British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-Heat
when comparing average hourly costs between fleets and airlines it should be noted that the average age of employees is greatly different between LHR crews and the rest ie LGW EASY VA etc who are bound to cost less as they are younger and have been with their respective companies for less tim
when comparing average hourly costs between fleets and airlines it should be noted that the average age of employees is greatly different between LHR crews and the rest ie LGW EASY VA etc who are bound to cost less as they are younger and have been with their respective companies for less tim
Hence why BA wants nil seniority on new fleet as well.
Neither you nor I can change the market - it is what it is, hence the need to find some way to compete at or approaching those cost levels.
Rightly or wrongly, this is part of BA's problem. Too many crew have seen it as a "career" rather than a "job". BA is one of few companies where the majority of crew stay for the long term rather than a couple of years. While this has certain benefits to BA, they are likely outweighed by the negative of an inflated pay scale.
So, the answer is to find some way to mitigate the impact on people while building a sustainable cost base for the future. That is, what I think, BA was trying to do, but in being so intransigent, BASSA have simply created the seeds of their own destruction as the airline see the clear sense in eliminating the entire high-pay portion of the community in one fell swoop.
But the airline would not have reached that thinking if the union had in fact negotiated outside of the vacuum of the Fortress Heathrow.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Para 21 the judge gave a summary of negotiations:
This is the conclusion that an impartial observer given ample witness evidence and advocacy from both sides came to. Does it really tell of representation to a high standard?
The essential chronology is as follows;
i) 24th February – At a National Sectional Panel ("NSP") meeting Mr Francis told the Union that in the then financial circumstances BA looked to save £82m as against the cost of cabin crew. Throughout Unite had separately identified representatives from both its BASSA and Amicus factions.
ii) 26th February – At a further such meeting Mr Francis handed over a list setting out 32 prospective costs saving measures and invited discussion. Of these measures nine involved reduction in current cabin crew complements.
iii) February – April BA met 14 times with BASSA and four times with Amicus in a mixture of formal and informal meetings.
iv) May – Following release of the figures for the first quarter (see para 12 above) the required costs saving was increased to £140m.
v) 1st June – BA issue a statutory HR1 form proposing up to 2000 redundancies amongst cabin crew. BA and the Union meet at a formal NSP.
vi) 9th – 30th June – Intermittent talks at Heathrow Renaissance Hotel. In the course of such;
a) 15th June BASSA had a heated argument with Amicus and refused to cooperate together
b) 23rd June BA put forward a proposal in writing. This included specific reductions in crew complements
c) 25th June – Unite put forward a written Pay and Productivity Proposal, claiming that it would save BA £173m. It proposed some alterations in the cabin crew complements but no significant reduction. Thereafter BA tried to understand and analyse the cost saving as anticipated by Unite, bringing in accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper. The latter's assessment was that the saving would be about £53m. Unite refused to have further discussions over this issue, whether with BA or the accountants.
In the overall result, the meetings broke up without reaching any joint conclusion.
vii) 29th June – Mr Francis sent a letter to each cabin crew member, setting out BA's proposals, such including a reduction in cabin crew complements.
viii) 21st-23rd July – An abortive session at ACAS.
ix) 21st, 30th September and 1st and 2nd October – Following an agreement reached between BA's CEO and the Joint General Secretaries of Unite, there was a further sustained resort to ACAS for conciliation. I heard evidence as to the course of events at ACAS and the following emerged. The BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal. In the overall result there was no meeting between the Union and BA.
x) 6th October – Mr Francis e-mails all cabin crew.
i) 24th February – At a National Sectional Panel ("NSP") meeting Mr Francis told the Union that in the then financial circumstances BA looked to save £82m as against the cost of cabin crew. Throughout Unite had separately identified representatives from both its BASSA and Amicus factions.
ii) 26th February – At a further such meeting Mr Francis handed over a list setting out 32 prospective costs saving measures and invited discussion. Of these measures nine involved reduction in current cabin crew complements.
iii) February – April BA met 14 times with BASSA and four times with Amicus in a mixture of formal and informal meetings.
iv) May – Following release of the figures for the first quarter (see para 12 above) the required costs saving was increased to £140m.
