stated yourself that there are many on EF that bid for 8 hr 2 sector days. Therefore are you saying that because there are a few people who do long days to generate the long day payment, the Monthly Travel Payment is rejected out of hand? Surely a vote to the members to find out what the MAJORITY want would be a fairer way of doing it? Also, you do not say what the Unite position is on rejecting the Monthly Travel Payment. Do they have one, or is it simply a case of not caring what the majority want?
Additionally there are some 10,000 WW members. Has Unite taken their views into consideration at all?
I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own view and not that of BA.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is, at the moment you earn (say) £1000 a month in variable pay on SH from doing 4 DME's, 4 3-sector days, 4 2-sector days and a standover.
On a monthly rate based on a negotiation (!) around last years total pot of variable pay, you would earn £1000 a month from doing 4 DME's, 4 3-sector days, 4 2-sector days and a standover.
The only difference is one month you might do more DME's and less 2 sector days, but the next month the opposite would be true, but your pay wouldn't change.
Simples. There was a huge debate before we changed, but since we did I've not met one pilot, top of the list or bottom of the pile, who would go back to the old system. That tells its own tale.
On a monthly rate based on a negotiation (!) around last years total pot of variable pay, you would earn £1000 a month from doing 4 DME's, 4 3-sector days, 4 2-sector days and a standover.
The only difference is one month you might do more DME's and less 2 sector days, but the next month the opposite would be true, but your pay wouldn't change.
Simples. There was a huge debate before we changed, but since we did I've not met one pilot, top of the list or bottom of the pile, who would go back to the old system. That tells its own tale.
Nutjob,
I think your figures should be quite realistic.
One fact missing though - we have been told very clearly that the only 2 aircraft types that will operate during a strike will be 777s and the airbus. I am sure that WW will go for a 'condensed' operation and ensure that we fly the max number of 'profitable routes possible.
If these figures stack up we could keep flying a reduced, but increasing operation, as more cabin crew volunteers and other cabin crew join the operation.
I just hope that the decent hard-working cabin crew are not used as cannon fodder by the ever so trust-worthy, considerate and truthful reps - NOT!!
I think your figures should be quite realistic.
One fact missing though - we have been told very clearly that the only 2 aircraft types that will operate during a strike will be 777s and the airbus. I am sure that WW will go for a 'condensed' operation and ensure that we fly the max number of 'profitable routes possible.
If these figures stack up we could keep flying a reduced, but increasing operation, as more cabin crew volunteers and other cabin crew join the operation.
I just hope that the decent hard-working cabin crew are not used as cannon fodder by the ever so trust-worthy, considerate and truthful reps - NOT!!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One fact missing though - we have been told very clearly that the only 2 aircraft types that will operate during a strike will be 777s and the airbus. I am sure that WW will go for a 'condensed' operation and ensure that we fly the max number of 'profitable routes possible.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If some are dismissing the Travel payment because it would penalise them as 'hard workers' there must be an equal and opposite number of crew who should have got their calculators out and realised that they were quids in on that offer. The message coming from BASSA is that BA are not to be trusted on this. That simply does not make sense!
Why have BASSA not countered with a statement like,
"When we totalled up the entire allowance payments to all crew, we calculated that the Travel Payment system 'short changed' us by XX%"
That would have meant that crew could vote purely as an informed choice. Instead BASSA have shown us their petulant inability to do some serious number crunching for the benefit of their membership. Lead them to armageddon with their fingers shoved firmly in their ears!
Why have BASSA not countered with a statement like,
"When we totalled up the entire allowance payments to all crew, we calculated that the Travel Payment system 'short changed' us by XX%"
That would have meant that crew could vote purely as an informed choice. Instead BASSA have shown us their petulant inability to do some serious number crunching for the benefit of their membership. Lead them to armageddon with their fingers shoved firmly in their ears!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would the restructuring of variable allowances help the cabin crew community save money? It will definitely protect future earnings, but that extends the time to see a tangible return for New Fleet benefit and therefore, why would BA do it?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutjob,
I think your figures should be quite realistic.
I think your figures should be quite realistic.
Hopefully the good crew will see sense and come into work.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would the restructuring of variable allowances help the cabin crew community save money? It will definitely protect future earnings, but that extends the time to see a tangible return for New Fleet benefit and therefore, why would BA do it?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People will still throw sickies, it will just be a change on which flights. I cannot comment on the admin side, but it would be a small drop in the multi million pound saving required.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would the restructuring of variable allowances help the cabin crew community save money? It will definitely protect future earnings, but that extends the time to see a tangible return for New Fleet benefit and therefore, why would BA do it?
