BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Where have they said that? That BASSA members should not have to make any concessions? A genuine question because I have never seen that said anywhere.
For what other reason is this now dragging on?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New to LHR
Age: 44
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrBenouli
Ah yet another one of those gracious BA Pilots!
You are talking of HISTORY - as I said in the original question where have they said that?
The changes have now been made and cabin crew have contributed £150 million I believe - or have you missed that? You havent looked very hard have you?
Oh Mr Benoulli - how wrong can you be!!!
You stated that
Talks were scheduled by ACAS this past week, to try and prevent additional strike days to the 22 already carried out. Our current CEO declined to release all but a handful of reps to attend, he also insisted that if they were to attend they should be unpaid, not only their flying pay but their basic salary must also be deducted. Hardly the actions of a man seeking a solution. The few reps able to attend were still prepared to do so nonetheless, in the end this was irrelevant as British Airways declined to attend the ACAS talks and have cancelled all future meetings .
Any comment on who wants to end this dispute now?
You are talking of HISTORY - as I said in the original question where have they said that?
The changes have now been made and cabin crew have contributed £150 million I believe - or have you missed that? You havent looked very hard have you?
Oh Mr Benoulli - how wrong can you be!!!
You stated that
Where have you been? BASSA and Unite have continued to refuse all overtures from anybody. They want it their way, and no other way, at all. That is why it is dragging on.
Any comment on who wants to end this dispute now?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there you guys were, thinking that the new MF crew would bring a bouncy step and a breath of fresh air to the operation.... 
What exactly do you think the first set of strikes were about, MFCREW? Imposition, maybe? The very thing that achieved those savings? Ringing any bells?
Oh do go away until you not only have some sort of sensible, accurate knowledge of the history of this dispute but you can also conduct yourself in a debate without having to resort to infantile comments such as...
I am fast running out of patience today.
The changes have now been made and cabin crew have contributed £150 million I believe - or have you missed that? You havent looked very hard have you?
Oh do go away until you not only have some sort of sensible, accurate knowledge of the history of this dispute but you can also conduct yourself in a debate without having to resort to infantile comments such as...
Ah yet another one of those gracious BA Pilots!
MFCREW
As Mr Bernoulli stated – the ‘savings’ offered by bassa were temporary, so do not count as savings at all.
The Untie/bassa leadership WERE made an offer by BA, but that offer was not even put to the bassa membership. I think that BA has been incredibly patient throughout this debacle. The bassa reps have only ever been interested in power and their ability to run/influence BA and unfortunately everything appears to indicate that the cabin crew are just ‘cannon fodder’ for them to use in ‘their’ battle.
Your assertion that the company want to ‘de-unionise’ the workforce is total nonsense - straight from the die-hard bassa militant handbook!!. BA have managed to ‘work with’ the other unions represented, but bassa have always been the most arrogant and militant union about. I believe a couple of years ago they were deemed to be the most militant union in the UK – even worse than the RMT!!!
Their very basic accounting abilities have been proved time and time again to be pathetic ie £173M savings that turned out to be only £52M. The bassa reps want the impossible and they want the impossible now.
The company DO NOT have all that they want. One crew member off aircraft was a ‘balanced’ response to the constant prevarications of bassa. MF came in, as a means of clawing back the losses directly attributable to the strike action. The return of ST was offered as part of the package that bassa did not allow you all to see. I believe that the company want to be able to negotiate with whichever body represents cabin crew, but that certainly does not appear to be bassa. Their info to bassa members not to respond directly to the questionnaire would appear to back that up.
ST is a perk, a very good perk. Not contractual, but a perk. You are not entitled to use ST if you are sick. All the more reason that you are not allowed to use ST if you are trying to screw the very company that offers this perk. The reason ST has not been returned is that bassa have refused to end the dispute. I hope that WW and the LT stick to their guns and do not give ST (with DOJ) back – as originally promised. I realise that the return of ST will be used as part of any negotiation, but that negotiation would need to be with Untie – not bassa. On each occasion bassa have shown itself incapable of negotiation because they believe that they should not have to give up anything. As confirmed many times in Judge Holland’s summing up bassa and cc89 were squabbling like primary school kids.
The company appears to be through the worst of the economic downturn, but that was due to the cost savings that all other departments made by 30 June 2009. The bassa reps continuous refusal to accept their ‘share‘ of departmental savings, and then their complete inability to accurately calculate these savings, is why we are where we are.
