British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare TLV to HKG. The latter is more demanding and longer. Some crew don't like the idea of getting the same amount of money every month and doing different demanding trips.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Question. Are TLV & HKG CC in different fleets. If so won't the TLV CC do more trips?[QUOTE]
To answer your question TLV and HKG are operated by the same WW crew although not all have a 767 licence for the late TLV.
To answer your question TLV and HKG are operated by the same WW crew although not all have a 767 licence for the late TLV.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes originally we had paper ones but nowadays they are held by BA. More 'virtual' licences if you like which are updated annually by SEP. Once a licence has expired or been replaced by another then it is against the law for you to operate as part of minimum crew for that a/c type.
PS still have some of mine from the eighties - antiques I should think!
PS still have some of mine from the eighties - antiques I should think!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone on another forum has noticed that a slide was blown on the 777 on the LHR - DEL flight during the week of the strike but while conjecturing that it was blown by 'volunteer crew' no-one is really sure. Does anyone know whether this was as a result of the actions of regular or volunteer crew?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monthly Duty Payments and New Fleet
MissM wrote:
You need to get the facts. It was Unite who raised the concern that New Fleet would cause legacy crew in the old fleet to be disadvantaged should the better routes be flown by NF. So, BA came up with Monthly Duty Payments (MDPs) which would replace taxable allowances with a fixed payment to be paid as part of the monthly pay.
Unite's last known response on 10 March 2010 was: 'Both Parties have agreed to explore the feasibility of a new Monthly Duty Payment (MDP) to replace existing variable allowances. This new MDP will be the subject of negotiation between the Parties, and will include the principle of rewarding the principle of “intensity of work”. If agreement is reached, this will take the form of a binding agreement registered with the TUC and will be monitored as part of the bi-annual review process.'
Of course, some crew will lose, some will gain, but most crew should be more or less OK with the MDP. Or do you think that Unite is incapable of striking a deal with BA, which is what you seem to by implying.
You also ask why BA is "so determined to go ahead with New Fleet". I have to say that I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you fail to understand why BA needs a sustainable, lower cost base. I realise that people like you are not knowledgeable about costs and budgets, after all BA was recruiting cabin crew, not accountants. But every BA employee, including cabin crew members, needs to get clued up about BA's financial plight. Sadly, the evidence is that too many have irresponsibly failed to do so.
BA needs New Fleet and will introduce it. We don't know when and we don't know the final shape of it, but it's the job of Unite to negotiate this deal. It looks to me as if Unite has been slow in dealing with NF, spending much time and money instead in trying to get crew complements reinstated. In other words, cabin crew have been poorly represented. This is something which you should be focused on, rather than be continually mistrusting everything that BA says.
BA says MTP will protect us from New Fleet. Already there's something suspicious about these two suggestions. If management seems to care so much about our present terms and conditions and wants to avoid us from suffering financially from New Fleet, why are they so determined to go ahead with New Fleet? Seeing as they have been able to put their heads together before surely they would be able to come up with better alternatives.
Unite's last known response on 10 March 2010 was: 'Both Parties have agreed to explore the feasibility of a new Monthly Duty Payment (MDP) to replace existing variable allowances. This new MDP will be the subject of negotiation between the Parties, and will include the principle of rewarding the principle of “intensity of work”. If agreement is reached, this will take the form of a binding agreement registered with the TUC and will be monitored as part of the bi-annual review process.'
Of course, some crew will lose, some will gain, but most crew should be more or less OK with the MDP. Or do you think that Unite is incapable of striking a deal with BA, which is what you seem to by implying.
You also ask why BA is "so determined to go ahead with New Fleet". I have to say that I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you fail to understand why BA needs a sustainable, lower cost base. I realise that people like you are not knowledgeable about costs and budgets, after all BA was recruiting cabin crew, not accountants. But every BA employee, including cabin crew members, needs to get clued up about BA's financial plight. Sadly, the evidence is that too many have irresponsibly failed to do so.
BA needs New Fleet and will introduce it. We don't know when and we don't know the final shape of it, but it's the job of Unite to negotiate this deal. It looks to me as if Unite has been slow in dealing with NF, spending much time and money instead in trying to get crew complements reinstated. In other words, cabin crew have been poorly represented. This is something which you should be focused on, rather than be continually mistrusting everything that BA says.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: West Coast
Age: 66
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shares vs share options
What total and utter garbage you have just written and all completely made up
If BA fails to meet the criteria, then of course it probably means the company is failing so the the shares may not even be worth anything. Furthermore, those executives on the list have to wait out the vesting period before collecting at all, it seems.
