British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next part of the wait will be tommorow, when as most people seem to think there will be a yes vote. The majority of crew I have spoken to still seem to think that a yes vote will make BA sit up and take notice of them. Some are not bothered what other departments think or say, the ones that have asked have been shocked at what I have told them or have asked is that what people really think.
I think if we all looked around within all departments there is the odd loose cannon that are a tiny percentage of every walk of life. Unfourtuantly for crew the loose cannons are a few more than normal and are running the show.
What really gets to me is that most crew I know are hard working, dedicated and very good at what they do. But as soon as the words BASSA are mentioned they seem to just change. It makes me think how badly manged they have been from BAs side to allow the gospel according to BASSA, to be the holy grail and the only religion allowed to be followed.
Like a lot of people on here Im sure it wont be the likes of Wonker and the BASSA reps that suffer, they will protect themselves as much as possible. It will be the ones that have followed the preaching of those from the city of angles...
The facts are out there look at them and decide for yourselves, if I was crew now though I would be sending WW an email and trying to negotiate personally before the 90 days comes in for all.
I think if we all looked around within all departments there is the odd loose cannon that are a tiny percentage of every walk of life. Unfourtuantly for crew the loose cannons are a few more than normal and are running the show.
What really gets to me is that most crew I know are hard working, dedicated and very good at what they do. But as soon as the words BASSA are mentioned they seem to just change. It makes me think how badly manged they have been from BAs side to allow the gospel according to BASSA, to be the holy grail and the only religion allowed to be followed.
Like a lot of people on here Im sure it wont be the likes of Wonker and the BASSA reps that suffer, they will protect themselves as much as possible. It will be the ones that have followed the preaching of those from the city of angles...
The facts are out there look at them and decide for yourselves, if I was crew now though I would be sending WW an email and trying to negotiate personally before the 90 days comes in for all.
H,baby, your comment of
is unfortunately typical of the breathtaking arrogance that some of the more senior members of BA cc exhibit. They really do think that the world owes them a living and that their perceived superiority makes them immune from today's harsh economic realities.
I also hope that tomorrow's result finishes the line of "poor cc are mostly really nice and are just being badly led". Any significant pro strike result tomorrow will show that the majority of crew have either failed to make any effort to find out all sides of the argument or have decided that they do know enough about it and that striking is reasoned and appropriate. Any vote for a strike tomorrow will result in huge damage to the company and I hope the cc community are made to realise the error of their collective ways.
As one CSD put it to me: if I have to work during the flights I am effectively just another purser
I also hope that tomorrow's result finishes the line of "poor cc are mostly really nice and are just being badly led". Any significant pro strike result tomorrow will show that the majority of crew have either failed to make any effort to find out all sides of the argument or have decided that they do know enough about it and that striking is reasoned and appropriate. Any vote for a strike tomorrow will result in huge damage to the company and I hope the cc community are made to realise the error of their collective ways.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Litebulbs
However, there are still 12000 crew left, who will be working extra on each flight to cover the reduction. Previously, there was a payment to compensate for that, but not post imposition.
However, there are still 12000 crew left, who will be working extra on each flight to cover the reduction. Previously, there was a payment to compensate for that, but not post imposition.
Posted by Henkybaby
As one CSD put it to me: if I have to work during the flights I am effectively just another purser.
As one CSD put it to me: if I have to work during the flights I am effectively just another purser.
Henkybaby, you are right.
It's what the crews tell me, too. It's about New Fleet, and I work day in and day out with them.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if I may put this in simple-speak:
We strike because BA is making us work harder without asking us.
Please tell your Unite colleagues to tell that to the press.
In other news: load factors on planes are down, meaning that the workload for a cabin crew is about the same now as it was before. If loads go up, BA will most likely increase crew levels again. Unfortunately this will be newfleet. That (and only that) is what up the CSDs and reps noses. They may be passed up for promotions and loose some of the more attractive routes to newfleet staff. At least be honest.
We strike because BA is making us work harder without asking us.
Please tell your Unite colleagues to tell that to the press.
In other news: load factors on planes are down, meaning that the workload for a cabin crew is about the same now as it was before. If loads go up, BA will most likely increase crew levels again. Unfortunately this will be newfleet. That (and only that) is what up the CSDs and reps noses. They may be passed up for promotions and loose some of the more attractive routes to newfleet staff. At least be honest.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstonsmith wrote:
Whether or not BASSA call off a strike or not is rapidly becoming academic.
