British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to wiggy JPMs do not say that crew must live within an hor and a half from their base. What they do say is this:
1.16.2.3 - "The essentials are identified by the words 'should' or 'must', desirable features are identified by the words 'should' or 'may'."
1.16.24.3.2 - "If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 1/2 hours, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base."
So there is a desirable not essential onus on the individual to ensure that their normal travelling time is less than 1.5 hours or to make arrangements for temporary accommodation closer to their base. There is no absolute requirement to do this within BA scheme rather a statement that it is desirable that you do this.
JPMs further state:
1.16.2.2.1 - "Responsibility for the proper control of flight and duty time does not rest on the Company alone. The formal responsibilities of crew members under the Fatigue of Crew provisions of the Air Navigation Order are described in Requirements of the ANO 2005 furthermore, individuals must not operate if they know that they are, or are likely to be, in breach of this Scheme."
So basically if you have a long commute, irrelevant of whether it is by air or car you may well be putting yourself in a very dangerous position should there be an incident and subsequent court case. You have responsibilities under the ANO and Scheme which you may well be ignoring with a long commute prior to operating unless you make temporary arrangements to have ensure rest prior to operating, and by rest I mean a nights sleep, not an hour with your head down in the carpark or quiet room.
1.16.2.3 - "The essentials are identified by the words 'should' or 'must', desirable features are identified by the words 'should' or 'may'."
1.16.24.3.2 - "If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 1/2 hours, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base."
So there is a desirable not essential onus on the individual to ensure that their normal travelling time is less than 1.5 hours or to make arrangements for temporary accommodation closer to their base. There is no absolute requirement to do this within BA scheme rather a statement that it is desirable that you do this.
JPMs further state:
1.16.2.2.1 - "Responsibility for the proper control of flight and duty time does not rest on the Company alone. The formal responsibilities of crew members under the Fatigue of Crew provisions of the Air Navigation Order are described in Requirements of the ANO 2005 furthermore, individuals must not operate if they know that they are, or are likely to be, in breach of this Scheme."
So basically if you have a long commute, irrelevant of whether it is by air or car you may well be putting yourself in a very dangerous position should there be an incident and subsequent court case. You have responsibilities under the ANO and Scheme which you may well be ignoring with a long commute prior to operating unless you make temporary arrangements to have ensure rest prior to operating, and by rest I mean a nights sleep, not an hour with your head down in the carpark or quiet room.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer14
Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work. When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London. When language speakers were recruited from all over Europe, they were told that they could use ST. We could debate this as much as you like. You will still be insisting that they have not. I will be insisting otherwise.
I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later. I don't think it will help once the dispute is over and everything has gone back to normal. As you are backing BA, you would probably get the support needed from them. And, no. I don't always feel proud of BASSA but they are also responsible for my terms and conditions, some of the best in the industry, which YOU are also enjoying at the moment. BASSA are not all bad. Why did you choose BA? You could have gone to BMI or Ryanair surely?
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days. Instead, we see that WW are desperately trying to break the strike by using any means possible. Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance. WW does not want to negotiate. It has never been part of his agenda. Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it. He has spent hundreds of millions on a strike which could have been easily avoided if he had wanted to. Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?
WW is responisble for this mess. Don't blame us for trying to protect our jobs and what we have. He won't be here forever whilst the rest of us are intending to stay here and create a career until we retire. WW has created such a misery in this company and we would be better off without him. IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.
Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work. When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London. When language speakers were recruited from all over Europe, they were told that they could use ST. We could debate this as much as you like. You will still be insisting that they have not. I will be insisting otherwise.
I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later. I don't think it will help once the dispute is over and everything has gone back to normal. As you are backing BA, you would probably get the support needed from them. And, no. I don't always feel proud of BASSA but they are also responsible for my terms and conditions, some of the best in the industry, which YOU are also enjoying at the moment. BASSA are not all bad. Why did you choose BA? You could have gone to BMI or Ryanair surely?
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days. Instead, we see that WW are desperately trying to break the strike by using any means possible. Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance. WW does not want to negotiate. It has never been part of his agenda. Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it. He has spent hundreds of millions on a strike which could have been easily avoided if he had wanted to. Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?