Or are you suggesting that BA should simply introduce New Fleet anyway without protection for current crew?
Oh, sorry, no, that's what Bassa want to do. Silly me!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another EF crewmember here
As another fellow EF crew member I can see both sides to the argument to the FMTP which is why it needs to be negotiated properly. Oh and just for the record I think the ''show of hands'' at last years meeting from BASSA was actually a show of hands after members were presented with the Unite counter proposal ''should we make any more concessions to BA'' which the unanimous answer was No. That is what I am lead to believe anyway as I didn't attend the meeting(s)
Our bidding system Carmen is not based on seniority (or I do not think it is anyway) I am relatively junior and I get good satisfaction most months. LGW it is based on seniority but with us it is 60% satisfaction target throughout. I think it's probably because of the wide variety of people at LHR who want all sorts to support their lifestyles ie.earlies, lates, there and backs, quicky there and backs, Band 4, nighstops, trips, 3 day 8s, 3 day 2s etc. which means satisfaction is most of the time achieved. As long as you are realistic!!
I think the FMTP COULD be a good thing, however pretty much alot of what ottergirl has said is right. I personally would love to bid for the shortest trips possible. Why don't I? Because of money, I mean it is only fair that someone who works longer and harder gets more money as that is the way of life. I suppose meal payments will remain though which is why I can also see what Hiflyer is saying. Ie. if you do a MAN there and back you trigger Breakfast payment. If you do the lunch dinner ATH you get Lunch ATH and Dinner UK. With FMTP you will both get the same fixed pay but if you do the ATH there and back (longer day) you still will get more meal allowances. Unfortunately though, there are some long days which only trigger 1 meal payment (TIP/KBP/LED etc) but they currently have long day payment. With the FMTP you will be getting the same fixed pay and the same meal allowance as someone doing a lunchtime MAN/CDG let's say. (Lunch is more than breakfast)
Maybe there is a solution to all this? Maybe they could average out variable pay for people who do long there and backs, Band 4 there and backs, short there and backs, 3 day trips etc, and then group them. If I bid for MAN there and backs one month I will get FMTP for short there and backs. I then bid for 3 day 8s next month and I get the FMTP for that. Thinking about that though that sounds awfully complicated and I don't know if it is missing the point, but I think obviously something needs to be negotiated to safeguard new fleet. Otherwise the worry of New Fleet stealing all our work could be reality!
As an aside, I was thinking, whilst alot of the Unite proposal is tosh (closing cabins to reinstate crewing levels lol) this FlexiFleet they talk about could be good. I had an idea the other day, how about recruiting new people for ''Mixed Flying'' they are trained in say A319/320/321, 777 and then either 787/A380 when they arrive however they fly alongside us, operate to our agreements (which have been modified slightly but we do NOT work to scheme!) whilst they are on the trip, however inbetween trips/duties they do operate to scheme with regards to MBTs, start times after days off, number of days off etc. But they have the same downroute rules on the trip (let's face it most of our agreements restrictions are inbetween trips anyway!) Don't know if that would be feasible or complicated but could be a win-win for all of us. Not too keen on the idea of us all working to scheme, a seperate New Fleet is what worries most people so it is a comprimise. Surely it would still save the company alot of money?
Our bidding system Carmen is not based on seniority (or I do not think it is anyway) I am relatively junior and I get good satisfaction most months. LGW it is based on seniority but with us it is 60% satisfaction target throughout. I think it's probably because of the wide variety of people at LHR who want all sorts to support their lifestyles ie.earlies, lates, there and backs, quicky there and backs, Band 4, nighstops, trips, 3 day 8s, 3 day 2s etc. which means satisfaction is most of the time achieved. As long as you are realistic!!
I think the FMTP COULD be a good thing, however pretty much alot of what ottergirl has said is right. I personally would love to bid for the shortest trips possible. Why don't I? Because of money, I mean it is only fair that someone who works longer and harder gets more money as that is the way of life. I suppose meal payments will remain though which is why I can also see what Hiflyer is saying. Ie. if you do a MAN there and back you trigger Breakfast payment. If you do the lunch dinner ATH you get Lunch ATH and Dinner UK. With FMTP you will both get the same fixed pay but if you do the ATH there and back (longer day) you still will get more meal allowances. Unfortunately though, there are some long days which only trigger 1 meal payment (TIP/KBP/LED etc) but they currently have long day payment. With the FMTP you will be getting the same fixed pay and the same meal allowance as someone doing a lunchtime MAN/CDG let's say. (Lunch is more than breakfast)
Maybe there is a solution to all this? Maybe they could average out variable pay for people who do long there and backs, Band 4 there and backs, short there and backs, 3 day trips etc, and then group them. If I bid for MAN there and backs one month I will get FMTP for short there and backs. I then bid for 3 day 8s next month and I get the FMTP for that. Thinking about that though that sounds awfully complicated and I don't know if it is missing the point, but I think obviously something needs to be negotiated to safeguard new fleet. Otherwise the worry of New Fleet stealing all our work could be reality!
