BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you BG but firmly believe that there clearly was a hidden agenda in this dispute.
From the outset, positions on both parts were polarised. I believe Bassa offered significant concessions offering EF to do 767 WW and agreeing to a PSR reduction on WW and 757. The list goes on. The reply we were given in Oct 09 was that MF was to be scrapped if we accepted the following:
-9 days off/month on EF
-Double nights on WW reduced to single nights (loss of allowances)
-Unspecified ground duties for crew who have reached 900hrs
-Mixed flying on 767 for EF with a PSR removed
-Reduction of Annual leave
-Removal of LDP,CAT,ERB,ETP
All in all a gradual move to us becoming the MF. This offer was rejected by a vast majority and Bassa registered a failure to agreee.Almost at the same time the imposition started and the dispute escalated.
The escalation provided an opportunity to crush Bassa by describing them as a bunch of irresponsible uncompromising militants.
If I had not worked for other major carriers before I probably would have fallen for it. However I have worked for airlines where the union was far more "militant" than the one we've got and was aware that Bassa was very reluctant to take action.
The threat to remove staff travel incensed rather than appeased and no attempts were made to resolve this situation from then on.the agenda became extremely clear:
to destroy Bassa at all cost (remember the 11th hour agreement was rejected for a difference of 10M).
From the outset, positions on both parts were polarised. I believe Bassa offered significant concessions offering EF to do 767 WW and agreeing to a PSR reduction on WW and 757. The list goes on. The reply we were given in Oct 09 was that MF was to be scrapped if we accepted the following:
-9 days off/month on EF
-Double nights on WW reduced to single nights (loss of allowances)
-Unspecified ground duties for crew who have reached 900hrs
-Mixed flying on 767 for EF with a PSR removed
-Reduction of Annual leave
-Removal of LDP,CAT,ERB,ETP
All in all a gradual move to us becoming the MF. This offer was rejected by a vast majority and Bassa registered a failure to agreee.Almost at the same time the imposition started and the dispute escalated.
The escalation provided an opportunity to crush Bassa by describing them as a bunch of irresponsible uncompromising militants.
If I had not worked for other major carriers before I probably would have fallen for it. However I have worked for airlines where the union was far more "militant" than the one we've got and was aware that Bassa was very reluctant to take action.
The threat to remove staff travel incensed rather than appeased and no attempts were made to resolve this situation from then on.the agenda became extremely clear:
to destroy Bassa at all cost (remember the 11th hour agreement was rejected for a difference of 10M).
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 11th hour agreement was rejected because you did not save the required money. The sum was not negotiable, which BASSA did not realise. It didn't matter if it was £10M, £1M or £20M. What mattered was BASSA trying to dodge their share of the savings when everybody else had met their targets.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem in the run up to the imposition (1 crew member down on WW and EF!!! How drastic CSD having to take part in the service, heaven forefend!) was that BASSA consistently failed to accept the financial environment, they failed to realise that the changes needed to be permanent and, when their threats failed against the management they started on the Union busting trail.
Everyone needed to change, everyone else managed to negotiate changes including other members of the Unite group. Only BASSA, as usual, failed to agree and went nuclear at the very thought of imposition.
BASSA were offered,a long way back, the ability to negotiate MF off the table. As with all negotiations there is room for manoeuvre unfortunately BASSA refused to even start negotiation. So, the Union busting rhetoric comes from BASSA, BASSA has failed its membership through poor/absent negotition and now BASSA are scrabbling around trying to keep the dispute alive whn everyone else has started ignoring it. This continued action will only harm those who take part in it. BASSA could have prevented all of this but BASSA didn't want to.
Everyone needed to change, everyone else managed to negotiate changes including other members of the Unite group. Only BASSA, as usual, failed to agree and went nuclear at the very thought of imposition.
BASSA were offered,a long way back, the ability to negotiate MF off the table. As with all negotiations there is room for manoeuvre unfortunately BASSA refused to even start negotiation. So, the Union busting rhetoric comes from BASSA, BASSA has failed its membership through poor/absent negotition and now BASSA are scrabbling around trying to keep the dispute alive whn everyone else has started ignoring it. This continued action will only harm those who take part in it. BASSA could have prevented all of this but BASSA didn't want to.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Eddy, hope you are keeping well.
Mildly wrote:
"What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?"
