British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh sorry. For those of you unsure as to why Unite have recommended a rejection of the offer, this explanation taken from their website should clarify:
All of us within British Airways were hoping to be in a position, to be able to recommend, at long last, a deal that would bring about a welcome return to normality for our airline.
This has not been possible. After a sensible pause for reflection from both sides since the last days of industrial action, talks resumed directly with our General Secretary Tony Woodley and British Airways CEO Willie Walsh.
These concluded late yesterday evening and were unsuccessful.
Though the dispute was over imposition, British Airways insisted that any settlement must include several new areas.
* New fleet
* Changes to the disciplinary, grievance and redeployment agreements
* A complete renegotiation of the trade union facilities agreement
* Two year pay freeze
* Two year capped pay deal
* Introduction of monthly travel payment
* Future promotion
* Route transfer procedure to new fleet
* Ops and choice
* New disruption agreement
Though not ideal, with good will on both sides this could have formed the basis of "A way forward"
The words were fairly broad and not particularly specific or detailed, as it would require a huge leap of faith to entrust or guarantee the rest of your flying career to "good will."
Your union was prepared to fulfil our half of the bargain but in the end what was missing was the complete absence of any " Good will" on behalf of British Airways.
Without that, it would be impossible to have the required faith in what are essentially just words.
Actions speak far louder. A systematic insistence of zealously pursuing an increasing number, now over fifty, dispute related disciplinaries and applying disproportionately harsh sanctions - for trivial reasons. Alongside this an obvious desire to permanently "punish " all those, who participated in a legal and lawful strike have become the stumbling blocks.
How could we recommend, in good faith acceptance of a set of words, the spirit of which has already been broken before the ink is dry on the paper? We would be misleading you and were just not prepared to do that.
British Airways customers must ask why there are still on going threats to their travel plans, essentially over punitive decisions our CEO opted to take. If he had not chosen to take these actions, this dispute could well have now been resolved.
It would be wise to reflect that for many in higher management the focus appears to be on crushing cabin crew, rather than the business of running an airline and carrying passengers. There simply is no sensible business rationale to insist on enforcing decisions that will affect between 4000 and 5000 people permanently, unless it is over pride or a desire for revenge. It simply does not make sense.
There will of course be an on line ballot to ask your views in the next few days, but to be absolutely clear, we have no other choice but to join both Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson in recommending that you join us in rejecting this proposal .
This has not been possible. After a sensible pause for reflection from both sides since the last days of industrial action, talks resumed directly with our General Secretary Tony Woodley and British Airways CEO Willie Walsh.
These concluded late yesterday evening and were unsuccessful.
Though the dispute was over imposition, British Airways insisted that any settlement must include several new areas.
* New fleet
* Changes to the disciplinary, grievance and redeployment agreements
* A complete renegotiation of the trade union facilities agreement
* Two year pay freeze
* Two year capped pay deal
* Introduction of monthly travel payment
* Future promotion
* Route transfer procedure to new fleet
* Ops and choice
* New disruption agreement
Though not ideal, with good will on both sides this could have formed the basis of "A way forward"
The words were fairly broad and not particularly specific or detailed, as it would require a huge leap of faith to entrust or guarantee the rest of your flying career to "good will."
Your union was prepared to fulfil our half of the bargain but in the end what was missing was the complete absence of any " Good will" on behalf of British Airways.
Without that, it would be impossible to have the required faith in what are essentially just words.
Actions speak far louder. A systematic insistence of zealously pursuing an increasing number, now over fifty, dispute related disciplinaries and applying disproportionately harsh sanctions - for trivial reasons. Alongside this an obvious desire to permanently "punish " all those, who participated in a legal and lawful strike have become the stumbling blocks.
How could we recommend, in good faith acceptance of a set of words, the spirit of which has already been broken before the ink is dry on the paper? We would be misleading you and were just not prepared to do that.
