British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector ...
This dispute at BA is a clearly defined attack on trade unionism, which if it succeeds, could cause a meltdown amongst unions not just in the UK, but Europe as well.
a) this is not an attack on trade unionism. The GMB settled as did the other Unite branches, so clearly BA is not out to 'crush the unions'
b) In the greater order of things, BASSA and CC89 represent less than 1% of Unite's members. The notion that Unite could be brought down by a dispute involving these two branches is a flight of fancy worthy of BASSA's tomato grower.
c) The actions of 5,000 (I'm feeling generous on the figures) cabin crew are inconsequential to the trade union movement in the UK let alone in Europe. This does sound rather like you ascribe an overinflated sense of importance to this whole dispute. Unlike the miners, who were largely successful in getting their members out on strike, BASSA and CC89 have consumately failed to get a groundswell of support from their membership in this dispute. Around 45% actually walked out and 600 of those soon became disenchanted and reported for work.
The ball is with Unite, not BA. BA know what they want. The management are well on the way to recruiting lots of new staff. The strikers who sought to intimidate crew who wanted to work normally are reaping what the sowed. I was in the Arora hotel during the strike. There were crew who wished to work who were fearful of walking up to the car park in uniform, because they didn't want to be recognised as crew by the busload of strikers that was doing a circuit around the perimeter road. This same busload hurled abuse at anyone they saw in a BA uniform. That is bullying and intimidation.
BA have people ready to operate as cabin crew in the event that Unite are successful in getting a positive vote for strike action. The company has a flight schedule that it is operating. The empty threats from Unite are having less impact on the passengers as evidenced by the upturnin yields. The longer Unite leaves calling for action, the fewer people are likely to respond. The commuters who hitherto relied on staff travel will find it increasingly expensive to get to work and in all probability will wind up resigning. Sad really, they have been badly let down by a union who gave them garbage advice and then didn't follow through with any meaningful support.
From where I stand I'd say that BA has got pretty much what it wants out of this dispute. It hasn't even got to worry about that pay rise for the union members as 67% of them turned it down, so noneof them will get it. Bit of a cost saving I'd say.
No, BASSA has succeeded in shafting its members. It has cost some of them the best part of a month's pay, loss of travel perks and for what ? The members have gained precisely nothing. Not a penny piece. But then the members really should have looked at what they were striking for, because as I recall, the basis of the dispute had nothing to do with improvng the lot of cabin crew..
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh never wanted to 'break' BASSA. He just wanted BASSA and its members to accept changes that have been due for many, many years. Changes that all other departments have made over the past years that BASSA stoically refused to entertain.
As CEO of a FTSE company WIllie Walsh has a legal obligation to the BA sharegholders to explore all avenues to prevent losses to the company through industrial action. As BASSA were the ones who demanded and, indeed, exercised a 'non negotiation' stance, the court action was required if not particularly wanted by the company.
BASSA also used a 'show of hands' to delay the ballots for new council members until the current dispute was over. Looks like Liz and Co will be here for a long time.
BASSA will never get the complements back fully on aircraft, the reason for the original dispute. Neither will they get reinstatement of those dismissed through summary disciplinary proceedings. That is all water under the bridge. Neither will they now have the chance to either stop or influence New Fleet, something they could have had if they were willing to negotiate.
What do BASSA have left to offer their membership? Nothing. More IA? More BFC cakes with Duncan? The company has stated it will fly 100% LH if another strike is called. BA has, through the hard actions of its staff, cut its operating overheads dramatically over the past year, imagine how well we could ALL be doing if ALL departments had the same mentality.
Good bye BASSA, you will not be missed.
As CEO of a FTSE company WIllie Walsh has a legal obligation to the BA sharegholders to explore all avenues to prevent losses to the company through industrial action. As BASSA were the ones who demanded and, indeed, exercised a 'non negotiation' stance, the court action was required if not particularly wanted by the company.
