BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh-oh
That has been pointed out to me before, and the The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 has information on workforce agreements. But as this is a new fleet, with new rules, has there been a workforce agreement put in place, or are they running to the CAP 371 scheme.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That has been pointed out to me before, and the The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 has information on workforce agreements. But as this is a new fleet, with new rules, has there been a workforce agreement put in place, or are they running to the CAP 371 scheme.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight crew hours run in accordance with CAP but CC hours are done under BA scheme modified by industrial scheme.
Flight Crew also use BA Scheme as outlined in JPM's. (See 1.16.3.1 if you have a copy handy!)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the
Scheduling Framework for Mixed Fleet
I have 93 flying hours, 107 duty hours in jan, all long haul
Scheduling Framework for Mixed Fleet
2.3 Monthly Total Hours Limitations
At roster publication the Company will not plan a Cabin Crew member to exceed the following duty
hours:
• 180 hours in February
• 192 hours in all other Months
At roster publication the Company will not plan a Cabin Crew member to exceed the following duty
hours:
• 180 hours in February
• 192 hours in all other Months
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think probably the hours quoted by M/F crew are being mixed up between flying block hours and duty hours. I think Welshboys hours are probably duty hours but the quote I made on the other thread of 96 was flying hours not duty hours.
Even though this is within the limits that pilots CAN work, it still means at this rate, a lot of the M/F crew will reach 900 hours very fast. Some of them are very worried about this because their basic pay is so low. The no day off after a NBO trip is also upsetting a lot of them and only one day off sometimes after other WW trips also.
I know a lot of you are big fans of Mixed Fleet but the way these crew are being rostered is, to me, a big disappointment. It's a new fleet and these crew are very keen to work for BA but it really is not fair to take advantage of them in this way, in my opinion. I hope it works out for them all especially as I have chosen to believe Bill Francis in that all fleets can work along side each other and that M/F will grow as we shrink but it does need to be reasonable rostering. I just hope my trust is not misplaced because this is definitely not a good start.
Even though this is within the limits that pilots CAN work, it still means at this rate, a lot of the M/F crew will reach 900 hours very fast. Some of them are very worried about this because their basic pay is so low. The no day off after a NBO trip is also upsetting a lot of them and only one day off sometimes after other WW trips also.
I know a lot of you are big fans of Mixed Fleet but the way these crew are being rostered is, to me, a big disappointment. It's a new fleet and these crew are very keen to work for BA but it really is not fair to take advantage of them in this way, in my opinion. I hope it works out for them all especially as I have chosen to believe Bill Francis in that all fleets can work along side each other and that M/F will grow as we shrink but it does need to be reasonable rostering. I just hope my trust is not misplaced because this is definitely not a good start.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though this is within the limits that pilots CAN work, it still means at this rate, a lot of the M/F crew will reach 900 hours very fast. Some of them are very worried about this because their basic pay is so low.
It does make sense for a short period of time as NF is introduced. While BA is short of NF crew and NF is being expanded to cover more routes BA will be temporarily short of NF crew so they will be being worked at an artificially high rate. As more trained NF crew emerge from the training system the rostering system will settle down and I would anticipate a more sustainable flying rate to emerge.
It is still far too early in the life of NF for a reasonable view of sustainable rostering patterns to appear - NF has only been live for 3 months, including Jan 2011. You cannot argue that 3 months rosters makes a pattern.
I know a lot of you are big fans of Mixed Fleet but the way these crew are being rostered is, to me, a big disappointment.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I hope you are right JT.
At the moment E/F is over crewed, so it dose seem strange that the rush to expand M/F is at the expense of the first intake of M/F crew. I know they want to get new routes and have a varied network for them but it seems strange to exhaust the initial intake of new crew and potentially put some of them off.
Anyway hopefully it will settle down for them because I wouldn't wish short haul flights then a Las Vegas, 1day off followed by a Haneda in the other direction on anyone. Not only will these crew be shattered but the outstanding service will suffer if these rosters continue. Just my opinion. I just hope you are right JT.