British Airways customers must ask why there are still on going threats to their travel plans, essentially over punitive decisions our CEO opted to take. If he had not chosen to take these actions, this dispute could well have now been resolved.
It would be wise to reflect that for many in higher management the focus appears to be on crushing cabin crew, rather than the business of running an airline and carrying passengers. There simply is no sensible business rationale to insist on enforcing decisions that will affect between 4000 and 5000 people permanently, unless it is over pride or a desire for revenge. It simply does not make sense.
There will of course be an on line ballot to ask your views in the next few days, but to be absolutely clear, we have no other choice but to join both Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson in recommending that you join us in rejecting this proposal .
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first reading of this suggests that the union are absolutely right to reject. This document signs off to the new redeployment arrangements one month from now. It says that the details of the mechanism for intra-fleet transfer of work/aircraft is in a side letter, but that BA will base this on commercial needs.
Does this not make the MTP ineffective as a mechanism to protect existing crew?
What commercial need could exist that would induce BA to transfer work onto the old fleet once the new fleet was fully manned and operational?
At that point, existing crew would no longer have work and would have the right to 52 weeks on the sliding decreasing salary to find a new position...which would be where the flying has gone. New Fleet.
The union is to have 12 weeks (from 6th April) to agree new consultative framework in replacement of existing negotiating bodies.
Obviously, some people hold the opinion that all employment changes should be unilaterally imposed, but I do not accept that there should not be mutual involvement.
Does this not make the MTP ineffective as a mechanism to protect existing crew?
What commercial need could exist that would induce BA to transfer work onto the old fleet once the new fleet was fully manned and operational?
At that point, existing crew would no longer have work and would have the right to 52 weeks on the sliding decreasing salary to find a new position...which would be where the flying has gone. New Fleet.
The union is to have 12 weeks (from 6th April) to agree new consultative framework in replacement of existing negotiating bodies.
Obviously, some people hold the opinion that all employment changes should be unilaterally imposed, but I do not accept that there should not be mutual involvement.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, BASSA rejected the deal.
Unite no longer have the power to force BASSA's hand. The decision to call off strike action MUST come from the BASSA reps.
Odd then that the next set of hissy fit strikes will have absoloutly nothing to do with the original premise of imposition. The next bunch of useless actions will be down to the consequences of taking ill advised action in the first place to restore lost ST and in a vain attempt to re-employ some of those who were guilty of bullying, threatening and obstructive actions. Many of whom were BASSA reps themselves, nothing like looking after your own whilst blindly ignoring the masses.
Seems like a good reason to lose your job.
Unite no longer have the power to force BASSA's hand. The decision to call off strike action MUST come from the BASSA reps.
Odd then that the next set of hissy fit strikes will have absoloutly nothing to do with the original premise of imposition. The next bunch of useless actions will be down to the consequences of taking ill advised action in the first place to restore lost ST and in a vain attempt to re-employ some of those who were guilty of bullying, threatening and obstructive actions. Many of whom were BASSA reps themselves, nothing like looking after your own whilst blindly ignoring the masses.
Seems like a good reason to lose your job.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner,
Whilst the concerns you have voiced are valid the threat of 'New Fleet' is another battle to be fought.
Trying to call IA over new fleet will result in an immediate injunction by BA as the ballot was for imposition, nothing more.
Rejection of the above plan is based simply on the refusal to reinstate those under suspension and staff travel as 'goodwill' gestures.
Whilst the concerns you have voiced are valid the threat of 'New Fleet' is another battle to be fought.
Trying to call IA over new fleet will result in an immediate injunction by BA as the ballot was for imposition, nothing more.
Rejection of the above plan is based simply on the refusal to reinstate those under suspension and staff travel as 'goodwill' gestures.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Wirbelsturm, I don't understand you.
I was simply saying what my reason for feeling I should reject the proposed agreement.
BA have introduced these terms (settlement of the new redeployment agreement is to be in one month...work transfer to New Fleet is to be made on commercial needs...restucturing the union negotiating bodies to be completed in 12 weeks).
