British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in between
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW is a different story. When you apply to a base, you agree to certain terms and conditions. Crew at LGW agreed to it when they signed the dotted line on their contract.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, MissM, your salaries have not changed through imposition....yet....
....imposition that was deemed appropriate by Sir Christoper Holland, in the prevailing circumstances, viz-a-viz BASSA's appearance of being bereft of any ability to morph/adapt/learn with the Airline Industry. Isn't the strike about impostion.
You also talk of what is to stop Walsh imposing in the future - I'll tell you now shall I? - an erudite set of union reps with the ability to assist the management in searching for a solution to this crisis, that's what. IMHO, the current BASSA team have no chance of success in anything anymore. They are demonstrably riven with hidden/double agendas, steeped/mired in a self serving bog of self-pity and fronted by a Chair who finds it acceptable to call the CEO a **** to his face.
A Chair, incidently, that ST'd back to LAX the other day - some leadership Huh? Melchett springs to mind.
GF
....imposition that was deemed appropriate by Sir Christoper Holland, in the prevailing circumstances, viz-a-viz BASSA's appearance of being bereft of any ability to morph/adapt/learn with the Airline Industry. Isn't the strike about impostion.
You also talk of what is to stop Walsh imposing in the future - I'll tell you now shall I? - an erudite set of union reps with the ability to assist the management in searching for a solution to this crisis, that's what. IMHO, the current BASSA team have no chance of success in anything anymore. They are demonstrably riven with hidden/double agendas, steeped/mired in a self serving bog of self-pity and fronted by a Chair who finds it acceptable to call the CEO a **** to his face.
A Chair, incidently, that ST'd back to LAX the other day - some leadership Huh? Melchett springs to mind.
GF
Controversial, moi?
Missm
I am sorry to keep disagreeing with you especially as you are one of the few prepared to put your head abov ethe parapet but you hark on about negotiation but BASSA had a show of hands at one of the last mass meetings on a motion to end all further negotiations. Negotiations take two and there has to be give and take on both sides. I don't see much give on one side.
I am sorry to keep disagreeing with you especially as you are one of the few prepared to put your head abov ethe parapet but you hark on about negotiation but BASSA had a show of hands at one of the last mass meetings on a motion to end all further negotiations. Negotiations take two and there has to be give and take on both sides. I don't see much give on one side.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take the present offer or strike?
There is an offer on the table, wich is worse than the one before the strike.
Now, there are 2 options:
1. Take the offer
2. Strike again
What will happen if CC strike again? I is very unlikly the offer will be
improved, more likekly the offer will be worse.
The strike has failed so far, if BASSA chooses an all out strike that will outrage everybody, the rest of the BA staff will stick together even more.
WW said damage will be paid by IFCE, therefore more cuts for CC.
I guess if you are CC you can expect to a) get the present offer b) if you strike to receive a 3 month notice (new fleet contract attached) c) loose your job (BA needs only 10'000 CC under newfleet).
This is only my opinion, I feel sorry for the majority of BA CC who do an exellent job and have been let down by their union.
Now, there are 2 options:
1. Take the offer
2. Strike again
What will happen if CC strike again? I is very unlikly the offer will be
improved, more likekly the offer will be worse.
The strike has failed so far, if BASSA chooses an all out strike that will outrage everybody, the rest of the BA staff will stick together even more.
WW said damage will be paid by IFCE, therefore more cuts for CC.
I guess if you are CC you can expect to a) get the present offer b) if you strike to receive a 3 month notice (new fleet contract attached) c) loose your job (BA needs only 10'000 CC under newfleet).
This is only my opinion, I feel sorry for the majority of BA CC who do an exellent job and have been let down by their union.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quotes-Miss M
Why was Columbus brought up in the first place? BA has caused us a lot of unnecessary worry over this for almost two years. They would have gone through with it either way, with or without negotiations. Even if we had accepted their original proposal last year I do think they would have gone ahead with this new fleet. There always seems to be a secret agenda hidden somewhere.
BA caused us all worry about Columbus, I admit I was really scared too.