It is the threat from too many CC to rather see BA go bust than to concede a single penny in concessions ie to destroy my livelihood, that prompted so many other staff in BA to work to keep the airline flying thru previous strikes and no doubt this next one too. Comparisons with Aer Lingus fall down at that point as I have not heard that the EI cabin crew expressing the same stubborness to their Pilots.
Mildly wrote:
"What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?"
It is the threat from too many CC to rather see BA go bust than to concede a single penny in concessions ie to destroy my livelihood, that prompted so many other staff in BA to work to keep the airline flying thru previous strikes and no doubt this next one too. Comparisons with Aer Lingus fall down at that point as I have not heard that the EI cabin crew expressing the same stubborness to their Pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelsturm
Obviously the ones busting the union are not going to advertise it....It stands to reason.
Stroppy
I have never heard such comments from c/c.Wanting to destroy the company they work for?
I am not questioning what you are saying but would be truly shocked if a fellow colleague made such remarks and would seriously consider their mental fitness.
Having said that I.A does not automatically result in companies going under, otherwise no one would ever do it.I also would doubt that Unite who has a vested interest in the success of BA(large membership) would allow such damaging strike take place.
Obviously the ones busting the union are not going to advertise it....It stands to reason.
Stroppy
I have never heard such comments from c/c.Wanting to destroy the company they work for?
I am not questioning what you are saying but would be truly shocked if a fellow colleague made such remarks and would seriously consider their mental fitness.
Having said that I.A does not automatically result in companies going under, otherwise no one would ever do it.I also would doubt that Unite who has a vested interest in the success of BA(large membership) would allow such damaging strike take place.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildly Militant
I agree that it has been badly handled on both sides.
It was the offering, by the union, for 767 longhaul work to be done by E/F that lost you a lot of your E/F support. Most of us ( except those waiting for WW), are on E/F because we wanted to do E/F work. Having to take all Worldwide's grotty 767 work that would have meant a reduction in allowances for us ( and probably yet more money for WW), basically to protect the CSD job on our fleet was not something that most of us wanted, anyway.
However if we get back to whats on the table now.
A promise to transfer routes fairly.
A promise to keep our terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated.
A promise to not force us onto Mixed Fleet.
I don't understand the problem unless it is all about staff travel or getting peoples jobs back that have been suspended.
Well I can understand that but I don't think it is fair for a union to paint this offer as bad when the real reason for not accepting it is something else. The offer is fair and actually pretty good. It is the Mixed Fleet crew that get the raw end of this not us but that's another matter. You are not fighting for them, you are fighting as pawns for Duncan Holey, I'm afraid, who has misled you all, throughout all of this.
I agree that it has been badly handled on both sides.
It was the offering, by the union, for 767 longhaul work to be done by E/F that lost you a lot of your E/F support. Most of us ( except those waiting for WW), are on E/F because we wanted to do E/F work. Having to take all Worldwide's grotty 767 work that would have meant a reduction in allowances for us ( and probably yet more money for WW), basically to protect the CSD job on our fleet was not something that most of us wanted, anyway.
However if we get back to whats on the table now.
A promise to transfer routes fairly.
A promise to keep our terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated.
A promise to not force us onto Mixed Fleet.
I don't understand the problem unless it is all about staff travel or getting peoples jobs back that have been suspended.
Well I can understand that but I don't think it is fair for a union to paint this offer as bad when the real reason for not accepting it is something else. The offer is fair and actually pretty good. It is the Mixed Fleet crew that get the raw end of this not us but that's another matter. You are not fighting for them, you are fighting as pawns for Duncan Holey, I'm afraid, who has misled you all, throughout all of this.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildly Militant,
I can understand that BASSA wish the Union busting idea to be there, it motivates the membership to accept actions that they possibly might not accept under normal circumstances. When a member questions an action by the board which has little or nothing to do with the current situation then the Union busting card provides an excellent get out clause.
Do you not think that, a a corporation, BA has had ample opportunity to 'bust' BASSA? Given both the opportunities presented by ill advised Union actions under SOSR and the finacial ability through the Courts to 'destroy' BASSA after Lizannes idiotic attempt to sway votes during a ballot, BA could have walked all over the strikers.
This isn't about Union busting, it is about striking a very careful balance between those who feel wounded by the company with its approach toward BASSA and those who feel wounded by their treatmentfrom BASSA. It difficult line to tread and I, personally, think the company has, for the period of this dispute, excercised extreme constraint. For how much longer though is anyones guess.