WW is responisble for this mess. Don't blame us for trying to protect our jobs and what we have. He won't be here forever whilst the rest of us are intending to stay here and create a career until we retire. WW has created such a misery in this company and we would be better off without him. IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's not welcome in BA
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1.5 hrs quoted in your JPMS is a direct migration of CAP371 which is the law. It is to ensure that you are not fatigued through travel at the start of duty.Alleviations are possible to facilitate dual bases.
To ignore this means you are exposing yourself and the company to liability in the event of an incident. More than 1.5 hrs means not rested and therefore to work you are breaking the law.
Yet another worm creeping out of the can thanks to Bassa. Its not just applicible to air commuters but everyone who travels further than 1.5 hrs to get to work but even worse if you are not correctly acclimatised when commuting from another timezone grater than 2hrs wide where you have been for more than 3 local nights
There are many ways the company can get you if they choose to cover their legalities.
To ignore this means you are exposing yourself and the company to liability in the event of an incident. More than 1.5 hrs means not rested and therefore to work you are breaking the law.
Yet another worm creeping out of the can thanks to Bassa. Its not just applicible to air commuters but everyone who travels further than 1.5 hrs to get to work but even worse if you are not correctly acclimatised when commuting from another timezone grater than 2hrs wide where you have been for more than 3 local nights
There are many ways the company can get you if they choose to cover their legalities.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM has informed us that:
If by "we" MissM means BASSA that is fine. However, if she includes PCCC in that grouping then she is mistaken. AFAIK, PCCC has no animus against British Airways.
When MissM becomes a subscription-paying member of PCCC she will be entitled to offer it advice. Until that happens . . .
Sometimes one does not get everything one wants in life. There is always some awkward person (or people in this case) who confounds the best laid of BASSA-hatched plans.
Yet more cloud cuckoo land ranting. Has MissM taken soundings from a representative cross-section of staff in both companies - or is this her own wishful thinking?
Really? WW is responsible for doing exactly what he was hired to do: to return control of the management of British Airways to the Board of Directors (who, by definition, are there to direct the management and running of the company). BASSA is a trade union, representing the interests of its members, but it is most certainly not in the business of running BA.
When MissM declares that
she violates one of the cardinal rules of contribution to and participation in PPRuNe. She is "playing the man and not the ball".
Willie Walsh will not contribute to PPRuNe; he is too busy running British Airways. But that is absolutely no reason whatsoever for MissM to malign the man in that scurrilous manner.
I am not criticizing PCCC. As we are in a dispute with the company, surely it would be in your best interest to step forward now and not later.
When MissM becomes a subscription-paying member of PCCC she will be entitled to offer it advice. Until that happens . . .
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days.
IB doesn't want him either and the cabin crew, with an 80% support, will go on strike if WW takes over. He's not welcome in BA. He's not welcome in IB. Surely that says something.
WW is responisble for this mess.
When MissM declares that
WW is responisble for this mess
Willie Walsh will not contribute to PPRuNe; he is too busy running British Airways. But that is absolutely no reason whatsoever for MissM to malign the man in that scurrilous manner.
Last edited by Chuchinchow; 21st Jun 2010 at 14:00.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to be aware that within JPMs "should" does not mean "must". There are many references that have this wording, they are carefully worded like that to give some latitude and room for interpretation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days
Our CEO is standing up to you MissM, with our backing, the board, the city and the public in general.
Last edited by ranger07; 21st Jun 2010 at 15:39. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Crufts
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike... ...Getting VCC from the US because he's not getting enough support in the UK for instance
So, basically, everybody is to blame - except BASSA of course.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew have been told that they could use ST to get to work
On another more interesting point. Rather than go around the houses to discuss the red herring of ST perhaps Unite should lokk how it got into this untenable situation. A situation that I am fairly sure will lose its shine and its priority after tomorrows emergency budget as Unite will have its hands (and resources) full dealing with the potential huge public sector JOB LOSSES (not, we are going to remove one from the office) to come.
Is the current balloting method really acceptable in this day and age? The fact that non returned votes are counted as yes votes is symptomatic of the Union and New Labours 'opt out' system where you say yes unless you say no.
Surely in such a contencious and expensive issue as this dispute there should be a clear majority of members voting yes, not a majority of returned votes voting yes. If a non returned ballot was cast as a 'no' vote instead of a yes vote then an absoloute majority, with no quibbling, i.e. more than 50% of the total membership would be required to take IA. in excess of 50% of the returned votes would not be enough unless the total number of yes votes returned exceeded 50% of the membership. This woudl avoid the 5000 ballots returned from 12000 sent out with 4000 voting yes giving a landslide victory from 1/3 of the membership.
