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 20th Mar 2011, 08:41
  #3561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
MissM

That was a good post (3561) and I agree with you on most of your points.

However, people do seem to forget that BASSA reps actively encouraged the acceleration of Mixed Fleet in their last offer to the company - even suggesting that BA recruit 700 crew to go straight onto MF! Instead of working with the "losing a crew member" issue, which made no difference to our pay, they seemed to decide that anything would be better than that. So they recommended a pay cut and to accelerate MF, just to get that crew member back on.

That was when I, having written to them to explain my feelings, decided enough was enough and left BASSA.

You also seem to gloss over the fact that much earlier BASSA claimed their offer would save 173M over 18 months. Just a quick glance shows that claim to be wildly exaggerated and PWC confirmed that it was actually worth 1/3 of the claimed amount. Yet the reps, on the basis of a show of hands of people given that false figure, agreed not to negotiate any more!


I believe what BA imposed on us is far better for us than what BASSA suggested and called the strike for. I also believe most of the points this ballot is about are a direct result of the BASSA reps' failure to negotiate and then instigation of a needless strike over those issues.

BASSA should have agreed to the new crewing levels and the other minor changes (disruption agreement etc), saving the company the 127M over 18 months. They would then have been in a much stronger position to negotiate over MF: They should have accepted the Monthly Travel Payment (more on that in my next post) and fought for us to keep those new crew flying with us. Instead they recommended a pay cut and the acceleration of MF - and how often have I heard "I hope those s***s are the first forced onto MF"?!

Just my thoughts.

M
Mesmer is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 08:50
  #3562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
MissM

A shorter post this time:

You mentioned:
basic salary and overtime pay reduced
Were they? I missed that. I know there was a pay freeze, but when were they reduced?

Also, can you tell me if you were in favour of or against the monthly travel payment? The only argument I heard against it was that it was not in the contract and that therefore BA could take it away whenever they like.

As I see it, agreed pay issues are contractual (according even to BA) so this is not likely. On top of that, those items which the MTP was to replace - overtime, Box payments, back to back payments - are not in my contract! They are no more contractual than the MTP would have been; and if BA wanted to take them away it would be much easier to chip away at a load of small issues like the back to back payment than it would be to take away one big lump sum. Also, the MTP could have opened the door to the possibility of a bidding system because a 4-day trip to Narita would no longer be worth umpteen times what a four day trip somewhere else is.

So can you please explain the arguments against the MTP?

Cheers,
M
Mesmer is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 13:14
  #3563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Mesmer

I believe BASSA suggested it only because they knew there was no other option than to accept Mixed Fleet. BA have been planning a new fleet for many years and why should they all of the sudden take it off the table? Instead BASSA have been trying to get some sort of control of the fleet to avoid BA taking all of our lucrative routes and starving the rest of us out of employment. The main point with the new fleet is to save money, isn't it?

I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.

As for the MTP, I prefer it over the top-up payment solution as in such case you would have to wait almost a year to receive whatever BA might possibly not have paid you over the months as we are very dependent on our allowances. With the top-up payment you could be sat at home on endless standby duties without earning a penny except your basic salary whilst having to wait a year for the reimbursement. I'm still a bit suspicious about the MTP. Firstly, in five years Mixed Fleet would have grown a lot, why would BA still pay us the same amount whilst we operating fewer routes? Secondly, I have never heard of another airline in the world offering this sort of package which itself makes it a bit strange.

A bidding system? It should have been introduced years ago, not when we are working on a shrinking fleet losing destinations almost every month.
MissM is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 13:21
  #3564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
gr8tballsoffire

If BASSA withdrew the facilities agreement, why is almost nobody talking about it?

I don't think the union is asking for any operational or strategic decisions or having the last say about which routes should be transferred. They only want to be part of discussions to avoid BA pulling the rug from under our feet and taking all of our routes.

DH might have had his appeal. If it's true that he refused to report for duty on several occasions it's understandable BA took the decision to suspend and dismiss him. The same probably would have happened to any of us if we repeatedly did not to report for duty when rostered.
MissM is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 14:14
  #3565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 456
For the main part the BA proposals have seemed fair and acceptable as a solution for a number of cabin crew, it is when the small detail is examined that cabin crew became opposed.

For instance, the MTP. On balance it seemed fair and indeed perhaps a more balanced system of payment than current. However, at the end of the proposal it was written that the payment would be permanently withdrawn at the will of Mr Walsh (or the incumbrent CEO). BA considered this payment more of a perk, like the staff travel issue, which could be dangled like a carrot and used as a punishment. There was no suggestion of a framework of what might be deemed necessary to remove the MTP. Just the will of the CEO. Cabin crew wanted to see the payment as contractual to over come such issues. Mr Francis, when questioned, stated the payment was contractual, even though the final paragraph of the proposal stated that the proposed changes would not alter our current contracts. Should a removal of MTP take place it looked likely that a Judge would have to consider whether or not the proposal could be considered as incorporated into cabin crew contracts. On the current odds, I'd say the Judge wouldn't. When cabin crew talk of guarantees this is what the refer to. A guarantee that at a whim a large part of our earnings could not be stopped.

