BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huge Box Payments
Can I ask why trips like SIN and HKG pay such huge box payments?
Presumably because they are so long and arduous that it is a form of compensation?
Presumably because they are so long and arduous that it is a form of compensation?
Along comes the 747-400 in 1989 that scoops up the HKG/BKK/NRT/JNB and now could also do SIN/EZE/KUL, it had dedicated crew bunks and the sector payments were scaled up, formalised and became set in stone.
In reality and you won't find many that will disagree (if they do, scheduling will happily substitute them from a long range trip and find them a MIA), with extra crew and dedicated bunk rest plus a significant sector payment, the "Long Range" sectors became far more popular than the MIA/SEA/YVR/BOM whatever.
The short answer is that the majority of "Long Range" sectors are relatively straightforward, not particularly arduous and much sought after compared to the daylight MRU/MAA that do not attract a comparable premium payment and are considerably more demanding.
Of course that is a personal opinion..
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the longer the sector, the longer crew get in the bunks to sleep
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info : Court of Appeal judgement in the lists tomorrow Wednesday 3rd Nov., at 1000 hrs, Court 70 "Malone and ors vs BA" : decisions in two cases, no details so assume that one is the imposition case.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regards the claim by the union that
It's as easy as pie for any BA staff member to read the whole of the ST09 document on the intranet, each and every page of which states:
Staff travel is a non-contractual benefit granted at the sole discretion of British Airways and as such can be amended or withdrawn at any time
We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.
ST09 published by People Department and Staff Travel, 15th November 2007, Page 0 of 15
Staff travel is a non-contractual benefit granted at the sole discretion of British Airways and as such can be amended or withdrawn at any time
So, anyone from unite/bassa/cc89 reading this, there's your answer!
And anyone still thinking that the ECHR will come to the rescue might want to quickly see BBC News - Government may allow convicted prisoners to vote and note that 5 years after the ECHR ruling, the UK Government is "considering" acting upon the ruling.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP
DH has no interest in any settlement, whatsoever - a settlement will mean a leadership election in BASSA in which he wont be eligible to stand. So, you can see BASSA's stance, lets keep the dispute going and I can continue as leader, raking off my percentage.....sod our members....and he influences 90% of BASSA members....
As for influencing 90% of BASSA members, maybe back in Nov 09, but in Nov 10, he can only dream of that level of support.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DH has already left a legacy - the hatred of all pilots. He has certainly worked hard at that over the last few years. Anyone would think that he's still upset about not getting in as a cadet...
Good point Hot Wings!!
One of the worst parts of this ongoing dispute has been the level of absolutely appalling lies, mistruths and deliberate mis-information from bassa about pilots.
What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. The lying two-faced ramblings of DH have caused so much hurt, anger and worse.
BA is my third flying job and I have been horrified at the degree of nastiness from some 'so-called colleagues' who choose to judge me - before even giving me the chance to be seen as a completely normal guy.
One of the worst parts of this ongoing dispute has been the level of absolutely appalling lies, mistruths and deliberate mis-information from bassa about pilots.
What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. The lying two-faced ramblings of DH have caused so much hurt, anger and worse.
BA is my third flying job and I have been horrified at the degree of nastiness from some 'so-called colleagues' who choose to judge me - before even giving me the chance to be seen as a completely normal guy.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the latest round of this this whole debacle goes to BA again.
British Airways Wins Appeal in London Job Cut Case Brought by Unite Union - Bloomberg
More UNITE members subscriptions down the drain.
British Airways Wins Appeal in London Job Cut Case Brought by Unite Union - Bloomberg
More UNITE members subscriptions down the drain.
BA cabin crew lose appeal over cuts
By Stephen Howard, PA
Wednesday, 3 November
British Airways cabin crew lost their court appeal over the airline's cost-cutting proposals today.
They took their case to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judge refused to grant them an injunction to prevent BA imposing the cuts.
The claimants alleged that, in October 2009, BA unilaterally reduced crew complements on its aircraft below the levels which had been agreed through collective bargaining.
