BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[ottergirl]

I am wondering what is the point of Unite negotiating without representatives of the CC unions? They may be experienced negotiators but they presumably know diddly squat about CC agreements and aspirations. If they press on regardless, how can they have any idea that what they are negotiating will be acceptable to the 8000 crew who pay for their representation? Although I have not been a paid up BASSA member since 1997 I still don't like the idea that all 13500 of us could end up with whatever deal Tony and Derek come up with, whether we like it or not! Scary!

I know it's only because the other two forums are indisposed but it is really great to see new CC joining PPrune from both sides of the debate. It's good to hear your thoughts whichever side of the fence you sit on and Miss M can certainly use the support.

[HiFlyer14]

Ottergirl

You have hit the nail on the head. It is blatantly obvious that with a show of hands at Kempton Park, rejection of bonuses, shares and free tickets without putting it to the members and equally the out of touch Unite leaders now negotiating on our behalf, our community is getting poor, if any, proper representation.

There are too many political forces at play here: BASSA fighting Unite, Unite joint secretaries vying for the top job, Unite funding political parties, BASSA fighting Amicus, and last but not least BASSA fighting BA.

We have to take control of our futures by first of all getting rid of all these power crazed individuals and representing ourselves. Cabin crew know what works and what won't, we know what we can afford to give up and what we can't, and we are, contrary to popular belief, capable of negotiating, collaborating and achieving great things for the company, the crew and the
customer.

Together we need to rid our community of the politics that is ruining our lives.
Time for the community to get it's voice back by having true, independent,
professional representation. What could be better right now than an independent council, run by cabin crew representing the needs of our community?

Now, where can we find that?

[ottergirl]

Okay you've convinced me. But I still need to know who is going to represent me. I really want to sign up, in fact I have got as far as opening up the website to see what I have to do but when it comes to the crunch, I have to know that you are not all nutters who are going to be as bad as the last lot. I was quite happy to join CC89 when I knew the people involved because I trusted them to do right by me. I'd love to have to same trust in the PCCC but the cloak of anonymity which you say is needed to protect you from harrassment also has the effect of undermining your cause. Is it not time to give your Council a public face?

[Betty girl]

I very much doubt any deal will be that much different from the agreement one thousand of us have already signed.
I also doubt that Mixed Fleet has been removed from the equation. They have already promoted and nearly trained up lots of CSMs. It would just be far to messy to reverse all that now and the savings are far too attractive for BA to give up also.

But who knows for sure? None of us until later this week. Maybe!!

[yadayada]

funny how the moment the two union branches, who have "been at each other's throats" for years, start working together, a "council" appears to throw a spanner in the works.


ba are at fault for the talks not happening last year as they are the ones guilty of playing one union off against the other.

as soon as they realise that they have been suckered and start working together, ba panic and instigate this "council" thing.

[SlideBustle]

If Mixed Fleet was to be intergrated like SOME RUMOURS state - I and many crew would probably be thrilled!!! The Mixed Fleet may have some initial savings but will it work??? Also for us current crew who have more than 5 years left and definately 10 plus years it is a worry. I did believe the 40% in 10 years at one point, but now I am believing it less and less every day!

The savings they could do in other ways could still be enough (let's please not forget that we are not REALLY in a fight for survival!) Mixed Fleet crew working alongside us - maybe to different agreements. Maybe they could still do Mixed flying.

As for the whole ''well they would be doing a nighstop whilst current crew would be doing 2 nights'' - well as people have said - there are trips already where there may be a 777/747 where crew join another crew/itineries. Also on shorthaul with A319, A320, A321 trips each day there are extra crew, ''joiners'' the crew on the last flight out may be on a A319, 3 crew, bringing home a A321 with another 2 crew on top, those 2 crew may have been on 2 A320s the previous day or even on a ''billy no mates Standover'' etc etc! Needless to say crew do not always stay with each other for a whole trip at the moment - wheres the difference.

Or if this is really confusing, how about a compromise that will still save money? Mixed Flying crew work to our agreements whilst on a trip. On days off they work to MF agreements? May not save as much money, but still will save money.