BASSA also used a 'show of hands' to delay the ballots for new council members until the current dispute was over. Looks like Liz and Co will be here for a long time.
BASSA will never get the complements back fully on aircraft, the reason for the original dispute. Neither will they get reinstatement of those dismissed through summary disciplinary proceedings. That is all water under the bridge. Neither will they now have the chance to either stop or influence New Fleet, something they could have had if they were willing to negotiate.
What do BASSA have left to offer their membership? Nothing. More IA? More BFC cakes with Duncan? The company has stated it will fly 100% LH if another strike is called. BA has, through the hard actions of its staff, cut its operating overheads dramatically over the past year, imagine how well we could ALL be doing if ALL departments had the same mentality.
Good bye BASSA, you will not be missed.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same with crew on older contracts. It would have been much cheaper merely to have bought them off with severance, plus all the associated damage to BA and its brand would have been saved. No instead, Willie had to use the big stick and now it is going to cost BA hundreds of millions more to pay for his mistakes.
So where does the big stick come in? BASSA threw their toys out of the cot because of imposition starting the whole sorry mess.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector.
Just a small detour.
You are quite wrong about contracts.
You are perfectly entitled to make an offer for the goods in your trolley once you get to the check-out at Tesco. The price displayed is purely, in legal terms, "an invitation to treat", which is to say "make me an offer". Clearly, putting an item in your trolley does not, and cannot, be considered to be entering into a contract, which is only concluded when the payment is offered and accepted. (Lots of case law on this).
That's what the law says, but what your fellow shoppers in the queue, some of whom will no doubt have bald heads and tattoos, say is a different matter!
Just a small detour.
You are quite wrong about contracts.
You are perfectly entitled to make an offer for the goods in your trolley once you get to the check-out at Tesco. The price displayed is purely, in legal terms, "an invitation to treat", which is to say "make me an offer". Clearly, putting an item in your trolley does not, and cannot, be considered to be entering into a contract, which is only concluded when the payment is offered and accepted. (Lots of case law on this).
That's what the law says, but what your fellow shoppers in the queue, some of whom will no doubt have bald heads and tattoos, say is a different matter!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wurblestim.
You miss a delicate point in your ramblings. The diference between imposition and a negotiated settlement; the difference between union busting and a resolution that doesn't mean going to war with your staff is this:
1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.
2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.
Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.
Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.
What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".
You miss a delicate point in your ramblings. The diference between imposition and a negotiated settlement; the difference between union busting and a resolution that doesn't mean going to war with your staff is this:
1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.
2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.
Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.
Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.
What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant,
"Ballsed Up" and "False Accounting". Another exemplary issue from the BASSA factbook. Can you prove false accounting within the legally framed definition of such or are you, as seems to be so prevalent, just shouting the odds in the hope that eventually something might stick, even if only by association?
Try proving your assertions and you'd be taken a lot more seriously.
MrB
"Ballsed Up" and "False Accounting". Another exemplary issue from the BASSA factbook. Can you prove false accounting within the legally framed definition of such or are you, as seems to be so prevalent, just shouting the odds in the hope that eventually something might stick, even if only by association?
Try proving your assertions and you'd be taken a lot more seriously.
MrB
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector Vector said:
"Let's face it, Walsh never thought he would be in the position he is now."
I think, more correctly, that BASSA and BA cabin crew never thought they would be in the position they are now. Past CEO's didn't have what it takes to run BA or to properly deal with BASSA/Unite and CC really did think that they were BA. Willie Walsh has stood up to BASSA and CC and we have seen exactly who is and who is not BA. It is now painfully obvious to me and others that the BASSAmentalists have nothing to do with being a part of BA and should do the honourable thing and leave, although I would take a lot more pleasure in seeing them forced out.
"Let's face it, Walsh never thought he would be in the position he is now."
