British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[LD12986]

Of course, there is the possibility that whichever new crew are recruited to New Fleet they will join a UNITE union, albeit not BASSA and that, at some stage in the future, will have a sufficient grievance with their employer to want to take industrial action against BA. BASSA is the sum of all its parts and the crew voted for those reps. There is nothing to say that another group will not also choose militant reps. The destruction of one union leaves a void which will be filled.

Though with no seniority and fewer supervisory positions, New Fleet is likely to have much greater attrition, and therefore, not have the festering resentment of the company that exists at the moment amongst LHR CC who are locked into their current jobs because they can't move elsewhere.

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs

If every crew member was in Unite, there would not be strike action now, I imagine

I doubt that very much, there are approximately 13000 cabin crew within BA, of which approximately 10000 are in BASSA and maybe 1000 in the amicus branch of UNITE. But only about 3000 are or have been on strike. putting that extra 2000 cabin crew in UNITE would not make the strike any more solid and supported than it is now.

The thing that reaffirms my faith in human nature and proves that BA CC are an intelligent bunch is that so many of them have weighed the evidence and have found UNITE wanting and have turned up to work. This shows an independence of thought that the unions must hate. The leadership must be spitting feathers that since the 70's their power to say "All out brothers" and expect all union members to down tools, has gone and people actually now think for themselves.

Unless you meant it in the other sense, all in UNITE and the vote for IA would have gone the other way and BASSA would have been emasculated. From your previous posts I suspect this is not the case.

[Eddy]

..... and this is about the current agreements. (blame bassa for this if you want) BA are working to the agreement where possible. ( it also reassures any crew wavering about coming in, that BA does not intend to ride roughshod over any agreement)

They're sending planes out with minimum crewing levels but, I assume, not paying any one-down payments..... Is this BA trying to work to agreements or is it just for ease?

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Juan Tugoh

Unless you meant it in the other sense, all in UNITE and the vote for IA would have gone the other way and BASSA would have been emasculated. From your previous posts I suspect this is not the case.

You suspect wrongly. That is exactly what I mean.

[gr8tballsoffire]

DH Again!!

Duncan Holley, branch secretary of Bassa - the arm of Unite which represents BA cabin crew - told Sky News the union's aim was not to destroy the airline.
"The crew don't want us to bring this company down," he said.
"I want to be able to say to Willie Walsh: Bassa will - if we're treated fairly and reasonable - we will do business, we will behave, (we will) be decent human beings, as long as he is as well.
"As long as he treats us with that respect, he'll get it back."


Well, that's big of him after all the previous personal insults aimed at WW, non-strikers and the rest of BA. Obviously his media course is paying dividends!!

Is there an acknowledgment here that perhaps they have not "behaved" or have been "decent human beings",
As an earlier poster pointed out this is a typical adult (BA), child (BASSA) situation.
"Don't punish me daddy, I'll be good from now on."

[essessdeedee]

They're sending planes out with minimum crewing levels but, I assume, not paying any one-down payments..... Is this BA trying to work to agreements or is it just for ease?

can I suggest that you also read the disruption agreement?

[Wirbelsturm]

The killer line is this one:

"As long as he treats us with that respect, he'll get it back."

Which, in BASSA speak, means:

"Give us back everything you have taken, agree to all our demands, resign forthwith and never, ever, try and run your company without our express approval again."

Whoooop, whoooop, jellied eels anyone? Now where did I park my Dalek???

Isn't DH so cool now he should use 'Respeck't'?

[Eddy]

essessdeedee, I know the disruption agreement very well - thanks.

But the disruption agreement is something that can only (or should only, under normal circumstances) be employed with the agreement of the union, but - now this might be a wild stab in the dark - I doubt very much the union has given its OK.

[Wirbelsturm]

Eddy,

Oddly enough I would feel that BASSA might not be in such a magnanimous mood as to agree to implementing the disruption agreement during their own IA. Don't ask me why but I just have that nagging itch.

The company has, in the past, implemented the disruption PLANS, not the agreement, that exists purely to stop the company in normal times from messing about with the crews for whatever reason they see fit, to ensure the operation continues.

I do feel that these strikes warrent the implementation of the disruption plan to ensure that as many flights as possible occur and the disruption to our fare paying passengers is minimised as much as possible.

[Eddy]

I agree entirely with the above and have never said otherwise.

I have no problem working two down at the moment because of the reduced service, but under normal circumstances it couldn't be done.

I don't want £100.00 one-down payments.... As mentioned previously, I merely mentioned them as part of a discussion with another poster over the company's recent track record (very recent - during the strikes) for ignoring some agreements while seemingly sticking rigidly to others.

[Wirbelsturm]

I understand what you are discussing, the interesting bit is that many people don't realise that the disruption plans exist, they clump them under disruption 'agreements' but that is just a niceity.

I agree that the company can indeed be a little sneaky with what agreements stand and what don't. A close look at your monthly summary is needed and questions raised.

Whilst I don't need/require the nebulous payments that the normal rostering would garner I would like to know, possibly in advance, what the company would be providing during the dispute.

[License to Fly]

the %'s are going up and up ...

Daily Ops Update 29 May 10

Operation running very smoothly, as normal bank holiday Saturday. Tomorrow, Sun 30 May, we plan to operate 78% LH and 60% SH. Also looking to stand up more B747s. LH more than 90% operating, SH more than 70% operating. Full schedule at LGW and LCY.