v) 1st June – BA issue a statutory HR1 form proposing up to 2000 redundancies amongst cabin crew. BA and the Union meet at a formal NSP.
vi) 9th – 30th June – Intermittent talks at Heathrow Renaissance Hotel. In the course of such;
a) 15th June BASSA had a heated argument with Amicus and refused to cooperate together
b) 23rd June BA put forward a proposal in writing. This included specific reductions in crew complements
c) 25th June – Unite put forward a written Pay and Productivity Proposal, claiming that it would save BA £173m. It proposed some alterations in the cabin crew complements but no significant reduction. Thereafter BA tried to understand and analyse the cost saving as anticipated by Unite, bringing in accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper. The latter's assessment was that the saving would be about £53m. Unite refused to have further discussions over this issue, whether with BA or the accountants.
In the overall result, the meetings broke up without reaching any joint conclusion.
vii) 29th June – Mr Francis sent a letter to each cabin crew member, setting out BA's proposals, such including a reduction in cabin crew complements.
viii) 21st-23rd July – An abortive session at ACAS.
ix) 21st, 30th September and 1st and 2nd October – Following an agreement reached between BA's CEO and the Joint General Secretaries of Unite, there was a further sustained resort to ACAS for conciliation. I heard evidence as to the course of events at ACAS and the following emerged. The BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal. In the overall result there was no meeting between the Union and BA.
x) 6th October – Mr Francis e-mails all cabin crew.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that is so much of an issue as compared to how it is managed - certainly a lot of the young girls joining BOAC in the 50s and 60s didn't expect to stay for 40 years, but lifestyles and job changed. Short of causing enormous disruption by novating contracts to non-seniority contracts similar to newer airlines while appealing would, actually, destroy much of the financial stability that people would by then have built up.
PS: tomkins, give it a rest. You'll no doubt be moderated into oblivion shortly anyway. The mods (evening, Flaps
) don't take kindly to people going off topic. Trust me, I know. 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch! That's gotta hurt...
BASSA forewarned by the judge that a ruling in this case would be very bad for them and still going through with it. Still, nice of the judge to ask BA not to use this verdict to crush BASSA and their members. I think it will fall on deaf ears though...
Party is now really over and BASSA did their members no favors, I tell you.
BASSA forewarned by the judge that a ruling in this case would be very bad for them and still going through with it. Still, nice of the judge to ask BA not to use this verdict to crush BASSA and their members. I think it will fall on deaf ears though...
Party is now really over and BASSA did their members no favors, I tell you.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know of a CAA comparison that has been published since around 2003 now - of course if you use headcount and divide by the cost line that they do publish, you can approximate the cost per head and then compare. Do you have the time and inclination?
We all screwed up - credit cards, houses on credit, excess salary, electing Maggie, Tony and Gordon. No need to blame any one in particular - competition killed the BA advantage, not the economy dying.
You are absolutely right - hence some various posts against seniority that I have made in the past...but then the old chestnut of how exactly one gets promoted needs to be addressed...
I have had this argument in the pub before - should those who go the extra mile get their shot at promotion over and above everyone else? Should everyone get a turn when they get x% up the seniority list. In every other company, it is those who go the extra mile who get promoted, and not the everyman who does his 9-5. Wrong? Maybe...but surely that is what you want in someone who is effectively a manager, albeit a cabin manager, rather than the oldie who has been around the longest.
Same applies for flight crew IMHO, but that discussion won't make me popular.
We all screwed up - credit cards, houses on credit, excess salary, electing Maggie, Tony and Gordon. No need to blame any one in particular - competition killed the BA advantage, not the economy dying.
To a certain extent, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. There are undoubtedly a number of BA cabin crew who would not have joined at all, had the pay and conditions not been the way they are. Fair enough. However, they are the ones who choose to stay on, precisely because of the pay and conditions which cause costs to constantly inflate due to the pay points.
I have had this argument in the pub before - should those who go the extra mile get their shot at promotion over and above everyone else? Should everyone get a turn when they get x% up the seniority list. In every other company, it is those who go the extra mile who get promoted, and not the everyman who does his 9-5. Wrong? Maybe...but surely that is what you want in someone who is effectively a manager, albeit a cabin manager, rather than the oldie who has been around the longest.
