British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deja Vu
And to those engineers who are going to be VCC, every flight I do from now on into LHR will have at least 6 pages of defects. Thanks for interfering in our dispute.
Reminds me of a certain crew member at a base up north years ago. She had a relationship with an Engineer that failed. She started filling the book with all sorts of stuff. Not enough to write one entry to say 'several no smoking filaments inop'. EVERY single seat row was listed seperately. Amazing she had the time on those 1 to 2 hour sectors to find so many problems. The saying used to be G-**** has just landed. It's been B****** M*****'d.
Reminds me of a certain crew member at a base up north years ago. She had a relationship with an Engineer that failed. She started filling the book with all sorts of stuff. Not enough to write one entry to say 'several no smoking filaments inop'. EVERY single seat row was listed seperately. Amazing she had the time on those 1 to 2 hour sectors to find so many problems. The saying used to be G-**** has just landed. It's been B****** M*****'d.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caribbean Boy,
From the business perspective, it makes sense to use MF on ANY route on which it will cost the company significantly less than the alternatives. That's the point of it.
The battle BA have won here is to reduce future staff costs. Had BASSA negotiated initially, then the more (and overly) generous packages we know some of the long timers receive would probably have lasted them to their retirement.
The opportunity that BASSA have thrown away here is a tragedy. Such short-sightedness.
From the business perspective, it makes sense to use MF on ANY route on which it will cost the company significantly less than the alternatives. That's the point of it.
The battle BA have won here is to reduce future staff costs. Had BASSA negotiated initially, then the more (and overly) generous packages we know some of the long timers receive would probably have lasted them to their retirement.
The opportunity that BASSA have thrown away here is a tragedy. Such short-sightedness.
There may be some routes where the product or proftability may be significantly improved by moving it over to Mixed Fleet.
For example, could DME (where BA cannot night-stop) switch from short-haul 767/A320 to a 4 class 777 under Mixed Fleet? Could LHR-CAI be rescheduled so that it is done out and back in a day using Mixed Fleet? And so on, and so on..
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChicoG,
You are indeed right that Mixed Fleet should be used on any loss-making routes. What I was saying was that there are certain routes which BA is desperate to keep going, and top of the list is probably the kangaroo route. It is money-losing due in no small measure to BA's cabin crew costs being 31% higher than those of QANTAS and, if SYD is axed, then BKK and SIN would be under severe threat without the fifth freedom traffic. It would then be a huge blow to BA's ambitions to become a major player in a global alliance.
Such cutbacks should also be seen as part of a drastic reduction in BA's Asia/Pacific network. From memory, BA has axed the following over the past several years:
BNE
MEL
PER
ADL
AKL
TPE
SEL
MNL
CGK
KUL
OSA
FUK
NGO
NRT was also halved to daily from December 2008.
As BA wants to grow rather than reduce its long-haul network, SYD really needs to be kept going.
You are indeed right that Mixed Fleet should be used on any loss-making routes. What I was saying was that there are certain routes which BA is desperate to keep going, and top of the list is probably the kangaroo route. It is money-losing due in no small measure to BA's cabin crew costs being 31% higher than those of QANTAS and, if SYD is axed, then BKK and SIN would be under severe threat without the fifth freedom traffic. It would then be a huge blow to BA's ambitions to become a major player in a global alliance.
Such cutbacks should also be seen as part of a drastic reduction in BA's Asia/Pacific network. From memory, BA has axed the following over the past several years:
BNE
MEL
PER
ADL
AKL
TPE
SEL
MNL
CGK
KUL
OSA
FUK
NGO
NRT was also halved to daily from December 2008.
As BA wants to grow rather than reduce its long-haul network, SYD really needs to be kept going.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD12986 wrote:
I was thinking about this one. About a year ago, I flew LHR-CAI on BD (depart 0915, arrive 1620) and, to my surprise, I found out from their cabin crew that they turned around and went back to LHR. This is a round-trip of 11h 30m plus report time, a punishing day but feasible.