As an aside, I was thinking, whilst alot of the Unite proposal is tosh (closing cabins to reinstate crewing levels lol) this FlexiFleet they talk about could be good. I had an idea the other day, how about recruiting new people for ''Mixed Flying'' they are trained in say A319/320/321, 777 and then either 787/A380 when they arrive however they fly alongside us, operate to our agreements (which have been modified slightly but we do NOT work to scheme!) whilst they are on the trip, however inbetween trips/duties they do operate to scheme with regards to MBTs, start times after days off, number of days off etc. But they have the same downroute rules on the trip (let's face it most of our agreements restrictions are inbetween trips anyway!) Don't know if that would be feasible or complicated but could be a win-win for all of us. Not too keen on the idea of us all working to scheme, a seperate New Fleet is what worries most people so it is a comprimise. Surely it would still save the company alot of money?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs - thanks for enlightening me btw - just for my own clarity when reading.
BA have admitted that it does not save money. BA have OFFERED this Monthly Travel Payment BECAUSE of New Fleet. CC are worried that flights will migrate rapidly over to New Fleet, leaving us oldies starved of work. No work = no allowances. So living on basic pay would be a struggle.
The Monthly Travel Payment would negate that - by offering us a fixed monthly payment regardless of whether we were flying or not. Win-win. There would be no reason to strike, no reason for IA. Unite have categorically refused to discuss this. Why? We don't know. Perhaps they needed a reason to galvanise the workforce into strike action, and this would have negated it? I can't think of any other, can anyone else?
Interesting though as a Union rep yourself you can see the benefits just from a few short posts on a forum.
TBH we can debate the pro's and cons til we're blue in the face, and of course there are pluses and minuses. However, the disturbing points in all of this are:
A. Why did Unite categorically refuse to discuss it?
B. Unite should have negotiated the best possible deal, and then put it to the members to find out if they want it or not.
C. BA have actually said that those who want it can have it, those who don't, don't have to. The Union still say no.
It is extremely disturbing that Unite have reached this decision, without consultation, without producing a counter-argument, and without any facts or figures to demonstrate the pro's and cons. Union? Democratic? Where?
The Monthly Travel Payment is the single factor in this whole mess that could have prevented a strike (most crew are striking over New Fleet not imposition), could have provided a win-win and could have saved the company a lot of money. Don't we as cabin crew deserve to know why this has been overruled?
I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
BA have admitted that it does not save money. BA have OFFERED this Monthly Travel Payment BECAUSE of New Fleet. CC are worried that flights will migrate rapidly over to New Fleet, leaving us oldies starved of work. No work = no allowances. So living on basic pay would be a struggle.
The Monthly Travel Payment would negate that - by offering us a fixed monthly payment regardless of whether we were flying or not. Win-win. There would be no reason to strike, no reason for IA. Unite have categorically refused to discuss this. Why? We don't know. Perhaps they needed a reason to galvanise the workforce into strike action, and this would have negated it? I can't think of any other, can anyone else?
Interesting though as a Union rep yourself you can see the benefits just from a few short posts on a forum.
TBH we can debate the pro's and cons til we're blue in the face, and of course there are pluses and minuses. However, the disturbing points in all of this are:
A. Why did Unite categorically refuse to discuss it?
B. Unite should have negotiated the best possible deal, and then put it to the members to find out if they want it or not.
C. BA have actually said that those who want it can have it, those who don't, don't have to. The Union still say no.
It is extremely disturbing that Unite have reached this decision, without consultation, without producing a counter-argument, and without any facts or figures to demonstrate the pro's and cons. Union? Democratic? Where?
The Monthly Travel Payment is the single factor in this whole mess that could have prevented a strike (most crew are striking over New Fleet not imposition), could have provided a win-win and could have saved the company a lot of money. Don't we as cabin crew deserve to know why this has been overruled?
I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own viewpoint and not that of BA.