Same applies for flight crew IMHO, but that discussion won't make me popular.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is fairly complicated but that whole thing started with the obligation to US mortgage lenders to start lending money to people who could not afford it by the Clinton Administration. Unavoidable. The problem is that Americans loan more money than they save (in short).
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judge's ruling makes eye-watering reading for BASSA.
I wonder if they will be copying it to their members?
BA may go for costs, perhaps?
If I was a BASSA member I would be demanding the reps heads on a plate (those that haven't been suspended, that is).
I wonder if they will be copying it to their members?
BA may go for costs, perhaps?
If I was a BASSA member I would be demanding the reps heads on a plate (those that haven't been suspended, that is).
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There´s a clue* in the forum name.
There´s another clue* in the name of this thread.
There have been repeated posts from the Mods informing participants that this ongoing thread is not about the pilots and their deal.
The folks who apparently had forgotten all of the above, are having a wee time out to refresh their memories.
*Cabin Crew
There´s another clue* in the name of this thread.
There have been repeated posts from the Mods informing participants that this ongoing thread is not about the pilots and their deal.
The folks who apparently had forgotten all of the above, are having a wee time out to refresh their memories.
*Cabin Crew
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reheat's post above is a good one. Balanced and an accurate sum up of the situation.
As one of those senior crew who've made cabin crew a career, I can see that our seniority based salary structure is a problem, TODAY, in 2010.
It wasn't really a problem 10 or 15 years ago, because most of our main competitors operated the same way and customers were paying more in real terms to travel in the premium cabins. Now, with a lot of competitors of the calibre and pricing structure of the ones the judge mentioned, IT IS.
So what is BA to do about it? Slash the earnings of people like me with mortgages and families to support, relying on a certain income every month? Thankfully, BA have not done that. What they have done is say that any savings will be from FUTURE crew.
Well, actually, thank you BA, you have demonstrated yourself to be a caring employer.
Somehow or other those proposing a strike don't see it that way. The reason they don't is that UNITE don't want them to see it that way.
Why? Gradually increasing group of lower paid crew, only staying 3 years or so = far fewer people willing to stump up £15 pm union dues. Bingo UNITE's "Fight for Survival", rather than that of it's membership.
As one of those senior crew who've made cabin crew a career, I can see that our seniority based salary structure is a problem, TODAY, in 2010.
It wasn't really a problem 10 or 15 years ago, because most of our main competitors operated the same way and customers were paying more in real terms to travel in the premium cabins. Now, with a lot of competitors of the calibre and pricing structure of the ones the judge mentioned, IT IS.
So what is BA to do about it? Slash the earnings of people like me with mortgages and families to support, relying on a certain income every month? Thankfully, BA have not done that. What they have done is say that any savings will be from FUTURE crew.
Well, actually, thank you BA, you have demonstrated yourself to be a caring employer.
Somehow or other those proposing a strike don't see it that way. The reason they don't is that UNITE don't want them to see it that way.
Why? Gradually increasing group of lower paid crew, only staying 3 years or so = far fewer people willing to stump up £15 pm union dues. Bingo UNITE's "Fight for Survival", rather than that of it's membership.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oxford
Age: 56
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
View from 29K
As a regular user of both your EF and WW services, I've been lurking here for some time trying to better understand what is at the heart of this issue. I think I'm now better able to discuss this with my mates in the pub, but I won't insult you all by making judgements here.
I would like to say a couple of things though.
If my flight home is with BA then I start to relax the second I step onboard and speak to the CC checking my ticket; with all other carriers I start to relax when I get in my car having reached LHR.
I think you all do a fantastic job, and in 100k economy miles in 1 year, I can't remember a single unhappy experience with CC. (I wish I could say the same for the other SLF...)
I hope BA, their employees and their employee reps manage to rebuild a level of trust that will enable you to resolve your differences; and I look forward to many more flights with you.
(p.s. if anyone is rostered for BA0247 on 5th March, I look forward to seeing you then - IA permitting!)
I would like to say a couple of things though.