As Mr Bernoulli stated – the ‘savings’ offered by bassa were temporary, so do not count as savings at all.
The Untie/bassa leadership WERE made an offer by BA, but that offer was not even put to the bassa membership. I think that BA has been incredibly patient throughout this debacle. The bassa reps have only ever been interested in power and their ability to run/influence BA and unfortunately everything appears to indicate that the cabin crew are just ‘cannon fodder’ for them to use in ‘their’ battle.
Your assertion that the company want to ‘de-unionise’ the workforce is total nonsense - straight from the die-hard bassa militant handbook!!. BA have managed to ‘work with’ the other unions represented, but bassa have always been the most arrogant and militant union about. I believe a couple of years ago they were deemed to be the most militant union in the UK – even worse than the RMT!!!
Their very basic accounting abilities have been proved time and time again to be pathetic ie £173M savings that turned out to be only £52M. The bassa reps want the impossible and they want the impossible now.
The company DO NOT have all that they want. One crew member off aircraft was a ‘balanced’ response to the constant prevarications of bassa. MF came in, as a means of clawing back the losses directly attributable to the strike action. The return of ST was offered as part of the package that bassa did not allow you all to see. I believe that the company want to be able to negotiate with whichever body represents cabin crew, but that certainly does not appear to be bassa. Their info to bassa members not to respond directly to the questionnaire would appear to back that up.
ST is a perk, a very good perk. Not contractual, but a perk. You are not entitled to use ST if you are sick. All the more reason that you are not allowed to use ST if you are trying to screw the very company that offers this perk. The reason ST has not been returned is that bassa have refused to end the dispute. I hope that WW and the LT stick to their guns and do not give ST (with DOJ) back – as originally promised. I realise that the return of ST will be used as part of any negotiation, but that negotiation would need to be with Untie – not bassa. On each occasion bassa have shown itself incapable of negotiation because they believe that they should not have to give up anything. As confirmed many times in Judge Holland’s summing up bassa and cc89 were squabbling like primary school kids.
The company appears to be through the worst of the economic downturn, but that was due to the cost savings that all other departments made by 30 June 2009. The bassa reps continuous refusal to accept their ‘share‘ of departmental savings, and then their complete inability to accurately calculate these savings, is why we are where we are.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFCREW
Let's assume your figure of the cabin crew making savings of £150M is true. What was the cost of the strikes? £150M - ergo, according to your facts, the cabin crew have not yet contributed anything.
As it happens, I don't think your figures are correct, and the workgroup as a whole has indeed achieved its target. The dispute is ongoing though, because these savings were imposed because the union was just stalling and refusing to negotiate sensibly. This strategy has cost the cabin crew very dearly indeed, and I feel sorry for them. I think they genuinely have reason to be fearful for their long term careers now, but it did not have to be this way and they are powerless to turn back the clock now - as you rightly point out.
Like children not getting their own way, they can shout and scream and cause as much inconvenience as they like, the parent is always going to win - no ifs and no buts. This dispute will be over when the tantrum ends.
Let's assume your figure of the cabin crew making savings of £150M is true. What was the cost of the strikes? £150M - ergo, according to your facts, the cabin crew have not yet contributed anything.
As it happens, I don't think your figures are correct, and the workgroup as a whole has indeed achieved its target. The dispute is ongoing though, because these savings were imposed because the union was just stalling and refusing to negotiate sensibly. This strategy has cost the cabin crew very dearly indeed, and I feel sorry for them. I think they genuinely have reason to be fearful for their long term careers now, but it did not have to be this way and they are powerless to turn back the clock now - as you rightly point out.
Like children not getting their own way, they can shout and scream and cause as much inconvenience as they like, the parent is always going to win - no ifs and no buts. This dispute will be over when the tantrum ends.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another imposition on us. BA have implemented the disruption, which is contractual, without consulting our union. It really shows how much contempt our so called management has for our union.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And do you honestly think they should just sit back and allow BASSA to say 'NO' to the Disruption Agreement when the operation is on it's knees? BASSA are not relevant to the BA operation anymore, and BA management aren't going to waste time asking for permission for something they can do anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another imposition on us.
It really shows how much contempt our so called management has for our union.
Why are you working for this company MissM, why?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFcrew (or Bassamentalist under another name)
For what other reason is this now dragging on?