How can I agree this now and then fight them in the future? I'm pretty sure I can't. Surely if I accept this document, then I have accepted all of it, not just the bits that I am ok with?
I was simply saying what my reason for feeling I should reject the proposed agreement.
BA have introduced these terms (settlement of the new redeployment agreement is to be in one month...work transfer to New Fleet is to be made on commercial needs...restucturing the union negotiating bodies to be completed in 12 weeks).
How can I agree this now and then fight them in the future? I'm pretty sure I can't. Surely if I accept this document, then I have accepted all of it, not just the bits that I am ok with?
Reargunner
In negotiations there will always be parts of an agreement you perhaps do not like. You end up with the best deal possible. BA and BASSA have been discussing this since Feb 09 (or not discussing, in BAASAs case)
It is time to bring this to a close and get on with trying to save an Airline.
If IA is called again on anything other than the past imposition, BA will again surely injunct.
It is time to bring this to a close and get on with trying to save an Airline.
If IA is called again on anything other than the past imposition, BA will again surely injunct.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessnapete...IA can be called at any time on the existing ballot's mandate. No new terms need to be introduced. The Union are only polling crew on the proposal tabled and I am explaining why I don't consider the proposal to be something I can accept.
I don't think the parts I find unacceptable are minor slightly disgreeable parts of an otherwise ok deal. They are fundamental. These are exactly the same aspects of the deals offered by BA that have caused me to vote against it before.
The change to the redeployment agreement along with the company's refusal to make a binding agreement to how work is removed from existing crew makes BA's deal sound to me like I am signing away my job.
Just like the Open Skies fight, I cannot prevent the company from creating a low cost base...I can only resist by fighting for terms that will offer existing crew some protection from its consequences.
In the Open Skies battle, the effort to get the best possible protection floundered because BA found a legal loophole, but then BALPA took the next best step and pushed the company to strengthen the scope clause to protect the work of BA pilots.
The pilots used industrial muscle to get this (limited) protection from the company. The cabin crew are having their attempt undermined because some employees have been persuaded that the battle is not justified, that it is "unreasonable" and that Backing BA involves necessarily betraying a group of colleagues.
I don't think the parts I find unacceptable are minor slightly disgreeable parts of an otherwise ok deal. They are fundamental. These are exactly the same aspects of the deals offered by BA that have caused me to vote against it before.
The change to the redeployment agreement along with the company's refusal to make a binding agreement to how work is removed from existing crew makes BA's deal sound to me like I am signing away my job.
Just like the Open Skies fight, I cannot prevent the company from creating a low cost base...I can only resist by fighting for terms that will offer existing crew some protection from its consequences.
In the Open Skies battle, the effort to get the best possible protection floundered because BA found a legal loophole, but then BALPA took the next best step and pushed the company to strengthen the scope clause to protect the work of BA pilots.
The pilots used industrial muscle to get this (limited) protection from the company. The cabin crew are having their attempt undermined because some employees have been persuaded that the battle is not justified, that it is "unreasonable" and that Backing BA involves necessarily betraying a group of colleagues.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London,England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner,
We are where we are.
I guess the question you should be asking is - If you do not accept this proposal - do you think you will end up with a better deal if you elect to strike again?
With WW having played hard ball up to now and done everything he had said he would do; with over 70% of rostered crew having turned up on the last day of the last strike; with the previous strikes and no flying because of volcanic ash there are many crew who, however much they might want to, simply cannot afford to strike again, do you genuinely believe that you will be able to get a better deal out of him by rejecting this deal and striking again? Bear in mind that it will all need to be done in a relatively short space of time as after 12 weeks from the initial strike date he will be able to sack anyone who does not turn up for work.
If you genuinely think by rejecting this deal you will get a better one then that is fair enough. However, don't reject it because you don't like or agree with it - this is no time to be sending 'strong messages' to the company.
We are where we are.