If my flight home is with BA then I start to relax the second I step onboard and speak to the CC checking my ticket; with all other carriers I start to relax when I get in my car having reached LHR.
I think you all do a fantastic job, and in 100k economy miles in 1 year, I can't remember a single unhappy experience with CC. (I wish I could say the same for the other SLF...)
I hope BA, their employees and their employee reps manage to rebuild a level of trust that will enable you to resolve your differences; and I look forward to many more flights with you.
(p.s. if anyone is rostered for BA0247 on 5th March, I look forward to seeing you then - IA permitting!)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has been around longer than the airlines used for comparison, and of course the staff may have been there for a longer time, and earn more as a result.
If I shop in Waitrose and see staff I have seen there for 20 or more years, then I don't expect them to be on the minimum wage, their cost to the company will be higher.
What I do expect for the money is superior service, and most of the time I get it. That is what BA has to do, and a lot of its' staff already do, deliver constant high quality products, then in the same way as Waitrose they will survive.
Quality is what BA has to concentrate on, consistently and relentlessly, without exception.
I love Easyjet and use them a lot but the sheer inexperience of a lot of the crews is blatantly obvious, leaving aside the undignified rush for seating
Attempting to compete with the newer carriers simply on price is useless, quality is what has to shine through - again and again and again, every single time, without exception.
If I shop in Waitrose and see staff I have seen there for 20 or more years, then I don't expect them to be on the minimum wage, their cost to the company will be higher.
What I do expect for the money is superior service, and most of the time I get it. That is what BA has to do, and a lot of its' staff already do, deliver constant high quality products, then in the same way as Waitrose they will survive.
Quality is what BA has to concentrate on, consistently and relentlessly, without exception.
I love Easyjet and use them a lot but the sheer inexperience of a lot of the crews is blatantly obvious, leaving aside the undignified rush for seating
Attempting to compete with the newer carriers simply on price is useless, quality is what has to shine through - again and again and again, every single time, without exception.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quality
The quality comes from the product hard and soft and how it is delivered.
With a lot of brand new crew they can be trained accordingly there will be a bedding in period. I know that at LGW the service still doesnt run as smoothly as it should at times.
But balance this on my recent experiences with so called `veteran` crews. The same applied in a way in that the delivery of the service was sketchy at best, I presume also new crew will allow the concept of `premium crew ` to be developed.
So overall the quality experience will be preserved hopefully. No reason why it shouldnt be monitored for the new crew.
I also guarantee the new crews will stay well in excess of 3 years, there may be a higher level of attrition as at LGW but the company are happy with that scenario.
With a lot of brand new crew they can be trained accordingly there will be a bedding in period. I know that at LGW the service still doesnt run as smoothly as it should at times.
But balance this on my recent experiences with so called `veteran` crews. The same applied in a way in that the delivery of the service was sketchy at best, I presume also new crew will allow the concept of `premium crew ` to be developed.
So overall the quality experience will be preserved hopefully. No reason why it shouldnt be monitored for the new crew.
I also guarantee the new crews will stay well in excess of 3 years, there may be a higher level of attrition as at LGW but the company are happy with that scenario.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sussex I agree that BA should pay a premium as we are a premium carrier. Hence ''market rate plus 10%'' - as long as BA only has a new pay model for future crew. I cannot see the problem?? Of course they can't just force people out or slash all of our costs, including people who have been here 20-30 years with families, mortgages etc as that would be unfair. When columbus was first released they expressly stated that it will be future crew. BASSA went on the bandwagon though and the scaremongering and have done all through this. What they should have done, is as soon as they got hold of the document, talked about it with BA and asked BA to reassure that it is just for future crew, not out right refusing to talk about cost savings etc etc...
Promotion, like it is in most companies should be done on performance and merit. I know ours is seniority/merit, where you still have to proove merit in an interview, but you can only apply if you have been at BA for x years. On shorthaul I think it is only something like 3 years, however longhaul it is much longer. Hence why crew who have been at BA worldwide for 12 years have not had the oppurtunity even if it has come about in the last few years. I personally do not think this is fair. I do not necassarily agree with direct entry SCCM as I think obviously you do need crew who are experienced (with BA) as crew to be incharge. However, whilst obviously it is important to be experienced, does that mean that only inviting people who have been at BA for 7 yrs or more is fair. Does it take that long to be good at your job??? Performance is obviously gained by a certain level of experience, however it is mainly the individual, how quick they are to learn and how enthusiastic they are/and their skills. Not really how long they have been there. That's why I think it should be more merit based to be more fair.
