British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[Colonel White]

BA is grossly overstaffed, even outstations like IAH and LAX are able to supply VCC's.

The staff who have been released from their normal duties to train and if necessary fly, prove they are surplus to requirements. These are not essential employees.

BA loves to compare the T&C's of its cabin crew with low cost operators, so why can't I point out the huge differential in employee numbers, especially as Willie Walsh's aim is to have a global premium airline, with a low cost base.

Whilst VCC's are swanning around Cranebank, someone else is doing their job. It is rather sad to think they believe they are "Backing BA" , but are actually volunteering themselves out of a job. What a great yet inadvertent and unintentional way for BA to prove how overstaffed it is, and hopefully the airline will cut out the jobs of these wasters.

Duggie, Duggie, Duggie. Please realise that by pursuing this line all you are doing is indicating that you think that crew are overmanned. Why ? Well you see, if you persist in drawing the comparison between lowcost carriers and BA, the immediate comeback is that Ryanair carried more passengers than BA, yet their whole operation is smaller than the number of cabin crew employed by BA. By your arguements doesn't that suggest that the crew manning levels in BA are over the top ?

Now I'll concede that there has been overmanning in a whole host of areas within BA, but the reasons are because of some very outdated work practices, coupled with some extraordinarily generous redeployment agreements. Consider Careerlink. Very few large organisations would give staff without a role the opportunity to pull their full salary for three months or so whilst they try to find an alternative job within the company. Most would chuck you out with a minimal redundancy deal.

Times have changed and Careerlink is not as generous as it was. A lot of the old practices have been tightened up on (have a chat to some of your ground colleagues in PSU). Now it may be that training up some US ground staff seems a bit strange, but this is action that should sound warning bells to all those BASSA militants who are itching for another strike. The company clearly want to have a contingency plan in hand so that they can fulfill the promise of a 100% longhual operation in the event of a further walkout. Having US based crews who can perform flying duties gives them the flexibility to make that a reality. It's a piece of insurance. They might never be used. But it's always worth having something ready just in case. The alternative would be to start training NF crews to take on transatlantic and high revenue routes, but that would be a little inflammatory don't you think??

[report call sign]

****news Flash****

British Airways has been accused of racial discrimination by cabin crew, opening a new front in an industrial dispute that reaches a critical point this week as the result of a peace deal ballot is announced.
A group of BA flight attendants is claiming that the removal of discounted travel from strikers discriminates indirectly against employees based in Scotland, Ireland and mainland Europe who use the scheme to commute to and from Heathrow airport. The group, called Crew Defence, is representing 75 employees who are lodging cases with an employment tribunal in Reading and plan to sue for compensation if their claim is upheld.
The move comes as the Unite trade union prepares to announce the result of a consultative ballot on a BA peace deal on Tuesday. If cabin crew fail to back the proposal, the union is expected to poll 11,000 cabin crew over further strike action in the long-running dispute.
A Crew Defence source, which claims the group has the backing of 1,500 cabin crew, said BA's flight attendants were engaged in a "David versus Goliath" confrontation: "The fact that we have gone from zero to 1,500 in weeks shows how serious we are about this."
The source added: "The impact of the staff travel ban on crew has not been made public and it is substantial. Crew members have had to sell houses and live in digs in the UK. Despite the figures reported in the press, these people are not earning massive sums of money."

ohhhhh, sorry, can someone please explain
since WHEN did "BA" FORCE their crew to live in all four corners of the globe
they obviously have forgotten they have a choice, like they had a choice to strike, like they had a choice to keep or loose their staff travel, like they have a choice to work for BA, (or not)
they obviously want to be told the obvious by a Judge....again
Bring it on!

[report call sign]

Posted by "Duggie Fashion"

BASSA offered £52m in savings that were costed by PWC. Even one shareholder at the AGM questioned the logic of rejecting those savings and instead embarking on a policy of confrontation with the union that has so far cost over £150m, and more than £900m lost in forward bookings.

what you fail to see here is the bigger picture

For 25 years now, or more, the UNIONS have run this airline
dictated the stance, shouted the loudest, cried the hardest and been bowed down to at its beckon call
GUESS WHAT!
Its over folks
no longer will the TUs call the shots
...................................management will, funny that

[Doors To Manuel]

Race discrimination lawsuit

Sounds a waste of money to me. Surely the basis of 'race' is your ethnic origin and not your residence?
People who choose to live in Glasgow or Paris and work for BA are not necessarily Scottish and French respectively.
I see this one failing at the first hearing

[antonovman]

" against employees based in Scotland, Ireland and mainland Europe "

They are not based in Scotland, Ireland or mainland Europe, the are based at LHR !
Doesn't BA have a rule like all other airlines, that the crew should be living within 1.5 hours of their base ?