Are you saying that during your career with BA you have never been let down by them?
However, BA may have let itself down on a few occasions, we cannot dispute that.
WW could appear as reasonable and fair. It doesn't necessary mean that he is nor that you have to believe what he says. He sometimes contradicts himself. Take for example when he said he cannot accept crew to take a pay cut yet asked us to work free for up to a month.
I am also prepared to accept changes. As long as they are reasonable, fair and agreed through proper and serious negotiations without any secret agendas. I want BA to succeed too but I will not allow management to destroy my career because they have set their mind to it. WW is not in BA for life but many of us can see ourselves in the company for many more years to come.
However, I totally understand your concerns, somehow trust has to start somewhere and sometime. We can't go on in the present state indefinitely, otherwise we will all lose out.
I'm BA cabin crew and the above are my personal views and not those of BA.
PS: Miss M, thank you. It's good to talk but I must fly now!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
My wife was on Mid Fleet at the start. She left Bassa then, because she was told that if she joined that fleet "We wipe are hands of you." They said they would not be prepared to represent her. She was so annoyed by their attitude that she left and then joined cabin crew 89. It's interesting that a lot of crew got flack back then for being on Mid Fleet yet they received some of the highest satisfaction ratings from passengers travelling with us. Bassa had very little to do with Mid Fleet.
Last edited by BentleyH; 13th Apr 2010 at 09:52.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A discussion where everybody is of the same opinion is not constructive and very boring. So I am grateful for MissM´s presence here, and for her willingness to clearly explain her thinking to all of us.
Many of you have bemoaned the lack of BASSA supporters standing up for what they believe in here on PPRuNe.
Now that there is such a poster, please treat her with the courtesy you yourself would expect.
MissM has repeatedly stated that she does NOT agree with everything BASSA has said and done. Attacking her as if she is BASSA personified, because she argues the BASSA´s overall position, is disingenuous at best.
This quite apart from the fact that attacking a person rather than arguing points is against PPRuNe rules and has once again lead to a few thread bans.
Many of you have bemoaned the lack of BASSA supporters standing up for what they believe in here on PPRuNe.
Now that there is such a poster, please treat her with the courtesy you yourself would expect.
MissM has repeatedly stated that she does NOT agree with everything BASSA has said and done. Attacking her as if she is BASSA personified, because she argues the BASSA´s overall position, is disingenuous at best.
This quite apart from the fact that attacking a person rather than arguing points is against PPRuNe rules and has once again lead to a few thread bans.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Engine post 1680
Right Engine, spot on ...............
Many cabin crew voted to go on strike because of the fear of what MIGHT happen and not based on the original 2009 offer and the facts of the day.
Their beloved 'honest' union stirred it up and lead its members to believe BA management weren't to be trusted.
How ironic 12 months on that BA appear to be playing it straight down the line and the union are full of lies, deceit and propoganda
I wonder how many cabin crew would've acted/voted differently had they known then what they know now
Many cabin crew voted to go on strike because of the fear of what MIGHT happen and not based on the original 2009 offer and the facts of the day.
Their beloved 'honest' union stirred it up and lead its members to believe BA management weren't to be trusted.
How ironic 12 months on that BA appear to be playing it straight down the line and the union are full of lies, deceit and propoganda
I wonder how many cabin crew would've acted/voted differently had they known then what they know now
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse
I have NEVER been against negotiation. I was not even present at that particular meeting which took last year when they voted for no further negotiations with BA by raising their hands.
I am sorry to keep disagreeing with you especially as you are one of the few prepared to put your head abov ethe parapet but you hark on about negotiation but BASSA had a show of hands at one of the last mass meetings on a motion to end all further negotiations. Negotiations take two and there has to be give and take on both sides. I don't see much give on one side.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's ok for LGW crew but not for LHR? You both do the same job for the same company, or am I missing something?
There's no way BA will change the terms and conditions at LGW to same levels as found at LHR. There's no secret that LGW has always been a low priority to both the company and especially to the union but union support has always been low down there. Why should a union represent a base when they get no response from the crew? This is exactly what I wrote in a previous post. A union is only as strong it can be depending on its members. Members form the union yet BASSA fought for them to be included in the NSP to achieve their transfer rights to LHR.