Another thing I don't really agree properly with, is the whole ''working positions seniority bidding'' system - this means the most junior crew member is always lumbered with an unpopular working position (DF's, Club galley for WW etc etc) whilst the most senior chooses what they like, sometimes this means they just choose the ''easiest position''. Then if they happen to be the most junior position on a certain flight and have to do DFs they might not have a clue!! Likewise junior crew may not have much experience in a certain position, and may have the most difficult position every flight. Is this really a healthy system?? Do other airlines do this or is it more a volunteer to work here/there or a fair share system?
Seniority does count for something though... I don't think it should be gotten rid of completely (pay scales etc) but when it comes to working positions - everyone should be able to work around the aircraft - we are all crew. Likewise, if you are good at your job you should be able to go for Promotion.
I have had this argument in the pub before - should those who go the extra mile get their shot at promotion over and above everyone else? Should everyone get a turn when they get x% up the seniority list. In every other company, it is those who go the extra mile who get promoted, and not the everyman who does his 9-5. Wrong? Maybe...but surely that is what you want in someone who is effectively a manager, albeit a cabin manager, rather than the oldie who has been around the longest.
Another thing I don't really agree properly with, is the whole ''working positions seniority bidding'' system - this means the most junior crew member is always lumbered with an unpopular working position (DF's, Club galley for WW etc etc) whilst the most senior chooses what they like, sometimes this means they just choose the ''easiest position''. Then if they happen to be the most junior position on a certain flight and have to do DFs they might not have a clue!! Likewise junior crew may not have much experience in a certain position, and may have the most difficult position every flight. Is this really a healthy system?? Do other airlines do this or is it more a volunteer to work here/there or a fair share system?
Seniority does count for something though... I don't think it should be gotten rid of completely (pay scales etc) but when it comes to working positions - everyone should be able to work around the aircraft - we are all crew. Likewise, if you are good at your job you should be able to go for Promotion.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't wait for UNITE to release their newsletter!
Apparently now they are comparing themselves to black South Africans being oppressed by White colonists, with Malone presumably taking the role of Nelson Mandela.
Makes a change from Iwo Jima I suppose.
Give me strength.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has been around longer than the airlines used for comparison, and of course the staff may have been there for a longer time, and earn more as a result.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
promotion
Sidebustle
Agree with a lot you say.
There are many crew who have done 12 yrs+ who think that they should get promotion just because they have been there 12+ yrs. Usually the type who never read anything the company sends them and therefore out of the loop when it comes to what the company are looking for when promoting and subsequently fail and become bitter.
The seniority thing is why the American carriers fail in my opinion. The top 30% are happy because they cherry pick the routes the next 30% are reasonably happy because they hope to move up to the top 30% soon. The bottom 40% are totally hacked off/demotivated as they do the poor routes all the time. It could be argued, as you say , that bidding for positions is counter productive too. It is unlikely that the company will change the seniority bidding system for current crew. I don`t recall it being on their shopping list with regard to current crew but believe for the new crew it will be different.
As regards direct entry SCCM I don`t think it will work there are so many unique situations on an aircraft that experience is paramount to deal with/ solve. Personally i think 3 years is the minimum required to be considered as SCCM.
Agree with a lot you say.
There are many crew who have done 12 yrs+ who think that they should get promotion just because they have been there 12+ yrs. Usually the type who never read anything the company sends them and therefore out of the loop when it comes to what the company are looking for when promoting and subsequently fail and become bitter.
The seniority thing is why the American carriers fail in my opinion. The top 30% are happy because they cherry pick the routes the next 30% are reasonably happy because they hope to move up to the top 30% soon. The bottom 40% are totally hacked off/demotivated as they do the poor routes all the time. It could be argued, as you say , that bidding for positions is counter productive too. It is unlikely that the company will change the seniority bidding system for current crew. I don`t recall it being on their shopping list with regard to current crew but believe for the new crew it will be different.