On the other hand, if the company performs well and share price is above 25p, then they can sell the vested shares and take that profit - which will be taxed. What goes with that scenario though is that there would be a viable airline still employing and paying you too. That's their incentive to try and make sound business decisions which will benefit everyone down the road...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?!? Everyday!?! I've been flying 25 years altogether and I've only seen it once so I'm truly shocked if it really happens everyday!
Although that is the point I was getting at. It would be nice to explode the myth that, if a slide was blown, it had to be volunteer crew!
Although that is the point I was getting at. It would be nice to explode the myth that, if a slide was blown, it had to be volunteer crew!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM, look.
As Cabin Crew we are 1/3 of the total workforce. FACT. I know of no other group as big proportionately.
As crew we are currently too expensive for the airline to compete against many of it's main FULL SERVICE competitors, certainly long term, but also currently on several potentially lucrative routes. FACT. CAA and IATA figures prove it.
I don't like that fact, but FACT it is.
So what do you do about it? If you are BASSA, nothing, just keep denying it is so and say it'll all go away.
Well the formula to total cabin crew costs to the airline is simple. It is:
Costs per crew member x total number of crew = Total crew costs.
So, once you've finally reached the ineveitable conclusion that cabin crew costs MUST be reduced you only have 3 choices:
1. Reduce number of crew.
OR
2. Reduce cost of crew member (Salary, allowances, terms and conditions)
OR
3. Both
Short term, to weather the recession, BA has decided to do 1. leaving 2 essentially untouched.
Long term, this won't be enough (FACT), so the choice is:
a. Reduce 1 still further for existing crew. (Unpopular)
b. Reduce 2 for existing crew. (Unpopular, difficult under employment law)
c. Reduce both for existing crew (Do I really need to say it)
OR
d. Leave existing crew as they are but do 1 and 2 for any new joiners. (Fairer on existing crew, easier legally and the savings will get greater year on year as existing fleet shrinks and New Fleet grows - Existing crew are essentially unaffected and new joiners are able to make the choice as to whether they are happy to do it for what's offered or not).
THERE REALLY ISN'T ANOTHER CHOICE. THAT'S why BA want New Fleet.
The only question unanswered is WHY DON'T BASSA WANT IT?
That is glaringly obvious. A more poorly paid workforce, with fewer conditons to protect, have less incentive/ability to pay union dues, especially at the current rates, so as New Fleet gets bigger, union income drops. NOW do you see why BASSA makes clearly absurd scaremongering statements like, "You'll all be at home with no work when New Fleet comes in". (On my near top of CSD basic, MissM, I wish. It'd be like getting part-time on full pay.)
Boring though it is, it is important to find out the facts around WHY BA needs to cut crew costs. "Because Willie wants a big bonus" plays well to the crowds, but trivialises a really serious issue that we REALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADULT ENOUGH TO FACE, if BA (and my income and pension provider) is going to survive long term.
As Cabin Crew we are 1/3 of the total workforce. FACT. I know of no other group as big proportionately.
As crew we are currently too expensive for the airline to compete against many of it's main FULL SERVICE competitors, certainly long term, but also currently on several potentially lucrative routes. FACT. CAA and IATA figures prove it.
I don't like that fact, but FACT it is.
So what do you do about it? If you are BASSA, nothing, just keep denying it is so and say it'll all go away.
Well the formula to total cabin crew costs to the airline is simple. It is:
Costs per crew member x total number of crew = Total crew costs.
So, once you've finally reached the ineveitable conclusion that cabin crew costs MUST be reduced you only have 3 choices:
1. Reduce number of crew.
OR
2. Reduce cost of crew member (Salary, allowances, terms and conditions)
OR
3. Both
Short term, to weather the recession, BA has decided to do 1. leaving 2 essentially untouched.
Long term, this won't be enough (FACT), so the choice is:
a. Reduce 1 still further for existing crew. (Unpopular)
b. Reduce 2 for existing crew. (Unpopular, difficult under employment law)
c. Reduce both for existing crew (Do I really need to say it)
OR
d. Leave existing crew as they are but do 1 and 2 for any new joiners. (Fairer on existing crew, easier legally and the savings will get greater year on year as existing fleet shrinks and New Fleet grows - Existing crew are essentially unaffected and new joiners are able to make the choice as to whether they are happy to do it for what's offered or not).
THERE REALLY ISN'T ANOTHER CHOICE. THAT'S why BA want New Fleet.
The only question unanswered is WHY DON'T BASSA WANT IT?
