British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chuchinchow
It's time to wheel out another "defender of the faith" to retail BASSA's take on things. How about A Lurker? He has been extraordinarily silent for several months now.
They hate you when you don't agree with them; they hate you when you do!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: cheltenham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
Miss M
Please please get your facts right. I know for a fact that you have been corrected on this multiple times. Once again repeating this twaddle about pilots receiving their pay cut back in shares does you no favours. Everyone seems to of allowed it to slip through this time. I suspect people are bored with correcting you on this matter. Please, please read this reply. I know it suits you to believe this urban myth but it's not true and makes your arguments look weak and I'll informed.
So, one more time. This shares option is triggered IF the company hits all of the specified targets which is exceptionally unlikely. However, just for you Miss M we will assume it does. My loss of salary due to my pay cut (and the 20% cut in allowances which is rarely mentioned) is around £4,000 per year. It is also worth pointing out that I am relatively new to the company and my pay cut is modest compared to others.
I did the calculations on the share scheme. Obviously it isn't accurate to the penny as it was based on back of envelope sums. My best calculation was that in 3 years I would receive in the region of £1,200.
To summarise; in the BEST case scenario, IF all of the targets are met I will of lost around £12,000 and gained £1,200. This MissM is not speculation. This is fact.
I asked previously if you ever reflected on posts. Looked at what was written and reassessed your views and stance. I know that I do when presented with a fact I wasn't aware of. I didn't get an answer, which I suspect is an answer in itself.
Miss M, do you now fully understand the "shares deal"? Like all other departments we made permanent cost savings. Our pay cut is permanent, it is ongoing and it is frankly painful. I lose that money every year for the rest of my career. Perhaps you would say sorry? You made a mistake or misunderstood?
Genuine question. Do you feel your unions offer of a loan was acceptable? Do you feel you should be exempt from the necessary pain that every other section of the company was taking?
Remove the human nature side that compels all of us to defend our side of the argument. Look impartially at the facts.
Please please get your facts right. I know for a fact that you have been corrected on this multiple times. Once again repeating this twaddle about pilots receiving their pay cut back in shares does you no favours. Everyone seems to of allowed it to slip through this time. I suspect people are bored with correcting you on this matter. Please, please read this reply. I know it suits you to believe this urban myth but it's not true and makes your arguments look weak and I'll informed.
So, one more time. This shares option is triggered IF the company hits all of the specified targets which is exceptionally unlikely. However, just for you Miss M we will assume it does. My loss of salary due to my pay cut (and the 20% cut in allowances which is rarely mentioned) is around £4,000 per year. It is also worth pointing out that I am relatively new to the company and my pay cut is modest compared to others.
I did the calculations on the share scheme. Obviously it isn't accurate to the penny as it was based on back of envelope sums. My best calculation was that in 3 years I would receive in the region of £1,200.
To summarise; in the BEST case scenario, IF all of the targets are met I will of lost around £12,000 and gained £1,200. This MissM is not speculation. This is fact.
I asked previously if you ever reflected on posts. Looked at what was written and reassessed your views and stance. I know that I do when presented with a fact I wasn't aware of. I didn't get an answer, which I suspect is an answer in itself.
Miss M, do you now fully understand the "shares deal"? Like all other departments we made permanent cost savings. Our pay cut is permanent, it is ongoing and it is frankly painful. I lose that money every year for the rest of my career. Perhaps you would say sorry? You made a mistake or misunderstood?
Genuine question. Do you feel your unions offer of a loan was acceptable? Do you feel you should be exempt from the necessary pain that every other section of the company was taking?
Remove the human nature side that compels all of us to defend our side of the argument. Look impartially at the facts.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: surrey
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Also, if I may ask, after you have answered cotswoldchaps questions, what will actually make you 'content', in so far as you 'won't' strike and you 'will' back BA.
Looking at your posts, you seem to despise the company that pays and has paid your wages in the past.
Thanks
KJ
Looking at your posts, you seem to despise the company that pays and has paid your wages in the past.
Thanks
KJ
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White
Brilliant post. BUT...
A gross underestimation of the number of staff who think ill of BASSA and are Backing BA!
Brilliant post. BUT...
I think you will find that there are an awful lot of other staff in BA who have similar views.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Reading
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cotswoldchap think we may have flown together 777 in the last month.
I think MissM either missed my similar thread or chose to ignore it, The BASSA publisised pilots deal and the actual one are very, very different so please dont use this as a basis for thinking the CC were hard done by and the pilots ''let off lighly''. You are miss-informed as usual and until you look at the facts your arguments on certain subjects hold little legitimacy.