I can understand if LGW crew decided to work because they felt they couldn't either afford to strike or because they don't care but they have also been exposed to imposition and need to get a grip of what's happening. Some even said BA has claimed that LGW is far too expensive even though it is the cheapest fleet in the company and this will be a threat to them when New Fleet is up and running.
Tiramisu
One could really ask why BA decided to cause all of this worry when last year they had no intention of creating a new fleet as long as we agreed to different crewing levels and a disruption agreement. Was is to get some sort of reaction from either the crew or the union? This is exactly why I have very little faith in management. I think many crew can agree that they found it very strange that BA said they would remove new fleet from the table if we agreed to everything else, especially after that time of planning Columbus.
No, we weren't forced to work for free but it was a suggestion made by WW and I guess that could be some sort of similarity.
Good to talk to you too and have a good trip!
BentleyH
I know BASSA was not very fond of Mid Fleet, or 767 fleet, until they realised that there were really good promotion opportunities there. I also know some crew very much enjoyed working on the fleet but also because they worked to existing agreements.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
I think you will find that a number of departments in BA, if not all, have heard rumours on their future. It always seemed bad news, alot of worried people. I suggest Project Columbus could be described as this.
So the rumours are really bad but when it eventually came on the table it was not as bad as envisage. But unfortunately, BASSA did not want to negotiate. We now have the current situation.
Miss M
How long have you not had faith in the BA management? Has this stemmed from previous CEOs? If so, why are you carrying on with this lack of faith when (it seems to me) that Willie Walsh has been upfront and truthful. IIRC, when Willie Walsh joined BA I think there was a feeling that change was in the air.
Change has come about but unfortunately because of the current recession and trading difficulties, BA have had to act quickly to survive. Other departments have seen this and negotiated agreements accordingly. BASSA have done the opposite, And here we are today, Cabin Crew offered a worse deal then if they had bothered to negotiate would have received 9 months ago.
Why was Columbus brought up in the first place? BA has caused us a lot of unnecessary worry over this for almost two years.
I think you will find that a number of departments in BA, if not all, have heard rumours on their future. It always seemed bad news, alot of worried people. I suggest Project Columbus could be described as this.
So the rumours are really bad but when it eventually came on the table it was not as bad as envisage. But unfortunately, BASSA did not want to negotiate. We now have the current situation.
Miss M
I don't have the amount of faith in our management
Change has come about but unfortunately because of the current recession and trading difficulties, BA have had to act quickly to survive. Other departments have seen this and negotiated agreements accordingly. BASSA have done the opposite, And here we are today, Cabin Crew offered a worse deal then if they had bothered to negotiate would have received 9 months ago.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
WW has clearly shown how much he values our agreements by completely ignoring them
IFCE introduced this change as it believed this to be a consultative, not a negotiable, issue. A court has also deemed this action to be fair and reasonable.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need complete protection from New Fleet and have a say as to which routes should go and stay
protection - by way of a fixed monthly payment
route transfer - in consultation with unite
both documented in the last offer
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BluRibband, I know it's going back a few pages, but re post 1577 Cabin Crew pay, specifically "CSD basic salary starts at £44,000".
Now as you will see from my posts, I'm firmly in the anti strike camp and VERY critical of BASSA, but purely from the viewpoint of accuracy, I'm a CSD with close to 30 years seniority (16 as a CSD and at the top of the increment scale) and my basic, even now, is over £2000 LESS than that you quote as a starting basic. The figures quoted by BA as "AVERAGES" did look a bit high too - towards top end, more like. (The CAA cost per head data is probably a better comparison between airlines, as it includes all costs associated with employing and rostering each category of employee, not just pay).
However, it's still a valid point that BA cannot afford a new generation of crew as well paid as us. I don't like that fact, but fact it is, nonetheless.