That is glaringly obvious. A more poorly paid workforce, with fewer conditons to protect, have less incentive/ability to pay union dues, especially at the current rates, so as New Fleet gets bigger, union income drops. NOW do you see why BASSA makes clearly absurd scaremongering statements like, "You'll all be at home with no work when New Fleet comes in". (On my near top of CSD basic, MissM, I wish. It'd be like getting part-time on full pay.)
Boring though it is, it is important to find out the facts around WHY BA needs to cut crew costs. "Because Willie wants a big bonus" plays well to the crowds, but trivialises a really serious issue that we REALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADULT ENOUGH TO FACE, if BA (and my income and pension provider) is going to survive long term.
Last edited by Beagle9; 13th Apr 2010 at 21:49.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vReally?!? Everyday!?! I've been flying 25 years altogether and I've only seen it once so I'm truly shocked if it really happens everyday!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Socialist worker
Unite 4 Labour in Edinburgh: Derek Simpson fails to deliver|17Apr10|Socialist Worker
In the light of these revelations, do BASSA members still believe they can "win" this dispute?
Unite members questioned Simpson about his leadership of the British Airways dispute.
His response was breathtaking. Simpson called the BA strike committee “clowns” for calling for 12 days of action.
And he described strikers as “deluded” for thinking they could win.
His response was breathtaking. Simpson called the BA strike committee “clowns” for calling for 12 days of action.
And he described strikers as “deluded” for thinking they could win.
"...do BASSA members still believe they can "win" this dispute?"
Some will. The hardliners will just add Simpson to this mystery list:
Willie Walsh
Bill Francis
The pilots
Sir Christopher Holland
The pilots (again)
Mrs Justice Cox
The pilots ( again, "because we can")
Martin George
Iain Burns
The entire Fuel Hedging Team
Keyser Soze ( well, why not?)
Most of Waterside
.....do you know what it is yet
?
and then plough on regardless.....
Some will. The hardliners will just add Simpson to this mystery list:
Willie Walsh
Bill Francis
The pilots
Sir Christopher Holland
The pilots (again)
Mrs Justice Cox
The pilots ( again, "because we can")
Martin George
Iain Burns
The entire Fuel Hedging Team
Keyser Soze ( well, why not?)
Most of Waterside
.....do you know what it is yet
?and then plough on regardless.....
Last edited by wiggy; 14th Apr 2010 at 07:33.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should come as no surprise to anyone that UNITE have bigger fish to fry than the BA CC. If they screw up the General Election for the Labour Party, then the political landscape changes for the worse for the unions.
UNITE are the largest single supporter of Labour - many posters have warned that this was the wrong time for a series of strikes due to external events. It may well be the start of the end of UNITE's support for BASSA.
Watch the UNITE try to marginalise BASSA and come to some arrangement with BA - in the same way they did 3 years ago.
UNITE are the largest single supporter of Labour - many posters have warned that this was the wrong time for a series of strikes due to external events. It may well be the start of the end of UNITE's support for BASSA.
Watch the UNITE try to marginalise BASSA and come to some arrangement with BA - in the same way they did 3 years ago.
Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 14th Apr 2010 at 09:26. Reason: ammended to make sense!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite members questioned Simpson about his leadership of the British Airways dispute.
His response was breathtaking. Simpson called the BA strike committee “clowns” for calling for 12 days of action.
And he described strikers as “deluded” for thinking they could win.
His response was breathtaking. Simpson called the BA strike committee “clowns” for calling for 12 days of action.
And he described strikers as “deluded” for thinking they could win.
If the report & comments attributed to Derek Simpson are correct (I make that caveat because the Socialist Worker page is dated 17 April 2010), I'd say that it's all over bar the tidying up. Presumably the issue under debate now is how generous BA will be in saving the faces of the BASSA bosses - hopefully not a great deal in view of the damage done. Anything which allows BASSA to claim they have achieved one iota out of their antics would simply encourage a repeat performance.
Max Tow
make that caveat because the Socialist Worker page is dated 17 April 2010),
Good spot, but if you do search for Socialist Worker using Google et al, to avoid the embedded link above, you'll find that whilst the current online edition is indeed for some reason dated 17th April, the report itself is dated 13th April.
Anything which allows BASSA to claim they have achieved one iota out of their antics would simply encourage a repeat performance.
BTW - Juan - did you miss an "end" ?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the BASSA "leadership" within BA or Len McC from Untie or a combo from both.
Game over soon I think. It could have been so much less unpleasant for the crew.