Basically the kind of compromise as stated above would be win-win. I don't like the pay new crew will be getting, and that's why I do think future crew should also be able to join a union. It is still a basic human right to have a say on your working conditions. A company does not owe anyone a living it's easy for people to say - but come on we are not all robots! I also find that the people who say this are often well to do themselves! If every form of employment starts doing a race to the bottom - where will all the well paid jobs be? Why is it a crime to be well paid anyhow?

Anyway militant hat off - I sincerely hope that this settelment comes to end this bitter dispute once and for all. It has caused real stress to many crew. So comments about us being overpaid etc etc are very insensitive. Which we are not anyway.

[MIDLGW]

Dear SlideBustle, have you been flying with pro-union people again? I understand how it's difficult for you when you do fly with pro-strikers, but you must be exhausted from changing your mind. I really don't mean that in a horrible way, honest - I come in peace. The things you've written in your latest post is like reading bits from another place. That's ok, as you're not offensive in any way. I'm just concerned that some people might be pushing their opinions on you and "forcing" you to believe what they say.

The thing about MF flying alongside WW/EF: It will make it very difficult, manpower and scheduling wise, as scheduling (esp for WW) is rather labour intensive already. I understand you would feel more comfortable having MF working alongside you, but I don't think it's going to happen. It's a shame in some ways, as I'm sure a bit of "fresh blood" (so to speak) would be very welcome. If, and it's a big if, MF were to work alongside WW/EF, can you imagine the atmosphere on the aircraft? Considering how it is at the moment (sometimes), some people would try to make the MF crew's lives hell.

I don't know what's going to happen this week, but I seriously hope the end is nigh, whatever happens. I'm so over this whole strike issue now, and I'd just like to get on with things.

Interesting to see new posters on this evening, let's hope for a constructive debate in the next few days.

PS. SlideBustle, I hope you don't feel like I was picking on you, as that wasn't my intention at all.

[SlideBustle]

MIDLGW,

No offence taken. Rest assured though I do have my own mind and do make my own decisions, it is prone to change it's mind aswell as I am a very balanced person (infact sometimes I am too balanced - like with this situation... to be honest I can see both sides. I am not really pro anyone anymore. I can see BAs side and points of view. But I can also see BASSAs point of view. I also don't agree with aspects on both sides.

I know what you mean, you may think I am just being influenced by pro-union/striking crew. Maybe in some ways - as yes I have flown with many strikers of late. But I am also looking at issues with my own mind.

With regards to Mixed Fleet working alongside us the main reason this would be good for all of us - is that Mixed Fleet will be no more of a threat than post 1997 (and MF) and pre-1997 contracts. They wouldn't be able to legally starve us of work or transfer routes over. I would also like to see new blood flying alongside us, it is a real shame that new entrants will never fly with us again.

I have many years left, whether I choose to stay at BA flying or not is something I will decide later, however I am not sure I would be able to afford £2.40 an hour. The 40% in 10 yrs is something that I used to believe however in fairness, if this grew further the city will not complain (BA would save more money) and besides, I have more than 10 yrs. Also, what about CPH nighstops - I will miss those!!!! Joke!

I don't see why there can't be a compromise. Usually they want less than they ask for and the Union and them reach in the middle (BA only really wants/expects half what they ask for) but it does seem BA wants their cake and eat it - at the expense of many existing crew. Also we do need a Union, to represent us, without that we wouldn't have a decent working life as we do now.

I respect everyones opinions and decisions as this isn't necassarily all black and white - I do hope with more people joining this forum, there can be a balanced debate from both sides. As there are so many opinions on this topic and I do respect them as like I said at the beginning of my post - I can see both sides of the argument but also disgagree with some.

[MIDLGW]

SlideBustle,

I'm glad you understand what I mean. The last thing I want to do is pester you, for the lack of a better word. I've read all your postings before, so just wanted to make sure you're not getting "pushed around".

In regards to pre-97/post-97 and MF, there are differences this time. The pay structure and rest being two that spring to mind. At least both pre- and post - 97 crew get the same allowances, it's the basic etc that isn't the same. The pay structure between current WW/EF and MF is so different now that I doubt it will be allowed for these crews to fly together - as nice as it may have been if it happened.

