British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can quite easily increase basic pay without it afecting the the pension fund. De-linking basic and pensionable pay is no problem at all and has been done in BA by other groups quite recently.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
incorporated
Ottergirl
Surely then an integrated system as discussed before and proposed by the company to an extent is the answer.
Maybe i am also being a bit insensitive when i say that too many crew live beyond their means.
My advice has always been to base your lifestyle and outgoings on your basic salary NOT what might be achieved on a good week/month. Maybe it is a national `disease` as demostrated by levels of personal debt in this country to live beyond what you can realistically afford?
Maybe BA are also at fault. I wonder what they tell crew their earnings potential/expectations should be at the interview/recruitment stage.
I also wonder how many/few crew have insurance to protect them in times of sickness against loss of allowances.
I would never have put myself in a situation whereby a trip change and/or loss of a link trip would take me close to tears.
You comment on shorthaul issues re keeping trips etc., on longhaul it is more like asking the flight crew to do a slow taxi in to generate an extra box payment. Some time ago the company issued a note to flight crews not to do this when suggested by cabin crew as ``This is tanatamount to fraud and will be treated as such.``
Generally speaking on longhaul on a swings and roundabout basis things even themselves out possibly the same on eurofleet?
Surely any system to take these scenarios out of the equation should be investigated rather than thrown out straight away as seems to be the BASSA way!
The more variables taken out of the equation the more people could cut their cloth accordingly??
Surely then an integrated system as discussed before and proposed by the company to an extent is the answer.
Maybe i am also being a bit insensitive when i say that too many crew live beyond their means.
My advice has always been to base your lifestyle and outgoings on your basic salary NOT what might be achieved on a good week/month. Maybe it is a national `disease` as demostrated by levels of personal debt in this country to live beyond what you can realistically afford?
Maybe BA are also at fault. I wonder what they tell crew their earnings potential/expectations should be at the interview/recruitment stage.
I also wonder how many/few crew have insurance to protect them in times of sickness against loss of allowances.
I would never have put myself in a situation whereby a trip change and/or loss of a link trip would take me close to tears.
You comment on shorthaul issues re keeping trips etc., on longhaul it is more like asking the flight crew to do a slow taxi in to generate an extra box payment. Some time ago the company issued a note to flight crews not to do this when suggested by cabin crew as ``This is tanatamount to fraud and will be treated as such.``
Generally speaking on longhaul on a swings and roundabout basis things even themselves out possibly the same on eurofleet?
Surely any system to take these scenarios out of the equation should be investigated rather than thrown out straight away as seems to be the BASSA way!
The more variables taken out of the equation the more people could cut their cloth accordingly??
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Otty, I agree on the pensionable aspects, but the IFCE budget is exactly that, a budget. A union could, quite acceptably, negotiate on behalf of ALL it's members a fairer, more stable method of distribution of the wealth that is afforded IFCE out of the big BA purse. If you don't even bother to negotiate (ask), you damn well don't get.
..and here is the nub of the problem. I believe that the current BA/BASSA debacle is fuelled, in the main, by a group of BASSA reps who, collectively, do not have the accumen/business nous to effectively NEGOTIATE.
Actually, pay negotiation is rocket science, it needs fundamental undestanding by the designers, or else the whole kit and caboodle blows up at about Mach 4/30 000ft.
Nurj
..and here is the nub of the problem. I believe that the current BA/BASSA debacle is fuelled, in the main, by a group of BASSA reps who, collectively, do not have the accumen/business nous to effectively NEGOTIATE.
Actually, pay negotiation is rocket science, it needs fundamental undestanding by the designers, or else the whole kit and caboodle blows up at about Mach 4/30 000ft.
Nurj
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and here is the nub of the problem. I believe that the current BA/BASSA debacle is fuelled, in the main, by a group of BASSA reps who, collectively, do not have the accumen/business nous to effectively NEGOTIATE.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Tone Blue - I'm only just getting warmed up! This is the tip of the ice-berg; you should read the two Fleet agreements and try and understand how they came into being. Throw in Scheme, CAA and Jar OPs and you can really appreciate what we're up against.
What we have is a combo of BOAC and BEA working practices which have been tweaked and fiddled with for 30+ years then add in SF LGW which had a whole new agreement to replace its BCAL/Dan air/BA heritage. Mix up the joy of having once been a nationalised company and two unions who wouldn't talk to each other and you'll find it easy to see why there has been no EASY solution to this sorry mess.