I can understand that BASSA wish the Union busting idea to be there, it motivates the membership to accept actions that they possibly might not accept under normal circumstances. When a member questions an action by the board which has little or nothing to do with the current situation then the Union busting card provides an excellent get out clause.
Do you not think that, a a corporation, BA has had ample opportunity to 'bust' BASSA? Given both the opportunities presented by ill advised Union actions under SOSR and the finacial ability through the Courts to 'destroy' BASSA after Lizannes idiotic attempt to sway votes during a ballot, BA could have walked all over the strikers.
This isn't about Union busting, it is about striking a very careful balance between those who feel wounded by the company with its approach toward BASSA and those who feel wounded by their treatmentfrom BASSA. It difficult line to tread and I, personally, think the company has, for the period of this dispute, excercised extreme constraint. For how much longer though is anyones guess.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG the offer to undertake WW767 on EF was on a bidding basis and aimed to alleviate the removal of 2 PSR pos on WW .Thus trying to avoid an end to promotion.As to the promises, that is exactly the essence of the problem is that they are aspirational and unlikely to be contractual.In light of the recent court case to establish which parts of the agreements were contractual. The company's legal team argued that what they deemed contractual was your basic pay,annual leave and sick pay.Anything else is a nicety and not a contractual right.This was partly accepted by the Judge.
It's not so bad if you are SCCM on an old contract it very bad if you are main crew on post 97 contract.
It's not so bad if you are SCCM on an old contract it very bad if you are main crew on post 97 contract.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The notion that BA has the power to 'bust' the union Unite is ludicrous, Unite is there to stay. That's why BA happily and successfully found a solution with Unite over pensions and agreed new terms and conditions for our ground staff. However, I think BA is fed up with BASSA and their obstructive behaviour at every corner.
Last edited by Tolliver; 22nd Jan 2011 at 12:54.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that sums it up Mildly Militant because they were shafting E/F with their rubbish 767 work to protect WW pursers! Great.
Anyway as you yourself say, all agreements in the past have not had these cast iron bits in them that you say you want this time.
I am actually not sure that, that was exactly what the judge did say. I think he said BA had broken the agreement but because Bassa and Amicus would not sit in the same room and negotiate, he saw it as reasonable because and, this is the debatable point, BA said they were in severe difficulty and might have otherwise required to use SORS or whatever it is called and the judge agreed this was a better option.
I have signed the agreement and I really worry that some crew have not even read it!!!
Please I implore all of you. Sit down quietly and read the actual agreement, not Bassa's slant on it and you will see that it is actually a good agreement for us current crew.
I will admit that the version that the Union has to sign has bits about not taking BA to court and re-working the way they deal with BA and I think this is the sticking point and NOT what BA is offering us crew as safeguards because they are as good as they have ever been before. I think you will agree that BA have always been a good employer.
I feel that some strong personalities have got in the way on both sides of this dispute, I notice that Bassa and Amicus are arguing yet again! and I had hoped that someone other than Walsh would be involved this time because I just do feel that a fresh look by someone else might have helped. But there you are, that how I see it all.
P.S. Glad that we are able to have an adult debate between us, hopefully you wont get chased away by others that just want to have a go and not actually try and understand where you are coming from.
Thanks BG
P.P.S. It is only bad for post 97 crew if BA don't keep their promise to transfer work fairly. I just don't get all this mistrust for a company I have always found very fair in the past.
Anyway as you yourself say, all agreements in the past have not had these cast iron bits in them that you say you want this time.
I am actually not sure that, that was exactly what the judge did say. I think he said BA had broken the agreement but because Bassa and Amicus would not sit in the same room and negotiate, he saw it as reasonable because and, this is the debatable point, BA said they were in severe difficulty and might have otherwise required to use SORS or whatever it is called and the judge agreed this was a better option.
I have signed the agreement and I really worry that some crew have not even read it!!!
Please I implore all of you. Sit down quietly and read the actual agreement, not Bassa's slant on it and you will see that it is actually a good agreement for us current crew.
I will admit that the version that the Union has to sign has bits about not taking BA to court and re-working the way they deal with BA and I think this is the sticking point and NOT what BA is offering us crew as safeguards because they are as good as they have ever been before. I think you will agree that BA have always been a good employer.
I feel that some strong personalities have got in the way on both sides of this dispute, I notice that Bassa and Amicus are arguing yet again! and I had hoped that someone other than Walsh would be involved this time because I just do feel that a fresh look by someone else might have helped. But there you are, that how I see it all.