I can't tell whether it makes sense for BA to go head-to-head with BD as BA does offer the night flights out and an early morning departure from CAI which some pax no doubt prefer.
Could LHR-CAI be rescheduled so that it is done out and back in a day using Mixed Fleet?
I can't tell whether it makes sense for BA to go head-to-head with BD as BA does offer the night flights out and an early morning departure from CAI which some pax no doubt prefer.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yotty
I agree, mixed fleet will take over the more lucrative trips while the older contracts will be stuck with whats left.
This is quite obvious.
Whether crew sign this new revised contract or they somehow stay on there existing contract, either way Mixed fleet will take over the more profitable routes.
This is going to happen.
What I want to know is, what exactly is in the current cabin crew contract, which is not in the revised contract walsh has offered.
Like I said before, apparently he has offered a contract which includes guaranteed pay, same T&C's as before.
I'm guessing it must be a change to the re-deployment agreement and something else.
I'v seen the revised contract, a friend sent me a copy.
It was laughable, how the contract was cleverly worded.
Crew who sign, will get a rude awakening once mixed fleet has to grown to
a suitable level.
Cabin crew should not sign this revised contract.
This contract is a blatant attempt by the company, to do what it wishes when the time arises.
Salary, career, pension is all at risk.
If I was crew, I would stay on the existing contract.
Yes, they will try and starve you of work but the same will happen on the revised contract once MF has got to a level they want.
Crew should not be scared or believe what is written, by members on this forum who think they know employment law.
S.O.S.R contract changes, 90 day notices, crew being sacked if they participate in the next I.A if B.A can successfully tie this strike to the last one.
All rubbish.
I agree, mixed fleet will take over the more lucrative trips while the older contracts will be stuck with whats left.
This is quite obvious.
Whether crew sign this new revised contract or they somehow stay on there existing contract, either way Mixed fleet will take over the more profitable routes.
This is going to happen.
What I want to know is, what exactly is in the current cabin crew contract, which is not in the revised contract walsh has offered.
Like I said before, apparently he has offered a contract which includes guaranteed pay, same T&C's as before.
I'm guessing it must be a change to the re-deployment agreement and something else.
I'v seen the revised contract, a friend sent me a copy.
It was laughable, how the contract was cleverly worded.
Crew who sign, will get a rude awakening once mixed fleet has to grown to
a suitable level.
Cabin crew should not sign this revised contract.
This contract is a blatant attempt by the company, to do what it wishes when the time arises.
Salary, career, pension is all at risk.
If I was crew, I would stay on the existing contract.
Yes, they will try and starve you of work but the same will happen on the revised contract once MF has got to a level they want.
Crew should not be scared or believe what is written, by members on this forum who think they know employment law.
S.O.S.R contract changes, 90 day notices, crew being sacked if they participate in the next I.A if B.A can successfully tie this strike to the last one.
All rubbish.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know full well that some cabin crew can be insular that they get LHR goggles on and can't see beyond that - only some and not all.
But the airline business is moving on and a good example of that would simply to look at the aircraft ordered at Farnborough. Or, just look at the exanding networks of a lot of the competition.
Put this all up with the present governments (well at the moment anyway) decision not to expand LHR and it compounds the problem, hence the IB merger one of the reason for which was to increase slot and runway availability.
The time is coming when the company will not be able to allow a tiny minority if its' staff disrupt things any further.
That is the big picture and it needs to be be seen sharpish.
But the airline business is moving on and a good example of that would simply to look at the aircraft ordered at Farnborough. Or, just look at the exanding networks of a lot of the competition.
Put this all up with the present governments (well at the moment anyway) decision not to expand LHR and it compounds the problem, hence the IB merger one of the reason for which was to increase slot and runway availability.
The time is coming when the company will not be able to allow a tiny minority if its' staff disrupt things any further.