Bound to be cheaper in the long run for the Union and gets an accurate representation of the members views rather than headline grabbing figures of 81% of those that could be bothered to return the paper.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MissM
Our last proposals were £10 million apart, yet he refused it.
Some the Bassa costings were, imaginative at best - I understand the figure was nearer £17M difference, this has been accepted by Bassa in their reply to BA's way forward document. Also don't forget that a huge part of Bassa's proposed 'savings' are a loan that BA is required to pay back in full.
Originally Posted by MissM
Don't blame us for being responsible for not getting a share scheme, an extra ticket and bonus. Blame WW. He doesn't want a negotiated settlement. Can't you see it? He was recruited to BA with a purpose. What was this purpose?
Approx 40,000 other staff managed to negotiate with their unions still intact.
Of course I blame everyone who went to work. Every crew who crossed the picket line. Every pilot who trained to become crew. Every VCC who trained to do our job. Every ex-temporary crew who have come back to cover the strike. If they hadn't, this strike would have been over in a couple of days.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: glos
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to start?.....
Ok, from the top.
Yes they may have been told they can use ST to get to work, but they were explicitly NOT told it was a contractual right. Because it isn't. Just as I have been told I will be provided with somewhere to park my car at Heathrow, but it is not in my contract, and may be removed at any time.
Yes BASSA are responsible for not only your current terms and conditions, but also the pickle in which you find yourself. They have spent all their industrial muscle defending your prehistoric work practices, and failed to adapt them to modern conditions. Adapt or die seems the most apposite phrase.
Blaming everyone but yourselves, and regurgitating false and repudiated BASSA "facts" is not a convincing argument anywhere except planet BASSA. Your argument can be summarised as "This dispute would be over if you had let us have our way". An infantile and utterly ridiculous position for a supposedly 'professional' union to take.
Finally, when all other lines of 'argument' have failed, play the man, not the ball. This dispute is not about WW. He is regarded by most employees as the right man for the job. The evidence for this is that every other department has reached agreement on cost reduction, and the Backing BA campaign has been overwhelmingly supported from all other sections of the company. Including many members of your own beloved Unite. WW has begun to turn this company into an airline with a future, not just a past.
Surely THAT says something.
Yes they may have been told they can use ST to get to work, but they were explicitly NOT told it was a contractual right. Because it isn't. Just as I have been told I will be provided with somewhere to park my car at Heathrow, but it is not in my contract, and may be removed at any time.
Yes BASSA are responsible for not only your current terms and conditions, but also the pickle in which you find yourself. They have spent all their industrial muscle defending your prehistoric work practices, and failed to adapt them to modern conditions. Adapt or die seems the most apposite phrase.
Blaming everyone but yourselves, and regurgitating false and repudiated BASSA "facts" is not a convincing argument anywhere except planet BASSA. Your argument can be summarised as "This dispute would be over if you had let us have our way". An infantile and utterly ridiculous position for a supposedly 'professional' union to take.
Finally, when all other lines of 'argument' have failed, play the man, not the ball. This dispute is not about WW. He is regarded by most employees as the right man for the job. The evidence for this is that every other department has reached agreement on cost reduction, and the Backing BA campaign has been overwhelmingly supported from all other sections of the company. Including many members of your own beloved Unite. WW has begun to turn this company into an airline with a future, not just a past.
Surely THAT says something.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will people realise that Willie Waslh did not wake up one morning and decide on a whim to reorganise the cabin crew and their agreements.
That decision was taken by the City, the Board and the Shareholders long ago. Mr Walsh is the figurehead of the Company and the one who is paid to take all the abuse thrown at BA by BASSA and Unite.
It strikes me that those within the Company who think this is personal should get over themselves..........not many of us ( including myself ) are that important.
That decision was taken by the City, the Board and the Shareholders long ago. Mr Walsh is the figurehead of the Company and the one who is paid to take all the abuse thrown at BA by BASSA and Unite.
It strikes me that those within the Company who think this is personal should get over themselves..........not many of us ( including myself ) are that important.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan Toguh
Most of the other employees have a union which not WW is after. Their union is not being busted by management.