They sought declarations as to their contractual terms, injunctions requiring BA to comply with the crew complement levels in operation before the unilateral reduction, damages and costs.
BA said that, even though some collective agreements negotiated between it and the union, Unite, were incorporated into the employees' contracts of employment, the provisions relating to crew complements were not.
The airline said the collective agreements had never intended that crew complement provisions should be enforceable by individual employees.
Three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant part of the Worldwide Scheduling Agreement was intended as an undertaking by the employer towards its cabin crew employees collectively and was intended partly to protect jobs and partly to protect the crews against excessive demands in terms of work and effort.
The judges ruled that it was intended to be binding only in honour, although it created a danger that, if breached, industrial action would follow.
John Hendry QC, representing the cabin crews based at Heathrow, told the appeal judges last month that Sir Christopher Holland, the High Court 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 the Unite union as the minimum required under a productivity deal, he said.
Mr Hendry said an injunction should have been granted by the High Court and a future hearing set to decide on damages for the cabin crew.
I look forward to hearing the BASSA explanation of how this is another victory..........
By Stephen Howard, PA
Wednesday, 3 November
British Airways cabin crew lost their court appeal over the airline's cost-cutting proposals today.
They took their case to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judge refused to grant them an injunction to prevent BA imposing the cuts.
The claimants alleged that, in October 2009, BA unilaterally reduced crew complements on its aircraft below the levels which had been agreed through collective bargaining.
They sought declarations as to their contractual terms, injunctions requiring BA to comply with the crew complement levels in operation before the unilateral reduction, damages and costs.
BA said that, even though some collective agreements negotiated between it and the union, Unite, were incorporated into the employees' contracts of employment, the provisions relating to crew complements were not.
The airline said the collective agreements had never intended that crew complement provisions should be enforceable by individual employees.
Three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant part of the Worldwide Scheduling Agreement was intended as an undertaking by the employer towards its cabin crew employees collectively and was intended partly to protect jobs and partly to protect the crews against excessive demands in terms of work and effort.
The judges ruled that it was intended to be binding only in honour, although it created a danger that, if breached, industrial action would follow.
John Hendry QC, representing the cabin crews based at Heathrow, told the appeal judges last month that Sir Christopher Holland, the High Court 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 the Unite union as the minimum required under a productivity deal, he said.
Mr Hendry said an injunction should have been granted by the High Court and a future hearing set to decide on damages for the cabin crew.
I look forward to hearing the BASSA explanation of how this is another victory..........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Unite union loses appeal over BA cabin crew job cuts
So what now?
Of course, the issue of 'staff travel'. What a debacle, why can't this minority just accept that they need to change with the times, just like us lesser mortals?
Guess we'll still be posting on this subject for a while yet! Anyone beg to differ?
So what now?
Of course, the issue of 'staff travel'. What a debacle, why can't this minority just accept that they need to change with the times, just like us lesser mortals?
Guess we'll still be posting on this subject for a while yet! Anyone beg to differ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look forward to hearing them recognise that they are well and truly beaten, and they might as well give up because they are just making matters worse for their members with every passing day. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
harder work
All other departments have had to increase productivity ie. work harder and have been doing at least over the last 5 years, and in engineerings' case, 10+ years.
No sympathy here!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah because clearly this must be a travesty of justice and it's only a matter of time before the truth will out about your status as crusaders for the common man. Or maybe, just maybe, BA didn't break the law, just your sense of aggravation.
MrB
MrB
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondered how long it would take for the gloating to start!
As Lord Melchett once said in Blackadder:
'A stubborn unwillingness to face the facts will always see us through. Bwahhh.'
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsewhere the dissimulation is carrying on apace. Apparently BA are paying Unite's costs and the author of the judgement apparently didn't agree with it as she didn't write "I agree" at the bottom. I weep.
MrB
MrB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that are interested -
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010)
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsewhere the dissimulation is carrying on apace. Apparently BA are paying Unite's costs and the author of the judgement apparently didn't agree with it as she didn't write "I agree" at the bottom. I weep.