That is the big picture and it needs to be be seen sharpish.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sandhurst
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to those engineers who are going to be VCC, every flight I do from now on into LHR will have at least 6 pages of defects. Thanks for interfering in our dispute.
How very adult of you, how to completely alienate yourself even more from Engineering.
How very adult of you, how to completely alienate yourself even more from Engineering.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caribbean Boy:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not surprised that you were surprised, so to speak. When I joined BA from another airline it was clear to me that the cabin crew generally had no idea exactly how well off they were.
This is all just part of the great 'adjustment' that is going on. It is a great shame that it is happening with such a big wrench, it could have been so different if BASSA had negotiated.
to my surprise, I found out from their cabin crew that they turned around and went back to LHR.
This is all just part of the great 'adjustment' that is going on. It is a great shame that it is happening with such a big wrench, it could have been so different if BASSA had negotiated.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shah - you asked..
Can someone explain, what exactly is different from this revised contract offer from Walsh, compared to the current contract cabin crew have.
Everyone seems to be posting similar thoughts on this new contract.
Basic Pay is guranteed, T&C's will stay the same, variable pay will stay the same.
If the above is true, then what is different about this new contract compared to old.
Don't tell me Walsh confronted the Union, allowed the strikes to happened, lost over £100 million, just so there could be clause added to punish future strikes with loss of variable pay.
At the same time, I have read posts from members, saying that can't B.A can't afford to pay cabin crew the allowances they receive.
Yet here the crew are, apparently being given a new contract which is similar to there current contract with a pay rise of 2.9% and 3%.
Everyone seems to be posting similar thoughts on this new contract.
Basic Pay is guranteed, T&C's will stay the same, variable pay will stay the same.
If the above is true, then what is different about this new contract compared to old.
Don't tell me Walsh confronted the Union, allowed the strikes to happened, lost over £100 million, just so there could be clause added to punish future strikes with loss of variable pay.
At the same time, I have read posts from members, saying that can't B.A can't afford to pay cabin crew the allowances they receive.
Yet here the crew are, apparently being given a new contract which is similar to there current contract with a pay rise of 2.9% and 3%.
The company position is/was that it needed to reduce costs without going down the route of compulsory redundancies (reducing staff basic pay is not an option). The way they identified for cabin crew was to shed staff through VR and reduce the manning levels on ex LHR routes. In addition, the company recognised that it could no longer afford to pay new joiners to cabin crew the same rates as the current staff. BA's cabin crew costs were/are way out of line with our full service competitors. Consequently BA wished to set up a new crewing operation (New Fleet) which would have a lower basic salary, different (lower) allowances and terms and conditions. Any new joiners would be in New Fleet. Initially a set of routes were identified that New Fleet will serve. It is fairly obvious that over time as cabin crew on the older contracts leave, the routes served by these older contract staff will change and at some indeterminant point in time (when there no longer enough old contract crew to run them) the routes will all be covered by staff on New Fleet contracts.
Reducing the overall manpower levels and as a result shedding one crew member on LHR based flights, plus the cost savings from simplifying the allowances system was going to yield a chunk of savings fairly immediately. Altering the basic cost of hiring cabin crew is going to make even larger long term savings. That's what management have been after.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi strikemaster82,
No problem, I was actually a commercial passenger on the BD flight with some friends. As it happens, those friends do ground handling in the Caribbean for a tour operator in the winter season. The flights are operated by Air Canada using A319s, which turn round and return to YYZ. The time for the return trip is 12h 20m plus report time. It just shows that other airlines can work their crew quite hard.
No problem, I was actually a commercial passenger on the BD flight with some friends. As it happens, those friends do ground handling in the Caribbean for a tour operator in the winter season. The flights are operated by Air Canada using A319s, which turn round and return to YYZ. The time for the return trip is 12h 20m plus report time. It just shows that other airlines can work their crew quite hard.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nunn,
CB said that the AC day was 12.20 plus report, giving about a 13.35 day if we used a Heathrow report. Now there are Long haul days that long, not short haul... Doesn't mean they couldn't though!