BA, through its CEO, has already made sufficient contingency plans to render union (in)action impotent.
that might be sufficient enough for them to call off the strike
BA, through its CEO, has already made sufficient contingency plans to render union (in)action impotent.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Basque Country
Age: 75
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another purser
As one CSD put it to me: if I have to work during the flights I am effectively just another purser.
"I'm not 'junior trash', 'down the back', knocking out trays in Zoo World."
There are many brilliant CSDs in BA, highly skilled and experienced, role models and leaders (some of whom, I believe, contribute to this forum) They are respected by their crews and manage their people effectively on the day.
There is, however, a rump of obstructive CSDs who are resistant to change and unwilling to adopt fresh ideas. You'll find them in 'the office' doing their paperwork. And there are the POPs, the Passed Over Pursers, who thought it was their right to be promoted to CSD and cannot understand why they failed. You'll usually find them in First because their seniority in the briefing room allows them to chose where they 'work'. These are the people who 'manage' the remainder of the crew on board your aircraft and pass on BASSA's latest interpretation of BA management's strategy to drag the company back into profit.
What proportion of BASSA's leadership (sic) are CSDs and Pursers?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Taking your point a little further.......using the 744 as you have.....
The 'agreed' number for the number of crew on this particular a/c was agreed many years ago. IIRC it used to be 16. About 10 years ago, when this a/c operated to the 'agreed' numbers the 744 carried 401 pax (when more product in Y class/no seat back TV's/no beds in J etc etc - i.e the crew worked harder).
Then they re-configured the aircraft and the aircraft carried (in some cases) less than 300 pax, so thats a 25% reduction in workload. So I would argue the a/c was over-established, as no reduction to crew was made until 9/11 when a crew member was removed (still nowhere near the 25 % reduction). BA could have gone down the redundancy route (standard redundancy process as you put it) but didn't - they were very reasonable and the business climate was more benign. Since 9/11 the product has been reduced further and even better IFE, so one way of looking at it is even less workload for cabin crew..........even more reason why this current reduction is not unreasonable.
If your logic is followed around the 'agreed' numbers then if the a/c had 100 pax capacity, then BA must stick to the 'agreed' numbers, if Unite don't agree ?
BA tried for months to negotiate a settlement with the TU's but they took a position (on a show of hands) to negotiate no more. The business has changed as has the environment and a forward thinking TU would recognise this and work with their employer to find a solution. BA was very clear in the amount of money it needed to save and BASSA came up with a number half that (which they did not contest in court).
Unite could not even agree an approach amongst themselves, so BA were on a hiding to nothing imho. So a union adopts a 'no negotiate' position, can't get along and in the meantime money is leaking out the business. What to do ?? Like the judge said, the union position forced imposition.
Like you said, BA could have claimed roles were redundant years ago based on my logic above and what you also allude to in your comments, but they didn't because they are a reasonable employer !
The actions of Unite/BASSA have not been forward thinking and business focused and you should be a tad embarassed to be part of the same set-up. Not saying you would have acted/approached this in this way btw.
The 'agreed' number for the number of crew on this particular a/c was agreed many years ago. IIRC it used to be 16. About 10 years ago, when this a/c operated to the 'agreed' numbers the 744 carried 401 pax (when more product in Y class/no seat back TV's/no beds in J etc etc - i.e the crew worked harder).
Then they re-configured the aircraft and the aircraft carried (in some cases) less than 300 pax, so thats a 25% reduction in workload. So I would argue the a/c was over-established, as no reduction to crew was made until 9/11 when a crew member was removed (still nowhere near the 25 % reduction). BA could have gone down the redundancy route (standard redundancy process as you put it) but didn't - they were very reasonable and the business climate was more benign. Since 9/11 the product has been reduced further and even better IFE, so one way of looking at it is even less workload for cabin crew..........even more reason why this current reduction is not unreasonable.
If your logic is followed around the 'agreed' numbers then if the a/c had 100 pax capacity, then BA must stick to the 'agreed' numbers, if Unite don't agree ?