I guess the question you should be asking is - If you do not accept this proposal - do you think you will end up with a better deal if you elect to strike again?
With WW having played hard ball up to now and done everything he had said he would do; with over 70% of rostered crew having turned up on the last day of the last strike; with the previous strikes and no flying because of volcanic ash there are many crew who, however much they might want to, simply cannot afford to strike again, do you genuinely believe that you will be able to get a better deal out of him by rejecting this deal and striking again? Bear in mind that it will all need to be done in a relatively short space of time as after 12 weeks from the initial strike date he will be able to sack anyone who does not turn up for work.
If you genuinely think by rejecting this deal you will get a better one then that is fair enough. However, don't reject it because you don't like or agree with it - this is no time to be sending 'strong messages' to the company.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like the Open Skies fight, I cannot prevent the company from creating a low cost base...I can only resist by fighting for terms that will offer existing crew some protection from its consequences.
So its just that you're unwilling to play your part in making it so...because you might take a hit?
Someone else ought to take the hit perhaps?
Welcome to the dichotomy at the heart of modern Western business...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change to the redeployment agreement along with the company's refusal to make a binding agreement to how work is removed from existing crew makes BA's deal sound to me like I am signing away my job.
1. The only thing that is bringing in New Fleet faster is BASSA's insistence on putting 184 crew back on planes. If we want to prevent New Fleet, then to ask for crew back on is utter madness. BASSA are NOT representing our interests by doing so.
2. Where in the latest offer does it mention the redeployment agreement please?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobbler...do I think I will get a better deal by striking? Do you think I will get a worse one?
As far as I can see, accepting this deal means I will keep my existing T&C until New Fleet is fully operational then I will lose all of it. I will be told there is no work for my existing job and put into Careerlink.
The redeployment agreement I will have just accepted gives me 3 months on full basic to find a new vacancy. Then 3 further months on 75% of that basic and then a further 3 months on 50% etc. So, if New Fleet is still growing and recruiting I can apply for a job there or leave.
If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.
As far as I can see, there is very little between the two threats to my livelihood.
As far as I can see, accepting this deal means I will keep my existing T&C until New Fleet is fully operational then I will lose all of it. I will be told there is no work for my existing job and put into Careerlink.
The redeployment agreement I will have just accepted gives me 3 months on full basic to find a new vacancy. Then 3 further months on 75% of that basic and then a further 3 months on 50% etc. So, if New Fleet is still growing and recruiting I can apply for a job there or leave.
If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.
As far as I can see, there is very little between the two threats to my livelihood.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer. Page 6 EPC ...Changes to corporate policies that apply to all colleagues across the company and covered at the BA Forum and EPC have been subject to discussion. It is the intention to conclude these discussions within one month of completing this offer.
The Employment Policy Committee has been seeking agreement on new redeployment, grievance and disciplinary proceedures.
Also previously described by bill Francis Oct 23rd as part of "our package of changes to IFCE"....he says "we added to our package an offer which includes a new monthly travel payment, proposed changes to the disruption agreement and our proposed new redeployment arrangement"
and that this is
* Surplus colleagues given 52 weeks to find a new role
* Surplus colleagues given preferential access to job vacancies
* Pay protection run down over 52 weeks for those redeployed
*Pension protection during last 5 years before retirement for redeployees
* Voluntary buy-out of existing Personal Differentials
When quizzed about the working of this on the BA forum, before it was closed down Bill's repeated reply was that crew have never been placed in Careerlink and he would not be drawn futher.
184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see. It WOULD affect how fast part-time offers are made. The part-time contracts that make up the rest of the manpower adjustment with the bit of VR that was given last year have not been actioned.
The Employment Policy Committee has been seeking agreement on new redeployment, grievance and disciplinary proceedures.
