British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[Wirbelsturm]

Ava,

Whilst you are trying to justify the BASSA position why don't you also inform the rest of us as to how the, according to BASSA, 'nasty, vindictive company' allows you to live on the other side of the globe, maintain rosters that keep your non-dom status, enjoy a cost of living substantially less than that of the UK whilst paying non-domiclie tax which more than makes up for the loss of ST?

Not much sympathy here I'm afraid.

[Ava Hannah]

Not really, it gives you more guarantee of stable income for the next two to three years than the vast majority of the working population get.

It is only a matter of time before all of our routes have been transferred to Mixed Fleet. Why is the top-up payment so much less than the MTP? They have also included a two year pay rise which is nothing but one of BA's attempt to bribe some crew members to accept the proposal.

Why, exactly do you think this could be in there? BASSA have threatened IA over everything from hot towels to ingrowing toenails. BA has been a standing joke for years as the CC Union seem to think they know best how to run the company. They can't even run their own Union!

The reason for the 'hot towel issue' is an easy one. After 9/11, when we lost the 16th crew member, it was agreed that any future changes to the service routines should be discussed. BA and BASSA had one of their regular meetings and our management could not even be bothered to mention that they intended to introduce a hot towel service. There's your reason.

Unless you have been living under a rock then you will have seen that your precious strikes are having little impact with less impact forecast. All the summer strikes would do is alienate the militants more. So, if you wish to hasten your demise and remove yourself from the company please do so.

Not according to a recent letter which BA sent to me. It said that my recent participation in industrial action had severely affected their operation.

BA stated, quite clearly, that ST would be withdrawn if staff members took IA. It is non contractural and 'gifted' for various reasons and it states quite clearly in the ST guide that it may be withdrawn at any time for any reason. If you happen to need it to get to work then tough luck. Perhaps getting ST back with no seniority would be a soloution but BA has to stick to its policy here or it alienates all those who chose to work as they apllied common sense.

What are you suggesting? That everyone who have backed BA are holding them ransom? Staff Travel may be a non-contractual benefit but that's no reason for them to remove it for participating in a lawful industrial action. It's punishment. It's vindictive. It's discriminatory. As much as I would love to see the case appear in the European Courts and Willie Walsh being humiliated publicly over his mistake, I cannot wait years until it appears in court. I think I have earned it as everyone else in this company.

As to wanting Kieth Williams! You will get your wish! Willie Walsh moves on to become the CEO of Topco and, thus, Kieth Williams boss. Kieth Williams, through all of the financial briefings that were held last year (the ones BASSA couldn't be bothered with), advocated Willie Walshs' position and agreed that the short term pain of confrontation now was better than the long drawn out death rattle of an airline that cannot modernise. He is, if anything, more hardline and determined to rationalise than WW.

Not according to BASSA who strongly believe they can reach a deal with him based on the pension issue with Unite earlier this year.

[the flying nunn]

Ava

BASSA strongly believed, sorry declared that staff travel would be returned within 5 minutes of the first cancellation. I'm sorry but BASSA will clutch at anything except the truth and spin more and more lies to avoid facing up to the fact that it has failed to represent you and failed to secure the best deal it could for its paying members.

If I bought a ticket to the opera and discovered a circus when the curtain went up I would want my money back rather than seek to defend the operatic attributes of the clowns in the chorus line.

[Nevermind]

Ava

Do you genuinely feel that causing so much damage to the company's finances and reputation should not be recognised? Legal or not legal.
You call it punishment. We call it recognition of damage over quite frankly extremely petty issues.
It's great that you contribute here, as we have so little comms regarding the mindset of the strikers.
But frankly, it's frightening that the 2500/3000/5000 of you do not recognise the damage you have caused (yes, we know it works both ways but BASSA's negotiating tactic of the past 20 years has always been no no no).
What comes across time and time again is that you simply refuse to believe (or many cases even read) the company's proposals, and rely on a union leadership who's grasp on the facts could be the reason the word "disingenuous" was invented.

[ranger07]

Not according to BASSA who strongly believe they can reach a deal with him based on the pension issue with Unite earlier this year.

'not according to BASSA'...Maybe if you listened to reasoned debate and not blinker yourself with BASSA spin, you may have a better picture of the situation as seen by the vast majority of staff.

