BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets just remember that BA is NOT asking any crew to take a pay cut.
I think some posters are just trying to be provocative. They are also not making anyone take a job on Mixed Fleet. BA would certainly not be giving Mixed Fleet crew a pay rise even if they had have been suggesting a pay drop for current crew.
I think some posters are just trying to be provocative. They are also not making anyone take a job on Mixed Fleet. BA would certainly not be giving Mixed Fleet crew a pay rise even if they had have been suggesting a pay drop for current crew.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747girl wrote....
747girl has an excellent point, there is lots of talk on here about how poor the T's and C's of MF will be and how they could join your trips but have less days off after (how nice).
Perhaps heratige crew could indeed ask BASSA to look into changes to their agreements and allowances to "even" out the disparity.
Just a thought.
Especially considering Labour ideals, Socialist worker, equality for all, anti fat cats and all that. Isn't that what UNITE stands for?
new business plan to be adopted by heritage crews and such could be about whether THEY can be flexible enough to adopt new working practices - ie: fare rostering for All, and a permanent pay cut for heritage crews, so the new MF/CC crew are not on dire wages. After all, that seems only fare dont you think - A FARE WAGE FOR ALL AND A FARE WAY OF WORKING FOR ALL
Perhaps heratige crew could indeed ask BASSA to look into changes to their agreements and allowances to "even" out the disparity.
Just a thought.
Especially considering Labour ideals, Socialist worker, equality for all, anti fat cats and all that. Isn't that what UNITE stands for?
Last edited by plodding along; 11th Oct 2010 at 17:31.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: hampshire
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
the new crewing levels save ifce £60,000,000 PER YEAR.
Just more BASSA rubbish
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interests of a fairer society any cabin crew in the 40% tax band will no longer receive allowances. This money will be redistributed to the crew on MF. 
Sorry flapsforty, I've edited it a bit.
Last edited by ottergirl; 11th Oct 2010 at 21:17.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.
Moving onto a different issue. Claiming that BASSA membership numbers have dropped by thousands is rubbish and nothing but wishful thinking. Between June and September this year the numbers dropped by approximately 270. Before the calculator was removed from their website the membership was a bit above 9.000 members.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.
Should they not I wish best of luck to management putting an end to this dispute.
So why should ST be returned? The company gave due notice that ST (a perk) would be removed if staff went on strike.
Should they not I wish best of luck to management putting an end to this dispute.
I feel for Tony Woodley. He's tryng so hard to do a deal knowing that BA are all the time pointing out that he has to be able to deliver it. BA will argue that they could offer the moon but BASSA might still turn it down because they want the moon and Mars as well. I suspect that the final deal offered is likely to be the same as that put forward in June, but with a couple of variations. Firstly, the company will push for monthly payments to replace allowances. Second, staff travel to be returned but with seniority only applicable after probably April 1st 2011 and conditional on no further IA for 2 years. Should an individual default, it will be removed in total, never to return.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs.
Judging from the latest noises, it does look like BA management hold all the aces. If Unite really thought they had a moderate chance of success, they would have balloted before now so that they could have called strikes in the run in to and over the Christmas period. Leaving it so late nullifies the effect, Most passengers will have made their travel plans for the festive season by now, so Unite have no chance of making any impact on forward bookings (assuming they did in the first place) Moreover, a ballot now would yield a result by late November. That means the 12 week period runs into Jan and Feb, two months when load factors tend to be light anyway. Unite will think long and hard about reballoting anyway as they need to have a reason that is in no way connected with the previous stoppages. You can bet that the BA legal eagles will go over every single word on the ballot paper. Unite cannot afford to go back to court and have yet another injunction slapped on them. Kinda dents the credibility. Equally, the union cannot afford to leave members open to dismissal because BA are able to establish that the strike is linked to the previous dispute. No new grievance has been registered. End of story.
Judging from the latest noises, it does look like BA management hold all the aces. If Unite really thought they had a moderate chance of success, they would have balloted before now so that they could have called strikes in the run in to and over the Christmas period. Leaving it so late nullifies the effect, Most passengers will have made their travel plans for the festive season by now, so Unite have no chance of making any impact on forward bookings (assuming they did in the first place) Moreover, a ballot now would yield a result by late November. That means the 12 week period runs into Jan and Feb, two months when load factors tend to be light anyway. Unite will think long and hard about reballoting anyway as they need to have a reason that is in no way connected with the previous stoppages. You can bet that the BA legal eagles will go over every single word on the ballot paper. Unite cannot afford to go back to court and have yet another injunction slapped on them. Kinda dents the credibility. Equally, the union cannot afford to leave members open to dismissal because BA are able to establish that the strike is linked to the previous dispute. No new grievance has been registered. End of story.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the final deal offered is likely to be the same as that put forward in June, but with a couple of variations. Firstly, the company will push for monthly payments to replace allowances. Second, staff travel to be returned but with seniority only applicable after probably April 1st 2011 and conditional on no further IA for 2 years. Should an individual default, it will be removed in total, never to return.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oxford
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
betty gorl
.
I've said this a dozen times before. I'm not cabin crew!
Despite what you say, according to someone else's figures posted above there were 3,000 people who were and did not belong to the union at that time, of whom1 in 3 voted to accept BA's offer. In earlier posts someone, maybe you, declared that this was because 2,000 people left the union at the last minute and therefore couldn't vote. I simply pointed out that this was ridiculous and didn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
However I am constantly irked why you and others constantly make the erroneous assumption that anyone who doesn't wish to see BASSA members burned at the stake must be a militant Unite member. I may be in a minority but I claim to speak for no-one but myself.