Wont be long till its 100% longhaul ...

[7Heroes]

The CAA and Boeing have just approved a drop in minimum crew on the 767 down to 5 for under 240 pax.I don`t know if this was from a request by BA but it could mean 1 more crew off a 767.
And I`m sure this has only been hastened in by the current industrial situation.
You should be careful what you are trying to achieve as it is actually going the other way!

[ottergirl]

Scaremongering

Its the same process that we went through with the A321 last week so I will tell you what we were told about that. The SEP minimum crew is about getting a/c away during this period of unrest and 5 crew would only be from outstations. That crew level does not allow us to deliver anything like our usual standard of cabin service or to provide our premium customers with the level of service they expect; BA has no intention of stripping anything else from our product so the crewing matrix stands. Temporary measures for temporary times.

“The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent British Airways’ positions, strategies or opinions.”

[Caribbean Boy]

767s

If BA's 189-seat 767s to NAS (and onto GCM and PLS) can be op with five cabin crew, then this should be done immediately. These flights have often been cancelled during all the strikes. In the WDC, we've had to get them to MIA (not always an easy task) for onward connections on AA flights. And if pax travel to the US under the visa waiver program, they also need ESTA authorisation.

The bottom line is that all the above has caused a lot of aggravation to pax.

[SlideBustle]

We haven't had an OMN yet saying that we can go with 5 on a 767!
I know we CAN go with 6 downroute with No1 SCCM manning both doors 1L and 1R (1R being unmanned) as long as loads under 251, that is my understanding of the SEP manual anyway.

I would like to know if that has been approved what doors are left unmanned and where the 5th crew member goes! I can understand the A321 going to 4 as legal minimum (1 crew member per pair of doors and 1 per 50 with our a321 having 190ish pax) but 5 on a widebodied twin-aisle does seem quite low!

I imagine this is for disruption only as we wouldn't be able to give our pax a good service, particularly Club with 5 on a busy 767!

Again, I accept the crew complement reductions that were imposed end of last year (7 on a 767, except if it is busy, and the new crew top up matrix) but I think to go down to 5 would be too far! Although I can understand operating with minimum (3 on a 319, 12 on a 747 with no Club top ups during this disruption of course)

This is my opinion and none of that of BA my employer!

[ns68]

this makes total sense for BA - why not get the striking cabin crew working as it will relieve the pressure on the VCC/cabin crew not silly enough to risk their jobs striking.

Why would you think that somebody is silly enough to risk their job striking?If Industrial Action is called due to majority of people voting for it-february ballot- that is what needs to be done.It is the way society was built on. If some people bluffed and they voted yes to the strike and then went into work, that doesn't mean that who's following the Industrial Action is to be considered silly into risking their job. I do not agree with a few aspects about Unite approach to this Industrial Action,but I also do not agree with the changes that we are going to go through if not succesfully negotiated.
Most people here seem to be convinced that because we have been told that we will be left on our t&c than we are safe and happy..well I remember just before voluntary redudance was given to senior crew members, that most CSD were starved from work-hence they took the final package and left- I was flying with these people day in day out on eurofleet and it wasn't pleasant to hear their story-they would be just given a string of availables that were never filled- I fear this is what is coming for us. That is the reason why I tend to support the union in getting some guarantees before it is too late. Maybe some of you are not familiar with this scenario-I don't think it was happening as much on LH.

As far as being sacked is concerned,I hope I will not be obviously,but if that is what is coming for me,I will have to get on with it. I guess we all know that there is worst things that could happen in life unfortunately.
For whoever is wishing for people who went on strike to be sacked,please keep on wishing it but please keep it to yourself.It really makes appalling reading.

[Nevermind]

Ns68

If sacking is not to be considered, do you feel there is any other way of addressing the £7m (according to Unite) a day that we are losing?

Or does the right to strike also negate the possibility of being responsible in ANY WAY for your actions?

I ask this to any of the strikers, because it seems to me that this damage is constantly overlooked whilst debating the legality of the action.

[ns68]

this damage is constantly overlooked whilst debating the legality of the action.

It is a shame that you would think that that is overlooked by me or others.I do think this is seriously damaging the airline and I am seriously worried that the company is losing its reputation and so on. I obviously wished they would come to an agreement much earlier than this but it has not happened. In a previous post I have mentioned that in light of the new twists if balloted again I might have to vote differently,and then I will feel right into going into work,but at the moment I have to stand by my vote.

As much as sacking 5000 people that went on strike I don't think it will play in anybodys favour..at the moment they plan to grow the new fleet over the next 5 years which will make the current fleets larger in numbers for a long time hence the need of keeping us on our t&c..if half of lhr cabin crew will be on a new contract by the end of the year,you do understand that it will be convenient for the company to just transfer most of the routes to that fleet .As there will not be many of you left on old contracts probably about 50%(of which a lot are on 50% 33% contracts) before we know the new fleet will be doing most of the work because there will not be enough of you.

Hope you have considered that before thinking that shrinking the old contract and agreements fleets through sacking is beneficial.

[Hotel Mode]

As much as sacking 5000 people that went on strike I don't think it will play in anybodys favour..

More than halve that number and you'll be closer to the true number of strikers. Given the preponderance of part time, probably around 1500 full time equivalents.