I think, more correctly, that BASSA and BA cabin crew never thought they would be in the position they are now. Past CEO's didn't have what it takes to run BA or to properly deal with BASSA/Unite and CC really did think that they were BA. Willie Walsh has stood up to BASSA and CC and we have seen exactly who is and who is not BA. It is now painfully obvious to me and others that the BASSAmentalists have nothing to do with being a part of BA and should do the honourable thing and leave, although I would take a lot more pleasure in seeing them forced out.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector, on a serious note, can you say if the members of BASSA are in a better place now than they were in June last year?
If so, how?
If not, why not?
And, Hector, keep up the delusional postings, they really are very funny!
If so, how?
If not, why not?
And, Hector, keep up the delusional postings, they really are very funny!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wibblesteem.
Many BA crew are not at all worried about crewing levels apart from the fact that imposition breaks collective agreements. For all I care, and this is my personal view, Walsh can take crewing levels on the 744 down to 11, but the service to passengers will be reduced by a commensurate level. There is a finite balance between safety, service to the passengers and what BA is prepared to pay for its crew. Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew.
Two trips ago I made decisions based on my 30 plus years experience, that saved BA at least £60,000. Another inexperienced CSD would have done something completely different. It was an innovative solution. Obviously I am not prepared to go into detail.
If British Airways wants to get rid of its experienced crew and replace us with Fast Tracked "talented crew" with more ambition than ability, then so be it. BA will get what it deserves. In the long run it will cost them far more. At the moment many 'premium' passengers fly BA because of its cabin crew. When the cabin crew have been dumbed down, then BA will have to invest heavily on keeping its aircraft cleaner inside the cabins, and will have to fit interiors to compete with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Singapore, and have a reliable up to date IFE.
BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?
Many BA crew are not at all worried about crewing levels apart from the fact that imposition breaks collective agreements. For all I care, and this is my personal view, Walsh can take crewing levels on the 744 down to 11, but the service to passengers will be reduced by a commensurate level. There is a finite balance between safety, service to the passengers and what BA is prepared to pay for its crew. Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew.
Two trips ago I made decisions based on my 30 plus years experience, that saved BA at least £60,000. Another inexperienced CSD would have done something completely different. It was an innovative solution. Obviously I am not prepared to go into detail.
If British Airways wants to get rid of its experienced crew and replace us with Fast Tracked "talented crew" with more ambition than ability, then so be it. BA will get what it deserves. In the long run it will cost them far more. At the moment many 'premium' passengers fly BA because of its cabin crew. When the cabin crew have been dumbed down, then BA will have to invest heavily on keeping its aircraft cleaner inside the cabins, and will have to fit interiors to compete with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Singapore, and have a reliable up to date IFE.
BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So PNS. When are you going to stand as secretary for the PCCC?
You could follow in the footsteps of Walsh: be an aggressive and militant union negotiator and then cross over into management.
The fact is that Timothy Claypole would be rejected for Mixed Fleet. Even taking a 50% pay cut, they wouldn;t want him. This is the management that he supports.
Unbelievable.
You could follow in the footsteps of Walsh: be an aggressive and militant union negotiator and then cross over into management.
The fact is that Timothy Claypole would be rejected for Mixed Fleet. Even taking a 50% pay cut, they wouldn;t want him. This is the management that he supports.
Unbelievable.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Hector, you can do better than that. At least make some attempt to answer Bengermans polite question.
Nice to see you back on this old chestnut, one that has been dealt with time after time in these numerous threads.
And yesterday I flew to the moon but like you I cannot go into any details - so it is a pointless statement which does not add to this debate in anyway shape or form. Provide some details or don't it matters not, but until you do I, for one, will be disinclined to take any notice of this.
Of course route network, frequency of service, cost and loyalty programs have nothing to do with it? Are you seriously suggesting they only fly with us because of our cabin crew? If so you are seriously deluded.
This is what BA have to do irrespective of what T&Cs the CC are on, hence the New First being fitted at the moment, this is just business and has nothing to do with the current IR problems. The reduction in CC costs that MF will give BA will mean that BA will be more able to do this, but you could equally say that of the engineers, pilots and other ground staff, lower cost base means more capital available for investment.
