Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Other Aircrew Forums > Cabin Crew
Reload this Page >

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

Cabin Crew Where professional flight attendants discuss matters that affect our jobs & lives.

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:33
  #541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
strikemaster82

This could be construed as bringing BA into disrepute, if the author was an employee, no?
Hi there - no, the use of metatags would be no grounds for BA taking any interest.

All you do is add keywords to the sites HTML - there would be no cause nor justification for BA to take action against anyone for doing that as the source code is not 'published' per se.

If the chap had set up a site with links that may be something different - as I understand it he simply set up a re-direct to a porn site. It wasn't even a fake site - simply a re-direct.
exbacrew is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:34
  #542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
Matt101, the suspended people have had ALLEGATIONS made against them, this does not mean that they have actually done anything.
And so where did the list and text messages come from - BA perhaps?

Whilst I agree some are due an apology, being suspended from work is usually a good indication you have done something naughty.
Matt101 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:36
  #543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HiFlyer14

I do not support a strike in the slightest as my investment lost money last week!

I also feel that the damage being caused by both parties could be terminal for BA.

The point I was trying to get across was I applaud you for trying to do something constructive - however getting involved in naming names was going too far in my opinion. I was simply trying to gauge your opinions.
exbacrew is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:38
  #544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Matt101

Being suspended is no indication of whether you have been naughty. Being found guilty and disciplined is.

I have sat on enough disciplinary meetings to know that allegations do not guarantee any guilt.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:43
  #545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Litebulbs, mate, thanks for the advice but if you can't see the sense what I'm explaining I'll have to give up...

I wasn't "offended", and being "offended" isn't grounds for involving the police, but BA asset protection might just be interested in a website allegedly built by a staff member which had tags linking BA to a porn site.

If you can't see that then you are being deliberately obtuse IMHO.
strikemaster82 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:45
  #546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Litebulbs that fact of the matter is I know some crew have been circulating these names. I'd heard about the text and a friend who had received it was willing to forward it to me, as I was in the "I need to see it to believe it" camp.

Perhaps then the crew members currently suspended are the wrong ones - and instead I should refer to the unknown guilty parties.

I should point out as well that I enjoy your input on this forum - and that of exbacrew's - without it there would be no debate and new ideas would not come forward - I just disagree in this instance.
Matt101 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 20:51
  #547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Strikemaster82

Deliberately obtuse, well we are all allowed an opinion and I thank you for yours.

We will see what BA do about the allegation that someone has built a website, that has no visible link to its business. If there is a case to answer, BA will follow due process.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:01
  #548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FACTS

Dear All I have just listened to the Radio 5 broadcast. Some of the facts were not entirely factual.
1. Those training as Temp Cabin Crew are NOT getting a £500 bung.
2. Pilots took a pay AND productivity deal. Since existing CC won't be losing pay they must increase productivity. That essentially involves the SCCM coming out of their "office" and taking part in the service. Obviously on a full flight that will be essential. Many of the good ones do so anyway.
3. The cost of BA CC at LHR is £60 per hour. BA CC at LGW cost BA £30 per hour. Virgin are £27 per hour.
4. 2/3rds of the Cabin Crew budget (which is about 99% PPI) goes on 1/3 of the Crew (old contract)
5. BASSA have spent very little time "in the room with BA" over the last year.
6. BA have offered CC a share incentive scheme and to remmove the threat of the "new contract".

Just thought that the "whole" truth is yet to emerge.

ATB HT
Hairman Teages is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:02
  #549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HiFlyer

Can you justify the comments that you made against me please?

Can I also ask why you feel that seeking recognition should be carried out covertly?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:09
  #550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my opinion they have lost the moral high ground by posting the name on here - without proof that the person in question actually registered the domain, then deleted the posting, then denied they posted it!

Does nothing for their credibility does it?
ExBACrew,

The PCCC did not "post the name on here" as you continually state, so our credibility is entirely intact.

You have alleged that Tiramisu, posting as an individual not on behalf of the PCCC, posted the domain name ownership at 1749 and then subsequently removed it at 1803.

For the record I would like to state that the Professional Cabin Crew Council are simply BA cabin crew who enjoy the job that we do and want to continue doing it for as long as possible. As an ex crew member yourself I am sure you can relate to that.

We do not support a strike, we feel that the changes made by BA have been more than reasonable. They have not asked us for a paycut and they have simply asked us to work a bit harder. In the past, we have tried to voice our concerns to our then union, Unite, but were not allowed. Some of us have been shot down in flames and banned from Crewforum. Some have had hate mail in their maildrops.

The only way we have been able to find a voice is to establish the Professional Cabin Crew Council. We are the first to admit that we are novices at this. We expected backlash, we did not anticipate the absolutely abhorrent dirty tricks that BASSA would stoop to. Spoof emails, fake websites, hate emails to us, the list goes on. We have suffered extensive attacks. And why? Because we have dared to say that we do not support a strike. If, in the cross-fire an individual has inadvertently posted something then so be it. However, the fact that it was removed a matter of minutes later, surely speaks for itself.

I personally have learnt an awful lot in the past few weeks. I have learnt at first hand how difficult it is for us to promote our cause against a Union who is hell-bent on sabotaging it. They have offered not one counter argument to anything we have said, yet we come under fire by these completely unacceptable behaviours.

