Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Other Aircrew Forums > Cabin Crew
Reload this Page >

BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

Cabin Crew Where professional flight attendants discuss matters that affect our jobs & lives.

BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

Old 11th Mar 2011, 08:43
  #3441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
Having looked at the FTL proposal, the 7.5 hour rest is a short haul thing. When you go to that level of rest, you have to meet a list of requirements which basically discounts a long haul flight.

However, it is still an atrocious way of achieving rest on shorthaul. For me it could mean a 6 sector two day trip, with my body probably achieving a sub 5 hour sleep period. I WILL be tired on day 2 and safety WILL be compromised.

BG, by the way, I really respect the way that you write on here and stand for your beliefs...
Cough is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 08:46
  #3442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Here is a quick summary of some of the 'problems' with the EASA proposals, when compared with the scientifically based CAP 371.

1. Reducing rest has always been at the behest of the aircraft commander, after he has taken consideration of the state of his crew. Under EASA it will be at the behest of the operator, maybe even just before report.

2. The max number of duty hours worked in 7 days will increase by 5 hours, but 'nothing' is being said about 14 days!!

3. The number of early starts will be almost unregulated and the 'window' defining an early start closes to only one specific hour - 0500 to 0559, from 0500 to 0659 at present.

4. The max flying duty period would be increased. The early morning allowabel FDPs show a huge increase in those in CAP 371.

5. The flying hour limit would increase to 1000 hours per '12 consecutive months' - up from 900 hours.

6. Minimum rest away from base could be cut to 7.5 hours from the existing 10 hours.

7. The present 2 days off together in any 14 days ensures that the body gets 3 nights to recover. There is no mention at all of 2 in 14 in EASA!!!

8. EASA makes no comment regarding doing a standby at home and then being called to carry out a flying duty period. There is therefore no protection about doing a standby followed by a long flying duty period.

9. Airport standby rules would be 'watered down'.

10. The definition of 'home base' would mean that you would be expected to report directly to that home base, but not get credit for the journey in any flying duty period.

11. A lot of the definitions and interpretations that are clearly defined in CAP 371 are not even mentioned in EASA.

12. EASA make no mention at all on several critical areas, such as: restrictions around late finishes and early starts, restrictions around what constitutes a night duty and options related to night operations, control if delayed at the start of a flying duty period.

As is usually the case, BALPA recognised the unsound review process of EASA and then did a thorough study of the document. All BALPA members were then advised of the problems and encouraged to look at the proposals. We have then been encouraged to contact MPs, who were briefed at Westminster, and the next step is to put carefully considered 'arguments' against some of the draconian measures being proposed.
Sporran is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 08:49
  #3443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Thanks for that Cough,

I took the longhaul reference after 7.5 hours rest from Mr. Bunkers post, so sorry if I have proliferated an untruth!!

Thanks also for that information Sporran.

As I have said before I am very greatful that you pilots and Balpa are looking into this matter and it is good news that you are all so well informed.

Thank you.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 08:51
  #3444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
OG,

Eurocockpit

BALPA

EASA

I apologise as these are really hard going - a bit like the CAA scheme document. Well well worth a read. If I can get permission from BALPA I'll post the responses to EASA's position from them as well.

I'd say enjoy but......

MrB
MrBunker is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 08:53
  #3445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Betty Girl,

Apologies - it's a SH rest thing. I'm away from my main computer so that was a memory dredge! The links above are definitive tho!

PS - the 7.5 in SH could, at the whim of the operator be turned into a split duty with no prior notification according to these proposals.
MrBunker is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 09:17
  #3446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Thanks Mr. Bunker,

Yes it is obvious that a lot of these proposals by the EASA have been badly thought out and I am glad that your union is protesting.

I know that BA may well adopt some of these things but as you are, I am sure aware, BA crew don't actually work to the limits of the CAA regulations and lots of smaller charter or low cost airlines do.

It is, a worry and I am very glad you are all looking into this issue but the point I was just trying to make was that, just because you can roster like this, does not mean that BA will roster like this. As in the example of WW and E/F cabin crew now, our agreements are more generous that the current BA scheme, so BA have not forced us down to the lowest level possible and even Mixed Fleet that do work to scheme rules are having safeguards put into their rostering because the scheme at present is creating tired crew. All I was pointing out was that just because they CAN roster to these levels does not mean the they WILL.

But I am very pleased that you all are looking into this and protesting to the higher authorities and I am sure that because you are well respected pilots they will listen to what you say, far more than me as a mere uninformed cabin crew member!! Just joking!!!