Before you dismiss the £2.40/hr, don't forget your "cousins" down the road who've been on that hourly pay for a looong time (although it used to be even less when I started). Yes, it's low, but it's up to each person whether they want to apply/accept the job. In fact, the only difference in pay between MF and LGW is that we get ONA, OT and breakfast in some hotels. However, MF get performance related bonus. The difficult thing at the moment, is that none of us know what the bonus looks like, how and when it'll be paid, who is eligible for it and how it's decided who gets what. That's up to the MF crew to find out about as and when it's appropriate. MF basic salary is actually higher than the starter basic at LGW! Considering how many people are applying for the jobs, there could be two main reasons as to why: The job market is pretty rubbish right now, and very few UK based airlines are recruiting and people may not think the salary is that bad when they take everything into account. Time will tell, I suppose. For the record, I didn't even consider MF for myself, as I'm happy at LGW, but I wish good luck to those who go for it.

Also, you mentioned earlier that MF deserves union representation. That's up to them (again). They'll have to get together between themselves and set something up. I doubt very much that they'd get represented by Bassa - and I doubt they'd want to. There are other options though, such as direct via Amicus/Unite, GMB or whoever else would be willing to give them backing.

[Hubert Davenport]

It is quoted on here that around 1000 crew has signed BA’s last and final offer.


If that is so, and by the other figures quoted, around a minimum of 3000 crew are non-unionised.


Why was the take up of this offer not higher?


Are the others waiting to see what the union (they are not member of) can negotiate for them?


This is not me having a dig, I am genuinely interested in what these people expect to happen.


To be honest if I was not in the union and believed BA, I would have taken the offer.

[Betty girl]

The other 2000 left the union after 25 June, the cut off date that you had to have not been a member of Unite on, in order to sign the agreement. Many of them live in hope that it will be offered again.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Betty Girl said

Many of them live in hope that it will be offered again.

You can say that again!!

What i find a mystery is why so many crew who came into work, cannot stand Bassa, and some who have been publicly humiliated by their fellow crew, still stay in Bassa. I've met quite a few recently, and a number say its to vote NO in the next ballot. As I've said, 'who cares how the next ballot goes' There is a big part of me that actually wants another ballot/strike, just to see where we all stand in this situation now.

I truly believe that this weeks 'talks' are another stalling tactic by TW. Is it true he is retiring in 4 weeks? If so, he's delaying this until he goes for sure. I'd love to be a fly on the wall if TW speaks to DH this week to tell him its 'take it or leave it' I also the best ST offer from WW will be the return of it without seniority. If he gives it back in full, Duncan will see it as a win, and will then move the 'dispute' onto the return of the suspendees/sacked crew. This could go on for ever if that happens

Hiflyer14 said

This complete lack of understanding of UK Employment Law by BASSA and its reps explains why we are in this mess.

Under UK employment Law, consultation is all BA have to do with regard to MF, crew complements and anything else other than pay, pensions and leave. BASSA SHOULD know this, and SHOULD have consulted as best they can. They SHOULD have agreed the crew complements last year and in return agreed an integrated MF that would have secured all our jobs.

The sad thing is Hiflyer14 is that Bassa DO know all of this. Its just that it seems they became so powerful in the Joy Hordern years that 'in Bassa's eyes' everything was now up for consultation. As soon as WW appointed Simon Talling-Smith, it changed, but not according to Bassa. They just arrogantly carried on regardless, and I believe presumed that with the usual one trick pony methods that have worked before, would smash WW into history. Its just the bluff didn't work this time. They only have plan A. Nothing else was needed before.

[Syndicate9]

The other 2000 left the union after 25 June

That is nonsense. The membership of BASSA has been well reported by others on here on an almost daily basis at some points. Membership of BASSA declined by 3000 over 6 months. About 1200 of these could be accounted for by severance. It is simply not true that 2/3 left after the end of the Industrial Action.
If we have a debate can it at least be focused on reality and not spurious propaganda from either side of the divide please.

[who came first]

Unlike the BASSA leadership I think TW does have the interests of his members at heart.

I think he realises that he needs to salvage as much as he can from this mess - he knows another strike is unwinnable and will destroy the livelihoods of 4500 of his members - so has approached BA for a couple of extra sweeteners which he can recommend over the heads of BASSA.

If I'm right it will be very interesting to see how BASSA spin this as a 'victory'.

[Wirbelsturm]

Juan,

The problem is that BASSA are still living in to Colin Marshall era along with a minority of their members. Whilst the world has moved on drastically from that period BASSA appear to have decided that was their 'golden years' and that is where they are going to stay.