[Ava Hannah]

Here is the problem. Unite had the mandate to negotiate the pensions deal. Unite agreed on behalf of ALL Unite sub branches. Unite would have completed with BA on the Cabin Crew dispute BUT BASSA WON'T LET THEM. BASSA have stipulated that ST is a necessity. BASSA have stipulated that reinstatement is a necessity, BASSA are the only ones who can call off IA and agree a deal. THEY DON'T WANT TO. Unite, Tony Woodley, Derek Simpson and Len McKlusky are powerless to force them and, from the news and the press realeases, frustrated with their incalcitrant child.

Unite probably would have sold us down the river like they did last time. Tony Woodley has repeatedly mentioned the importance of reinstatement of our staff travel concessions. It's a waste of time to ask us to vote on a proposal which doesn't meet one of the requirements.

ST, as has been discussed many, many times is a perk. You were clearly told it would be removed and it has been. Tough. Not vindictive but symptomatic of your Unions wish to finacially damage the company. Why should you be rewarded for taking ill advised IA when ALL other BA departments realised the dangers and took necessary action. You will get little or no sympathy from the other 35,000 BA employees who live in the real world.

I am not after any sympathy. I am only after what I have earned after having been with BA for such a long time. Sure, BA informed us of what would happen if we went on strike but to punish people for participating in a LAWFUL INDUSTRIAL ACTION is disrespectful, unacceptable and morally wrong.

Why should we change our minds? What benefit does that bring those who choose to back BA? Never going to thank me? No, possibly not but, unlike many of my friends, I still have a job. Not too late to win?

Because you are doing no good to this company, or your own career, by allowing yourself to support a management which is training people to cover a lawful industrial action. What else do they have up their sleeve? Which working group is next on the line?

Whilst you are trying to justify the BASSA position why don't you also inform the rest of us as to how the, according to BASSA, 'nasty, vindictive company' allows you to live on the other side of the globe, maintain rosters that keep your non-dom status, enjoy a cost of living substantially less than that of the UK whilst paying non-domiclie tax which more than makes up for the loss of ST?

Many airlines allow commuting as long as you are responsible and don't let it affect your employment. BA is not the only airline to allow this. If you think commuting from JNB is easy, maybe you should try it.

[OverFlare]

to punish people for participating in a LAWFUL INDUSTRIAL ACTION is disrespectful, unacceptable and morally wrong.

Oh dear. If you are so easily "disrespected" I suspect it would be hard for BA to engage in any kind of actions, other than complete capitulation to Bassa's demands, that you would find acceptable.

To be honest, if I'd been on strike (and I nearly did go on strike once) I'd rather BA were straight with me and did what they said they would do. The alternative is that they make it up as they go along and you'd probably be on a new contract or out of a job by now.

If Bassa is strong enough to negotiate ST back it will get it back - there's no moral dimension - it's simply a battle of wills - the side with strongest support will win but, as I guess noone needs to point out, it looks like Bassa has already lost.

Incidentally I don't really understand why you think it's morally wrong of BA to remove ST. On whose authority can you make that statement? From where I'm sitting I think the behaviour of the strikers and their union has been far worse than anything BA has tried, the alleged threat to kidnap a child, glibly dismissed by Len McClusky in public, being only the worst example.

[ranger07]

Because you are doing no good to this company, or your own career, by allowing yourself to support a management which is training people to cover a lawful industrial action. What else do they have up their sleeve? Which working group is next on the line?

We are backing our management because we realise the dire finacial situation of the Airline, we have reacted accordingly, consequently many have lost out financially.
We realise that we have to adapt to retain our business in this cut throat market place and absolutely REFUSE to let a minority bunch of militants undo our hard work.
Yes, we are backing the management to retain our jobs.
What have BASSA offered...a loan! If you can't see through their political, puerile stance, I fear there is little hope for you if you continue to work for BA.
Angry?...you bet!. Furious, in fact!

[Timothy Claypole]

Originally Posted by Ava Hannah

I find it very hard to believe that KW is more hawkish than WW. Unite had no problems reaching an agreement with him over the pension deal.

Perhaps it escaped your attention that Unite didn't involve BASSA in the pensions deal? Unite has had no problem negotiating with Willie Walsh all along, and despite the rhetoric for the TV cameras Unite has been active in recommending solutions to the problems. It's BASSA who have denounced BA and Unites solutions as unworkable, it's BASSA who can't work with any BA manager, and so it's no surprise that Unite didn't want BASSA anywhere near something so critical as a pensions deal. And wasn't Duncan Holley surprised to find a deal had been reached without asking him!

[Juan Tugoh]

Many airlines allow commuting as long as you are responsible and don't let it affect your employment.