To deal with that fact, you either reduce the costs from your existing staff, who have little they can do to dramatically cut their own household costs, or you do it, as proposed, from future staff who are able to make a decision whether they can afford to work for BA as cabin crew.
BASSA can't, or won't, acknowledge that and deal with it.
Now as you will see from my posts, I'm firmly in the anti strike camp and VERY critical of BASSA, but purely from the viewpoint of accuracy, I'm a CSD with close to 30 years seniority (16 as a CSD and at the top of the increment scale) and my basic, even now, is over £2000 LESS than that you quote as a starting basic. The figures quoted by BA as "AVERAGES" did look a bit high too - towards top end, more like. (The CAA cost per head data is probably a better comparison between airlines, as it includes all costs associated with employing and rostering each category of employee, not just pay).
However, it's still a valid point that BA cannot afford a new generation of crew as well paid as us. I don't like that fact, but fact it is, nonetheless.
To deal with that fact, you either reduce the costs from your existing staff, who have little they can do to dramatically cut their own household costs, or you do it, as proposed, from future staff who are able to make a decision whether they can afford to work for BA as cabin crew.
BASSA can't, or won't, acknowledge that and deal with it.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Costs and change
Litebulbs wrote:
We should take a step back and remember what the issues are.
1. Cabin crew costs are too high
2. The web of restrictive practices are a drag on BA (and on pax sometimes)
BA badly needs to address both, otherwise there will be one result:
BA will shrink instead of growing.
Willie Walsh said that BA's cabin crew costs were 31.3% higher than those of QANTAS on the kangaroo routes. Other costs were roughly comparable. He also said that the Australian flights were loss-making.
It should be quite clear that BA will be forced to axe further routes if costs cannot be cut. And consider this: if SYD goes, then so will BKK and SIN as there tends to be a domino effect in a situation where fifth freedom traffic disappears.
All BA employees should think of the effect on BA, employees and pax of a shrinking BA. Only BA's competitors will be happy with a BA which cannot afford to expand into growing regions such as Asia.
Now, in case anyone thinks that BA won't axe routes, let me list those Asia/Pacific destinations that BA doesn't fly to any more.
AKL
MEL
BNE
PER
ADL
OSA
NGO
FUK
MNL
TPE
SEL
CGK
KUL
Also, NRT was halved to daily.
The only one to be added was PVG.
To get back to the present: I see mostly losers on both sides.
Unite has lost a lot of money and credibility.
BA has lost money, but I don't think that Willie Walsh necessarily holds all the cards. He has won a big battle, but the war on costs and restrictive practices has still to be won. If Unite refuses to negotiate on restrictive practices, then BA is stuck with anything contractual.
I'm not involved in negotiations, so I can't say quite who was at fault for failing to agree on the key issues which need to be addressed. But I fear that we are further away from a settlement than last year, and Michael O'Leary's taunt of BA being a pension deficit on wings becomes more realistic by the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Mouse
I do not see WW rushing to negotiate anything. Unite/BASSA called the strike, did damage and have effectively dug one very deep hole. It cannot possibly have escaped the notice of even the most ardent pro-strike supporter that WW holds all the cards whether one wishes it was so or not.
You will probably not see too many crew rushing to change their T&C's either, as they did not bring this to the table. WW wants change, not the crew. So if nothing changes then that will be a positive outcome for BASSA, I would imagine.
Originally Posted by M.Mouse
I do not see WW rushing to negotiate anything. Unite/BASSA called the strike, did damage and have effectively dug one very deep hole. It cannot possibly have escaped the notice of even the most ardent pro-strike supporter that WW holds all the cards whether one wishes it was so or not.
You will probably not see too many crew rushing to change their T&C's either, as they did not bring this to the table. WW wants change, not the crew. So if nothing changes then that will be a positive outcome for BASSA, I would imagine.
1. Cabin crew costs are too high
2. The web of restrictive practices are a drag on BA (and on pax sometimes)
BA badly needs to address both, otherwise there will be one result:
BA will shrink instead of growing.
Willie Walsh said that BA's cabin crew costs were 31.3% higher than those of QANTAS on the kangaroo routes. Other costs were roughly comparable. He also said that the Australian flights were loss-making.