You need to add IMHO here as it is purely supposition, much like most of your posts it is a one liner with no evidence or reasoned argument.
15 months ago we operated 57 747s, we parked up 8 and have recently reactivated one. So we are still 7 hulls down on where we were 15 months ago, but that is seen business being "so good" - only on planet BASSA is this a good business situation.
Of course the biggest savings Walsh is likely to make, is when he attacks the pay and T&C's of his Flight Crew.
Two trips ago I made decisions based on my 30 plus years experience, that saved BA at least £60,000.
At the moment many 'premium' passengers fly BA because of its cabin crew
BA will have to invest heavily on keeping its aircraft cleaner inside the cabins, and will have to fit interiors to compete with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Singapore, and have a reliable up to date IFE
BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?
What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting
Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 8th Aug 2010 at 13:16.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You miss a delicate point in your ramblings. The diference between imposition and a negotiated settlement; the difference between union busting and a resolution that doesn't mean going to war with your staff is this:
1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.
2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.
Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.
Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.
What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".
1. You do not spend months training strike breaking staff from other departments.
2. You intelligently break down the dispute by using disenchanted cabin crew who want to leave anyway, by offering severance as a carrot.
Walsh has 'balls'ed up' and should now pay the consequences for the damage he has done to BA rather than being rewarded with the position of CEO at IAG.
Walsh's predicition of structural change as an excuse to force new T&C's on all employees at BA, was as inaccurate as O'Leary stating that only four airlines including BritishRyanAirways, would be left in Europe after the recession.
What were the figures that BALPA were shown 15 months ago? They do not bear any resemblance to the situation now with business so good, aircraft are being pulled out of the desert. BALPA and its members in BA were duped into giving up pay, based on false accounting. So much for "intelligent negotiating".
How could BA negotiate a settlement when BASSA put forward a motion of "no negotiation" at one of its branch meetings?
False accounting is a criminal offence, so I would not make such accusations unless you can back them up.
BA management will look back in ten years time and say:"why did we listen to that fool"?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector Vector wrote:
Indeed they are not worried about crewing levels, so why go on repeated strikes about the imposition last November which Judge Sir Christopher Holland agreed with in the case of Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010).
I have never known Unite, BASSA or any of their supporters provide any sort of counter-argument to Sir Christopher's ruling. Would you like to have a go at this, Hector?
Many BA crew are not at all worried about crewing levels apart from the fact that imposition breaks collective agreements.
The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You won't win without a counter-argument, Hector.
Anyone can give money to lawyers and appeal, but there needs to be something more than that.
Oh, and any chance you could answer my earlier question about how you think Bassa are going to win this, if you think they're doing 'fine' so far?
What would constitute 'winning' for you?
Anyone can give money to lawyers and appeal, but there needs to be something more than that.
Oh, and any chance you could answer my earlier question about how you think Bassa are going to win this, if you think they're doing 'fine' so far?
What would constitute 'winning' for you?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB. There is an appeal in October in case you have forgotten which we may win. No comment.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Douggie fashion, stall pusher,puss in boots, loprendo inculo, Hector Vector said
Hector, what will a victory mean for you and BASSA?
BA will do one of two things:-
1. Appeal
2. Acquiesce, consolidate all "legacy crew" onto 15/16 crew flights and rapidly recruit 800-1000 more crew for new fleet at a saving of £25-30 million
Neither the above will be a victory for BASSA or existing crew, talk about back yourself into a corner
CB. There is an appeal in October in case you have forgotten which we may win. No comment.
BA will do one of two things:-
1. Appeal
2. Acquiesce, consolidate all "legacy crew" onto 15/16 crew flights and rapidly recruit 800-1000 more crew for new fleet at a saving of £25-30 million
Neither the above will be a victory for BASSA or existing crew, talk about back yourself into a corner