Also previously described by bill Francis Oct 23rd as part of "our package of changes to IFCE"....he says "we added to our package an offer which includes a new monthly travel payment, proposed changes to the disruption agreement and our proposed new redeployment arrangement"
and that this is
* Surplus colleagues given 52 weeks to find a new role
* Surplus colleagues given preferential access to job vacancies
* Pay protection run down over 52 weeks for those redeployed
*Pension protection during last 5 years before retirement for redeployees
* Voluntary buy-out of existing Personal Differentials
When quizzed about the working of this on the BA forum, before it was closed down Bill's repeated reply was that crew have never been placed in Careerlink and he would not be drawn futher.
184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see. It WOULD affect how fast part-time offers are made. The part-time contracts that make up the rest of the manpower adjustment with the bit of VR that was given last year have not been actioned.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The redeployment agreement is contractual. It's use is is not. If the agreement is not renegotiated to make it relevant to modern business conditions then BA will simply make people redundant instead of redeploying them.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner
A genuine few questions, how long before they get "new fleet" up and running in substantial numbers?
How long has is taken for "new contract" crew to outnumber "old contact " crew?
Do you really believe that BA would have large numbers of crew sat around for up to 1 year, which would by your figures would cost them 7.5 months pay per crew just to redeploy them to new fleet?
Your nearly right, in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts, who have been on strike, just as long as they treat all the strikers the same. They don't need to issue new contracts.
Perhaps this set of proposals is just a "tick boxing" exercise on behalf of the company, so they can demonstrate later that meaningfull negotiations had taken place, just a thought
PS
Best one I heard to day in CRC.................. "I'm not even going to bother to read the proposals, I'm just going to vote NO anyway" Sadly this is the mentality that BA are dealing with
How long has is taken for "new contract" crew to outnumber "old contact " crew?
Do you really believe that BA would have large numbers of crew sat around for up to 1 year, which would by your figures would cost them 7.5 months pay per crew just to redeploy them to new fleet?
If I strike, and it is not supported by a lot of cabin crew, then in June the company can terminate all cabin crew contracts and offer new ones with 90 days notice.
Perhaps this set of proposals is just a "tick boxing" exercise on behalf of the company, so they can demonstrate later that meaningfull negotiations had taken place, just a thought
PS
Best one I heard to day in CRC.................. "I'm not even going to bother to read the proposals, I'm just going to vote NO anyway" Sadly this is the mentality that BA are dealing with
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR71,
Errm...we are taking a hit, as you put it...just like the rest of the airline our costs are being reduced. In fact IFCE is taking a bigger cut than most other departments.
The savings to be made from New Fleet are not part of that saving.
Did BA pilots think that they should accept Open Skies T&C or defend as much as they could of their contracts?
Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base.
Errm...we are taking a hit, as you put it...just like the rest of the airline our costs are being reduced. In fact IFCE is taking a bigger cut than most other departments.
The savings to be made from New Fleet are not part of that saving.
Did BA pilots think that they should accept Open Skies T&C or defend as much as they could of their contracts?
Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base.
IFCE may be taking a bigger hit than most other departments but then again it is much bigger than most other departments and has taken smaller, if any, cuts in recent years.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London,England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner,
I am no expert on employment law, but I would be very surprised if BA could recruit cabin crew on different T's and C's and then tell exisiting cabin crew that their job is redundant, and then continue to recruit more cabin crew. If they were able to do that I suspect some of the old contract crew would have been told they were 'redundant' many years ago. I would imagine that any new fleet could only grow through natural wastage or BA expanding. Perhaps an employment expert could enlighten us!
Do I think you will end up with a worse deal by striking - short answer - Yes!
I am no expert on employment law, but I would be very surprised if BA could recruit cabin crew on different T's and C's and then tell exisiting cabin crew that their job is redundant, and then continue to recruit more cabin crew. If they were able to do that I suspect some of the old contract crew would have been told they were 'redundant' many years ago. I would imagine that any new fleet could only grow through natural wastage or BA expanding. Perhaps an employment expert could enlighten us!
Do I think you will end up with a worse deal by striking - short answer - Yes!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did BA pilots think that they should accept Open Skies T&C or defend as much as they could of their contracts?
Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base
Yet they accepted the commercial need for the airline to create a low cost base
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner, with all due respect, you are mixing offers.
Please discard all previous offers, print this offer, read it, digest it.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of the redeployment agreement. To requote BF's statement in Oct about redeployment is false. Until we know what EXACTLY is in the redeployment agreement, then we cannot comment.
BF also said in October that we would get a bonus, sharesave scheme and an extra Free Ticket. I don't see you quoting that anywhere because that has long gone now.
BASSA, you, and everyone else, really need to move on with this. You are cherry picking reasons to reject it, that aren't even on the offer. And you are being led up the garden path.
If and when a redeployment agreement is on the table, and if and when we don't agree with it, should we not discuss that THEN and NOT NOW?
You also state:
Perhaps BASSA are deceiving you by not highlighting this very clearly stated fact in Final Version, Page 3?
To put 184 crew back on OUR planes, BA will recruit 184 into New Fleet. Say for example 184 crew equates to 5 routes - JFK, BRU, GVA, MIA, BOM.
BA will transfer 184 people onto OUR planes and those 5 routes (that have lost 184 crew) will then be operated by NEW FLEET.
What purpose does having 184 crew back on our planes serve?
- It is costing us because we have to give up more variable pay.
- We have to FREEZE meal allowances
- We have to FREEZE other variable pay
- It starts New Fleet IMMEDIATELY
Have you asked BASSA what is the purpose of putting 184 crew back on planes when we are operating quite well without them? We are paying a very HIGH COST for it, and, as you have demonstrated, nobody has noticed.
This is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Please discard all previous offers, print this offer, read it, digest it.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of the redeployment agreement. To requote BF's statement in Oct about redeployment is false. Until we know what EXACTLY is in the redeployment agreement, then we cannot comment.
BF also said in October that we would get a bonus, sharesave scheme and an extra Free Ticket. I don't see you quoting that anywhere because that has long gone now.
BASSA, you, and everyone else, really need to move on with this. You are cherry picking reasons to reject it, that aren't even on the offer. And you are being led up the garden path.
If and when a redeployment agreement is on the table, and if and when we don't agree with it, should we not discuss that THEN and NOT NOW?
You also state:
184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see.
Understandably any new recruitment to facilitate complement changes will be into the New Fleet.
BA will transfer 184 people onto OUR planes and those 5 routes (that have lost 184 crew) will then be operated by NEW FLEET.
What purpose does having 184 crew back on our planes serve?
- It is costing us because we have to give up more variable pay.
- We have to FREEZE meal allowances
- We have to FREEZE other variable pay
- It starts New Fleet IMMEDIATELY
Have you asked BASSA what is the purpose of putting 184 crew back on planes when we are operating quite well without them? We are paying a very HIGH COST for it, and, as you have demonstrated, nobody has noticed.
This is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 29th Apr 2010 at 15:30.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner
It's probably pointing out two things to you:
Pilots have taken a significant pay cut as well as 'productivity' savings in the current round of 'save the company again' cost savings. As far as I'm aware the cabin crew were not required to take any pay cut whatsoever?
(Though BASSA very kindly offered one!)
Just a small productivity saving was required. Sadly that affected many BASSA reps....
Secondly: BA pilots would have worked for Openskies with the terms and conditions being offered to external applicants. The company still chose not to accept mainline pilots! Very different circumstances I'm afraid!
It's probably pointing out two things to you:
Pilots have taken a significant pay cut as well as 'productivity' savings in the current round of 'save the company again' cost savings. As far as I'm aware the cabin crew were not required to take any pay cut whatsoever?
(Though BASSA very kindly offered one!)
Just a small productivity saving was required. Sadly that affected many BASSA reps....
Secondly: BA pilots would have worked for Openskies with the terms and conditions being offered to external applicants. The company still chose not to accept mainline pilots! Very different circumstances I'm afraid!