At the moment E/F is over crewed, so it dose seem strange that the rush to expand M/F is at the expense of the first intake of M/F crew. I know they want to get new routes and have a varied network for them but it seems strange to exhaust the initial intake of new crew and potentially put some of them off.
Anyway hopefully it will settle down for them because I wouldn't wish short haul flights then a Las Vegas, 1day off followed by a Haneda in the other direction on anyone. Not only will these crew be shattered but the outstanding service will suffer if these rosters continue. Just my opinion. I just hope you are right JT.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, but, during 12 months MF will get 12 months basic plus 900 flying hours worth of allowances.
If those 900 hours were achieved in 9 months MF will still have been paid 900 hours worth of allowances and even though they can't fly for the next 3 months they will still be paid their basic.
So when you add it up the pay is the same but the faster you acheive 900 hours the longer holiday you get!
If those 900 hours were achieved in 9 months MF will still have been paid 900 hours worth of allowances and even though they can't fly for the next 3 months they will still be paid their basic.
So when you add it up the pay is the same but the faster you acheive 900 hours the longer holiday you get!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of them would hope for a steady and decent wage each month.
I think their basic pay would struggle to reach £800 pm. (£11,000 pa) so I doubt any of them would see it that way.
We are talking about predominantly young people here, hardly likely to budget their very low wages in that way.
Plus it is not 900 hours of allowances as they do get paid for all the time they are away but it is still a low total even if you include their allowances and their bonuses for not going sick, and performance etc.etc.
I think their basic pay would struggle to reach £800 pm. (£11,000 pa) so I doubt any of them would see it that way.
We are talking about predominantly young people here, hardly likely to budget their very low wages in that way.
Plus it is not 900 hours of allowances as they do get paid for all the time they are away but it is still a low total even if you include their allowances and their bonuses for not going sick, and performance etc.etc.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh-oh,
I'm not 100% sure and I am sure that someone from MF can clarify it but I am led to believe that once the 900 hour limit is achieved MF crew can be 'reallocated' to other tasks within the terminal that don't involve accrued flying hours.
So, sadly, the three month holiday solution doesn't exist. I can't remember if this is only for the CSM or the entire crew though.
I'm not 100% sure and I am sure that someone from MF can clarify it but I am led to believe that once the 900 hour limit is achieved MF crew can be 'reallocated' to other tasks within the terminal that don't involve accrued flying hours.
So, sadly, the three month holiday solution doesn't exist. I can't remember if this is only for the CSM or the entire crew though.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a rolling 12 month period, so after a while you would be able to fly again in a limited way, so no it would not be a holiday.
The point is that it is the M/F crew that are upset by this and some of the rostering, other than that I believe most are happy to be working for BA, so it is not all doom and gloom.
The point is that it is the M/F crew that are upset by this and some of the rostering, other than that I believe most are happy to be working for BA, so it is not all doom and gloom.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: west sussex
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear on the hourly allowance - nothing to do with 'flying hours', it is paid continuously from report time at base untill clear time at base, whether one is on a boeing, a bus or a beach.
Eg, report at 1200 on day one and clear at 1200 on day three = 48 hours worth of allowances.
Eg, report at 1200 on day one and clear at 1200 on day three = 48 hours worth of allowances.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not 100% sure and I am sure that someone from MF can clarify it but I am led to believe that once the 900 hour limit is achieved MF crew can be 'reallocated' to other tasks within the terminal that don't involve accrued flying hours.
The course to do anything useful in the terminal (bookings/check in etc) is longer than the course to become cabin crew (6 weeks min). The unskilled terminal work (queue combing, hotel booking) is only really required during mass disruption which is when they get the waterside volunteers in. This is also the time BA need all the crew they can get their hands on to fly.
I guess BA might want crew stuck in CRC during disruption to do some of the above unskilled tasks, but that doesnt seem unreasonable. The idea that BA are going to send CC on a 6 week course because they hit 900 hrs in 10 months seems a little expensive! The whole point of mixed fleet was to stop crew hitting 900 hrs too quickly so it will even out over the year once enough crew are on line.
