British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[winstonsmith]

Jockmctavish - The company does not have a problem with current crewing levels - it's not their demand that 184 crew should be put back on the aircraft. Removal of telephone and language allowances, early report day and freezing meal allowances is all BASSA's fault as they want crew back and the company needs to find these costs somewhere.

We should be glad BA has not met their initial demand - they wanted approximately 800 crew in total to top up the crewing levels.

[Juan Tugoh]

Seats are remaining empty on a more regular basis now as our competitors are offering a far superior service with more crew at usually less cost to the pax.

Some Gold Card Holder friends of mine are travelling with our competitors right now as they cannot afford the danger that BASSA will throw another hissy fit and their flight be disrupted. It is not, for them, about the inferior product delivered by BA, it is about the reliability of the service. They will return to BA when this dispute is over. Besides, this dispute that BASSA have with BA is not about the quality of the product delivered it is about imposition.

The product that BA decides to offer for the ticket price is for BA to decide anyway, not for BASSA to dictate. This line of argument is a red herring and not germane to this issue.

[Dutchjock]

Juan Odeboyse:

Seats are remaining empty on a more regular basis now as our competitors are offering a far superior service with more crew at usually less cost to the pax.

Sums up BA's argument to cut crew cost doesn't it? Competitors can use more crew at less cost to the pax because they cost half of what BA crew cost... Simples

[jockmctavish]

As I said, the world has moved on from the original imposition issue and I don't believe that we should be persuing 184 heads at a cost to ourselves. Leave it as it is. If the company has a problem now or in the future then let them invest in it as they have done previously.

[Pornpants1]

Jock and Odeboyse

Come on Guys or Girls, try and think out the box and see the bigger picture

I don't believe that we should be persuing 184 heads at a cost to ourselves.

I've just returned from a destination that has lost 2 crew since imposition - what a mess. As I note regularly now, many pax just lose interest in the meal svc in CW due to the extended time it takes to deliver...and not even mentioning the absolutely terrible product we have to offer. Seats are remaining empty on a more regular basis now

Its BASSA not BA that wanted the return of all crew, let alone the 184, infact it was a point of compromise on BAs part that they allowed for the return of 184 crew, with all the problems that Jock raised, eg, the crew paying for this by a more rapid introduction of the "new fleet", blame BASSA not BA

Odeboyse, seats are remaining empty for a number of reasons, some need to get from A-B with some degree of certainty, would you do this with BASSA threatening more strike action?

And of course the one area not discussed much by the experts on this thread - the pax.

err, thats because they are not allowed, pay attention to quote Tightslot on page 1

This thread is intended for use by people presently employed as airline staff.

If you do not fall into this category - please do not post here: Please visit the Pax/SLF Forum where there is an active thread running HERE that welcomes your thoughts.

[Beagle9]

"New fleet kicks off and we lose work." - jockmctavish

Please, please,please, jockmctavish, not this old chestnut. Not the old "New Fleet means you'll all be sat at home with no work" BASSA mantra that I STILL hear from crew 18 months after this nonsense was originally spouted.

ONCE AGAIN, how would it be, in any way, in the company's interests, to have the likes of me, a 28 year seniority CSD, sat at home ON FULL (SUBSTANTIAL) BASIC PAY AND FULL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS not doing anything?

Even if you take BASSA's slightly watered down, "Stuck at home with very little work", how would that benefit BA? Don't you think that those crew on 50% part-time contracts might be more than a little envious of me, doing the same workload as them for FULL 100% pay?

If there were any chance of this, I'd be saying to BA, YES PLEASE! Where do you want me to sign? I'd then go and do a nice little part time job with all that time off to top up my earnings. Happy days. Except it won't happen. It doesn't make sense. The trouble is, people read something BASSA writes and don't actually sit down to think it through. If more people did, we wouldn't be in this dangerous mess.

[jockmctavish]

I agree with you, crewing levels are not the main priority for crew anymore, it is time for Unite to stop the demands for crew to come back onboard and finalise an agreement if they can.

[jockmctavish]

Beagle9

I didn't mention anything about sitting at home without work. As you say that wouldn't be in the company's interests. What I was getting at was losing certain routes which have different financial values to them. For example, I didn't see any Indian routes on the list earmarked for the introduction of new fleet!

[Juan Odeboyse]

Beagle 9 - this will not happen to you - you will leave BA one way or other.


The 1948 agreement.....this is what the dispute is really now all about.

[Caribbean Boy]

The 1948 agreement

Juan Odeboyse wrote:

The 1948 agreement.....this is what the dispute is really now all about.

Why would any right-minded cabin crew go on strike before the agreement is renegotiated with BA?

[HiFlyer14]

JockMcTavish:

I agree with you, crewing levels are not the main priority for crew anymore, it is time for Unite to stop the demands for crew to come back onboard and finalise an agreement if they can.

Welcome to Pprune Jock!

You have hit the nail on the head, and this is the message that cabin crew absolutely must understand: Unite's insistence on putting crew back on is costing us unnecessarily and is undermining our very future.

We have already lost out; Bonus option / share scheme / Extra Free ticket were offered by BA and refused by Unite in October 09.

Now we are being asked to pay again by giving up language pay / telephone allowance / other variable pay.