This was before consideration of how long the payment would be made, and how much it would be worth in future years, and what the framework for such reviews would be. As it stood - none.
PC767 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 14:18
  #3566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 456
The issue of independent arbitration was nearly resolved. Again a look at the small details and it was revealled that BA management would have the sole decision making about who was independent and who wasn't. It was a case of accept who we pick to make the decision or no independent arbitration. How is this independent?
PC767 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 15:10
  #3567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 456
My proposals for resolution.

Point 1.
Full restoration of staff travel is a no cost option for BA. If restored now BA have made their point, they should now return full staff travel with an agreement that Unite/Bassa/Amicus will not support any group or individual legal claims against the company for the loss of staff travel from the point of removal until the date of agreement to restore.

Point 2.
Cabin crew who have been suspended and dismissed by BA as a direct result of this dispute should have their cases assessed by a mutually agreed independent arbitrator. The arbitrator should also consider if an individuals case was a direct result of the dispute. The outcome should be binding to both parties. Any individual whose has proceeded to an employment tribunal and been found against should not be assessed.

Point 3.
I concur with Miss M but add that for cases of illness which is self certified an individuals manager should review the case in line with EG300.

Point 4.
Whoever is responsible for the removal from the facilities agreement the solution is the same. It should be restored. Easy and at no cost.

Point 5.
Odd point. Strikes me that both sides need to rebuild trust. It must be noted it works both ways and if, as they say, you cannot take it - don't give it. Symptomatic of a bitter dispute and should the dispute be over then so should this. On reflection point 5 is unnecessary and should be dropped.

Point 6.
A bit late and confusing as bassa have written it should be allowed. (This in my and many others views is where bassa went wrong. It should never have been agreed to in the first place and if the trade off was less crew on legacy fleet then that should have been agreed.) However, as it is here to stay, at least a discussion of the transfer of work should take place. More important, a revisit of either top up payments or mtp should take place with a negotiated settlement, seperate to this issue, being agreed which, would offer some form of protection against the loss of earnings. Again, on reflection I would drop this point and raise a seperate negotiation on allowance and route protection.

Point 7.
Again I concur with Miss M.

Point 8.
The agreement needs tweeking. Importantly drop the 2 night rest for LR diversions. Not necessary for anyone. A basic definition of disruption needs to be agreed and BA allowed to implement the agreement without union discussion in such cases. For situations not previously agreeded I suggest that BA contact the unions to discuss use of the agreement and agree that it is required. When invoked the DA has issues for cabin crew and rosters, allowing BA to invoke the agreement at will could be problematic and may be used to cover issues such as incorrect rostering or crew shortages.

Point 9.
Should cease immediately. VCCs used at present have prolonged a bitter dispute and undermined current agreements. However, if BA are prepared to stand the cost of keeping VCCs current then I see a benefit in using VCC in conjuction with the DA. The current use of VCC whilst substantive crew remain unused is unacceptable.

Point 10.
BA accept the need for collective bargaining with over 13,000 cabin crew, yet make individual offers. After a negotiated collective settlement is achieved, cabin crew who have accepted individual offers should be given the opportunity to accept the collective agreement. For further negotiated changes to agreements and pay settlements, all should be collective and equally applied. As it stands BA should not offer any more individual pay settlements to cabin crew.
PC767 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 15:22
  #3568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
PC767

Who do you think should be negotiating, Bassa or Unite?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 16:13
  #3569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 456
Unite have full time negotiators and more experience. I have no issue with Unite handling initial negotiations provided that the negotiator is correctly and fully briefed of cabin crew expectations, and does not commit to any decisions without refering back to bassa in the first instance.

It would start to rebuild bridges if bassa were allowed back into negotiations after the initial stages.

I have faith in the cause, but I do not have faith in bassa leadership. Perhaps bassa should nominate new negotiators.
PC767 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 17:14
  #3570 (permalink)  
Couldonlyaffordafiver
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Back a page or so but:

Don't say that we haven't offered anything...
Why not? You haven't.

What has BASSA offered as a permanent saving to BA?



I'd genuinely love to know because I've been following this from the beginning and I've seen no evidence of permanent savings being offered. Who knows, if permanent savings are offered, you may even get some joy on your previously mentioned points of difference.

Hang on, you voted not to negotiate though......
Human Factor is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 17:23
  #3571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

That's very honest of you PC767 to admit that you would prefer others to negotiate for you. Would you feel able to say that on the Bassa Forum?

