British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[Spanner in the works]

MissM

This has never been a fight for survival.

Have you seen the financial results for the last two years. How bad would they have been if other departments had not committed to the working practices and cost-cuts that they have?

How much better would they have been if you had too?

Still not accepting that the airline has a mountain to climb to get back to profitability? Unbelievably delusional.

This industry (industry by the way -not just BA) is on a knife-edge. We are affected by just about every major event in the world - be it ash, adverse weather, terrorism, SARS, Foot and mouth, recession and so on.
Fuel costs will keep rising. How do you think THAT alone is going to be paid for? Increased airfares?

Your union appears to have accepted that something needs to change otherwise they wouldn't have offered the savings they did - adequate or not.
so why do you say "This has never been a fight for survival. "

[wiggy]

MissM

Thanks for the reply

Many rumours circulating of course but there's a word going around that WW will lose the support of the pilots should he return ST.

The idea that somebody is telling Willie " if you give the strikers back Staff Travel the volunteer pilots will withdraw support " is indeed just a rumour, there's isn't a co-ordinator or any organisation telling individual pilots to support BA. It was, and continues to be, a decision made by the individuals themselves.

[Wirbelsturm]

Purely out of idle interest, do you have any proof of this?

were you flight deck colleagues who would not participate in the service.

I know quite a lot of the VCC from the flight crew community and if this happened then it was a very, very isolated incident. But anyway of little relevance to the thread as, even if they didn't participate, the flight, thus the customer, got to their destination despite Unites/BASSA's best attempt. Unless of course the VCC were serving to an empty aircraft or freight.

Will WW give a stuff about us?

Oddly enough I think yes. Not on a personal level but certainly he is attempting to make sure that BA as a company is fit for purpose into the future.

BASSA are using him as the devil incarnate. BA is a huge company. How many compulsory redundancies have we seen from BA during the current recession? None. Not one. This hardly fits the form of a bullying and harassing company that, in the face of a potential double dip recession, could have culled its workforce under compulsory redundancy.

Instead the company has embarked on an across the board cost cutting campaign that ALL departments bar one were willing to participate in.

It is time for BASSA to wake up and realise that they have called IA at the wrong time, over the wrong reasons and without any tangible support except for the malingerers at SWP.

Enjoy your next sojourn at BFC, Willie Walsh and the rest of the company are expecting to operate 100% without you and you won't be missed.

[Wirbelsturm]

I hope to still be employed by BA and making the sort of money I earn today

Whilst all the other departments in BA have taken pay cuts, increased productivity and rationalised working practices to keep the company afloat the BASSA gravy train rolls on regardless. Fantastic teamwork from the IFcE deapartment that would be.

BASSA are not the only one to be blamed. All of the strikebreaking crew, including the VCC, should also be held responsible. If they hadn't reported for duty, this strike would have been over in days. The strikebreaking crew should be ashamed of themselves for not having the courage to go on strike whilst enjoying the terms and conditions which BASSA have fought hard for.

This is fantastic! 'Sorry I crashed into the car because I wasn't paying attention to the road Officer. But if all the other cars hadn't been on the road I would have had nothing to crash into so it's their fault!'

Also BASSA haven't fought hard for anything for anyone, ever. They are still jealously protecting the original terms and conditions that BA granted them during privatisation. What, fundamentally, has changed over the past 20 odd years with respect to CC terms and conditions? Nothing.

Now that could be seen, I suppose, with the BASSA rose tinted spectacles as hard fought 'Uniun Bruvverhood innit'. Unfortunately for Unite/BASSA it is purely down to weak BA management over the years who have acceeded to BASSAs demands.

When the CEO doesn't bow down to the BASSA tantrum he becomes the devil and must be cast down for the greater good of humanity and the future of the human race.

Your Ivory tower has become too tall and the crash will, undoubtably, hurt.

[flyingtheflag]

Miss M

I'm CC also, and no longer a member of BASSA, but as you say we can't have our cake and eat it, so I'm quite happy to accept BA's offer from a few months ago including the share option etc..and you can gladly have the new deal that will now be on the table after the strikes.

[sixmilehighclub]

the terms and conditions which BASSA have fought for you

Actually I feel that some of these conditions are a tad old.

Crew lose money on Eurofleet when missing links and nightstops due to one minute delays, etc.