So how is taking an action that you know will lose your ability to commute from your chosen domicile in South Africa acting responsibly?

It seems that you also misunderstand what Legal Industrial Action means. It does not mean that the company cannot take any action against you. It does not mean you cannot be sacked - you are in breach of contract and can be dismissed for this. What it does mean is that if you are sacked within a twelve week protected period then that dismissal will automatically be deemed illegal and you will be able to claim some limited compensation.

Your call to ballot now without allowing your colleagues to have a say as to whether or not they find this offer to be acceptable does not sound very democratic. It seems to suggest that only your opinion is allowable - which is rubbish, everyone is entitled to hold and express an opinion, the union must listen to those opinions if it wishes to carry out effective IA, something that BASSA has, as yet, failed to do.

Finally BA has already put UNITE on notice that it considers the latest reasons to ballot as continuations of the past IA and as such will have no protected period.

[nurjio]

Ava, hun, can I suggest you leave the 'try commuting from JNB' well alone. It's a Pandoras Box, and unless you and you kind are careful the CAA will arbitrate/rule in favour of a system whereby crew have to prove they are adequately rested.

WRT to your other beliefs, I see that you are spirited. However, just take a long hard look around you and assimilate all that is going in the face of the worst post-war recession. Look closely at your employer. Look at the comms from BA, ESS has them all. Look at how Mr walsh is skillfully steering the 'ship' around the BASSA iceberg.

BASSA has achieved the square root of nothing in all of ths ever since they pulled their 'negotiating skills' from the table. The entire planet can see what is going on here, I am astounded that a 'few thousand' diehards cannot. I actually will give credit here to BASSA's grip on it's folowers, it's a remarkable thing - but - at the end of the day, IMHO, the majority will prevail. It has to, for it is they that have the wit, accumen and nous to Back BA.

[nurjio]

Actually, on reflection, BASSA has achieved something. They have been brilliantly consistent in saying 'NO' to the way forward.

So, if someone always says no, you default to not asing them the question in the first place. Notice what is happening at the moment. BASSA has no control over anything because they have said 'NO'. No more questions are being asked of BASSA, so they can no longer say no.

No, is not an answer in negotiations. Yes, is the answer. But, you have to be at the table in order to say yes..... and not just be an item on the menu.

[Ava Hannah]

Bad behaviour should not be rewarded but I don't believe in punishing people either for taking industrial action. We are not asking for anything special except that our staff travel should be returned. Many, and myself included, greatly depend on it and it's not fair to say that we never should have participated in the strike as we knew that we would lose it. Should we have accepted a proposal we didn't agree with only to keep our staff travel? I find it morally wrong to punish long serving staff for taking industrial action, which is a democratic right, and especially by a CEO who has only been here for a few years and himself being responsible for severe damage to our brand. Some are also asking for that suspended and dismissed crew should be reinstated. Something which I don't agree with. They have the possibility to appeal and I should assume, and sincerely hope, that they are being treated fairly.

BASSA did not participate in the negotiations on our pension deal but I think Unite could have reached a good deal on our behalf with KW. Probably a deal that would have been satisfactory to BASSA too. BASSA are wanting to make sure that any proposal protects us permanently and that any payment(s) should be included in our basic salary. Without this guarantee, BA will be returning before we know it and rip that payment(s) away.

Why do I think it's a waste of time to vote on this proposal? Because Unite is not recommending and I can sincerely hope that most voters will vote sensibly and not accept it. We can achieve a deal that includes staff travel and hopefully something more than a 'guarantee' from BA.

Nurjio, I am not the only longhaul commuter in this company. What makes you believe that I am not adequately rested prior a duty?

[Timothy Claypole]

I find it morally wrong to punish long serving staff for taking industrial action, which is a democratic right, and especially by a CEO who has only been here for a few years and himself being responsible for severe damage to our brand.

Again, here we go with the BASSA 'It's personal' nonsense. It's not! Is it really so hard for you to see that this isn't Willie Walsh doing this on a whim, this is the whole Leadership Team and the board of directors doing this? And changing the leader won't change the policy; believing that it is is BASSAs comfort blanket of denial, so that they don't have to look outside into the big bad world and realise they do have to change.

I'm also interested in learning how the present CEO is damaging our brand? Apart from the T5 debacle from which BA have now recovered, we have better punctuality than ever and a reasonably good ground experience. Our safety record remains solid. The only damage thats occuring to the brand is through the variable onboard service (who's responsible for that?) and the long history or strikes in BA (hmm, who's responsible for that one too, and has been since before WW even joined the company?). You cannot blame Willie for your unions failings.