P.S. Glad that we are able to have an adult debate between us, hopefully you wont get chased away by others that just want to have a go and not actually try and understand where you are coming from.
Thanks BG
P.P.S. It is only bad for post 97 crew if BA don't keep their promise to transfer work fairly. I just don't get all this mistrust for a company I have always found very fair in the past.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a dog's breakfast!
there are so many strands to this issue that it is difficult to know where to start.
clearly BA has got industrial relations very wrong over a long period. it is unfortunate that there seems to have been no company wide job comparison, with staff involvement, to minimise the sort of bickering over job importance we have seen here recently. presumably the 'you are BA' comment, intended to give cc a sense of worth, has backfired badly by turning in to a rather precious sense of over importance in some heads. this in turn has emphasised the grievance felt by others in the company as they see the cc union branches refusing to chip-in to turn the company round.
the job has many points of comparison with work in the hospitality industry. not all i know, but over a wide range of skills that are used on a day to day basis ( as opposed to those high-end skills needed exceptionally in an emergency). many of those jobs in the hospitality industry are paid at little above the minimum wage. as other posters have suggested many cc resent any attempt at 'evaluating' their job skills on a realistic basis: hence references to them 'living in la-la land' elsewhere in this forum.
there is nothing unusual in having people working on short service contracts alongside those who intend to stay in the industry and pursue a long-service career: the RAF pioneered this approach virtually from inception. it is unreasonable to assume that all who become cc can have a career purely in cc stream through to normal retirement. perhaps the company should look again at an outlet for cc into other branches of the company mid career? that can only happen realistically if there is not a financial penalty in such a move - again, an incentive not to over-remunerate cc at the top end.
nor should we overlook the fact that it is the skills needed for the job that the employer will value and pay for, not your personal skill levels. your personal skill level is only relevant so far as it chimes with the needs of the job. see the Goldthorpe studies at Vauxhall's where PhDs were working on the production line at one stage.
this really is a mess and i cannot see any sign that the cc union branches have any strategy, least of all an exit strategy.
clearly BA has got industrial relations very wrong over a long period. it is unfortunate that there seems to have been no company wide job comparison, with staff involvement, to minimise the sort of bickering over job importance we have seen here recently. presumably the 'you are BA' comment, intended to give cc a sense of worth, has backfired badly by turning in to a rather precious sense of over importance in some heads. this in turn has emphasised the grievance felt by others in the company as they see the cc union branches refusing to chip-in to turn the company round.
the job has many points of comparison with work in the hospitality industry. not all i know, but over a wide range of skills that are used on a day to day basis ( as opposed to those high-end skills needed exceptionally in an emergency). many of those jobs in the hospitality industry are paid at little above the minimum wage. as other posters have suggested many cc resent any attempt at 'evaluating' their job skills on a realistic basis: hence references to them 'living in la-la land' elsewhere in this forum.
there is nothing unusual in having people working on short service contracts alongside those who intend to stay in the industry and pursue a long-service career: the RAF pioneered this approach virtually from inception. it is unreasonable to assume that all who become cc can have a career purely in cc stream through to normal retirement. perhaps the company should look again at an outlet for cc into other branches of the company mid career? that can only happen realistically if there is not a financial penalty in such a move - again, an incentive not to over-remunerate cc at the top end.
nor should we overlook the fact that it is the skills needed for the job that the employer will value and pay for, not your personal skill levels. your personal skill level is only relevant so far as it chimes with the needs of the job. see the Goldthorpe studies at Vauxhall's where PhDs were working on the production line at one stage.
this really is a mess and i cannot see any sign that the cc union branches have any strategy, least of all an exit strategy.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mildy,
I have personally heard exactly that position expressed, yes she may have been mad but would not listen to sense, and sadly it is a position that has been posted on other forums too.
With EI, I understand that they made a lot of concessions earlier which I believe is not the case with Ba/Bassa, and hence they have probably kept the support of their Pilots - also, perhaps they havent historically rubbished their Pilots and criticised their parentage either
I have personally heard exactly that position expressed, yes she may have been mad but would not listen to sense, and sadly it is a position that has been posted on other forums too.