And the huge elephant in the room is that putting crew back on: STARTS NEW FLEET IMMEDIATELY.


And bizarrely, it is our Union, which takes our money, and which is supposed to represent us, that is putting us in this ludicrous position.

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Beagle9]

jockmctavish, juan odeboyse,

So, you're going to reject this proposal, which is in effect a vote for another strike, on the basis of what theoretically could/might happen in the future (Based apon what BASSA have told you might happen, presumably. In itself, a massive leap of faith given BASSA's track record on accuracy).

You'll be going on strike now, on the basis of New Fleet and the corporate wide renegociation of the redeployment agreement, even though the strike mandate is for imposition of crewing levels only. And you think this will make New Fleet go away, and that will lead to any threat to our future disappearing.

Good luck. I wish I could share your optimism.

[OverFlare]

What I was getting at was losing certain routes which have different financial values to them. For example, I didn't see any Indian routes on the list earmarked for the introduction of new fleet!

Isn't the new allowance structure BA have proposed meant to deal with this so that financially it won't matter which routes go onto new fleet?

[Pornpants1]

Juan Odeboyse

The 1948 agreement.....this is what the dispute is really now all about.

Great meaningless statement, now I dare you to come and explain to everyone how this impacts cabin crew and it particular relevance in this dispute.

[dave3]

Very Sad Day

This is my first post on this forum but having read other forums and the news that has come to light today from the pilots postings re crew and meetings with WW I am ashamed to wear my uniform.
I have worked withcrew and pilots for the past 29 years. I had the upmost repect for them and even workedand trained the junior jets.. to see what this dispute has turned people into is beyond belief..
I feel I have lost such an important part of my life and crew and pilot relationships are now at an all time low. What ever your beliefs we should all have respect for it. I feel you should not interfere with another mans fight and stay within the realms of your own contract and own union.
This said I have no idea how relationships will mend after what I have just read and I am very saddened that my working life has come to this. We all spend a long time from home and I used to love my trips with crew and pilots alike.. the trust has now gone.

[Juan Odeboyse]

"The REDEPLOYMENT CLAUSE which means that BA at the time of its choosing can decide that the existing fleets are wound up and we are redeployed to NF(approx 11k main crew 23k supervisor plus hourly rate), to any other job in BA or out with 52 weeks notice.

Anyone in the FINAL SALARY PENSION will SURRENDER this benefit as well as their CURRENT SALARY when current fleets are closed down.

This will be an irrestistible choice for BA in just a few years time and will enable the company finances to better cope with its contributions to those lucky enough not to be forced out of their current contracts in other departments.
It begs the question. Are those BACKING BA ultimately BACKING THEIR OWN PENSIONS albeit inadvertently perhaps?"

[Juan Tugoh]

Thanks for trying to explain the issue JO but could you give a little more explanation as to the effects of the 1948 agreement, I still don't get it. Thanks

[TheKabaka]

Juan, What is to stop BA doing this now to pre '97 CC contracts? They have not and will not do it in the future

There is no requirement for BA to use the redeployment agreement, so I think we could have a gold plated agreement that is never used, or the best achievable agreement which will be.

All of which has nothing to do with the dispute, which is about imposition, how BASSA are failing to agree over staff travel/disciplinary is extraordinary since they are self inflicted woes!

[ottergirl]

ONCE AGAIN, how would it be, in any way, in the company's interests, to have the likes of me, a 28 year seniority CSD, sat at home ON FULL (SUBSTANTIAL) BASIC PAY AND FULL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS not doing anything?

Err, thats exactly what has been happening to Eurofleet CSDs for the last eighteen months.

If there were any chance of this, I'd be saying to BA, YES PLEASE! Where do you want me to sign? I'd then go and do a nice little part time job with all that time off to top up my earnings. Happy days.

Great idea but you can't easily get a part-time job when you have a roster full of availables so can't commit to when you'll be able to work. Many of us have had to explore this possibility with several thousand pounds shaved off our pay in the last eighteen months and its more difficult than it sounds.

[Pornpants1]

"The REDEPLOYMENT CLAUSE which means that BA at the time of its choosing can decide that the existing fleets are wound up and we are redeployed to NF(approx 11k main crew 23k supervisor plus hourly rate), to any other job in BA or out with 52 weeks notice.

Just can't see the company doing this, they have not done so before,and as Kabaka has pointed out they could have done it now(with pre97 crew)with the redeployment scheme as it exists today. The 1948 act does not offer any help to NAPS members, and its debatable that it holds any protection for APS members, something that maybe needed to be tested in court one day, just like staff travel remember also that the new redeployment agreement will apply to all areas of the company and not just cabin crew.

With the information that I have gleened over the last couple of days, I would be more fearful that the pension regulator takes action and closes the pension fund to future accrual in the coming months, than some vague assurance in an act passed over 60 years ago.

Are those BACKING BA ultimately BACKING THEIR OWN PENSIONS albeit inadvertently perhaps?"

not at all, those people BACKING BA probably made sure they had all the information available at the time from their respective pension trustees, have you spoken to, or written to yours to establish some facts, or are you basing it on what BASSA are telling you, remember their track record is not that good so far................

Anyway I was under illusion that this was about imposition