On longhaul, if one cabin has to work one crew member down, and irrespective of loads and which cabin, all crew get a cash reward.

Why do crew need £10 a month telephone allowance? Thats around £1m a year in costs. Get rid of it, if a call is that important, claim it on expenses.

How about flexibility? The agreements carry no flexibility for either party. Agreements should provide guidance yes, but with the voluntary flexibility to benefit both parties when necessary.
ie; If a crewmember returns from a flight missing a link, or arrives at work being told their trip won't go ahead, they should have the choice of being stood down or reassigning onto another duty that day, within hours. Company saves manpower, crewmember earns money.

The union claim "we offered paycuts". Great thanks, so without consultation with all members this was offered?

I think all crew should be sent a poll.
All ideas for negotiation from both sides so far, and against each three options for answer -
A I agree to accept this
B I agree to accept this temporarily
C I would not accept this

Surely then both sides would understand what would be comfortable the majority and come up with a new offer?

Six

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by MissM

Many rumours circulating of course but there's a word going around that WW will lose the support of the pilots should he return ST. Seeing as enough crew are turning up for duty if you are to believe BA, he doesn't need the support of the pilots any longer.

But that works both ways, MissM.

Enough crew are turning up so he doesn't need the pilots could mean that he will give staff travel back to bring this dispute to an end (something he's already said he's in no hurry to do) knowing that losing the pilots' support won't impact the operation....

But it could also mean that he really doesn't need the strikers back working so what's the point in upsetting one group of on-side employees (the pilots) in an attempt to appease a group of staff who, let's be honest, will always see Mr. Walsh as el diablo?

I've found over the past few days the vast majority of crew to be absolutely mature, sensible and respectful of eachothers views. I am wearing an "I'm Backing BA" lanyard and little mention has been made of it other than by a manager who said "you're brave".

I was completely blanked by two people who I would always greet warmly when I saw them in Crew Report and was given a frosty reception by another, but that may have been because he was in a hurry.

My crew is very mixed. People who went on strike (3), people who worked (2) one unknown and one who hasn't had to decide yet due to unpaid leave etc. She seems to be keen to express a pro-strike attitude but that's very easy to do when you've not had to decide. Until someone has XXXXs on their roster or has worked during a strike, they should really reserve judgement a little more.

One of the girls who went on strike previously, though, had come to work but turned back half way down the road, in tears, because she was scared to come in. I don't count that as a tick in the Bassa column, really.

But all the talk about it being hard to work in teams again and calls for strikers to be sacked or suspended are really harsh, for it's only an absolute minority (and they tend to make themselves well known on the crew forum) who will be difficult.

[Wheezyjet]

Miss M

"BASSA are not the only one to be blamed. All of the strikebreaking crew, including the VCC, should also be held responsible. If they hadn't reported for duty, this strike would have been over in days."

That's a bit like saying that if we hadn't stood against Hitler, World War II would have been over in days. True, but daft!

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by MissM

BASSA are not the only one to be blamed. All of the strikebreaking crew, including the VCC, should also be held responsible.

Sorry MissM, but while in the past I have been a strong supporter of Bassa, I am not now nor will I ever participate in industrial action that I do not believe in just to bring it to a swift resolution.

You have to stand up for what you believe in and I am not going to go on strike when I don't believe it's the right thing to do, purely to bring it to a prompt conclusion - and nor should anyone else.

Originally Posted by MissM

If they hadn't reported for duty, this strike would have been over in days.

And at what cost?

Originally Posted by MissM

The strikebreaking crew should be ashamed of themselves for not having the courage to go on strike whilst enjoying the terms and conditions which BASSA have fought hard for.

We have all waived our right to many of those terms and conditions while working during the strikes. One down payments, for example. And had BA tried to nightstop us in Singapore or Hong Kong we would have had to grin and get on with it.

The majority of us have also resigned our membership of Bassa because it's inappropriate to be a member of the same union you're defying the strike calls of.

For five and a half years I've backed Bassa, attended many of the meetings and been ready to walk out (like back in 2007 (?) and at Christmas) but I recognised that a number of good offers were made that we should have been consulted on and that we weren't irked me.

It's always been the way in cabin crew that Bassa will secure the terms and conditions for everyone - member of the union or not. Sadly, on this occasion, it almost looks as though Bassa's actions will be responsible for us all having to adopt a worse set of terms and conditions that we should/could have been enjoying.