I'm cartain that if the offer was actually put to the members, then this would soon be over (but we couldn't have the reps feathered beds upset, could we
)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA are willing to negotiatie.
They would have no doubt agreed to the DA uring this snow disruption if BA had approached them. They never did. Instead, we are faced with another imposition.
Our DA is contractual.
They would have no doubt agreed to the DA uring this snow disruption if BA had approached them. They never did. Instead, we are faced with another imposition.
Our DA is contractual.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New to LHR
Age: 44
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
essessdee
LOL - you do make me laugh so much with your petty names You really are such a cad xx
However I shall once again ask the question...
Any comment on who wants to end this dispute now?
Also as the imposition which was made and the introduction of MF is now a reality and they cabin crew restructuring has saved over £150m - why is this dispute dragging on?
Two really simple questions
You really are such a cad xxHowever I shall once again ask the question...
Talks were scheduled by ACAS this past week, to try and prevent additional strike days to the 22 already carried out. Our current CEO declined to release all but a handful of reps to attend, he also insisted that if they were to attend they should be unpaid, not only their flying pay but their basic salary must also be deducted. Hardly the actions of a man seeking a solution. The few reps able to attend were still prepared to do so nonetheless, in the end this was irrelevant as British Airways declined to attend the ACAS talks and have cancelled all future meetings .
Also as the imposition which was made and the introduction of MF is now a reality and they cabin crew restructuring has saved over £150m - why is this dispute dragging on?
Two really simple questions
Last edited by MFCREW; 20th Dec 2010 at 15:44.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answers then. The dispute is effectively over. Unite lost. Unite is the negotiating body for all BA cabin crew now. Not BASSA, not CC89, both of whom have proved themselves incapable of negotiating in an adult fashion. When BA need to talk they talk to the grown ups at Unite. They have no need to engage with BASSA/CC89 so there is no need to grant them days off just so they can sit outside the meeting room being angry. Savings. You have not saved £150M. Projected savings from the imposition should be £150M. You have not voluntarily saved a bean, and the failed strikes have cost a further £150M that BA needs to recover. The dispute is dragging on because, having lost the strike, BASSA/CC89 think they are in a position to dictate the terms of surrender, and those terms involve turning the clock back and pretending they haven't behaved like naughty children. BA are not minded to forgive BASSA/CC89, nor do they even need to. If BASSA/CC89 continue along their path of self-destruction they will leave BA with no option but to cease playing the nice guy.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I've bitten - 1st time in a while as well.
MFCREW - not sure who you are? you could be a proxy reincarnation for all I know. At least you have stimulatated a stagnant thread; however, you are raking over old ground that was harvested months ago and, IMHO, are offering an ill-informed and simplistic argument.
The defining moment in all of this debacle centred on the publication of the judge's (Sir Christopher Holland) verdict surrounding imposition - all of which is in the public domain. That judgement was then upheld by Lady Justice Smith. MFCREW, I suggest you go and read that judgement, digest it, understand it and then you will realise why BA now choose to ignore BASSA. The disruption agreement to cover this latest weather related horror show has been implemented without one iota of contact with BASSA. BTW, BASSA are struggling with the meaning of contractual acoss the board, so be careful about your assertion that the DA is 'contractual'.
Do your research before posting.
Simply, the business moves on, yes, with a thorn in it's side, but that thorn is now blunt.
Finally, MFCREW, welcome to the bear-pit. keep on posting but be prepared to be cross-examined. Good luck.
nurj
MFCREW - not sure who you are? you could be a proxy reincarnation for all I know. At least you have stimulatated a stagnant thread; however, you are raking over old ground that was harvested months ago and, IMHO, are offering an ill-informed and simplistic argument.
The defining moment in all of this debacle centred on the publication of the judge's (Sir Christopher Holland) verdict surrounding imposition - all of which is in the public domain. That judgement was then upheld by Lady Justice Smith. MFCREW, I suggest you go and read that judgement, digest it, understand it and then you will realise why BA now choose to ignore BASSA. The disruption agreement to cover this latest weather related horror show has been implemented without one iota of contact with BASSA. BTW, BASSA are struggling with the meaning of contractual acoss the board, so be careful about your assertion that the DA is 'contractual'.
Do your research before posting.
Simply, the business moves on, yes, with a thorn in it's side, but that thorn is now blunt.