It should be quite clear that BA will be forced to axe further routes if costs cannot be cut. And consider this: if SYD goes, then so will BKK and SIN as there tends to be a domino effect in a situation where fifth freedom traffic disappears.
All BA employees should think of the effect on BA, employees and pax of a shrinking BA. Only BA's competitors will be happy with a BA which cannot afford to expand into growing regions such as Asia.
Now, in case anyone thinks that BA won't axe routes, let me list those Asia/Pacific destinations that BA doesn't fly to any more.
AKL
MEL
BNE
PER
ADL
OSA
NGO
FUK
MNL
TPE
SEL
CGK
KUL
Also, NRT was halved to daily.
The only one to be added was PVG.
To get back to the present: I see mostly losers on both sides.
Unite has lost a lot of money and credibility.
BA has lost money, but I don't think that Willie Walsh necessarily holds all the cards. He has won a big battle, but the war on costs and restrictive practices has still to be won. If Unite refuses to negotiate on restrictive practices, then BA is stuck with anything contractual.
I'm not involved in negotiations, so I can't say quite who was at fault for failing to agree on the key issues which need to be addressed. But I fear that we are further away from a settlement than last year, and Michael O'Leary's taunt of BA being a pension deficit on wings becomes more realistic by the day.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On WW we have lost anything between 1 to 3 crew members and had 2 senior positions swapped to main crew positions.
BASSA tales
A new tale I hadn't heard of before. At a pub last night in conversation with EF CSD,a BASSA supporter, but still a friend!
During the strikes apparently, BA were flying circuits with empty 744's at Lhr to give the pretence of normal operations. Information she had from BASSA, and she believes it.!! .
During the strikes apparently, BA were flying circuits with empty 744's at Lhr to give the pretence of normal operations. Information she had from BASSA, and she believes it.!! .
Last edited by cessnapete; 12th Apr 2010 at 18:10. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keel beam
Fact remains that WW set off these rumours in the first place and I don't know where in the company you work but it HAS caused a lot of stress and worry for us in the cabin.
I don't know for how long I have felt like this towards management. It definitely has something to do with our previous CEO's and I wish I could have as much trust as some of you seem to have in WW and rest of the management. I don't buy much of what he's saying.
Go back a few years and you will see that we lost a purser from upper deck and last year another one. The principle is that once it's gone you never get it back.
1 to 2 crew in total depending on route and aircraft. I don't know why I wrote 3 but I guess I slipped with my fingers. So, not quoting any of BASSA's figures...
Look at what's happening with QF crew down in Australia.
They didn't keep up the pace and what has happened? QF has a crew base at LHR and some other ports in Asia and New Zealand and they are taking work for mainline crew. They have also created Jetstar which could almost be compared to WW's idea of New Fleet. If mainline doesn't agree to the changes QF management wants, they just say they will move the route over to Jetstar.
Fact remains that WW set off these rumours in the first place and I don't know where in the company you work but it HAS caused a lot of stress and worry for us in the cabin.
I don't know for how long I have felt like this towards management. It definitely has something to do with our previous CEO's and I wish I could have as much trust as some of you seem to have in WW and rest of the management. I don't buy much of what he's saying.
As previously discussed in this topic, haven't you lost 1-2 crew (depending on route) and had 1 purser swapped to main crew (747 upper deck) or are you quoting bassas figures?
1 to 2 crew in total depending on route and aircraft. I don't know why I wrote 3 but I guess I slipped with my fingers. So, not quoting any of BASSA's figures...
Willie Walsh said that BA's cabin crew costs were 31.3% higher than those of QANTAS on the kangaroo routes. Other costs were roughly comparable. He also said that the Australian flights were loss-making.
They didn't keep up the pace and what has happened? QF has a crew base at LHR and some other ports in Asia and New Zealand and they are taking work for mainline crew. They have also created Jetstar which could almost be compared to WW's idea of New Fleet. If mainline doesn't agree to the changes QF management wants, they just say they will move the route over to Jetstar.