BA tried for months to negotiate a settlement with the TU's but they took a position (on a show of hands) to negotiate no more. The business has changed as has the environment and a forward thinking TU would recognise this and work with their employer to find a solution. BA was very clear in the amount of money it needed to save and BASSA came up with a number half that (which they did not contest in court).
Unite could not even agree an approach amongst themselves, so BA were on a hiding to nothing imho. So a union adopts a 'no negotiate' position, can't get along and in the meantime money is leaking out the business. What to do ?? Like the judge said, the union position forced imposition.
Like you said, BA could have claimed roles were redundant years ago based on my logic above and what you also allude to in your comments, but they didn't because they are a reasonable employer !
The actions of Unite/BASSA have not been forward thinking and business focused and you should be a tad embarassed to be part of the same set-up. Not saying you would have acted/approached this in this way btw.
Last edited by TOM100; 21st Feb 2010 at 13:01.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We strike because BA is making us work harder without asking us.
Of course crew are also saying to everyone that they have to see the bigger picture - removing a crew member is only the top of the iceberg - here's the jargong:
New Fleet - As a result of BASSA's ignorance but when that's the next issue they'll throw another ballot.
Hourly pay - Why get the same pay for working harder to HKG than CAI? 98% of all airlines use this pay system and can be a really good deal if negotiated properly. The current pay system is extremely outdated. But, even if BA offered £50 per hour most crew wouldn't touch it because there's something suspicious going on.
Monthly Travel Payment - Almost £9000 a year PLUS meal allowances is a complete rip off. Again, why should you get the same pay for working harder to SIN than TLV?
(One of the reasons why Hourly Pay and MTP is a BIG NO to many crew is probably because they have no faith in BASSA being able to negotiate a good deal on any of them.)
Flexibility - Some crew believing company would change their roster on a daily basis and call them on days off demanding them to come into work. A bit of flexibility is out of order. Completely impossible to change pickup time downroute by half an hour, even though they have been there for 48 hours, because there's a hurricane headed towards LAX. Some EF crew can be VERY FLEXIBLE when they are about to lose GVA but VERY INFLEXIBLE when it's MAN.
Disruption Agreement - Same with flexibility. The company shouldn't be allowed to decide when they need to adapt a different way of operation because LHR is covered with snow or ATC has lost all its communication. Not getting 2 local nights in Kabul enroute BKK would be tiring also, especially as they have to go all the way down to SYD a couple of days later. To be fair most crew seem to think that the DA needs to be changed BUT under no circumstances should BA get full control.
Fixed links - Doing MAN-LHR-BRU without 2½ hours rest at LHR is impossible because crew would be too tird but it's perfectly fine to do LHR-NCE-LHR with a 55 minute turnaround or when getting CAT payment. The CAT lounge doesn't exist any longer but still they are sometimes getting this payment. Change the name of the payment a crew member not too long suggested.
No more double nights downroute - First presented by the company last year but removed it when they probably understood crew would be tired and run out of hours. BASSA has still used it as an example as what's next around the corner.
Reduced rest both at base and downroute - Using LGW as an example as they only get 2 days off after a longhaul flight. To LHR this is of course different because LGW is a leisure base. They don't need any more time off because LHR has the most demanding passengers of all and a complete different network.
No transfer lists between fleets - Scaring LGW to death they would lose their right to transfer to LHR if not voting yes.
Being completely bullied around by management - Like what they are doing now when asking crew to work a bit harder for the same money to ride out this storm. Informing its staff of possible consequences involved of going out on a strike is harassment but giving childish nicknames to WW and BF is not?
No promotions based on seniority but merit - Promoting crew based on merit is dangerous because they don't have any experience. It should based on seniority. There was a huge debate about this when the company introduced this system at LGW. Seems to be working more than well done there. The seniority system explains why many crew don't have any motivation left because they don't see any career progression ahead of themselves. Crew recruited in 1997 are still working in World Traveller and Club World.
Ground duties - Some crew are confident they would be loading on bags and refuelling aircraft.
There you go - of course crew can only vote on the working one down issue!
Last edited by winstonsmith; 21st Feb 2010 at 12:59.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That will be answered tomorrow.
Chuchinchow
Your aye vote was illegal because you voted twice. However we'll accept it anyway.