The thing that I have learnt most, however, is exactly how difficult it must be for BA to do business with a Union that uses such underhand and devious methods to promote it's cause. It is time to draw a line under all of this so that BA can take a new direction. It is time that we focused on the job in hand: saving BA and looking forward to a brighter future in our company. The Professional Cabin Crew Council are proposing a viable alternative as a collaborative group so that we can do that. Is that such a bad thing?


I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:15
  #551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by exbacrew
Matt I dont agree with everything that the BASSA Union is alleged to have done - however you cant go around naming people on forums - it's just not on in my opinion - especially without any proof!
I'm not entirely convinced, but you're right, I can't very well have one rule for BASSA just becuase I am not their number one fan and one for the PCCC.

Interestingly I had always thought it was PPRuNe rules not to name names anyway. I am still of the opinion that the websites existence should be discussed here as well as its potential links to BASSA but as for the guys name - I'm not sure.
Matt101 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:19
  #552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 64
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ExBACrew

I don't agree that tagging the PCCC spoof site with BA-linked keywords is not actionable by BA. The whole point of adding keywords is to lift the profile of a website on search engines. We all stick in words that we think those interested in our products/services will search on, and the idea is to get our website on the first page of a google search. So, sticking lots of BA-related words linked to the spoof PCCC site might result in it being high on the list of sites returned when searching on "BA" or similar. Being linked to pornographic or other offensive material may be deemed defamatory to BA and, as a reputable company with a long history, valuable brand and, hence, arguably a high goodwill value, then it is possible BA could win substantial damages if such links can be proved to be deliberate and malicious.

Incidentally, this is almost certainly why BASSA is not commenting. The Union will not, nor should not, apologise. It's a bit like when you crash your car. You should never apologise even if you know it is your fault, as to do so is an admission of liability. BASSA is right to make no such admission. If BA wishes to sue, that is up to them though, more likely, they will just keep this one in their collective corporate back pocket until the next time BASSA causes trouble.
JayPee28bpr is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:26
  #553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JayPee28bpr

Hi there

I see what you are saying - however as the source code has now been changed there would be very little that BA could do - the redirect itself would not have been indexed by Google or the other engines and I think Matt had a copy of the original source - but proving that it was the original source is another thing.
exbacrew is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:39
  #554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HiFlyer, can you justify your comments please?

Originally Posted by HiFlyer14
Ex-BACrew

Litebulbs - further up the thread you are saying that Unite have no control over what an individual does, yet now you are claiming that the PCCC are responsible for what an individual has allegedly done on this thread. Double standards no?
Matt
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:44
  #555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@exbacrew

As someone pointed out some pages back, whilst it may be possible/easy ( I don't know) to register a web-site under any name, once a payment has to be made, then a trail is created which is much more likely to lead to the real owner.

If neither the kitchen fitter nor his trade union were involved, then it is incomprehensible that they have not issued press statements formally denying any involvement.
AlpineSkier is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:50
  #556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AlpineSkier

Hi there

I agree with you that someone somewhere paid the $10 or £2.99 for the domain name - but who is actually bothered by this?

Certainly not BA as they have no involvement - and as far as I can see there is no legal entity called PCCC or Professional Cabin Crew Council - and as there is no legal entity involved in this - it is simply a storm in a teacup. Unless the PCCC people wish to sue him themselves and then try to ascertain who what when where why etc

All very immature and childish - but no laws have been broken.
exbacrew is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:52
  #557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MY question is simply this - Do you feel that your organisation should be naming and accusing people in public without any proof?
ExBaCrew

You continue to make false allegations and once again I would ask you to stop. And I would also ask you as a new member of the thread not to refer to people by gender when it is abundantly clear that you have no idea who they are. The forum rules will explain about playing the ball and not the player.

There has been no "naming and accusing people in public without any proof". A printed a copy of the website ownership document was posted and then subsequently removed a matter of minutes later. A document that can be found by any member of the public on the internet. End of.

You really are clutching at straws, and this attempt along with your inaccurate allegations about the make-up of the PCCC insinuate that your connection is somewhat more sinister than you make out. There are some ex-Ba Crew posting on crewforum.co.uk as guests. They incite people to vote yes, and strike. Are you one of them?

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 21:59
  #558 (permalink)  
DP.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You really are clutching at straws, and this attempt along with your inaccurate allegations about the make-up of the PCCC insinuate that your connection is somewhat more sinister than you make out.


With all of the issues that could be discussed on this entire topic, I agree it certainly does seem to be an interesting line of questioning for someone who has just registered to pursue.

In particular, the insinuation that the posting of publicly available information is somehow comparable to the distribution of confidential lists of volunteer cabin crew.
DP. is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 22:44
  #559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's pretty obvious to me that some people come on this thread purely to stir up trouble and difficulties. I don't know what these people's agendas are, but the amount of animocity thrown towards the PCCC this evening is unbelieveable. It's pretty clear to me that some people don't want individual or different thinking, and cannot fathom that people have an opinion such as not striking.

Most people know that when you haven't got anything to defend, then just attack like a "dog with a bone" - for lack of better words.

Why on earth someone who is an ex ba employee with however many shares would want to come on here to attack people with good intentions is beyond me. This person claims to have left the company 12 years ago, but at the same time seems very much in the bassa "defense" group. Something here doesn't ring true.

My question to such people is: What do you want to achieve with your postings? I find the language used inappropriate in the way of trying to intimidate and stir up trouble. Healthy debate is always welcome here, personal attacks, lies and threats are not.

Gg

I am BA crew and my posts are my opinion, not that of my employer
Glamgirl is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 22:45
  #560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would BA be interested? This is a representation issue, not an employment one.
Litebulbs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.