BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA never get the numbers right. On a recent flight there were three PSR's working down whilst one crew member was working up as a PSR called out from QRS. Maybe if they had a bit of organisation they would have sorted everything out as well saving money.
PSR is a "Purser" and QRS is a "Quick Response Standby" on 45min availability at a local airport hotel to cover last minute no shows/shortfalls
The Upper Deck Purser position was removed some time ago from the 747 and a surplus of Pursers resulted. There was no reduction to the Purser establishment hence the surplus but the option was given for Pursers to be rostered as Main Crew but retain their Purser rank and associated salary .
At briefing time it would have been apparent to the CSD that the crew were one short and that was an established Purser. Any proactive CSD would ask for a volunteer from the three assembled Pursers to work the Purser position and if none was forthcoming detail the most junior one and informed the standby desk that one QRS Main Crew was required.
Maybe if THEY had a bit of organisation THEY would have sorted everything out
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
Rover90.
Incorrect, often ops are aware that a flight will be short prior to the briefing, ie if a crew member phones in with a delay or sickness.
On many occassions I have been called from qrs prior to a briefing.
Incorrect, often ops are aware that a flight will be short prior to the briefing, ie if a crew member phones in with a delay or sickness.
On many occassions I have been called from qrs prior to a briefing.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHAOS
This has been kicked around the various crew forums for the last few days, I'm surprised it hasn't appeared here yet -
CHAOS Video
The video is rather long at 24mins, but is worth watching to the end.
Would this be legal in the UK, would Bassa be able to employ any of the tactics shown in this video ?
Any ideas?
CHAOS Video
The video is rather long at 24mins, but is worth watching to the end.
Would this be legal in the UK, would Bassa be able to employ any of the tactics shown in this video ?
Any ideas?
Last edited by Far-Ted; 18th Jan 2011 at 21:15.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHAOS Tactics
My understanding is that all airport security passes are issued with a clause in the terms and conditions that clearly stipulate that the pass is only to be used for the purposes that they were issued.
Therefore should a cabin crew member use their security pass to gain access to an aircraft with no intention of flying on that aircraft (the reason for which the security pass was issued), then that would represent a significant security breach, and render both the individual and British Airways (who countersign all security applications) in breach of CAA rules.
Moreover, for the union to call people out on strike once they have entered a secure area would be wholly irresponsible, given that this would render the individual in breach of CAA rules and provide BA with a legal platform to re-assign any punitive CAA action against them on to the Union instead.
Therefore should a cabin crew member use their security pass to gain access to an aircraft with no intention of flying on that aircraft (the reason for which the security pass was issued), then that would represent a significant security breach, and render both the individual and British Airways (who countersign all security applications) in breach of CAA rules.
Moreover, for the union to call people out on strike once they have entered a secure area would be wholly irresponsible, given that this would render the individual in breach of CAA rules and provide BA with a legal platform to re-assign any punitive CAA action against them on to the Union instead.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole legal framework is entirely different within the UK. To take strike action a union must give 7 days notice. If this is not done then the strike would be a wildcat action and as such would be unprotected, this can lead to instant dismissal and any costs incurred by the company can recovered from the union.
There is no Right to Strike in the UK and therefore the arena for any subsequent legal action in an attempt to regain lost jobs would be an Employment Tribunal, which cannot enforce a re-engagement order. All they can effectively do is enforce compensation, this process can take many years to come to fruition and would only gain compensation should the dismissal be ruled illegal.
So the answer is No, the CHAOS as outlined by the video would not work in the UK. If it were likely to be more successful than traditional IA, UNITE would have already tried it, particularly given the lukewarm support for IA we have seen from the CC.
There is no Right to Strike in the UK and therefore the arena for any subsequent legal action in an attempt to regain lost jobs would be an Employment Tribunal, which cannot enforce a re-engagement order. All they can effectively do is enforce compensation, this process can take many years to come to fruition and would only gain compensation should the dismissal be ruled illegal.
So the answer is No, the CHAOS as outlined by the video would not work in the UK. If it were likely to be more successful than traditional IA, UNITE would have already tried it, particularly given the lukewarm support for IA we have seen from the CC.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing that the Union believe they can make this work by providing the 7 days notice, then cabin crew turning up to work going through all the pre-flight and then deciding, just prior to boarding, to join their colleagues in solidarity. Probably on some rain-sodden island, in the middle of an A road...
Hence my thoughts on CAA legislation regarding mis-use of security identification.
I'm not sure, and I'm sure it's hazy from a legal point of view, what the mechanisms or procedures are for people taking industrial action who have already turned up for that day's work.
There are two very good reasons this wont work at BA. The first is that, by being a hub based airport, BA can just load standby VCC into T5 and should any crew use this strategy they can be replaced within literally minutes. The second is that it can't be used downstream because the moment they walk off the aircraft the crew are on their own; BA would have no obligation to pay their transport, hotac or even fly them home.
One of the reasons it works in the US is that Alaska operate out of several different gateways, and so it would be exceptionally difficult to locate any standby crew. Further to this, and as previously mentioned by another poster, Alaskan didn't have to give 7 days notice of their intentions.