I think MissM either missed my similar thread or chose to ignore it, The BASSA publisised pilots deal and the actual one are very, very different so please dont use this as a basis for thinking the CC were hard done by and the pilots ''let off lighly''. You are miss-informed as usual and until you look at the facts your arguments on certain subjects hold little legitimacy.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuchinchow
Out of hours? A two-day nightstop? Very mature of you.
Betty Girl
Please don't make any assumptions about that I never read anything which the company sends to us because I do.
I have seen the list of routes and some of them are YYC, MRU, ORD, CPH and SOF. It's a very tactical move of BA to choose some of the least popular destinations for New Fleet. What were they hoping to gain by choosing these ones and not some of our more lucrative and popular destinations?
Out of hours? A two-day nightstop? Very mature of you.
Betty Girl
Please don't make any assumptions about that I never read anything which the company sends to us because I do.
I have seen the list of routes and some of them are YYC, MRU, ORD, CPH and SOF. It's a very tactical move of BA to choose some of the least popular destinations for New Fleet. What were they hoping to gain by choosing these ones and not some of our more lucrative and popular destinations?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dispute appears to be stalemate all round with both sides having boxed themselves into a corner with no way out.
Is it not time for the board to intervene and bring this damaging dispute to an end ?
Is it not time for the board to intervene and bring this damaging dispute to an end ?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London,England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Firstly, you have my admiration for beingone of the few to stand up and be counted in the face of what can be a fairly hostile environment!
However.........
Don't you see the fallacy of the position you are valiantly trying to maintain? You say that flights are working well and having the CSD as part of the service is not an issue - the problem is that BA imposed these changes. It seems to me that what you are objecting to is not the ends but the means with which BA has achieved them. Surely you should be asking yourself is if the ends are acceptable (which you imply with your statement above) then why on earth didn't BASSA ask you to vote on them last Autumn - and then you would have avoided all this heartache for yourself, your colleagues and everybody else who has an interest in BA's long term profitability. Surely the responsibility for this whole sorry mess should lie with the union for not asking you what you wanted and what was acceptable. Because they didn't do this BA had no option but to impose the changes with which you do not appear to have a problem.
How about reducing the numbers of crew on the aircraft?
This is what I really don't understand. For as long as what takes? What would a satisfactory resolution to this be for you? Do you honestly believe that WW will reverse the changes in any significant way? If you really believe that he will, having endured 12 weeks of industrial action I think you are deluding yourself. He is still training volunteers and temporary staff are being recruited. Where do you go now?
Firstly, you have my admiration for beingone of the few to stand up and be counted in the face of what can be a fairly hostile environment!
However.........
I don't mind working a bit harder. The issue is not about getting the CSD back to their office. It's about imposition. Most flights are working well so to have the CSD part of the service is not really an issue.
Where do you suggest this "increased productivity" should be?
I will go on strike again and for as long as it takes.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you suggest this "increased productivity" should be?
Just a couple.
Oh, hang on, New Fleet covers those, now where did that come from I wonder. Good of BASSA to hasten their own demise.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M,
Just take say CPH, SOF and lets add NCE.
So just for example, a NF crew on day 1 do NCE and back - CPH nightstop. min rest followed by the early to LHR fixed link to SOF return.
That would be 6 man days on a 319 compared to how many peeps on the current contract? Current crewing practices would probably use a crew for the nce, another for the CPH and ANOTHER for the SOF. 12 man days at double the cost of NF crew, i.e. to crew 6 flights may be about 4 times cheaper.
have seen the list of routes and some of them are YYC, MRU, ORD, CPH and SOF. It's a very tactical move of BA to choose some of the least popular destinations for New Fleet. What were they hoping to gain by choosing these ones and not some of our more lucrative and popular destinations?
So just for example, a NF crew on day 1 do NCE and back - CPH nightstop. min rest followed by the early to LHR fixed link to SOF return.
That would be 6 man days on a 319 compared to how many peeps on the current contract? Current crewing practices would probably use a crew for the nce, another for the CPH and ANOTHER for the SOF. 12 man days at double the cost of NF crew, i.e. to crew 6 flights may be about 4 times cheaper.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: N51°20. W000°35
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To HAHAHAHAHAHAH
from a poster of the other forum
?????
Some interesting comments on the other thread from what seemed to be a very rare species - a Gatwick striker.
But is he/she reallly?
I noted yesterday that HAHAHAetc's location was listed as "LHR" despite claiming to be Gatwick crew. Today I note it has been changed to "LGW". If correct, it seems he/she has got the transfer he/she claims to be striking about (albeit in the reverse direction
)
But is he/she reallly?