I want to see peace but one that is fair and that will last. To do that the company has to bring back into the fold the huge section of its work force that it has demonised and alienated.
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,
I've said this a dozen times before. I'm not cabin crew!
Despite what you say, according to someone else's figures posted above there were 3,000 people who were and did not belong to the union at that time, of whom1 in 3 voted to accept BA's offer. In earlier posts someone, maybe you, declared that this was because 2,000 people left the union at the last minute and therefore couldn't vote. I simply pointed out that this was ridiculous and didn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
However I am constantly irked why you and others constantly make the erroneous assumption that anyone who doesn't wish to see BASSA members burned at the stake must be a militant Unite member. I may be in a minority but I claim to speak for no-one but myself.
I want to see peace but one that is fair and that will last. To do that the company has to bring back into the fold the huge section of its work force that it has demonised and alienated.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White,
Not an awful lot I can say to that, although Unite could easily afford to go to court financially. The Law Lords did find in their favour too. It is not the financial side that will be worrying them though, in my opinion.
Not an awful lot I can say to that, although Unite could easily afford to go to court financially. The Law Lords did find in their favour too. It is not the financial side that will be worrying them though, in my opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London news last night was reporting that BASSA had lost their appeal over the right of the company to decide crewing levels on the companies aircraft.
What a surprise.
Seems BASSA have launched an immediate appeal (again) though stating that 'quote' 'The judge was wrong.
Seems that BASSA know all about corporate law as well as every other detail in every other department in BA.
What a surprise.
Seems BASSA have launched an immediate appeal (again) though stating that 'quote' 'The judge was wrong.
Seems that BASSA know all about corporate law as well as every other detail in every other department in BA.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelsturm
Are you correct in your assumption? After a lengthy search all I could find was this below, perhaps you could provide a link to your information?
BA crews appeal over cost-cutting plans
(UKPA) – 16 hours ago
British Airways cabin crew, based at Heathrow, have launched an appeal after losing a High Court bid for an injunction preventing the airline from imposing cost-cutting proposals.
BA won its argument in February that it was entitled to reduce cabin crew complements on board its Worldwide and Eurofleet flights as these are not terms of individual cabin crew members' contracts.
John Hendry QC, representing the cabin crews based at Heathrow, told three judges at the Court of Appeal that High Court judge Sir Christopher Holland was wrong when he ruled that an agreement on minimum crew numbers was not incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
He said the judge had found that the level of crew numbers had a material impact on the working conditions of cabin crews and the reduction in numbers had led to "harder work and increased stress".
The crewing levels had been agreed between BA and union Unite as the minimum required under a productivity deal, he said.
Mr Hendry said an injunction should have been granted and a future hearing set to decide on damages for the cabin crew.
The case continues on Tuesday when judgment is expected to be reserved.
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
(UKPA) – 16 hours ago
British Airways cabin crew, based at Heathrow, have launched an appeal after losing a High Court bid for an injunction preventing the airline from imposing cost-cutting proposals.
BA won its argument in February that it was entitled to reduce cabin crew complements on board its Worldwide and Eurofleet flights as these are not terms of individual cabin crew members' contracts.
John Hendry QC, representing the cabin crews based at Heathrow, told three judges at the Court of Appeal that High Court judge Sir Christopher Holland was wrong when he ruled that an agreement on minimum crew numbers was not incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
He said the judge had found that the level of crew numbers had a material impact on the working conditions of cabin crews and the reduction in numbers had led to "harder work and increased stress".
The crewing levels had been agreed between BA and union Unite as the minimum required under a productivity deal, he said.
Mr Hendry said an injunction should have been granted and a future hearing set to decide on damages for the cabin crew.
The case continues on Tuesday when judgment is expected to be reserved.
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew numbers. My guess.
A total of 12,500.
Let's sat 9,000 in Bassa.
3,500 not in Bassa.
2,300 ICCs and temps - ineligible to accept new deal.
1,200 eligible to accept, of whom 1,050 did.
A total of 12,500.
Let's sat 9,000 in Bassa.
3,500 not in Bassa.
2,300 ICCs and temps - ineligible to accept new deal.
1,200 eligible to accept, of whom 1,050 did.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pornpants1,
Sorry I can't provide a link as it was a quick throwaway story on the BBC London news last night at 22:35. It just stated that BASSA had launched an appeal against the result of the appeal because the learned judges were wrong (in the opinion of BASSA of course)!
Clutching at straws it would seem.
It all looks akin to the Tesco's checkout workers trying to demand from the management that a certain number of checkouts are manned irrespective of customer demand. If they had 15 manned and had a drastic change to impose a reduction to 14 then their stress levels and workload would go sky high.
Sorry I can't provide a link as it was a quick throwaway story on the BBC London news last night at 22:35. It just stated that BASSA had launched an appeal against the result of the appeal because the learned judges were wrong (in the opinion of BASSA of course)!
Clutching at straws it would seem.
It all looks akin to the Tesco's checkout workers trying to demand from the management that a certain number of checkouts are manned irrespective of customer demand. If they had 15 manned and had a drastic change to impose a reduction to 14 then their stress levels and workload would go sky high.