Nevertheless, I don't blame individual members or even reps for this. Unlike you, I respect the opinions of my colleagues who have withdrawn their labour.

EVERYONE in this dispute is doing what they feel to be right, and you shouldn't expect people to abandon their own beliefs to satisfy yours.

[MissM]

wiggy

It might have been a personal decision for the pilots to volunteer but I personally believe there was some influence involved from one of the higher persons in BALPA.

Spanner in the works

BASSA did not initially recognise the instant need for changes. I remember very well what they were saying to us last year and there have been occassions when I have not agreed with them. They have made mistakes in the past. They are not flawless.

WW only made this statement about fighting for survival to send a message to both cabin crew and BASSA. Perhaps what he didn't realise was that it also had a negative impact on our company.

Wirbelstum

Thank you. I will enjoy my next sojourn at BFC.

BA operating 100%? I will believe it when I see it.

BASSA offered a pay cut, which was denied by the company. If you look at our productivity, you will see that the average full-time crew member on WW is close to 900 hours. Where do you suggest this "increased productivity" should be? BASSA have offered that the timing for Early Report Day should be brought back so that there will be no additional day off prior any reports earlier than 8 o'clock. They have also come to an agreement with BA about our DA and removal of the double night in case of a LR diversion. So, BASSA do understand the need for changes.

sixmilehighclub

In case you weren't aware, BASSA have offered to remove the telephone allowance, including other payments, such as the language payment. Myself would lose out payment for four languages.

I'm not denying that there needs to be changes made in some parts of our operation. I can't really comment on EF but if it's accurate that they in average fly 600 block hours a year, they could make an improvement there. BASSA have, as I have previously mentioned in this post, agreed with BA about our DA and Early Report Day.

[MissM]

Eddy

I do not agree with you that the majority have resigned their membership of BASSA. Less than 600 members have left since Christmas, which has been stated by BASSA themselves.

You chose to go to work during the strike knowing that you would be working with minimum crewing levels, what makes you think that you should be eligible for any working one down payments, which BASSA have fought for? It would have been the same if they had nighstopped you in SIN or HKG.

Some proposals in the past have been good, like the one with future crew working alongside on existing fleets, but they were also connected to certain conditions. Many destinations on WW would have gone to single night stops, which would have had a financial impact on us and not to mention the fatigue impact, and EF had to give up 12 days off a year. Looking at it now it looks like a good deal and surely we would have managed.

Lastly, I have pointed out that everyone does what they believe in but I still find it unacceptable that the company is training VCC and bringing back ex-temporary crew with the only purpose of breaking our strike.

[Timothy Claypole]

BA operating 100%? I will believe it when I see it.

So do you think BA bombard ex-temps with phone calls for no reason? Do you think if they are ringing them on Sunday morning it's because they aren't really that serious about getting trained people in uniform ASAP? BA will fly 100% of longhaul in any future strike, and you'll be able to sit at BFC drinking Pimms and telling each other they are the same aircraft going round and round all day to make LHR look busy.

BASSA offered a pay cut, which was denied by the company.

A pay loan.

If you look at our productivity, you will see that the average full-time crew member on WW is close to 900 hours. Where do you suggest this "increased productivity" should be?

How about improving productivity on EF, where the crew typically fly 450-550 hours per year vs the pilots 850? Or how about making the CSD work the service instead of sitting in the office or gladhanding card holders?

BASSA have offered that the timing for Early Report Day should be brought back so that there will be no additional day off prior any reports earlier than 8 o'clock. They have also come to an agreement with BA about our DA and removal of the double night in case of a LR diversion. So, BASSA do understand the need for changes.

Have you costed these proposals? Do you have any idea of what a small contribution they make to the overall savings target they make?

[ChicoG]

In case you weren't aware, BASSA have offered to remove the telephone allowance, including other payments, such as the language payment. Myself would lose out payment for four languages.

Which, had you simply accepted the same crew numbers as LGW, would not be on offer, along with the rest of the things that BASSA have "negotiated away" from you.

I assume from your comment about the "62.5 million" savings that you believe every word your union tells you and do not have the werewithal to check the facts for yourself.