I noted yesterday that HAHAHAetc's location was listed as "LHR" despite claiming to be Gatwick crew. Today I note it has been changed to "LGW". If correct, it seems he/she has got the transfer he/she claims to be striking about (albeit in the reverse direction
)
Last edited by RadarIdent; 17th Jun 2010 at 13:04.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dispute appears to be stalemate all round with both sides having boxed themselves into a corner with no way out.
A large percentage of flights operated in the last round and an even larger number promised for the next round (if it happens).
Stalemate - a situation in which neither group involved in an argument can win or get an advantage and no action can be taken
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not time for the board to intervene and bring this damaging dispute to an end ?
If Walsh keeps this going for much longer, the seemingly steady stream of crew who are growing increasingly frustrated with Bassa will continue to gain in numbers. The company may be losing a fair whack of cash but, let's be honest, it's probably not a massive amount more than the company would be losing anyway, given the current climate.
Also, the majority of our customers who know what's been going on - generally Golds and Silvers - seem to agree that the service (although reduced) has been an improvement on strike-days.
Additionally, the longer this all lasts, the more leverage Walsh will have to get rid of some of the most militant members of crew (
) which, although sad, will without doubt lead to a more harmonious working environment. No - I don't think the board is in any hurry to bring this to an end.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dispute appears to be stalemate all round with both sides having boxed themselves into a corner with no way out.
Is it not time for the board to intervene and bring this damaging dispute to an end ?
Is it not time for the board to intervene and bring this damaging dispute to an end ?
BASSA have no other (legal) weapon in their arsenal than continued IA. BA have shown a growing ability to surmount this obstacle.
And BA's legal team are no doubt casting a watchful eye at other weapons of their own, which up until now have been locked away in the "Not until we're ready" filing cabinet drawer.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HaHa,
I didn't suggest that transfer rights were thrown in at the last minute, just that in my opinion, they were put into the pot as a sweetener for the LGW crew, much like the breakfast allowance during the last dispute. I do agree that we should have the right to transfer, having fought for it for so long but I can't help thinking that striking is the last way to get it back. What would have happened if the company had agreed on all points, bar the transfer rights? Do you think the striking LHR crew would have stayed out on strike? Or do you think it's more likely that most would have agreed to accept the deal and trotted back to work?
As for getting back the second purser on the three class aircraft, wasn't it actually part of the BASSA proposal that offered to give up the second purser? To be fair, there now seems to have been so many proposals and counter proposals that I'm losing track but I'm sure I remember there being a certain amount of outrage at LGW when that was announced.
Finally, the temporary pay cut. I'm glad you were willing and able to support that. I was neither willing nor able, yet I was never asked for my opinion. None of us were. (At the time, I was still a union member.)
Miss M,
Just like everyone else, I have no idea what will happen at LGW. I don't have a crystal ball and I can only guess from the information I have. My best guess is that we will probably lose most of the shorthaul in favour of long haul. That seems to be where the money is. Will we be protected from new fleet? Again, I don't know but I do think we'd have had more of a chance of protection if the union had negotiated properly. There are no guarantees in life and we have to make our decisions based on the information we have available to us.
And yes, I do want union representation. Ideally a union that is completely separate and concentrates on LGW only. A union that doesn't constantly stall. A union that isn't distracted by what's happening up the road. A union that is totally open and will accept other points of view. I don't even know if that's possible but if it is, it isn't BASSA, Amicus or even PCCC, if that ever gets approval.
P767,
If you read my post again, you'll see I was very careful to use the words most/majority/those that. No one has every tried to say that 100% of LGW crew are behind BA. They aren't. It's why I state in my briefings that everyone has had to make a decision and everyone should be respected for the decision tthat hey have made. That goes for both sides of the dispute.
One final point for the pax and other interested parties that are reading this thread. Can I ask that if you are going to post a quote from here, please at least have the decency to post it in context. I know most do but a recent quote on that thread was completely twisted, presumably to suit the posters own agenda and thereby adding fuel to the fire. It serves no purpose for anyone! (I note that it has now been slightly changed!)
I didn't suggest that transfer rights were thrown in at the last minute, just that in my opinion, they were put into the pot as a sweetener for the LGW crew, much like the breakfast allowance during the last dispute. I do agree that we should have the right to transfer, having fought for it for so long but I can't help thinking that striking is the last way to get it back. What would have happened if the company had agreed on all points, bar the transfer rights? Do you think the striking LHR crew would have stayed out on strike? Or do you think it's more likely that most would have agreed to accept the deal and trotted back to work?