Back then many, many people expressed concern at Colin Marshalls approach to IFcE and many predicted that artificially inflating the value of the department above all others would come back to bite in the future. How correct they were. Still we see some of the 'quotes' coming from that time on this board today.

If someone from the pro BASSA argument could just elaborate, succinctly, truthfully and without rhetoric as to why BASSA believe that they are the only workforce within BA who should stay on broadly similar terms and conditions to those from the late 80's, who should not accept changes to their pay structure and should not accept changes to their rostering and allowances, who should not accept that the economic environment the business operates in has changed when all others in the company have done so?

[yotty]

""I should certainly hope that this proposal includes return of ST without any sanctions. Unless it does I can't be bothered to even read any further what the proposal has to offer. Perhaps BA should ask themselves how those who have lost ST will vote unless the proposal includes a full reinstatement of it?"" quote from previous poster. So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.

[yadayada]

"someone from the pro BASSA argument could just elaborate, succinctly, truthfully and without rhetoric as to why BASSA believe that they are the only workforce within BA who should stay on broadly similar terms and conditions to those from the late 80's, who should not accept changes to their pay structure and should not accept changes to their rostering and allowances, who should not accept that the economic environment the business operates in has changed when all others in the company have done so?"




1013 (approx) cabin crew left the business last autumn/winter. this saved ifce £127,000,000.

the new crewing levels save ifce £60,000,000 PER YEAR.

why should we accept further cost saving measures, a la mixed fleet?

bassa and the ba negotiating team spent weeks banging out a deal that would find the £60,000,000 last winter.
this deal is the one put to the membership, who voted reluctantly to accept it.a bassa rep mentioned that it would have been laughed out of the room by the union in the recent past. but bassa "accepted that the economic environment the business operated in was changing".

but the ba negotiating team, who had helped thrash out this deal, didn't count on little dubya dubya. the deal wasn't making the PERMANENT changes he wanted and he threw it out.


as for your claims that we are on similar terms as the '80's- pah.

i joined in the mid 90's. some of the antiquated practices we gave up in '97 include-

-overtime after 9 hours.(split duties were incredibly popular then!)
-travel to work allowance (29p per mile i think)
-if you are rostered a trip on two a/c type, you must only operate on one of those type in one trip, and position the other sector(s)
-16 crew on a 747. 13 crew on a 777. 9 crew on a 767 longhall.
-giving up a bid system if on midfleet and reverting to "autoroster"
- a "money back guarentee" that we would not lose out in the new system, which lasted 3 years, was negotiated
- the allowance system was re-structured, giving us payments such as back to back, or destination, to make up for our overtime losses.



how many other jobs can you work a possible 19hrs 15 mins with no overtime? thats what mixed fleet will be doing. outrageous.

[TorC]

Any news from Court 74?

Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division

[Betty girl]

Syndegate9,
It is two Bassa supporters that have said Bassa membership is:-
1) Down to 8000+ quoted by Duit yesterday afternoon.
2) 3000 not in union Quoted by Hubert Davenport today in his question.

As Ba said that only aprox 1000 were not in the union as of 25 June. I can only go by the figures quoted by, you, Bassa members, because the running total of members was removed by Bassa from it website because it was dropping daily and obviously causing them some embarrassment.

[plodding along]

i joined in the mid 90's. some of the antiquated practices we gave up in '97 include-

-overtime after 9 hours.(split duties were incredibly popular then!)
-travel to work allowance (29p per mile i think)
-if you are rostered a trip on two a/c type, you must only operate on one of those type in one trip, and position the other sector(s)
-16 crew on a 747. 13 crew on a 777. 9 crew on a 767 longhall.
-giving up a bid system if on midfleet and reverting to "autoroster"
- a "money back guarentee" that we would not lose out in the new system, which lasted 3 years, was negotiated
- the allowance system was re-structured, giving us payments such as back to back, or destination, to make up for our overtime losses.

But if you "gave up" these things only to get the money back with other payments it's not really "giving up", is it?

The money back scheme finished because crew were found not to be losing out overall.
Nothing "given up" just a little less admin and complexity.

Oh and finding almost £60m of savings only to get it all back with interest in two years is not really "giving up" either is it?

Or am I just being picky?