Yes we need a major overhaul but I am not convinced we need to add a third union which the other two won't talk to. In fact, the very thought fills me with dread! As for mixing in IB and AA................arghh!
They are Cabin crew, not paid negotiators. Different skill set does not necessarily mean not clever. V. rude to suggest otherwise Snas!
What we have is a combo of BOAC and BEA working practices which have been tweaked and fiddled with for 30+ years then add in SF LGW which had a whole new agreement to replace its BCAL/Dan air/BA heritage. Mix up the joy of having once been a nationalised company and two unions who wouldn't talk to each other and you'll find it easy to see why there has been no EASY solution to this sorry mess.
Yes we need a major overhaul but I am not convinced we need to add a third union which the other two won't talk to. In fact, the very thought fills me with dread! As for mixing in IB and AA................arghh!
a group of BASSA reps who, collectively, do not have the accumen/business nous to effectively NEGOTIATE.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightbulbs, Last night you asked,
in Para 40 of the judgement the judge says
I also find this of interest from para 22 where the judge effectively accuses BASSA of lying to its members,
Regards
Did the court find the measures reasonable, or just not contractual?
I cannot regard the 6th October changes as drastic or extreme and outwith the parameters of "reasonable". The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?
The other prominent ground, as identified by Ms Munro-Smith was the perceived imposition of a revised complement absent negotiation with, and agreement from the Union – a source of resentment compounded by what was promulgated amongst members by the Union which glossed over the ACAS fiasco.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otty'G, great stuff, it is well to remind folk of the legacy of BA CC pay evolved from the 'early', 'halycon' days.
The BA...IB bit along with AA may well be the only thing that ensures the continued trading of BA. I agree that the thought of BASSA in cahoots with their Spanish counterparts actually doesn't bear thinking about.
Snas.....
'Boom Boom', we're on to something...
Nurj
The BA...IB bit along with AA may well be the only thing that ensures the continued trading of BA. I agree that the thought of BASSA in cahoots with their Spanish counterparts actually doesn't bear thinking about.
Snas.....
'Boom Boom', we're on to something...
Nurj
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otty'G, great stuff, it is well to remind folk of the legacy of BA CC pay evolved from the 'early', 'halycon' sic days.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gross and net pay
@Ottergirl
It does rather falsify the picture when you quote gross ( basic ) and net (all-up)) pay in the same sentence .
If someone is netting 20 K, does that mean 25-26 K gross ?
The problem here as I see is similar to the MP's pay. Most of the scandal arose as, over years it was politically unacceptable to raise MP's salaries and so these dirty little deals were done on exes and MP's were told to "fill their boots" in lieu of salary.
Similarly with crew pay , I believe the company and crew were complicit in this low pay made up by expenses because:
1) BA had lower NI and pension liabilities
2) Until recently crew would have been receiving significant tax-free sums in
allowances. This possibly then allowing them to claim Social security
supplements for low pay ?
The major loser in the scenario was the Treasury.
Unfortunately when -as they always are - these schemes are derailed by circumstances, it becomes very difficult to unravel the threads and creates havoc.
It does rather falsify the picture when you quote gross ( basic ) and net (all-up)) pay in the same sentence .
If someone is netting 20 K, does that mean 25-26 K gross ?
The problem here as I see is similar to the MP's pay. Most of the scandal arose as, over years it was politically unacceptable to raise MP's salaries and so these dirty little deals were done on exes and MP's were told to "fill their boots" in lieu of salary.
Similarly with crew pay , I believe the company and crew were complicit in this low pay made up by expenses because:
1) BA had lower NI and pension liabilities
2) Until recently crew would have been receiving significant tax-free sums in
allowances. This possibly then allowing them to claim Social security
supplements for low pay ?
The major loser in the scenario was the Treasury.
Unfortunately when -as they always are - these schemes are derailed by circumstances, it becomes very difficult to unravel the threads and creates havoc.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ttergirl, and that major exception is the problemo, I'm sure. How many of the reps are pre 97 pursers? .....scared witless that they are now rumbled and are about to be royally shafted.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Alpine skier, not trying to confuse anyone.
11K basic gross!
Quoted to mortgage companies as 20K gross taxable pay for a new maincrew staff member on Eurofleet! (This is also the amount generally quoted to prospective new crew at recruitment stage but it is conservative to avoid disappointment).
Actual amount received gross - higher but some needed for subsistence down-route so not included in taxable pay. HMRC calculations imply about 3K p.a. Obviously the final amount of this that is retained varies according to the eating and drinking habits of the individual involved and is beyond my CC brain to calculate/guesstimate.