80% of the cabin crew at IB have also made their point. They don't want him either. I can only salute them. I will happily buy a full fare ticket to MAD and join them on the picket lines (if allowed).
Chuchinchow
Ignored.
ranger07
BASSA agree to changes. Initially they didn't. They thought BA would leave them alone if they didn't speak. But, look at their last proposals and you will see that they are agreeing to it.
Dogs ears up
If they had minded their own business in the first place, none of us would have been here today. The strike wouldn't have lasted very long. Instead, they insisted on crossing the picket lines and supporting WW in his union busting. Of course I am disappointed with them.
Meal Chucker
WW is to be held responsible for this mess. He never wanted to negotiate. He pushed us into the corner which we are at.
No, those of us who went on strike are not responsible for this dispute. A strike is always a last resort. Nobody wants to strike. If nobody had crossed the picket line or done our job, WW and his contigency plan never would have worked and he had been forced back to the negotiating table.
Most of the other employees have a union which not WW is after. Their union is not being busted by management.
80% of the cabin crew at IB have also made their point. They don't want him either. I can only salute them. I will happily buy a full fare ticket to MAD and join them on the picket lines (if allowed).
Chuchinchow
Ignored.
ranger07
BASSA agree to changes. Initially they didn't. They thought BA would leave them alone if they didn't speak. But, look at their last proposals and you will see that they are agreeing to it.
Dogs ears up
If they had minded their own business in the first place, none of us would have been here today. The strike wouldn't have lasted very long. Instead, they insisted on crossing the picket lines and supporting WW in his union busting. Of course I am disappointed with them.
Meal Chucker
WW is to be held responsible for this mess. He never wanted to negotiate. He pushed us into the corner which we are at.
No, those of us who went on strike are not responsible for this dispute. A strike is always a last resort. Nobody wants to strike. If nobody had crossed the picket line or done our job, WW and his contigency plan never would have worked and he had been forced back to the negotiating table.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelsturm
Nothing in writing but of course BA would never write anything on a piece of paper which could be held against them. They prefer gentlement agreements which they can break whenever it suits them. They never seem to honour any exisiting agreements. Look at the operations over the past few months. We seem to be operating without any agreements in place.
Nothing in writing but of course BA would never write anything on a piece of paper which could be held against them. They prefer gentlement agreements which they can break whenever it suits them. They never seem to honour any exisiting agreements. Look at the operations over the past few months. We seem to be operating without any agreements in place.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M,
Instead of apportioning blame, isn't it time that the leaders of Unite and BASSA ask themselves why so many crew have broken the strike? Why so many people have volunteered? I'll give you a hint. For many, it has nothing to do with staff travel! If they can fully understand that then maybe there will be a glimmer of hope of seeing this dispute finally resolved.
In the meantime, back at LGW, a fully paid up member of BASSA recently went to them with an issue. They were told that as the majority of crew at the base had not supported the strike, BASSA weren't interested. Fair enough. But if that is the case, then they need to advise all of their members at LGW that they no longer feel able to represent them and stop taking their money!
Instead of apportioning blame, isn't it time that the leaders of Unite and BASSA ask themselves why so many crew have broken the strike? Why so many people have volunteered? I'll give you a hint. For many, it has nothing to do with staff travel! If they can fully understand that then maybe there will be a glimmer of hope of seeing this dispute finally resolved.
In the meantime, back at LGW, a fully paid up member of BASSA recently went to them with an issue. They were told that as the majority of crew at the base had not supported the strike, BASSA weren't interested. Fair enough. But if that is the case, then they need to advise all of their members at LGW that they no longer feel able to represent them and stop taking their money!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MissM
When regional bases were closed down, staff were told they could use it instead of relocating to London.
Miss M, you really must try to get your information fom sources other than the BASSA and Crew Forums, which simply repeat the same tired old lies. The inner clique there continues to convince itself that:
If only Willie would leave the problem would be solved (Keith Williams fully supports this process, and he's the next CEO);
That the only 9 out of every 20 VCCs is finishing their course because crewing is too hard (completely fabricated,they aren't);
That Willie is desperate for volunteers (he isn't);
That they're recruiting VCCs from the US because nobodys applying in the UK (they are overwhelmed with applicants from the UK, so much so that the other departments are running out of staff they can spare. The US VCCs don't need US visas either, so rapidly add to the numbers of US -capable VCCs);
And finally - this one is my favourite - that there are rumours that a massive 'yes' vote will force Willie out! Thats right, the massive 'yes' vote that didn't work first time, and has clearly failed a second time, will work third time around. Do they not learn? Will you swallow that fib for a third time? Let me leave you with a quote from Einstein:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
MissM
You continue to confuse your own version of events with reality.