As regards direct entry SCCM I don`t think it will work there are so many unique situations on an aircraft that experience is paramount to deal with/ solve. Personally i think 3 years is the minimum required to be considered as SCCM.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - I suppose obviously direct entry SCCM will have to have experience with another airline. I know EZY does direct entry SCCM and they require (1 or 2 years can't remember!) which is the CAA minimum. Experience is crucial so I think 2-3 years is reasonable as a minimum. However seniority is different as it is more restrictive and often it might mean people who have only been here for 10 years plus can apply.
I wouldn't really expect the seniority/working positions changing for current crew- I was just highlighting why although some people think seniority is the best way - I think it should be used for some things but promotion/working positions not really. As for the US airline's systems of seniority based rosters -
That is very demotivating for newer crew, especially as the biggest US carriers from what I hear have low attrition meaning the newer crew will take like 30 years to get the best routes!!
Having said all that, I do not agree with having a ''waterstone's model'' aswell - but I think that is Unite's spin.
I wouldn't really expect the seniority/working positions changing for current crew- I was just highlighting why although some people think seniority is the best way - I think it should be used for some things but promotion/working positions not really. As for the US airline's systems of seniority based rosters -
That is very demotivating for newer crew, especially as the biggest US carriers from what I hear have low attrition meaning the newer crew will take like 30 years to get the best routes!! Having said all that, I do not agree with having a ''waterstone's model'' aswell - but I think that is Unite's spin.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
7 Posts
Beagle9.
I calmly ask you to consider how your wages are to be protected by the introduction of new crew as currently proposed.
New crew working along side old crew, as is the case with pre and post 97 contracts now, I can see being beneficial to BA and protection to current crew.
But the proposal is for a new fleet and it is transparent that as new fleet grows so old fleet will shrink. Your current earnings are only protected whilst you operate routes with higher allowances, overtime and box payments. If you were a BA manager who would you use to crew such trips?
The monthly travel payment. After a discussion with my manager I was shocked to note that this payment would be calculated over a rolling period. So if, in the last 12 months you have not operated many long range trips then your payment will reduce, and with the prominence of a new fleet that is highly likely. I hadn't dismissed the payment, I was quite keen on the idea, hence I sought my managers advice. I find it offers very little protection.
I calmly ask you to consider how your wages are to be protected by the introduction of new crew as currently proposed.
New crew working along side old crew, as is the case with pre and post 97 contracts now, I can see being beneficial to BA and protection to current crew.
But the proposal is for a new fleet and it is transparent that as new fleet grows so old fleet will shrink. Your current earnings are only protected whilst you operate routes with higher allowances, overtime and box payments. If you were a BA manager who would you use to crew such trips?
The monthly travel payment. After a discussion with my manager I was shocked to note that this payment would be calculated over a rolling period. So if, in the last 12 months you have not operated many long range trips then your payment will reduce, and with the prominence of a new fleet that is highly likely. I hadn't dismissed the payment, I was quite keen on the idea, hence I sought my managers advice. I find it offers very little protection.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if ever there was a time for BASSA to get off its collective backside and go to ACAS and really start some sensible talks with BA, now is the time. If Nu-Fleet is the devil incarnate that BASSA believe they should be doing some serious work looking at sensible alternatives that the company can move forward with. If they don't then their collective worst fears will be realised whether they are involved or not.
Talk now, without preconditions other than the need of the company to save money permanently and perhaps the demon can be sidestepped. WW has clearly shown that he will not be bullied or blackmailed by BASSA. The industrial landscape in BA has changed, BASSA needs to evolve or die. Back to ACAS - this time to negotiate; BASSA and CC89 united and willing to talk. Playing at industrial relations by UNITE has led to this position, they need to change their approach.
Talk now, without preconditions other than the need of the company to save money permanently and perhaps the demon can be sidestepped. WW has clearly shown that he will not be bullied or blackmailed by BASSA. The industrial landscape in BA has changed, BASSA needs to evolve or die. Back to ACAS - this time to negotiate; BASSA and CC89 united and willing to talk. Playing at industrial relations by UNITE has led to this position, they need to change their approach.