Your union offered temporary, exaggerated savings and nothing else - and wanted it back later. A reminder: BA asked for no pay cuts whatsoever. Only BASSA did, on the promise of getting it back later. Some cut. As if BA wanted to borrow money off BASSA. They have banks, you know.

MissM, I genuinely feel sorry for you, and everyone else who has fallen foul of this incessant and shameful BASSA propaganda, and who has been brainwashed into not checking, or simply dismissing other sources of information.

[MrBunker]

Originally Posted by MissM

The photograph of LHR makes it look like a busy day but it doesn't really mean anything. How many flights went empty? How many flights went with only cargo? How many of the aircraft at T5 are wet least aircraft? One photograph doesn't say anything. Maybe an every half an hour update would have been good so that we could have seen if there were any aircraft movements. We kept an eye online on departing flights at BFC throughout the strike and according to our calculations BA did not increase its schedule as much as they claimed.

What happened with the announcement? What happened with the P45 or the new contract which some were confident in that we would be receiving?

Could somebody explain something to me? I was asked at the CRC to remove my BASSA lanyard because it's not uniform standard and hence not allowed. One feet away from where I was standing, there were three pilots (thank you for staring) wearing their BALPA lanyards and nobody asked them to remove theirs. Is it contradictory or is BA afraid that others will see the support BASSA have?

Problem with the "keeping an eye" MissM is that the sites that were used (and I know which ones from other places saying so) are not the reference document for BA flights. RadarVirtuel, BAA.com and even, BA.com do not reflect the number of flights flying. The only one, and sadly, crew do not have access to it, would be FICO and that would show the aircraft departing, reinstated, flying as freighters etc. I know the crowing on CrewForum to be wrong as I went on one of the reinstated flights with 12 "real" cabin crew and, although we went with no passengers, we came back on a strike day, reinstated with in excess of 250 passengers. Yet the moderator on another forum was adamant my flight was cancelled. Funny, I seem to recall being away for a while.

But my point is, be rather careful what you use as a reference source for your information - there are many sources out there which are not linked in anyway to BA and, like it or not, they're the ones deciding which aircraft and services are launched. As for RadarVirtuel, anyone who thinks that represents an accurate reflection of the airspace at any one time has no idea.

As for the rest, the announcement was, and always has been, speculation. It's a possible, nothing more. Lanyards? Well, to be fair around the time of Open Skies we were reminded ad hoc about the standards applicable to those. It died a quiet death when it was noted a number of managers were wearing Airbus, 787 project etc etc lanyards. But no, I suspect BA are not afraid of the "strength" or otherwise of BASSA. For what little it's worth, regardless of who I consider to be right or wrong in this dispute, I fear BASSA have only served to sideline themselves towards an increasing irrelevance. Merely my own opinion.

MrB

[wilsr]

In all these thousands of posts, one word only comes up very occasionally: "Customer".

I cannot believe that anyone, striker, non-striker, VCC or anyone else, can think that wearing any non-uniform lanyard - BASSA, BALPA or "Backing BA" does anything but project an unprofessional image at "The Customer".

A fare paying passenger may be caught up in strike action but he doesn't want or need to have a reference to it shoved in his face. Or are these things taken off before boarding the aircraft?

[MrBunker]

MissM;

And further to my last quote, you identify the nub of the issue here. It's words like "allegedly" which means your argument then merits little or no attention. Do you have evidence to which you can refer any of us on here to confirm that BALPA have told BA to "leave our lanyards" alone or "we" will withdraw our support? I'd be astounded if you had anything more substantial than a CrewForum crewmour that grew into a 30 page thread of replies consisting of nothing more ephemeral than "Disgusting" "BASSA should leak this to the press" and, of course, a

What is often trumpeted as FACT (not my capitals) is, invariably (and on both sides often) no more than an "I heard from a mate, who is very close to WW", or some such, which then becomes fact by page 5 of the rabble rousing.

The very idea that BA would listen to pilots in terms of taking instruction on the conduct of their industrial relations is bordering on the delusional.