Last edited by Hotel Mode; 2nd Jan 2011 at 13:54.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Mode,
I wouldn't be so sure. The details were told to me by a CSM in Prague during the first few weeks of MF. As I stated above I'm not sure if it only applies to the CSM as they are considered 'management' personell thus required to do some office time.
Certainly haven't heard it from BASSA.
I wouldn't be so sure. The details were told to me by a CSM in Prague during the first few weeks of MF. As I stated above I'm not sure if it only applies to the CSM as they are considered 'management' personell thus required to do some office time.
Certainly haven't heard it from BASSA.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can see a copy of the contract on Uniteba.com site.
It states they can do ground duties but it is not at all specific and of course current cabin crew do ground duties if grounded by an illness that prevents them from flying so it may not be all it is being made out to be.
It states they can do ground duties but it is not at all specific and of course current cabin crew do ground duties if grounded by an illness that prevents them from flying so it may not be all it is being made out to be.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelstrum,
CSMs ARE expected to do about 2 days office work per month, but this is primarily to do with Performance managing their team.
Main crew are not routinely expected to do ground work, however there is a clause in their contract that says they could be required to do so. It doesn't specify what work this would be.
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that it wouldn't ordinarily be for doing the role of a ground staff member (because it requires a lot of training, not to mention that the ground staff unions would probably have something to say about it), but it might well be for times of disruption, such as we have just seen, where they would be required to "volunteer", if their 900 hours are up and thus unuseable for flying duties.
For the Company it is very convenient to have a pool of staff that they can call in to help in such circumstances, without having to rely on volunteers alone. Just imagine how useful it would have been for BA to require all those crews sat in CRC from cancelled trips in the recent chaos at T5, to go upstairs and assist queue combing etc, rather than sit around doing nothing? I'm sure the fact that CRC has been full of crew going nowhere, doing nothing, while one floor up in Departures all hell is breaking loose, has not been missed by the team who put the MF contract together.
Is the ground working clause anything more sinister than that? Who knows, but of course it gives BASSA/Amicus great ammunition to create doomsday scenarios. Time will tell.
Re. achieving 900s with 3 months of the year left? In terms of hourly rate allowances it doesn't make any difference whether your qualifying duty hours are over 9 months or 12, the total amount is the same. That many people on MF are currently heading towards the former (if it's true) is probably just the result of the startup months being unrepresentative, as Juan said. Remember when SF LGW started up? It was the same situation, but seems to have evened out, unless anyone from LGW can tell us otherwise?
CSMs ARE expected to do about 2 days office work per month, but this is primarily to do with Performance managing their team.
Main crew are not routinely expected to do ground work, however there is a clause in their contract that says they could be required to do so. It doesn't specify what work this would be.
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that it wouldn't ordinarily be for doing the role of a ground staff member (because it requires a lot of training, not to mention that the ground staff unions would probably have something to say about it), but it might well be for times of disruption, such as we have just seen, where they would be required to "volunteer", if their 900 hours are up and thus unuseable for flying duties.
For the Company it is very convenient to have a pool of staff that they can call in to help in such circumstances, without having to rely on volunteers alone. Just imagine how useful it would have been for BA to require all those crews sat in CRC from cancelled trips in the recent chaos at T5, to go upstairs and assist queue combing etc, rather than sit around doing nothing? I'm sure the fact that CRC has been full of crew going nowhere, doing nothing, while one floor up in Departures all hell is breaking loose, has not been missed by the team who put the MF contract together.
Is the ground working clause anything more sinister than that? Who knows, but of course it gives BASSA/Amicus great ammunition to create doomsday scenarios. Time will tell.
Re. achieving 900s with 3 months of the year left? In terms of hourly rate allowances it doesn't make any difference whether your qualifying duty hours are over 9 months or 12, the total amount is the same. That many people on MF are currently heading towards the former (if it's true) is probably just the result of the startup months being unrepresentative, as Juan said. Remember when SF LGW started up? It was the same situation, but seems to have evened out, unless anyone from LGW can tell us otherwise?