You need people to be brave and let DH and LM know that you would like to see a change in those that negotiate on your behalf. I left Unite because I was very unhappy the way the negotiating was being handled and because the views of the lead E/F negotiator were very different to what I and many others wanted. i.e. longhaul 767 work comming to E/F, something that he had wanted for years!!

Be brave!!

I do realise that that is very hard to do on that site!!

These are my own personal views and not those of BA
Betty girl is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 18:12
  #3572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
PC767

I am sure you will agree, that it does not matter what happened before. The most important thing will be what happens in the future. Bassa could change over night if a fresh view on negotiating happens and it could still be with the current incumbents, although I admit that it will be difficult.

I do not know what BA would thing about your list, but it is all about identifying no go items and tweaks. I wonder if waterside wonker will join in?!
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 18:31
  #3573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Why not? You haven't.

What has BASSA offered as a permanent saving to BA?
Let's have a small look at what we have lost over the years.

We have lost 2 purser positions in total on every longhaul aircraft. How long before they will begin assessing on removing the purser from First is probably only a matter of time.

We have gone from 16 to 14 cabin crew in only a few years time with no chance of ever having the crew complements increased again. As we are a world globe carrier our crew complements are low compared to many other international airlines.

We are working 5 years longer before retirement.

We have agreed to 15 hours rest after a LR diversion inbound LHR. This will save the company a lot of money as opposed to two local nights. The diversion agreement was formed using the LR Agreement which was the easiest way at the time when it was negotiated.

We have also offered a two year pay freeze.

BA have introduced their long wanted Mixed Fleet. There's definitely no chance, or a very little chance, of stopping it. They have been planning this fleet for many years which has caused great worry amongst many of us. Some of us are not here for the short run. Many of us have created ourselves a career with the company and would like to stay.

Last edited by MissM; 20th Mar 2011 at 18:57.
MissM is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:18
  #3574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by MissM
I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.
We all readily understand that the strike is about imposition. What many amongst the crew don't seem to understand is that the imposition occurred because BASSA failed to deliver meaningful savings. I'm pretty sure you can understand that if BASSA just say 'No', then BA are left with no option but to impose because an indefinite impasse is not an acceptable outcome to them. Sadly many of your colleagues don't seem to have grasped this concept and cannot see that the imposition is a consequence of the unions own behaviour.

Firstly, in five years Mixed Fleet would have grown a lot, why would BA still pay us the same amount whilst we operating fewer routes? Secondly, I have never heard of another airline in the world offering this sort of package which itself makes it a bit strange.
There are many peculiarities in BA which are probably unique to BA cabin crew. B2B payments, telephone allowance, early report allowance, CAT payments, refusal to operate fixed links through home base and so on and so forth. Mixed Fleet is going to grow and it's up to 'legacy' crew to make themselves relevant to the BA operation. Why should BA continue to pay top whack for existing crew if they strike at the drop of a hat and wilfully obstruct the efficient operation of the airline at any opportunity? Again, it's a concept that few crew seem to grasp but BA doesn't owe anyone a living - you have to earn that living, and that invariably means evolution in the way we all work.

A bidding system? It should have been introduced years ago, not when we are working on a shrinking fleet losing destinations almost every month.
One can't help but think that that statement could apply to many, many practices within the CC community. Had the former happened the latter may have been prevented.

If BASSA withdrew the facilities agreement, why is almost nobody talking about it?
Everybody is talking about it. Everybody except BASSA, who much prefer to portray themselves as the victims of BA rather than their own stupidity.

I don't think the union is asking for any operational or strategic decisions or having the last say about which routes should be transferred. They only want to be part of discussions to avoid BA pulling the rug from under our feet and taking all of our routes.
Sadly a no negotiation stance pretty much ruled them out of any meaningful discussion with BA. DH and LM thought they could strongarm BA but their bluff has been called.

Let's have a small look at what we have lost over the years.

We have lost 2 purser positions in total on every longhaul aircraft. How long before they will begin assessing on removing the purser from First is probably only a matter of time.
Please bear in mind we used to have 5 supervisory positions for 10 main crew on the jumbo. That's an extravagance that simply can't be justified in comparison with our competitors.

We have gone from 16 to 14 cabin crew in only a few years time with no chance of ever having the crew complements increased again. As we are a world globe carrier our crew complements are low compared to many other international airlines.
Our passenger numbers have dropped from nearly 400 on a 747 to as low as 291 on occasion over that period. A 25% drop in passengers for a 12.5% drop in crew complement. You haven't done that badly really - Iberia operate a 340 seat A340-600 with 11 crew. And you still generally leave base with a full 14 crew, even if the aircraft is lightly loaded both ways. All this costs money. What do you think is more costly, 14 BA crew on a jumbo or 20 Singapore Airlines crew on the same aircraft?