Facts.
The majority of your cc number did not support you in the most recent IA.
The vast majority of staff back WW and BA, including many VCC who are Unite members. (The introduction of USA VCC's are the result of US staff request, and a need to spread the load amongst departments, not lack of volunteers.)
NO other group of BA staff support CC in the IA.
Any future IA will have BA fly the entire Long Haul route network, flying all booked pax.
Short Haul will probably not be ramped up much further as BA will only fly the moneymaking routes and continue wet leasing, as they are cheaper to fly than our own a/c with the restrictive rostering practises of Eurofleet.
Public opinion is against you now, but just wait until you announce strikes in the Summer holiday period.
The City support BA, look at the Share price during IA.
BA now run the day to day operation, not BASSA (No 48 hr diversions. No one down in F/C so close it and downgrade the pax. No BASSA consultation ex LHR if departure delayed, etc etc. etc.)
The BFC brigade said loss of ST no problem as not used much, and WW could stick it up his -etc etc (Sky News footage) So why the outcry about its reinstatement?
I could go on but it's getting boring!!
Facts.
The majority of your cc number did not support you in the most recent IA.
The vast majority of staff back WW and BA, including many VCC who are Unite members. (The introduction of USA VCC's are the result of US staff request, and a need to spread the load amongst departments, not lack of volunteers.)
NO other group of BA staff support CC in the IA.
Any future IA will have BA fly the entire Long Haul route network, flying all booked pax.
Short Haul will probably not be ramped up much further as BA will only fly the moneymaking routes and continue wet leasing, as they are cheaper to fly than our own a/c with the restrictive rostering practises of Eurofleet.
Public opinion is against you now, but just wait until you announce strikes in the Summer holiday period.
The City support BA, look at the Share price during IA.
BA now run the day to day operation, not BASSA (No 48 hr diversions. No one down in F/C so close it and downgrade the pax. No BASSA consultation ex LHR if departure delayed, etc etc. etc.)
The BFC brigade said loss of ST no problem as not used much, and WW could stick it up his -etc etc (Sky News footage) So why the outcry about its reinstatement?
I could go on but it's getting boring!!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew crossed the picket line for different reasons. I could think of the most obvious ones:
1. Not being part of a union.
2. Not being able to afford to strike.
3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...
4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...
5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.
6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.
I could think of a combination that some went to work convinced that there would be enough crew going on strike so they didn't need to do it and at the same time keep their ST.
As for LGW, they should have received representation if they needed assistance regarding a personal matter, especially if they are a paying member.
1. Not being part of a union.
2. Not being able to afford to strike.
3. Not wanting to lose a SIN or HKG. Interesting that many LR flights departed...
4. Not wanting to get the word STRIKE on their file. Craving for a promotion...
5. Not wanting to lose ST. Interesting that we had many commuters at BFC.
6. Not wanting to strike for the very reason that others can do the "dirty" job.
I could think of a combination that some went to work convinced that there would be enough crew going on strike so they didn't need to do it and at the same time keep their ST.
As for LGW, they should have received representation if they needed assistance regarding a personal matter, especially if they are a paying member.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY final word on staff travel and recruitment
Miss M I am not going to conduct a tennis match of a debate with you over the argument of using staff travel as tool to get to work.I have been montitoring your comments and appreciate that you have not been judgemetal in this context.
I will simply state yet again ..That as part of the recrutiment and selection team within cabin services we emphasised the need to reside within 90 mins travelling distance of their airport base...secondly on overseas campaighns we again stressed that it was a responsibility of the individual to relocate to the uk mainland in order to live within a reasonable travelling distance ie 90 mins from their allocated airport base.This ideal was encouraged...of course we acknowledged the candidates choice if sucessful to live in the uk or anywhere else in the world...was essientially their own personal choice.