As for the strike being over if everyone had not broken the strike is, in the standard of your usual argument, way below par. Of course it would. But only to give the result you think you're entitled to. That so many people felt so strongly about ensuring that didn't happen is not something they will ever feel badly about, no matter how often you and your like-minded colleagues suggest they should hang their head in shame. Don't want to drink with a pilot or a strike-breaker? Don't assume that they either a) care or b) want to drink with you either. I'm not, and I'm guessing much to your surprise, that bothered spending an evening at a table listening to a group harp on about how "evil" the CEO is. Which in itself is a risible accusation. He's a businessman who conducts business in a robust manner, to assume he personalises this issue enough to have an emotion about you one way or the other is bordering on arrogant. To be blunt, the trips I've done during the strike period have been delightful, everyone pulling together and working hard. You don't want to come back? Not sure a lot of people genuinely care much these days. You can interpret that, if you wish, as a statement of which side I've come down on.

As for the idea that those who volunteered will have no jobs to go back to - I'd suggest you think about that a little harder.

For the flight crew who volunteered, there will be jobs as they were working during a reduced schedule so once that's back to full again then we've the correct establishment.

As for those you all love to deride at Waterside, having chatted with a few volunteers in various capacities (some crew, some crew support) the fact is they're working when they're not volunteering and their colleagues are backing BA by taking on their workload when those colleagues are volunteering. Much as you'd love it to be otherwise. Oh the schadenfreude when all those "crazy" volunteers go back to Waterside to find their desks have been cleared. Ain't happening. Sorry.

I apologise if my tone is a little strident but frankly the paucity of facts and evidence in the pro-BASSA argument is making the debate one-sided and forcing me, at least, to assume there is no meat to put on the bones of your side of the dispute.

MrB

[Betty girl]

I would just like to say how great it is that PPRuNe lets everyone post whatever side you take.
It may seem like everyone is ganging up on Miss M but really we are all just debating the issues in an open and fair way. It is a shame that other forums do not do the same.
Last week I posted on another forum especially dedicated to BA cabin crew only. (I think I might have seen you there Miss M , under the name of a detective maybe) Anyway I just wanted to post to explaine why I had worked because I was fed up of people telling us working crew that it was only to save staff travel. Healthy debate followed with alot of people posting (50 pages +) and then the next day my login had been suspended.

It seems that here on PPRuNe open debate is encouraged as long as it is polite and respectful which is great. On other sites only one view is allowed. Thank you PPRuNe..

[Wirbelsturm]

What is interesting is that the debate seems to follow a set course of 'one liner' from the BASSA viewpoint pointing out some BASSA generated 'advantage' to the non striking personnel with little factual, statistical or cohesive evidence to back it up followed by rational debate (occasionally from both sides mostly from one) which does contain fact.

Sadly, as has been posted before Unite/BASSA can air and publicise what they wish, be it true, false or conjecture. BA doesn't have that capability irrespective of what BASSA would have you believe. Any figures or data from BA MUST, under law, be backed up with proof. Hence, if BA don't wish to release figures to anyone except major investors, they keep quiet. Some see this as poor PR from BA, some see this as BA lying (BASSA) and many see it for what it is, not saying anything when there is nothing to say.

Healthy debate is just that, healthy. Unfortunately for the few who have swallowed the rhetoric from BASSA I think they will, rightly or wrongly, find themselves sidelined in the future BA and allowed to wither into misconceived Unionistic Martyrdom. Sadly though their 'gallant' actions will only be applauded by the Union leaders as they swan off into their retirement sunset and the SWP who would love to greet them in the Job Centre queue.

Attacking other groups with fictional grievances is pointless. Introspective looks into the root causes of this dispute, looking at what BASSA, in your name, have thrown away during their 'quiet periods' and contemplating whether it is worth the destruction of YOUR job for a petty point of crew restructuring. That would have a point.

BASSA have got it totally wrong. BA staff are backing BA to ensure that our customers get to their destinations as safely, promptly and comfortably as possible and we will continue to do so while BASSA wheezes its last militant breath.

[JWFI]

Has staff travel been removed from those that struck in the second wave of stikes in May/Jun ??

[Wirbelsturm]

"On the backs of the discontented shall we rise to power"

Didn't the former Soviet Union do fantastically well with Communism? After the inevitable collapse of Communism, 1% of the population retained 99% of the countries resources and the other 99% collapsed into alcoholism and poverty. Welcome to the world the new communist Oligarchs.

Oligarch, which theoretically means "one of the few rulers", denotes the significant influence such wealthy individuals may have on the life of a nation.

Fantastically bright future for the SWP no?