Once again thanks for explaining all this to me and other cabin crew and thanks for protesting on all our behalves and I can clearly see that it is definitely in all our interests that these proposals do not go ahead.

Last edited by Betty girl; 11th Mar 2011 at 09:27.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 09:27
  #3447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 58
http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/doc...%202010-14.pdf

This link should take you to the full EASA proposal document. It makes for heavy reading, but if you page down to paragraph 108 you will find the important bits.

The union to which I pay my membership fees have filtered the important bits out, kept union members fully-informed, launched a campaign to counter the proposals, and even held a presentation in the Houses of Parliament in order to raise awareness amongst MP's about the dangers of these proposals, which was extremely successful. BALPA have done and are doing their bit to protect everyone in the aviation industry (not just pilots) from these proposed changes. Time is running out. The consultation period finishes on 20th March.

Strength is in numbers, and cabin crew have pilots at a disadvantage in that measure.

Can someone who is still a BASSA member please confirm that BASSA have their eyes on the ball as far as these changes are concerned. What action has been taken by BASSA? If nothing has been done, or if, as I fear, BASSA are not even aware of the implications of the EASA proposals, then why not?

Before the mods accuse me of straying off-thread.......this is very much relevant to cabin crew industrial relations. The battles that lie ahead with BA will be very much worse than anything we have seen so far if the regulations are changed, and will have far more impact on our working lives, both cabin crew and flight crew.

Worst of all, safety is at stake, which I'm sure we're all concerned about.

I would urge all cabin crew to ask for a peek at the sample roster BALPA have sent all it's members. It is very worrying, and could be very real in a few years time. It makes any Mixed Fleet roster look like a picnic.

Come on cabin crew, wake up, and make your union earn their membership fees!!!!

Last edited by 123breath; 11th Mar 2011 at 13:14. Reason: Incorrect month
123breath is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 09:51
  #3448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: glos
Posts: 96
BG I apologise for casting aspertions on your post. I misinterpreted your comments as assuming the pilots would be the only ones affected by these proposals, and so there was a measure of self interest in our concern.

This is true, in as much as these proposals will affect EVERYONE who works on board an aircraft in the WHOLE EU.

The previous protections to our rosters ('scheme' in BA parlance) will be completely destroyed. The CAP371 definition of what is 'safe', 'fatiguing', 'early start' and a whole host of existing protections will be replaced by new definitions, or no definition at all, created primarily at the behest of the airlines. Why? Because in the creation of these proposals the airlines had the ear of the legislators, and inserted many proposals that suited their own interests at the cost of their employees.

The idea behind these proposals is to level the playing field across europe, which is laudable enough. But the EASA are seeing this in more political than safety terms, which is usual for a european institution. They see the UK, with the gold standard CAP371, and they see, say, Italy, with a rag tag of regulations, and see the compromise as being somewhere in the middle.

The point that pilots organisations are making is that, where safety is concerned, this approach is not acceptable. The fatigue regulations have been paid for, quite literally, in blood. In the USA there is a recognition by the FAA that fatigue is an area needing greater regulation, after the Colgan Air crash. In Europe they want us to go the other way.

So this is a very, very big issue for all of us. It completely overshadows the petty squabbles currently underway, and could lead to a less safe and more stressful life for all of us.
Runway vacated is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 09:54
  #3449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

I agree with all you say RV.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 10:09
  #3450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Just one example:
8. EASA makes no comment regarding doing a standby at home and then being called to carry out a flying duty period. There is therefore no protection about doing a standby followed by a long flying duty period.
An individual on a 12 hour home standby between 00:00 – 12:00 is called at 04:15 for an 11:55 report. According to the NPA, there is no “reduction on Max FDP” in this time band so an individual can be assigned a 13 hour, 2 sector FDP which will give a “last on chocks” time of 00:55 – a duty of 24 hours 55 minutes. Even more disturbingly, if the situation falls outside certain parameters then the NPA is totally silent – there is no protection around a long standby being followed by a long FDP.
malcolmf is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 10:31
  #3451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Still no news about what BASSA have done so far, or intend to do? That's a worry.

It's beginning to look like BASSA have done nothing.

I have spent just a few hours over the past weeks keeping abreast of developments, and written a letter to my MP who subsequently attended BALPA's presentation at Westminster. This despite working a full-time roster. It really wasn't too much effort, considering how important the subject is.

How much time has BASSA spent on the EASA proposals? I thought its role was to protect the future of its members? If BASSA view the proposals as being of little consequence, they should say so publicly. How much priority have they given the EASA consultation?