[nurjio]

Ava - hun

Ava, I'm sure you are, but, just don't draw attention to a massive commute. There are folk who step of a LH 'commute' and go to swipe iin. Rested?

The brand is being damaged by employees allowing emotion to rule their standards. I refer to the 'ICBFB' attitude, that pervades amongst some.

[ChicoG]

BA and BASSA had one of their regular meetings and our management could not even be bothered to mention that they intended to introduce a hot towel service.

It beggars belief that this couldn't be done with an email and few notices.

Who the hell do BASSA think they are to expect this kind of perceived importance - which in reality is nothing more than micro-interference - in the running of the airline?

Hot towels, good grief. Do BASSA even know the meaning of the phrase "hard work"? Because there's about 3 million people in Britain who would be more than happy to replace them and show them what it is.

[midman]

Originally Posted by Ava Hannah

l action. We are not asking for anything special except that our staff travel should be returned. Many, and myself included, greatly depend on it and it's not fair to say that we never should have participated in the strike as we knew that we would lose it. Should we have accepted a proposal we didn't agree with only to keep our staff travel?

Your problem Ava, is that by striking, you relied on the Bassa statement being true that they could regain ST with seniority. By being effectively unable to work unless you regain ST you are committed to an 'all or nothing' stance. Not a great place to be in when many of even your Bassa supporting colleagues are happy to achieve a solution on the BA proposal (with much tweaking) and are happy to wait for the courts to decide on the reinstatement of staff travel.

You must be worried.

BASSA did not participate in the negotiations on our pension deal but I think Unite could have reached a good deal on our behalf with KW. Probably a deal that would have been satisfactory to BASSA too.

This is just Bassa wishful thinking and a simplistic view of the situation. Bassa (and yourself it seems) believe that Willie Walsh is out on a limb on this, alone and isolated from his employees, leadership team colleagues and fellow Board members, and all it takes is for a big yes vote to finally oust him, KW will be the moderate who comes to an agreement (giving in to all Bassa demands0, the company will then continue as before.

It's simply not going to happen.

[jockmctavish]

Minimum guarantee of variable payments

I assume that the formula is total (relevant) allowances paid divided by the number of cabin crew (full time equivalents FTE). I am not aware of FTE being taken out of the average for offlines (e.g. cc trainer days, union duties etc.

I know that this is a minimum guarantee but why was 2009/10 used when 2008/9 was used for the previous payment?

Unless anyone has any better suggestions then I can only assume that it is because the average in 2009/10 was much lower than usual due to a lower level of crew work days being utilised. We seem to have been heavily overcrewed and large numbers of crew have taken unpaid leave or have been sitting around on 24hr or standby etc.

Therefore with no allowance for either offlines in the formula or the higher than usual crew work days unused the average is very low and would be hard to trigger in any year when crew utilisation is 'normal' So in effect offers much less in the way of protection than we are being led to believe.

Anyone care to shed any light on this?

[Hotel Mode]

I know that this is a minimum guarantee but why was 2009/10 used when 2008/9 was used for the previous payment?

I'd guess because we were only half way through the 09/10 financial year when using the 08/09 figures was proposed.

Using the most recent figures available is the logical thing to do. Especially if its in your favour

Its also something any decent Union would have realised and used to their advantage.

[DextersLaboratory]

Board/CEO

To any of the strikers brave enough to articulate their reasoning on here there seems to be a common misconception that WW is solely responsible for the current position.

As has been previously stated, it's irrelevant who the CEO is, they are only carrying out the boards wishes. Try the BA investor website for WW's job description. It starts "The role of the Chief Executive is to take overall responsibility for the supervision and safe conduct of the Company’s business and its profitable operation in accordance with the policies, strategies and objectives established by the Board."

Note "established by the board". Tony Woodley appealed to Martin Broughton to intervene earlier this year to which MB said "We fully support WW". Of course he did, I'm sure he has also said that WW was recruited as someone who wasn't afraid of implementing some changes which were/are going to be extremely atagonistic.

So while BASSA demonise WW, the corporate plan proceeds and when WW moves up to TopCo, I fully expect KW to continue and indeed to revisit costs say in a couple of years time. It has been a regular occurrence in my 20 years in BA and I'm sure will continue until I finish here.

The other options are to oust the whole board, although the major shareholders may have more sway or to buy the company...