With EI, I understand that they made a lot of concessions earlier which I believe is not the case with Ba/Bassa, and hence they have probably kept the support of their Pilots - also, perhaps they havent historically rubbished their Pilots and criticised their parentage either
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG thanks for your kind words.As you have said in your post you were not ecstatic at the idea of WW 767 work on EF, other C/C wish it were the case... And I think that is the very problem Bassa is faced with.Over the years the company has recruited a wide variety of c/c coming from an extremely diverse background,national origins,culture,values ect. In the 80's the recruitment standards were set as to attract mostly candidates from a British middle class,educated background speaking at least a foreign language.Post privatisation cost control became more pressing, it was proving more difficult to attract candidates of the same calibre whilst controlling cost.This is when the recruitment wave of Spanish,Italian and French started. Early 2000 c/c recruitment was relaxed and targeted everyone and anyone no language required.As a result Bassa are representing an odd mix of people with different priorities, aspiration,lifestyle ect.
It is almost impossible to satisfactorily represent such a diverse bunch.of staff. I have no doubt that this fact alone makes it difficult for Bassa to reach an acceptable agreement.
This fact has probably not been overlooked by the LT when they decided to remove staff travel, knowing that that alone would put Bassa in a very difficult position. It was inevitable that many people would back the company mainly to keep their staff travel and retain the ability to commute from Europe and not out of sympathy for the company
Rather than stimulate a constructive dialogue this has cause the dispute to drag on, resentment to fester and a sincere feeling of discrimination amongst those who went on strike.Ultimately nothing is resolved, people (on both side of the fence) keep suffering and the dispute drags on. This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all. Allowing this dispute to be dealt with fairly and constructively should have been the priority on both side.Not the childish behaviour that has been observed..
It is almost impossible to satisfactorily represent such a diverse bunch.of staff. I have no doubt that this fact alone makes it difficult for Bassa to reach an acceptable agreement.
This fact has probably not been overlooked by the LT when they decided to remove staff travel, knowing that that alone would put Bassa in a very difficult position. It was inevitable that many people would back the company mainly to keep their staff travel and retain the ability to commute from Europe and not out of sympathy for the company
Rather than stimulate a constructive dialogue this has cause the dispute to drag on, resentment to fester and a sincere feeling of discrimination amongst those who went on strike.Ultimately nothing is resolved, people (on both side of the fence) keep suffering and the dispute drags on. This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all. Allowing this dispute to be dealt with fairly and constructively should have been the priority on both side.Not the childish behaviour that has been observed..
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concessions
Stroppy
As I have said before many significant concessions have been made by Bassa since 2001.In real term C/C salary has been on the decrease for quite some time.In terms of productivity we are far more productive than many European flag carriers where the max annual flight hours are capped at 700/800 hrs.
BA WW crew fly to their max all the time.PSR positions have been eliminated, many crew have taken voluntary p/t since 2001 and the list is still not closed.EF crew have a meal break but can be on duty 7 consecutive days and work 60 hr in a week.At what point does a union says no before it stops representing its members interest?
Tolliver
I don't think BA wants to bust Unite but they'd be delighted to bust Bassa.Most c/c in the Union relate to Bassa rather than Unite.
As I have said before many significant concessions have been made by Bassa since 2001.In real term C/C salary has been on the decrease for quite some time.In terms of productivity we are far more productive than many European flag carriers where the max annual flight hours are capped at 700/800 hrs.
BA WW crew fly to their max all the time.PSR positions have been eliminated, many crew have taken voluntary p/t since 2001 and the list is still not closed.EF crew have a meal break but can be on duty 7 consecutive days and work 60 hr in a week.At what point does a union says no before it stops representing its members interest?
Tolliver
I don't think BA wants to bust Unite but they'd be delighted to bust Bassa.Most c/c in the Union relate to Bassa rather than Unite.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all.
Basically we were all scared for our futures, and that of our families. A lot of us felt we had to do something. With hindsight, perhaps we were fooled.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M and Mildly Militant
I tent to lurk on this thread rather than post, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate you coming on here and giving us your views.
I am in the opposite camp from you; I am cabin crew but am against the strike. I would appreciate you telling me what you hope to achieve if there is another strike. I knew what last year's strikes were all about, but am not clear exactly what you are after with this one.
Also, one thing I keep hearing is the fear of MF growing so quickly that it will dwarf us until we are forced onto it (and sooo often I hear less-mildly-militant people saying how they hope the strike-breakers are the first ones forced onto it). MF taking my favourite routes has indeed always been my main worry. However, Bassa's last proposal (in March I think) before the strikes last year wanted the crew member back on board. They specifically stated that, as 1000+ more crew would have to be recruited for this, these new crew would be the start of MF. This would have hugely accelerated the growth of MF, so the last strike last year was actually a strike with one of its aims being to accelerate MF! How do you square this with the anti-MF rhetoric?