CB said that the AC day was 12.20 plus report, giving about a 13.35 day if we used a Heathrow report. Now there are Long haul days that long, not short haul... Doesn't mean they couldn't though!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Shah 100.
So much rubbish is spouted on this thread by people who think they know what they are saying, it is laughable.
With news that over 6200 cabin crrew claimed strike pay, Walsh did not seem to have a "normal" operation after all.
So much rubbish is spouted on this thread by people who think they know what they are saying, it is laughable.
With news that over 6200 cabin crrew claimed strike pay, Walsh did not seem to have a "normal" operation after all.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over on CF they are running around in a tizzy congratulating themselves that they had 74% of cabin crew striking, and that the figure shows that BA have been 'spinning' the figures to mislead everyone that there was only a minority of cabin crew on strike.
This is how they work it out:
Total cabin crew in BA - 13300
Deduct LGW (they don't count), ICC, non-union members, LTS, maternity, and you have about 9500.
Bassa claim 6250 people have claimed strike pay for at least one day. (unverified)
They then round that up to 7000, (as they're sure some people haven't yet claimed, how they know that is anyone's guess).
7000/9500 x 100% = 74%!!!!! (rounded up!)
They are now cock a hoop that they can prove WW was lying, and that the average on strike each day was 74% and that they are in the majority.
Oh Dear.
A TOTAL of 6250 went on strike out of 13300. Even if they went on strike every possible day, that means only 47% of cabin crew struck, and WW was correct when he said THE MAJORITY OF CABIN CREW WORKED NORMALLY!!!!!!!
Assuming that there were many who came into work who had previously been on strike ( I know of several, including Bedfonters), the total will be well less than 40% on any day, and more like the 25% that many have suggested, especially towards the end of the last strike period.
So for all those on CF........47% MAX!!!!! WW was right!
This is how they work it out:
Total cabin crew in BA - 13300
Deduct LGW (they don't count), ICC, non-union members, LTS, maternity, and you have about 9500.
Bassa claim 6250 people have claimed strike pay for at least one day. (unverified)
They then round that up to 7000, (as they're sure some people haven't yet claimed, how they know that is anyone's guess).
7000/9500 x 100% = 74%!!!!! (rounded up!)
They are now cock a hoop that they can prove WW was lying, and that the average on strike each day was 74% and that they are in the majority.
Oh Dear.
A TOTAL of 6250 went on strike out of 13300. Even if they went on strike every possible day, that means only 47% of cabin crew struck, and WW was correct when he said THE MAJORITY OF CABIN CREW WORKED NORMALLY!!!!!!!
Assuming that there were many who came into work who had previously been on strike ( I know of several, including Bedfonters), the total will be well less than 40% on any day, and more like the 25% that many have suggested, especially towards the end of the last strike period.
So for all those on CF........47% MAX!!!!! WW was right!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Joburg
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most members of Unite went on strike which is what matters. Non-union crew members and ICCs couldn't go on strike for an obvious reason. It's still a very good number!
I can now understand what BA meant by their letter that they sent to me which was worded "The IA in which you took part in has severly impacted upon our operation." When you read different papers and watched different news channels on television BA kept insisting otherwise throughout the last round of strikes.
Give me my ballot and let's show WW once and for all who he is dealing with.
I can now understand what BA meant by their letter that they sent to me which was worded "The IA in which you took part in has severly impacted upon our operation." When you read different papers and watched different news channels on television BA kept insisting otherwise throughout the last round of strikes.
Give me my ballot and let's show WW once and for all who he is dealing with.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strike pay claim forms were published well before the end of the strike action so it is reasonable to assume that someone who went on strike whenever rostered during the whole 22 days of action could have submitted more than one form.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What matters is what BA think will strike on any given day if there is a further strike.
The absolute maximum theoretical number would be 47%, based on Bassa's numbers, but much lower in reality.
So it's the 25% that matter to BA.