Ok - sorry your honour - strike it out!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOM100
Very valid points, but is it not the case that the model for BA is changing? It has been stated on here many times, that there is a reduction in premium travel as businesses downgrade the level of travel for its employees? Will this not lead to an increase in the economy cabins?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
World traveller cabins may well grow at some stage in the future.....at that time it would be appropriate for Unite to engage with BA if there is a material increase, but they can't threaten IA over something that might happen in the future.......
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Fleet - As a result of BASSA's ignorance but when that's the next issue they'll throw another ballot
It's not just that they're wrong on this, it's that they're causing their own downfall. BASSA will never again be in a position to challenge BA, because BA will simply ignore them.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is at all possible, can we have a comment from a pro BASSA CSD on how the imposition is affecting them?
For my (further) tuppence worth - I fly a lot on duty travel. On most occasions of my flights the CSD helps out with the service. Now whether the imposition increases their workload over and above what I have witnessed, I would like to know.
In the early days of imposition, one of my flights experienced the lack of organisation by the CSD. Later flights, now that everyone has got used to the new crew compliments, seem to run normally (as in pre imposition).
BKFI
I can only speculate, but based on what Willie Walsh has stated, if the strike happens, flights will be reduced/cancelled. I would think it highly likely that where there are multi flights per day to a destination, they will be reduced. Flights that also have One World carriers on the same route I would expect to be reduced. Also from what I am hearing (third or fourth person info) longhaul crews are the most likely to be voting for a strike. So if they have the balls to actually go on strike, longhaul flights may be affected proportionately more than shorthaul flights.
As for CSDs having to work in the cabin, it is probably in their job description to do their work, and if deemed necessary, do the work that those junior to them have to do, (it certainly is in my job description!)
For my (further) tuppence worth - I fly a lot on duty travel. On most occasions of my flights the CSD helps out with the service. Now whether the imposition increases their workload over and above what I have witnessed, I would like to know.
In the early days of imposition, one of my flights experienced the lack of organisation by the CSD. Later flights, now that everyone has got used to the new crew compliments, seem to run normally (as in pre imposition).
BKFI
I can only speculate, but based on what Willie Walsh has stated, if the strike happens, flights will be reduced/cancelled. I would think it highly likely that where there are multi flights per day to a destination, they will be reduced. Flights that also have One World carriers on the same route I would expect to be reduced. Also from what I am hearing (third or fourth person info) longhaul crews are the most likely to be voting for a strike. So if they have the balls to actually go on strike, longhaul flights may be affected proportionately more than shorthaul flights.
As for CSDs having to work in the cabin, it is probably in their job description to do their work, and if deemed necessary, do the work that those junior to them have to do, (it certainly is in my job description!)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite can't have it both ways, Litebulbs.
They have spent the last however long arguing that LGW can work to the crew complements due to the different (ie. not premium) customer profile there. So, they have effectively said Premium Traffic requires more crew. Now you are trying to say that it is Economy traffic that requires more crew.
Could it be perhaps the fact that the Unite stance on the crew complements is so ambiguous that they lost in Court on Friday?
Which begs the question, why are they still taking the crew out on strike? Perhaps waiting for the court case before balloting would have been a better tactic?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
They have spent the last however long arguing that LGW can work to the crew complements due to the different (ie. not premium) customer profile there. So, they have effectively said Premium Traffic requires more crew. Now you are trying to say that it is Economy traffic that requires more crew.
Could it be perhaps the fact that the Unite stance on the crew complements is so ambiguous that they lost in Court on Friday?
Which begs the question, why are they still taking the crew out on strike? Perhaps waiting for the court case before balloting would have been a better tactic?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WinstonSmith, in his message #927 uses the threat of hurricanes approaching LAX as a reason for inflexibility.
With genuine respect to the writer, may I point out that, in the last 110 years, only four tropical cyclones have brought gale-force storms to the south-western United States?*
WinstonSmith's hypothetical crew will be holed up in LAX for a very long time!
* A Hurricane in Los Angeles? Watts Up With That?
With genuine respect to the writer, may I point out that, in the last 110 years, only four tropical cyclones have brought gale-force storms to the south-western United States?*
WinstonSmith's hypothetical crew will be holed up in LAX for a very long time!
* A Hurricane in Los Angeles? Watts Up With That?