Please remember that it takes 6 months of continuous employment and not being on the probationary peroid of emplyment to earn the staff travel perk...so to suggest that it is used as a means to get to work at the outset would be ludicrous....not forgetting travel embargoes...air traffic control fairlures...industrial action from any airline. oraviation associated company.....weather disruption...terrorist and security alerts etc would make any crew member who relied on BA staff travel totally as a means to get to work totally vunerable....to the unpredictable happening.IE who would believe that a Volcano in Iceland could bring airtravel to a complete halt for a week!
I get the tube into work....thats not my only source as sometimes part of the line is out of functionality due to engineering works...signal failure etc.I need to be dextrous with my forward travel planning.
As previously mentioned by myself and others ...it is an individual choice if one decides to commute from London...New York or the moon! The individidual is obligated to make their own necessary arrangements in order to get to work on time, fit....fully rested and ready to work.
Yes indeed it is an advantage of cabin crew as well as pilots to be able to commute from far away lands.They also realse that its their responsibility ,and not the airlines, to get themselves to their workbase.
You state that peoples opinions differ on this issue...I am merely stating fact. from my own perspective, not an opinion on the issue of BA stating that part of the recruitment package was to woo candiodates to BA particulary from overseas with the promise of staff travel to assist them in getting to work.
Any overseas candidate whom I assessed at group or interview stage..or who I may have been aquainted with during the group presentation...would be able to state that they were in fact encouraged to relocate...and were certainly made aware of the 90 min travel distance window.It was in our best interests to stress this as we would not wish to waste resources recruiting candidates who felt that getting to work for them would be a physical impossibility without acess to BA staff travel.Again they would not have been entitled to staff travel at the outset.
I cannot speak for all cabin crew selectors...and all overseas based crew etc...but this has been my actual experience and many of my fellow selectors who i have been in discussions with on this very issue.
This is ,my last word on this subject.
Enjoy the footie!!
I will simply state yet again ..That as part of the recrutiment and selection team within cabin services we emphasised the need to reside within 90 mins travelling distance of their airport base...secondly on overseas campaighns we again stressed that it was a responsibility of the individual to relocate to the uk mainland in order to live within a reasonable travelling distance ie 90 mins from their allocated airport base.This ideal was encouraged...of course we acknowledged the candidates choice if sucessful to live in the uk or anywhere else in the world...was essientially their own personal choice.
Please remember that it takes 6 months of continuous employment and not being on the probationary peroid of emplyment to earn the staff travel perk...so to suggest that it is used as a means to get to work at the outset would be ludicrous....not forgetting travel embargoes...air traffic control fairlures...industrial action from any airline. oraviation associated company.....weather disruption...terrorist and security alerts etc would make any crew member who relied on BA staff travel totally as a means to get to work totally vunerable....to the unpredictable happening.IE who would believe that a Volcano in Iceland could bring airtravel to a complete halt for a week!
I get the tube into work....thats not my only source as sometimes part of the line is out of functionality due to engineering works...signal failure etc.I need to be dextrous with my forward travel planning.
As previously mentioned by myself and others ...it is an individual choice if one decides to commute from London...New York or the moon! The individidual is obligated to make their own necessary arrangements in order to get to work on time, fit....fully rested and ready to work.
Yes indeed it is an advantage of cabin crew as well as pilots to be able to commute from far away lands.They also realse that its their responsibility ,and not the airlines, to get themselves to their workbase.
You state that peoples opinions differ on this issue...I am merely stating fact. from my own perspective, not an opinion on the issue of BA stating that part of the recruitment package was to woo candiodates to BA particulary from overseas with the promise of staff travel to assist them in getting to work.
Any overseas candidate whom I assessed at group or interview stage..or who I may have been aquainted with during the group presentation...would be able to state that they were in fact encouraged to relocate...and were certainly made aware of the 90 min travel distance window.It was in our best interests to stress this as we would not wish to waste resources recruiting candidates who felt that getting to work for them would be a physical impossibility without acess to BA staff travel.Again they would not have been entitled to staff travel at the outset.
I cannot speak for all cabin crew selectors...and all overseas based crew etc...but this has been my actual experience and many of my fellow selectors who i have been in discussions with on this very issue.
This is ,my last word on this subject.
Enjoy the footie!!
Last edited by skylight; 21st Jun 2010 at 22:53.