Hence my thoughts on CAA legislation regarding mis-use of security identification.
I'm not sure, and I'm sure it's hazy from a legal point of view, what the mechanisms or procedures are for people taking industrial action who have already turned up for that day's work.
There are two very good reasons this wont work at BA. The first is that, by being a hub based airport, BA can just load standby VCC into T5 and should any crew use this strategy they can be replaced within literally minutes. The second is that it can't be used downstream because the moment they walk off the aircraft the crew are on their own; BA would have no obligation to pay their transport, hotac or even fly them home.
One of the reasons it works in the US is that Alaska operate out of several different gateways, and so it would be exceptionally difficult to locate any standby crew. Further to this, and as previously mentioned by another poster, Alaskan didn't have to give 7 days notice of their intentions.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
You must be able to show, beyond reasonable doubt, a persons intent. Your word against anothers would not be sufficient to prove that a person intended to go on strike once they had passed through security.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767 I would like to agree with you, unfortunately in civil law the evidence rest on "the balance of probabilities" i.e 51%. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a principle reserved to criminal law.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ballot results this Friday
So the ballot result is due to be announced on Friday. How do we feel its going to go?. My guess has changed totally over the last few weeks, and now I think there will be a 'NO' majority. If Bassa/Amicus are to be believed, and that 10000 ballots were sent out, I think there will be around 8000 returned forms. Of those 3500 will be yes, and 4500 will be no. The main reason I'm saying this, is because I've met a hell of a lot of crew recently who are still in Bassa ( WHY??)
but came into work and have voted NO in this ballot. I really think that Bassa will lose this one.
On a totally separate issue, there is a lot of scaremongering from LaLalady on the other forums, saying that BA will implement the 90 day issue soon, and that subsequently all crew will be on £11 basic and £2.40/hour a la mixed fleet. Can someone on here please explain simply why BA won't do this. I think I know but am not sure of all of the details. This is the latest mantra being thrown about at work, and I'd like to be able to answer it correctly.
Thanks
but came into work and have voted NO in this ballot. I really think that Bassa will lose this one.On a totally separate issue, there is a lot of scaremongering from LaLalady on the other forums, saying that BA will implement the 90 day issue soon, and that subsequently all crew will be on £11 basic and £2.40/hour a la mixed fleet. Can someone on here please explain simply why BA won't do this. I think I know but am not sure of all of the details. This is the latest mantra being thrown about at work, and I'd like to be able to answer it correctly.
Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comedy moment - I believe BASSA are saying that those who've accepted Bills offer have been 'conned'. Why so? Because the pay rises they've been promised are less than those achieved by the engineers. Wrong on two counts BASSA: 1) BASSA think they will achieve at least as good a rise as the engineers because that's what they're demanding from BA. Like that's gonna work? 2) BASSA seem to have overlooked the fact that those who have already accepted Bills offer are guaranteed to have their offer uplifted in the highly unlikely event that BASSA achieve anything better. I think those who've accepted Bills offer are in a rather comfortable win-win situation and the only people being conned are the BASSA members who think their leadership can achieve parity with the best pay rises in the BA.
Last edited by Yellow Pen; 19th Jan 2011 at 10:32.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a totally separate issue, there is a lot of scaremongering from LaLalady on the other forums, saying that BA will implement the 90 day issue soon, and that subsequently all crew will be on £11k basic and £2.40/hour a la mixed fleet. Can someone on here please explain simply why BA won't do this.
I believe the result could go either way and will depend largely on the overall turnout. If the turnout is high (>80%), I would suggest a close result - possibly even a "No". If the turnout is low, which I think is more likely (<60%), it will probably be a "Yes". Overall, I would suggest 30-40% of those ballotted (ie. not ballot papers counted) will vote in favour of a strike.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you both, which is where the weakness in the cabin crew argument will be.
All the CAA and BA would have to prove is that the Cabin Crew used their security pass to gain access to a restricted area, and the purpose for doing so was to perform their duties as air crew which they subsequently failed to do. All very easy to prove. BA can then contest that there was no other reason, other than the strike, for them to fail to perform their duties.
This leaves one of two scenarios. If, as you suggest, the cabin crew passed to the secure area without the knowledge that they were going to be called out on strike, and subsequently were by the union it is a safe assumption, because of the timings involved, that the union knew the staff were airside and yet had no intention of letting the individual fly. Individual would still be liable as they can not put union position ahead of CAA regulations.
Other scenario is that individual passed through the secure area with no intention of undertaking their duties. Individual is liable.
The ramifications could be potentially be exceptional for the individual, as CAA has the authority to remove their security access at any point they are given cause to, so it is not a course of action that should be treated lightly.
All the CAA and BA would have to prove is that the Cabin Crew used their security pass to gain access to a restricted area, and the purpose for doing so was to perform their duties as air crew which they subsequently failed to do. All very easy to prove. BA can then contest that there was no other reason, other than the strike, for them to fail to perform their duties.
This leaves one of two scenarios. If, as you suggest, the cabin crew passed to the secure area without the knowledge that they were going to be called out on strike, and subsequently were by the union it is a safe assumption, because of the timings involved, that the union knew the staff were airside and yet had no intention of letting the individual fly. Individual would still be liable as they can not put union position ahead of CAA regulations.