BASSA.....please step forward and make a statement of your intentions. If you don't, then what exactly is the point of your existence?
123breath is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 11:10
  #3452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
BG,

I agree in essence but the problem with these proposed changes is that they increase the scheme limits by such a long way that BA will likely have no choice but to roster crew to a place nearer them because to fail to do so will render them financially unviable when compared to those competitors who will no doubt roster to the new limits. It will only take one major european player to start using them and the rest will be forced to follow. This is not a gripe at BA, their hands will, commercially, be tied in this respect. It's a gripe at the ill-thought out EASA proposals.

MrB
MrBunker is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 12:24
  #3453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 492
123breath
Common cabin crew, wake up
who're you calling common?!!!
I will wade through these lovely links and try and fathom the message, looks like I'll be back on the forum in about a month if I don't lose the will to live in the meantime!
ottergirl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 12:35
  #3454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Sorry, but come on.....it's a common mistake!


Previous post now edited

Last edited by 123breath; 11th Mar 2011 at 13:15.
123breath is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 12:51
  #3455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
who're you calling common?!!!
Well! I say!
Dawdler is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 13:05
  #3456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 5
I will wade through these lovely links and try and fathom the message, looks like I'll be back on the forum in about a month if I don't lose the will to live in the meantime!
Read quickly. You (and BASSA) have got until the 20th March to comment on the proposals. After that you'll be too late.
Forestman is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 13:15
  #3457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 492
OR.OPS.FTL.240 Nutrition
If the Flight Duty Period (FDP) exceeds 6 hours, the operator shall provide a meal and drink opportunity in order to avoid any detriment to the crew member’s performance.
Liking this bit! Wagamama's?
3 — Reduced Rest
(a)
The minimum rest period under reduced rest arrangements shall be 7h30 or 7h30 + 2 × (t-0h15), where ‘t’ is the travelling time between the airport and the suitable accommodation, whichever is the greater, and shall include 2 hours in the WOCL.
(b)
The operator shall only use reduced rest in accordance with Fatigue Risk Management provisions.
Guessing that this is the bit that has everyone so riled; the current limit being 10 hours. I can also see where Betty girl was going with her stance that the BA CC (as many are so fond of telling us) will rarely be persuaded to work to scheme when our industrial limit gives us much more time in bed! Nevertheless it sets a dangerous precedent.
(a) Fatigue management training shall be provided to crew members, crew rostering personnel and concerned management personnel.
Found what I'll be doing with my time for the next couple of years if this is brought in!

Still reading!
ottergirl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 13:41
  #3458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 1,349
It's beginning to look like BASSA have done nothing.
Beginning? Unfortunately, it was obvious quite a while back that BASSA were not going to be able to react to this EASA NPA because they just don't have anyone with the knowledge and skills to cope with this kind of attack. As harsh as it sounds, it is the reality.

BASSA have largely been 'okay' when forced to defend their own fairly limited empire ..... but the last couple of years has seen them lose out big time to BA because all they know how to do is a fist-thump, a foot-stomp, and "No, no, no". Another harsh reality. The EASA NP is pitched at a level way above anything they comprehend. If they were ever going to do something about it, they would had to have started long ago, as other groups have (not just BALPA!). Too late now - way too late.

If the BASSA hierarchy ever had an inkling these proposals existed, they didn't understand them, and probably hoped somebody else in their empire would have a go at wrestling with them. Ultimately, if they knew of them, BASSA hoped they would just go away. Well, they haven't gone away, and the commenting 'window' ends on the 20th March.

BA won't give a flying fig about the industrial agreements - those will be summarily set aside! As has already been stated, clearly, several times on this thread - to survive, BA will enbrace these proposals with vigour (in fact they have encouraged EASA to make them) and implement them forthwith.

Which is why, as ususal, it falls to the union groups of greater intellect to bail BASSA out of another mess. As usual.
MrBernoulli is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 13:48
  #3459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 492
the union groups of greater intellect
not being one to blow your own trumpet then?

Can anyone tell me, the bit where the maximum number of hours in a week is raised to 60/65 for pilots is only bringing it into line with what the cabin crew already do. Likewise the monthly limits for pilots will go to 190, the same as ours is currently. I can't see that our limit has been raised though. Has it? Could it be that this proposal will actually have a bigger impact on the pilot community than the CC one? (Not that I am defending Unite's lack of action.)
ottergirl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2011, 14:05
  #3460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 1,349
Wasn't blowing my trumpet at all - it was a reference to the other union committees when compared to BASSA - fact of life.
MrBernoulli is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.