Thanks for your time and thoughts,
I am in the opposite camp from you; I am cabin crew but am against the strike. I would appreciate you telling me what you hope to achieve if there is another strike. I knew what last year's strikes were all about, but am not clear exactly what you are after with this one.
Also, one thing I keep hearing is the fear of MF growing so quickly that it will dwarf us until we are forced onto it (and sooo often I hear less-mildly-militant people saying how they hope the strike-breakers are the first ones forced onto it). MF taking my favourite routes has indeed always been my main worry. However, Bassa's last proposal (in March I think) before the strikes last year wanted the crew member back on board. They specifically stated that, as 1000+ more crew would have to be recruited for this, these new crew would be the start of MF. This would have hugely accelerated the growth of MF, so the last strike last year was actually a strike with one of its aims being to accelerate MF! How do you square this with the anti-MF rhetoric?
Thanks for your time and thoughts,
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there is a pungent "dog eat dog" culture in this airline, and that the boss has been very successful in pitting each group of employees against cabin crew.
You're wrong. Its not the BA boss that has pit me against the cabin crew. Its the actions of BASSA, namely a constant stream of anti pilot invective and the BASSA led attitude that the rest of the company can make savings and tackle inefficiencies but we refuse to do so.
Reap what you sow, BASSA.
Last edited by GearUp CheerUp; 22nd Jan 2011 at 20:09.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildly Militant,
I do understand that different types of crew want different things but predominantly thoes crew that wanted 767 ww work on E/F were people that actually really wanted to be on real WW fleet anyway.
So isn't it great that this offer is also giving all of them the chance to transfer over and all the worldwide crew desperate to come to E/F that chance too.
So lets recap on the offer.
* Assurances that work will transfer fairly, infact so far WW and E/F are ahead because so far the routes that have moved over are none of the good paying ones.
* Assurances that we can keep our current agreements unless negotiated otherwise.
* A Top up agreement, so just in case you have really bad luck and get a rubbish year of rosters, BA will top up your varriable pay to the same as the 2009/10 years amount. (and this figure will increase year on year in line with our pay increases as does our varriable pay do now).
* Part time for ALL on the lists.
* Transfers between WW and E/F for ALL on the lists.
So what more do you want?
It sounds so good to me.
This is what really gets me I am not sure what you are striking about!!!!
I can see how having staff travel removed upset you but THIS very good offer was on the table before you lost staff travel and before DH got sacked, others got sacked, others got suspended. In fact at the time of this offer only a few reps had been suspended for fighting between each other and had this offer been put to us two Christmases ago, instead of calling a strike, they would have more than likely been reinstated by now.
So basically in my eyes you have been really badly led by DH, he has led himself and the rest of you down a long and bad path, lost you your staff travel, loads of money and made cabin crew a hated spicies for apsolutely nothing. To get staff travel back and a good offer that have been there ALL along.
I do understand that different types of crew want different things but predominantly thoes crew that wanted 767 ww work on E/F were people that actually really wanted to be on real WW fleet anyway.
So isn't it great that this offer is also giving all of them the chance to transfer over and all the worldwide crew desperate to come to E/F that chance too.
So lets recap on the offer.
* Assurances that work will transfer fairly, infact so far WW and E/F are ahead because so far the routes that have moved over are none of the good paying ones.
* Assurances that we can keep our current agreements unless negotiated otherwise.
* A Top up agreement, so just in case you have really bad luck and get a rubbish year of rosters, BA will top up your varriable pay to the same as the 2009/10 years amount. (and this figure will increase year on year in line with our pay increases as does our varriable pay do now).
* Part time for ALL on the lists.
* Transfers between WW and E/F for ALL on the lists.
So what more do you want?
It sounds so good to me.
This is what really gets me I am not sure what you are striking about!!!!
I can see how having staff travel removed upset you but THIS very good offer was on the table before you lost staff travel and before DH got sacked, others got sacked, others got suspended. In fact at the time of this offer only a few reps had been suspended for fighting between each other and had this offer been put to us two Christmases ago, instead of calling a strike, they would have more than likely been reinstated by now.
So basically in my eyes you have been really badly led by DH, he has led himself and the rest of you down a long and bad path, lost you your staff travel, loads of money and made cabin crew a hated spicies for apsolutely nothing. To get staff travel back and a good offer that have been there ALL along.