Other scenario is that individual passed through the secure area with no intention of undertaking their duties. Individual is liable.
The ramifications could be potentially be exceptional for the individual, as CAA has the authority to remove their security access at any point they are given cause to, so it is not a course of action that should be treated lightly.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe lalalady is supposed to be the pseudonym of the chairman of Bassa.
I can't believe how irresponsible her behaviour is.
Juan Trip.
I don't believe BA will issue 90 days to all crew because as I understand it, it has to be to ALL crew and it is supposed to be a tool used when a company is in severe difficulty.
Firstly they have NEVER ever suggested that they might do that, they have always gone to great pains to try and reassure crew that they will honor our current terms and conditions.
Secondly a thousand crew last time and many this time have signed an agreement actually saying that BA will honor our current terms and conditions unless amended through negotiation.
So I feel it would be very hard for them to do that to just those that did not sign as from what has been previously been stated on here is that it has to be ALL or none I believe.
More likely is that they may let the strike unfold and then sack the strikers but I even feel that that is unlikely.
Lala lady is a good name for her because what she has been doing recently is completely lala.
She has posted a Mixed Fleet crew members roster, that was found in the CRC next to a printer, and left some of the crew names visible for others to read. An attempt to cover up the names was made but some of them are still visible and this is totally out of order because she has not obtained anyone's permission to post their personal roster like this.
She truly is lala.
I can't believe how irresponsible her behaviour is.
Juan Trip.
I don't believe BA will issue 90 days to all crew because as I understand it, it has to be to ALL crew and it is supposed to be a tool used when a company is in severe difficulty.
Firstly they have NEVER ever suggested that they might do that, they have always gone to great pains to try and reassure crew that they will honor our current terms and conditions.
Secondly a thousand crew last time and many this time have signed an agreement actually saying that BA will honor our current terms and conditions unless amended through negotiation.
So I feel it would be very hard for them to do that to just those that did not sign as from what has been previously been stated on here is that it has to be ALL or none I believe.
More likely is that they may let the strike unfold and then sack the strikers but I even feel that that is unlikely.
Lala lady is a good name for her because what she has been doing recently is completely lala.
She has posted a Mixed Fleet crew members roster, that was found in the CRC next to a printer, and left some of the crew names visible for others to read. An attempt to cover up the names was made but some of them are still visible and this is totally out of order because she has not obtained anyone's permission to post their personal roster like this.
She truly is lala.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a point of information I don't believe the company has to be in severe difficulty to use SOSR as a means of changing everyones contracts. They merely have to demonstrate they have used all reasonable means to effect change, something BA would have no problem convincing a court of given the length of the dispute. I suspect that if BA have to use SOSR then they will change everybodys contract to the offer Bill Francis has made. Those who have accepted have nothing to lose, those who have declined are no worse off than those who accepted bar the loss of any bonuses.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow pen,
Yes I can see that they might do that, You are right they could change all the others to ours.
I don't however believe what Lalalady is trying to scaremonger that they could change us all to Mixed Fleet terms. In fact by over a thousand of us signing the agreement we are in effect protecting the others from a worse deal ironically!!
Yes I can see that they might do that, You are right they could change all the others to ours.
I don't however believe what Lalalady is trying to scaremonger that they could change us all to Mixed Fleet terms. In fact by over a thousand of us signing the agreement we are in effect protecting the others from a worse deal ironically!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lala is indeed trying to scaremonger. I would take her pronouncements with a huge pinch of salt. It was her forum postings that directly lead to the failure of the 12 days of Christmas strike in 2009. She is not well versed in the legal aspects of the situation and has failed to educate herself since her spectacular gaffe.
Remember that if this strike ballot returns a No vote, Lala and her minions will be emasculated. BA will have won and they will be forced to reconsider their whole ethos. She has to return a YES vote or she is done for, a busted flush and her power both within BASSA and with BA will be forever broken. Is it any wonder that she uses scare tactics and creates doom laden scenarios.
As usual, her ramblings are best left ignored and a little googling of the law will calm your nerves.
Remember that if this strike ballot returns a No vote, Lala and her minions will be emasculated. BA will have won and they will be forced to reconsider their whole ethos. She has to return a YES vote or she is done for, a busted flush and her power both within BASSA and with BA will be forever broken. Is it any wonder that she uses scare tactics and creates doom laden scenarios.
As usual, her ramblings are best left ignored and a little googling of the law will calm your nerves.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA would not do this .If they did ,10000 plus crew would resign
I find the very thought of [pick a number] of crew resigning in protest unlikely. Indeed I’d be very happy if we lived in a world where that degree of worker solidarity still existed, but I think those days have passed. The reality is that most didn’t even strike remember.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snas
it would not be in solidarity.....and 10000 figure was picked from the air....but can you immagine any LHR crew staying on if they only netted £1100 a month give or take?
it would not be in solidarity.....and 10000 figure was picked from the air....but can you immagine any LHR crew staying on if they only netted £1100 a month give or take?