Finally, MFCREW, welcome to the bear-pit. keep on posting but be prepared to be cross-examined. Good luck.
nurj
Last edited by nurjio; 20th Dec 2010 at 16:19.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the DA is contractual? Are you sure? Or is it a bit like the numbers on the aircraft being contractual?
Whatever the truth of the matter is, while you are in dispute with the company no-one really cares about the DA being imposed. After all what are you going to do about this imposition? Hold a strike ballot? That is happening already and so there is no threat in that.
No court in the land will accept that during exceptional weather conditions like this that a multi-national company should have to go cap in hand to the likes of DH, who does not work for them, and ask for permission to conduct company business. The fact that it has even been brought up here shows how deluded and out of step with reality some in the BASSA camp are.
Whatever the truth of the matter is, while you are in dispute with the company no-one really cares about the DA being imposed. After all what are you going to do about this imposition? Hold a strike ballot? That is happening already and so there is no threat in that.
No court in the land will accept that during exceptional weather conditions like this that a multi-national company should have to go cap in hand to the likes of DH, who does not work for them, and ask for permission to conduct company business. The fact that it has even been brought up here shows how deluded and out of step with reality some in the BASSA camp are.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFCREW
Since BASSA voluntarily withdrew from the Union Facilities Agreement in June of this year, and since the Union Facilities Agreement is what determines whether reps are derostered from their trips for union business, is it not THEIR fault that they no longer get derostered for meetings between BA and Unite?
Since BASSA voluntarily withdrew from the Union Facilities Agreement in June of this year, and since the Union Facilities Agreement is what determines whether reps are derostered from their trips for union business, is it not THEIR fault that they no longer get derostered for meetings between BA and Unite?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would have no doubt agreed to the DA uring this snow disruption if BA had approached them. They never did. Instead, we are faced with another imposition.
Our current CEO declined to release all but a handful of reps to attend, he also insisted that if they were to attend they should be unpaid, not only their flying pay but their basic salary must also be deducted. Hardly the actions of a man seeking a solution.
The role of a rep is voluntary. So why should the reps be de-rostered for someone else to have to do their work? Why should they be 'paid' by the company they wanted to see go bust before they agreed to the malicious attacks on their Unions conditions? If they feel that strongly they have to attend then surely a days pay lost from BA would be adequately offset by the Unions pay anyway?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: london
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe I am reading such rubbish on this forum. A contract is a "contract" Even the Judge suggested BA should not have imposed change without negotiation, but did recognise it's right to manage. The disruption agreement has a financial consequence, and is therefore contractual and forms part of our agreements. This Agreement needs Union permission, but BA are being so bloody minded, and are showing such contempt towards Bassa, that they refused to ask. I am also certain that permission would have been granted. It really does beggar belief!!
As a crew member I feel so angry. The Company more than ever need to rely on some good will, back off and try to build some bridges, but instead their desperation and contempt are compounding the problems.
Since "Columbus" was leaked 2 years ago, all trust in BA's current management has dissolved. Almost everything listed in this scary document has become a reality. Bassa have been demonised at every opportunity for not accepting a complete change to our working practices. No one in their right mind can seriously believe that a union that represents 1000's of crew can simply bow down and watch it's membership get shafted from every angle without a serious fight.
I Had a good read of the New mixed fleet contract today, and can't believe such a contract can seriously be legal. I really pity the poor souls that have signed up to this slave trade contract, I just hope you know what you have let yourselves in for. I also hope that someone has the nerve to reproduce it on this forum, so others may just see what an insult to cabin crew it represents. Be under no illusion:This contract is What BA want all of us on eventually, and imposing changes without us fighting back will see us slowly slipping in to a similar contract.
Only today, BA are insisting crew work in the terminals. Normally I would volunteer, but after a year of zero respect and union busting there is very little good will remaining. I even heard a rumour that one of our main De-icing experts is actually working as voluntary crew, and is stuck down route. So whilst hundreds of non crew are being paid to do my job,(ultimately making my job untenable ) I'm now being forced to do theirs for free. The irony makes me feel physically sick.
I'm also hearing stories of crew risking life and limb getting to LHR, on request from BA, even though flight has been cancelled, to be sent straight home again, to be then told to return again or risk loosing annual leave. It's sickening that a blue chip company can treat it's employees with such contempt, not to mention breaking every agreement in the book.
Apologies for ranting. I'm just sick of hearing how wonderful BA is, and how most of us real ( legacy) crew, who have provided years of exemplary service are letting down the company by trying to protect the contract that they originally signed. After all, how dare a Union try to protect a members contract.