Better?
Nope! Mainly CSD's I believe.
11K basic gross!
Quoted to mortgage companies as 20K gross taxable pay for a new maincrew staff member on Eurofleet! (This is also the amount generally quoted to prospective new crew at recruitment stage but it is conservative to avoid disappointment).
Actual amount received gross - higher but some needed for subsistence down-route so not included in taxable pay. HMRC calculations imply about 3K p.a. Obviously the final amount of this that is retained varies according to the eating and drinking habits of the individual involved and is beyond my CC brain to calculate/guesstimate.
Better?
@ttergirl, and that major exception is the problemo, I'm sure. How many of the reps are pre 97 pursers? .....scared witless that they are now rumbled and are about to be royally shafted.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to be clear, regarding crew breaking industrial limits to keep trips, I'm not saying it is widespread, but ottergirls post suggests it NEVER happens, and I have to disagree with that.
Crew sometimes break agreements to suit their own needs and it does not only happen on EF.
Here's an example - not too long ago a WW crew member rang in fit at around 10 AM. Agreements say when reporting fit you need at least 12 hours notice for a trip. There were no gaps following day which suited this crew member's roster. Crew member asked if there were any gaps that night - my colleague said there was a gap on BKK/SYD which reported 10 hours later - do you think this crew member took it? Yes. My colleague informed that they would not be getting 12 hours notice and the reply was "BKK/SYD is a lot better than being on standby!"
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fiddling your 'rulebook' (whichever you choose to follow) to suit your own personal gain is fine , so long as when you fiddle you are aware that you are shafting your colleagues.
Nurj
Transparency is what IFCE needs, and quickly.
Transparency that is not skewed by daft 'union' caveats.
Transparency that has been NEGOTIATED into a win/win situation.
It's nearly 1400 hrs folks, some volunteers will be ironing their new skirts.
Nurj
Transparency is what IFCE needs, and quickly.
Transparency that is not skewed by daft 'union' caveats.
Transparency that has been NEGOTIATED into a win/win situation.
It's nearly 1400 hrs folks, some volunteers will be ironing their new skirts.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggersup
This could be very prophetic in BASSA’s case.
When the image was first used many posters were outraged.
The image just confirms that BASSA is a union with no ideas of their own
Several of the flag raisers also died very soon after and never left the island
When the image was first used many posters were outraged.
The image just confirms that BASSA is a union with no ideas of their own
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl says:
Is this not part of the whole problem?
One crew goes home because they are a few minutes over industrial rules, another crew from standby at the airport is called out.
That's two crews to do one crews' work.
Everyday the CRC is full of crew on standby to cover the operation.
Is it any wonder that BA crew costs are double that of other airlines?
If crew were flexible and just did their rostered trips the IFCE budget would be a fraction of what it is and the cost savings target would never have been double that of other departments.
Don't crew see that the historical, outdated agreements that BASSA refuse to modernise are the root cause of the whole problem?
You can't admit to inflexibility by adhering to rules one minute and then claim unfair treatment by the company the next.
In defence of the ACARS argument I have never been asked to send one, I do though, often see crew off to "plead" with the DOMs/crew ops to stay on a trip and likewise see all four stay for a wheelchair when they want to lose a link.
15mins for cabin checks anyone? Hmmmmm.
As I explain to the disappointed crew when we lose a trip; next week we'll be on standby and be really pleased when another link fails and our phone goes off.
One crew goes home because they are a few minutes over industrial rules, another crew from standby at the airport is called out.
That's two crews to do one crews' work.
Everyday the CRC is full of crew on standby to cover the operation.
Is it any wonder that BA crew costs are double that of other airlines?
If crew were flexible and just did their rostered trips the IFCE budget would be a fraction of what it is and the cost savings target would never have been double that of other departments.
Don't crew see that the historical, outdated agreements that BASSA refuse to modernise are the root cause of the whole problem?
You can't admit to inflexibility by adhering to rules one minute and then claim unfair treatment by the company the next.
In defence of the ACARS argument I have never been asked to send one, I do though, often see crew off to "plead" with the DOMs/crew ops to stay on a trip and likewise see all four stay for a wheelchair when they want to lose a link.
15mins for cabin checks anyone? Hmmmmm.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Winstonsmith. From that last post of yours it could be implied that 12,000+ cabin crew are individually managed/rostered over the telephone every time they "come on stream" on the roster. Surely there must be some "core" workforce that doesn't require such labour-intensive scheduling?