As for getting back the second purser on the three class aircraft, wasn't it actually part of the BASSA proposal that offered to give up the second purser? To be fair, there now seems to have been so many proposals and counter proposals that I'm losing track but I'm sure I remember there being a certain amount of outrage at LGW when that was announced.
Finally, the temporary pay cut. I'm glad you were willing and able to support that. I was neither willing nor able, yet I was never asked for my opinion. None of us were. (At the time, I was still a union member.)
Miss M,
Just like everyone else, I have no idea what will happen at LGW. I don't have a crystal ball and I can only guess from the information I have. My best guess is that we will probably lose most of the shorthaul in favour of long haul. That seems to be where the money is. Will we be protected from new fleet? Again, I don't know but I do think we'd have had more of a chance of protection if the union had negotiated properly. There are no guarantees in life and we have to make our decisions based on the information we have available to us.
And yes, I do want union representation. Ideally a union that is completely separate and concentrates on LGW only. A union that doesn't constantly stall. A union that isn't distracted by what's happening up the road. A union that is totally open and will accept other points of view. I don't even know if that's possible but if it is, it isn't BASSA, Amicus or even PCCC, if that ever gets approval.
P767,
HAHA...etc has provided a post which somewhat breaks the myth perpetuated by a few on here that LGW are 100% behind BA.
One final point for the pax and other interested parties that are reading this thread. Can I ask that if you are going to post a quote from here, please at least have the decency to post it in context. I know most do but a recent quote on that thread was completely twisted, presumably to suit the posters own agenda and thereby adding fuel to the fire. It serves no purpose for anyone! (I note that it has now been slightly changed!)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eighteen Hours?!
Get rid of the archaic 18 hours rest rule on SH?
No wonder there is more and more public animosity against BA cabin crew.
More and more ordinary people doing ordinary jobs earning ordinary wages, having to pay their own way to and from their ordinary jobs, getting back the exact amount they had to pay for their ordinary expenses and not a penny extra, are finding out about our extraordinary terms and conditions.
Not only are they (justifiably) jealous but their anger mounts as they learn daily of the intransigence of our main union - BASSA - which adamantly attempts to defend the no longer defensible.
When will the next elections for BASSA representatives be held? I am willing to bet five (5) NRT trips that the current set will be out on their ears - the chair and the branch general secretary included.
Oh, sorry: the branch general secretary no longer works for British Airways and so is already ineligible, under BASSA's constitution, to continue in office.
Last edited by Chuchinchow; 17th Jun 2010 at 18:28.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cough.
Your NF examples of work are fictional. Even working to CAA rules you could not do an early report with 3 sectors of the duty day you have suggested. Early report in CPH followed by SOF and back!!
Our flight crew do not do duty days of that length with an early report + 3 sectors as you suggest.
At least make your examples realistic and to CAA scheme.
Your NF examples of work are fictional. Even working to CAA rules you could not do an early report with 3 sectors of the duty day you have suggested. Early report in CPH followed by SOF and back!!
Our flight crew do not do duty days of that length with an early report + 3 sectors as you suggest.
At least make your examples realistic and to CAA scheme.
Last edited by Betty girl; 17th Jun 2010 at 14:55. Reason: spelling mistake
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty,
The other morning, I bumped into my mate who had just operated into LHR from AMS (early). They then had an unexpected aircraft change but were operating to SOF and back. So from an early AMS-LHR-SOF-LHR.
Now if C/Crew can operate another hour longer than us pilot folk, why is CPH-LHR-SOF-LHR unrealistic?
The other morning, I bumped into my mate who had just operated into LHR from AMS (early). They then had an unexpected aircraft change but were operating to SOF and back. So from an early AMS-LHR-SOF-LHR.
Now if C/Crew can operate another hour longer than us pilot folk, why is CPH-LHR-SOF-LHR unrealistic?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for numbers sake...
Block times:
CPH-LHR 2:10
LHR-SOF 3:05
SOF-LHR 3:30
Total flying, 8:45
Add 1 hour report prior, 2x45 min turnarounds and (optional) 30min clear = total duty = 11:45.
(30 min clear not required for Flight Duty Period calculations)
From JPM, for a 6am local time start you can do 12:30. So excluding the clear time, you are 1:15 inside max FDP.
Block times:
CPH-LHR 2:10
LHR-SOF 3:05
SOF-LHR 3:30
Total flying, 8:45
Add 1 hour report prior, 2x45 min turnarounds and (optional) 30min clear = total duty = 11:45.
(30 min clear not required for Flight Duty Period calculations)
From JPM, for a 6am local time start you can do 12:30. So excluding the clear time, you are 1:15 inside max FDP.