[Artificial Horizon]

Actually I don't think that BA specifically authorises people to live in far flung parts of the planet. Everyone is told on joining that they should be within 2 hours report of LHR and it is up to the Crew Member to ensure they are sufficiently rested when reporting for work. This lawsuit is a waste of time as BA will just show that there is no particular race group being discriminated against here. Most scottish, US, European commuters that I have met are not actually ethnic to the region they live in. They live there due to their lifestyle choices. Could be another massive BASSA own goal, as if they were to actually prove the case for discrimination BA will just put out a blanket ruling enforcing the 120 minute radius to LHR. I don't know who actually advises BASSA but this is a pointless and reckless use of the unions money.

[Duggie Fashion]

What needs to be recognised here is that Walsh's strategy has failed. The strike he provoked and planned for with pilots and other VCC's trained up, was not beaten and he has not defeated the union. When that happened, his whole latterday Schlieffen Plan went off of the rails

Tomorrow when the companies latest offer is soundly rejected, all Walsh can offer is more blood, sweat, toil and tears. Some posters here like Report Call Sign accuse unions like BALPA of running BA, but claims like that are a load of rubbish. In a company so large as BA, the staff have to be represented. Willie Walsh once understood that, when he himself was a negotiator for IALPA.

In recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and many before that), when a General's strategy has failed he is replaced with someone who has new ideas. You do not continue with a failed policy, waste more materials or expend more lives, because a leader is unable to admit personal failure. All Walsh can do now is prepare for war once again with his VCC foot soldiers pressed into action under the propaganda banner of "Backing BA". It is a strategy bogged down in another Somme like era.

British Telecoms' CEO Ian Livingstone deftly avoided a damaging conflict with the CWU union, with both sides acclaiming the benefits of the result.Willie Walsh though does not have an agenda of finding a negotiated settlement, especially when that agenda is simply union busting. Roll on the third ballot to further emphasise Walsh's failure and the resultant chaos and damage to the business, just to save the face of one person. What a contrast in management style and industrial diplomacy to that of BT.

[ottergirl]

since WHEN did "BA" FORCE their crew to live in all four corners of the globe

This actually refers to those crew who were recruited for, and originally were based in, the regions. BA employed them to work out of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Belfast but, when those bases were closed, the crew and ground staff were given the opportunity to transfer to LHR on the basis that staff travel would enable them to make the journey. In many cases, BA supplied their tickets for the first two years. Thus they feel that they have a good case! The ex-ground staff in particular did not ever apply to be cabin crew, they were positively encouraged to give it a go! In this example, does the removal of staff travel therefore, place these people at more of a disadvantage than others? Could it be seen to equate to constructive dismissal? Who knows but the court will decide.

[DeThirdDefect]

My understanding of racial discrimination law is that although one might argue that the withdrawal of staff travel discriminates against cabin crew who live in those more far-flung places who're more likely to be of other races, it would be a form of indirect, rather than direct, discrimination.
And whilst there is no defence for direct discrimination, if indirect discrimination can be justified it is allowed.
For example, a requirement that cabin crew not have a beard indirectly discriminates against Sikh men, but it can be justified on the basis that a beard interferes with the fit of a smoke hood and a court would not have a problem with it.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Yes quite right they are BASED at LHR. Thus they get a London waiting allowance of around £2500+. I was involved in the european recruitment of CC in the mid 90's and can tell you catorgorically that whether they were recruited in Rome,Madrid, Dublin, Paris etc they were told that they COULD if they so wished after 6 months use their concessions to commute. BUT it was their decision, and that in the end it was their responsibility to get to their base - LHR for each flight. To me its the same as a carpark space at LHR. BA doesn't have to provide one free, but does - thats my way of commuting. Perhaps next time WW should say to any strikers that he isn't allowing them to use the company carpark anymore. Remember its NOT contractual. Theres an idea for you Willy!!

[ottergirl]

Yes quite right they are BASED at LHR. Thus they get a London waiting allowance of around £2500+.

Sorry but they don't!.. ground staff do but cabin crew do not receive any sort of London weighting so far as I am aware!

For example, a requirement that cabin crew not have a beard indirectly discriminates against Sikh men, but it can be justified on the basis that a beard interferes with the fit of a smoke hood and a court would not have a problem with it.

Way out of date with this one. Male (and female I guess) cabin crew may have a beard if they wish provided that their neck is clear of hair so that they are able to achieve a clean fit with the smokehood seal. Sikh males are able to be cabin crew provided they agree to remove their turban should the need arise to fit a smokehood and leave their mini dagger at home!. Discrimination of that sort would not be acceptable in 2010 Britain thankfully.

[Nutjob]

AH

I don't know who actually advises BASSA but this is a pointless and reckless use of the unions money.