We are working 5 years longer before retirement.
As is everyone in the company I'm afraid.

We have agreed to 15 hours rest after a LR diversion inbound LHR. This will save the company a lot of money as opposed to two local nights. The diversion agreement was formed using the LR Agreement which was the easiest way at the time when it was negotiated.
That is good and common sense, but it does hark back to my earlier point. If this sensible measure had been implemented three years ago your union wouldn't have drawn so much attention from the management.

We have also offered a two year pay freeze.
Again, good, but it all has to add up to your savings targets. Individual items are less relevant than the total saving.

BA have introduced their long wanted Mixed Fleet. There's definitely no chance, or a very little chance, of stopping it. They have been planning this fleet for many years which has caused great worry amongst many of us. Some of us are not here for the short run. Many of us have created ourselves a career with the company and would like to stay.
Then for Pete's sake, those who would like to stay have to act like it. Striking at the drop of a hat, sticking inflexibly to agreements, trying to bring the company down, none of that endears you to the customers, management or your colleagues.
Yellow Pen is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:23
  #3575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
As we are a world globe carrier our crew complements are low compared to many other international airlines.
That'll be because other carriers can put 16/17 cabin crew on a jumbo for the same cost as our 14. It's all down to overall costs and current BA cabin crew costs are just too high in the modern commercial market.

"2 Year pay freeze" - for the thousandth time - NO YOU DIDN'T. It was a loan that was to be paid back (with interest) at the end of the period so the company wouldn't have actually saved a penny.
Flap62 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:24
  #3576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Miss M
BA have been planning a new fleet for many years and why should they all of the sudden take it off the table?
They DID offer to take it off the table, you remember? Oh no you wouldn't as BASSA didn't see fit to put the Company's offer to the membership!!!

Let's have a small look at what we have lost over the years.
Exactly. LOST not offered, a big difference in my mind.

We are working 5 years longer before retirement.
Join the rest of us!

We have also offered a two year pay freeze.
Is that the 2 year pay freeze that you wanted refunded after the 2 years was up? Hardly a permanent saving for the Company.

Many of us have created ourselves a career with the company and would like to stay.

Then work WITH the Company to benefit everyone, not just a select few!

oh-oh is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:25
  #3577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
We have also offered a two year pay freeze.
Interesting, considering most of the company has endured this over the last 2 years. Alongside restructuring and other efficiency deals.
essessdeedee is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:30
  #3578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Oh oh

Excellent post but I think you may be wasting your time.
Remember in the 70's there were lots of cults in the states that people needed rescuing from and de-programming (unless you're not as ancient as me)?
That's what's required.
From Tunbridge Wells is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 20:23
  #3579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
So is there any good in MissM and PC767's ideas or not?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 20:27
  #3580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
MissM and PC767 you both make articulate posts, which makes it all the more astounding that you have systematically failed to question the union that you are PAYING to represent you.

I was a long-standing Unite member but when I realised I was paying Unite for nothing, I resigned. The fact that you still pay them despite their incompetence, amazes me. The facts are:

Initially all unions, from all departments, were told to come up with the cost-savings themselves. Ask any ground staff, pilot, engineer, or any other collective bargaining group. So any group of cabin crew with a modicum of intelligence could have sat in a room and devised numerous ways to save money that would have cost us next to nothing. Instead the BASSA reps (and I use that explicitly) said NO.

When BA tried to point out the dire state of the finances and give them access to the accounts to see for themselves, they said NO.

When they had the opportunity to represent our views, they PULLED OUT of the facilities agreement. How can they possibly represent us, when they are not even attending the meetings?

You both indicate that you don't know who pulled out of the facilities agreement, and that demonstrates that you have not bothered to find out the full facts of the case. It was the BASSA reps. Ask Unite - they were furious about it. I met a senior Unite official on a flight a while back and he admitted that.

The thing that makes my blood boil is that all of this has been so unnecessary - MF, strikes, the atmosphere at work, strikers v. non-strikers, loss of ST, treatment of crew who still have ST, pay freeze, all the appalling behaviour and subsequent disciplinaries, the list goes on. We could have had control over our own destiny, but the BASSA reps simply didn't have the intelligence or the competence to be able to do it. We were handed it on a plate and they simply gave it all away.

But don't take my word for it - perhaps Litebulbs would be so kind to verify the facts and give the honest answer on here as to when the BASSA reps gave notice on the facilities agreeement? After all, it must be minuted somewhere. Or perhaps MissM and/or PC767 will show that they can do more than simply tow the BASSA line and will ask the BASSA reps for the minutes of the meetings?

Maybe then Miss M and PC767, you will finally see just how much we have all lost through this INCOMPETENT union.

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
HiFlyer14 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.