As a crew member I feel so angry. The Company more than ever need to rely on some good will, back off and try to build some bridges, but instead their desperation and contempt are compounding the problems.
Since "Columbus" was leaked 2 years ago, all trust in BA's current management has dissolved. Almost everything listed in this scary document has become a reality. Bassa have been demonised at every opportunity for not accepting a complete change to our working practices. No one in their right mind can seriously believe that a union that represents 1000's of crew can simply bow down and watch it's membership get shafted from every angle without a serious fight.
I Had a good read of the New mixed fleet contract today, and can't believe such a contract can seriously be legal. I really pity the poor souls that have signed up to this slave trade contract, I just hope you know what you have let yourselves in for. I also hope that someone has the nerve to reproduce it on this forum, so others may just see what an insult to cabin crew it represents. Be under no illusion:This contract is What BA want all of us on eventually, and imposing changes without us fighting back will see us slowly slipping in to a similar contract.
Only today, BA are insisting crew work in the terminals. Normally I would volunteer, but after a year of zero respect and union busting there is very little good will remaining. I even heard a rumour that one of our main De-icing experts is actually working as voluntary crew, and is stuck down route. So whilst hundreds of non crew are being paid to do my job,(ultimately making my job untenable ) I'm now being forced to do theirs for free. The irony makes me feel physically sick.
I'm also hearing stories of crew risking life and limb getting to LHR, on request from BA, even though flight has been cancelled, to be sent straight home again, to be then told to return again or risk loosing annual leave. It's sickening that a blue chip company can treat it's employees with such contempt, not to mention breaking every agreement in the book.
Apologies for ranting. I'm just sick of hearing how wonderful BA is, and how most of us real ( legacy) crew, who have provided years of exemplary service are letting down the company by trying to protect the contract that they originally signed. After all, how dare a Union try to protect a members contract.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: glos
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mohito, you really are stretching the definition of "selective memory"!
Let us just cast our minds back 20 months (yes, it really is that long ago), when BA offered a pay rise and no New Fleet in return for reductions in onboard complements. At the same time all other departments were being offered increases in productivity for no extra pay, or pay cuts, or a combination of the two.
BASSA harumphed and moaned and refused to even contemplate meeting any of the cost savings targets that were required of them. Since that watershed thay have so totally mismanaged and abused the trust of their membership that they have virtually ensured the demise of the careers of their members. It takes monumental levels of incompetence to get from where they were to where they are.
Now you may not like the NF contract, and I can see why, but if BASSA had a shred of integrity they would have been instrumental in drawing up that contract in order to protect the interests of their current and future members. Instead they have left you all twisting in the wind - both legacy and NF. You have no protection from NF cherry picking the high earning routes (who is going to fly to Haneda and Buenos Aries do you think?), and NF have a highly unstable contract. Lose/lose for all cc in BA.
Finally, "years of exemplary service"? - you are having a laugh?! Cc are THE most militant section of the workforce, with at least 3 threats of industrial action in the time I have been in BA. And let's not even mention hot towels, 2 nights rest after diversion etc
The real world has come knocking with a vengeance, and BASSA opened the door and invited it in.
Let us just cast our minds back 20 months (yes, it really is that long ago), when BA offered a pay rise and no New Fleet in return for reductions in onboard complements. At the same time all other departments were being offered increases in productivity for no extra pay, or pay cuts, or a combination of the two.
BASSA harumphed and moaned and refused to even contemplate meeting any of the cost savings targets that were required of them. Since that watershed thay have so totally mismanaged and abused the trust of their membership that they have virtually ensured the demise of the careers of their members. It takes monumental levels of incompetence to get from where they were to where they are.
Now you may not like the NF contract, and I can see why, but if BASSA had a shred of integrity they would have been instrumental in drawing up that contract in order to protect the interests of their current and future members. Instead they have left you all twisting in the wind - both legacy and NF. You have no protection from NF cherry picking the high earning routes (who is going to fly to Haneda and Buenos Aries do you think?), and NF have a highly unstable contract. Lose/lose for all cc in BA.
Finally, "years of exemplary service"? - you are having a laugh?! Cc are THE most militant section of the workforce, with at least 3 threats of industrial action in the time I have been in BA. And let's not even mention hot towels, 2 nights rest after diversion etc
The real world has come knocking with a vengeance, and BASSA opened the door and invited it in.