Funnily enough, Crewdefence is not funded by UNITE / BASSA but by individual crew who have given around £100 each to fund the claim. I guess we all have our own theories as to why the union seem to have offered so little support over this issue.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Here is the article from the Guardian.
Racism claim opens new front in BA dispute | Business | The Guardian

[DeThirdDefect]

Way out of date with this one.

So, I chose an incorrect example, but the fact is that indirect indiscrimation can be defended on the basis of justification but there is no legal defence for direct justification.
The alleged "discriminator" has to show that the discriminatory provision, criterion or practice complained of is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by Duggie Fashion

The staff who have been released from their normal duties to train and if necessary fly, prove they are surplus to requirements. These are not essential employees.

And yet when 5000 cabin crew walk out the airline can still operate a decent service. It seems to me there about 5000 crew surplus to requirements! Keep shooting yourself in the foot Fume Event!

Originally Posted by Ottergirl

This actually refers to those crew who were recruited for, and originally were based in, the regions. BA employed them to work out of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Belfast but, when those bases were closed, the crew and ground staff were given the opportunity to transfer to LHR on the basis that staff travel would enable them to make the journey.

Staff were offered duty travel for two years or relocation. If they opted against relocation there was never a promise that personal staff travel would be available for them on a permanent basis. I guess thats part of the reason so many of the Scottish based crew came into work. They're not daft.

[Duggie Fashion]

The facts are that Crew Defence of which I am a member, is perhaps taking the racial discrimination line for the sake of expediency? BASSA/UNITE will take the European Court route.

The punishment of employees taking lawful industrial action is illegal in Europe and I believe, the UK is part of Europe. Unfortunately Willie Walsh with his indiscriminate sacking of union reps and other cabin crew for the flimsiest of reasons, thinks the UK is an Iron Curtain satellite state and he can ignore laws, contracts and do whatever he likes.

[swalesboy]

BA have offered staff travel back with FULL seniority on the commuting route so surely this case is dead in the water?

Ps when is the result of the latest ballot going to be announced?

[Nutjob]

Duggie

What needs to be recognised here is that Walsh's strategy has failed. The strike he provoked and planned for with pilots and other VCC's trained up, was not beaten and he has not defeated the union.

You are correct to a point. The strike was not beaten...in that crew went on strike and stayed on strike. The numbers that went out and stayed out were actually far better than I expected.

However, conversely, BA was not beaten by the strikes. As one that went to work, I can tell you that life and the operation went on - albeit with a reduced schedule and service. VCC numbers have swelled massively since the last round of strikes. This should tell you two things. That WW, with the full backing of the board, the city, the shareholders and your fellow employees, has no intention of giving in to you. Also that (as WW has promised) BA will operate a full schedule should you strike again.

So you may not be beaten, in that you'll go out and stay out on strike, but you WILL be beaten in that BA will carry on regardless. There will be no forcing a change of heart from WW. So imho, the strikes have failed because they have achieved nothing positive for the crew community - be they strikers or non-strikers.

I predict that the next round of strikes will be deemed to over the same issues as the first few strikes - hence the 12 weeks unfair dismissal protection will have lapsed. Should be interesting.


I am a BA employee and the above are my own views and not necessarily those of BA

[ottergirl]

If they opted against relocation there was never a promise that personal staff travel would be available for them on a permanent basis.

It wouldn't be the first time that a court found that 'common practice' was sufficient, without the need for a promise or legally binding contract! I also wonder whether a court would feel it was reasonable to expect relocation of an entire family when the staff member is the second, (ie not main) income. So perhaps sexual discrimination is worth looking at as well as any act which disproportionately affects the female workforce could be considered such. There could be many months of legal wrangling as this is not cut and dried by any means. CrewDefence may find that £100 each will not even get the Barristers out of bed.

So imho, the strikes have failed because they have achieved nothing positive for the crew community - be they strikers or non-strikers

In fact they have cost us a ticket and a share option by rejecting the October offer which was superior to the one we have now!

[Duggie Fashion]

I cannot see how BA passengers saw anything like a "normal" operation during the strikes, when they were sitting on aircraft flown by Titan, RyanAir, Jet2 and the rest.

Those of you like NutJob who for whatever reason went into work, don't seen to realise that the same fate awaits you. There will not be any exceptions. It is all over NutJob. BA will never be the same.

The brand is finished, but that did not matter anyway as BA becomes "World Airways". Walsh's masterplan is to have a homogenous "premium" world airline with a low cost base. Crew and VCC's who are helping this scheme along a little bit right now, will in the not too distant future be cornered into signing new contracts that will affect your pay, T&C's and future pension. Take a look back then and see that you not only let yourself down, but a lot of other people as well.