BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
One of the problems that EG300 has caused is that many non-flying staff now report for work when they have anything from a snuffle to something approaching full blown flu. The effect is that they cheerfully spread the germs amongst colleagues, who then succumb to the same infection. I have been known to send team members home if I felt that they were likely to affect the health of colleagues. Now I can see that things like colds can have nasty effects on the eardrums, hence the reason that cabin crew who get one don't fly and also why there were variations put in EG300 for cabin crew. Oddly enough, no-one in the teams I have led in the past fifteen to twenty years at BA has thrown a sickie to watch Wimbledon, go to Royal Ascot, or just not fancied working over Xmas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not true of cabin crew.
7000 cabin crew went on strike. Isn't it time that we were a little realistic about the figures ? 7000 cabin crew did not lose staff travel perks at least not according to BA. Moreover, 7000 cabin crew did not go on strike for 22 days. I reckon that in total the figure was more like 5000, of which many may only have gone on strike for 3 or 4 days at the most. That way they could claim to have supported the union, whilst also ensuring that their own paychecks were not hit badly. Had 5000 staff walked off the job for the full 22 days
a) the strikes would have had a far greater impact than they did
b) Unite would not have considered it necessary to up the ante on strike pay.
The CEO has not split the workforce between cabin crew and the rest of the staff, that was something that the union reps managed to do by not entering into the spirit of the cost saving exercises. Had cabin crew got stuck in early and dealt with BA management on a deal to reduce costs, they would not be in the present situation. Instead, they prevaricated and were the last bargaining group to enter into negotiations, and they still haven't settled.
I can see that working with volunteers is not an easy position to be in. They may not put up with the same sort of banter that is part of the normal crew way of working. They may feel that you are putting their performance under a microscope, but then that in part is down to some of the particularly unpleasant rhetoric on various forums that has been directed at VCCs. Comments like 'heaven help BA if there is an incident that involves VCCs' and prefering to copulate with a member of the baggage handling fraternity than a VCC spring to mind as two examples. With such hostile attitudes it is unsurprising that a lot of cabin crew feel they may be walking on eggshells when dealing with VCCs and are fearful of being accused of bullying. Again, you only have the individuals within your community who propagate such views to blame.
Finally, I have worked for a number of companies doing a job I was passionate about. If they failed to recognise my value I went and found a new employer. Admittedly, at the time I was learning my craft, so my earnings were not that high and I could easily pick up a similar salary elsewhere, however, even now I know that if I felt that BA were taking the mickey, then despite having over 20 years invested in the company. I would cheerfully find another employer. The only real draw is that I would be unlikely to find one that offered a final salary pension.
One of the problems that EG300 has caused is that many non-flying staff now report for work when they have anything from a snuffle to something approaching full blown flu. The effect is that they cheerfully spread the germs amongst colleagues, who then succumb to the same infection. I have been known to send team members home if I felt that they were likely to affect the health of colleagues. Now I can see that things like colds can have nasty effects on the eardrums, hence the reason that cabin crew who get one don't fly and also why there were variations put in EG300 for cabin crew. Oddly enough, no-one in the teams I have led in the past fifteen to twenty years at BA has thrown a sickie to watch Wimbledon, go to Royal Ascot, or just not fancied working over Xmas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not true of cabin crew.
7000 cabin crew went on strike. Isn't it time that we were a little realistic about the figures ? 7000 cabin crew did not lose staff travel perks at least not according to BA. Moreover, 7000 cabin crew did not go on strike for 22 days. I reckon that in total the figure was more like 5000, of which many may only have gone on strike for 3 or 4 days at the most. That way they could claim to have supported the union, whilst also ensuring that their own paychecks were not hit badly. Had 5000 staff walked off the job for the full 22 days
a) the strikes would have had a far greater impact than they did
b) Unite would not have considered it necessary to up the ante on strike pay.
The CEO has not split the workforce between cabin crew and the rest of the staff, that was something that the union reps managed to do by not entering into the spirit of the cost saving exercises. Had cabin crew got stuck in early and dealt with BA management on a deal to reduce costs, they would not be in the present situation. Instead, they prevaricated and were the last bargaining group to enter into negotiations, and they still haven't settled.
I can see that working with volunteers is not an easy position to be in. They may not put up with the same sort of banter that is part of the normal crew way of working. They may feel that you are putting their performance under a microscope, but then that in part is down to some of the particularly unpleasant rhetoric on various forums that has been directed at VCCs. Comments like 'heaven help BA if there is an incident that involves VCCs' and prefering to copulate with a member of the baggage handling fraternity than a VCC spring to mind as two examples. With such hostile attitudes it is unsurprising that a lot of cabin crew feel they may be walking on eggshells when dealing with VCCs and are fearful of being accused of bullying. Again, you only have the individuals within your community who propagate such views to blame.
Finally, I have worked for a number of companies doing a job I was passionate about. If they failed to recognise my value I went and found a new employer. Admittedly, at the time I was learning my craft, so my earnings were not that high and I could easily pick up a similar salary elsewhere, however, even now I know that if I felt that BA were taking the mickey, then despite having over 20 years invested in the company. I would cheerfully find another employer. The only real draw is that I would be unlikely to find one that offered a final salary pension.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absenteeism
MissM wrote:
Several years ago, I was shown by the person who did cabin crew resourcing at Compass Centre a graph which recorded absenteeism throughout the year. The graph was fairly flat for most of the year, but there were spikes of absenteeism which just happened to coincide with major events like Easter, Wimbledon, Henley, Christmas. 
Us being responsible for more lost days due to sickness could have something to do with that we cannot work, for instance when having a cold.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will try it on one of the Balpa reps, as they will have been trained in getting ducks in a row etc, but then no doubt revert to type and tell me to go forth!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bernoulli
Because they know they couldn't possibly make easy money like that anywhere else?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scientific evidence
To expect flight and cabin crew to have the same attendance as Jo Blog who delivers the post Mon-Fri 9-5 is completely unrealistic and possibly dangerous.There is a high level of alertness required on either side of the flight deck door to operate safely.The consequences of not being "with it" when operating as a crew member could be far more serious than Jo Blog giving back incorrect change at the till...Not sure if many on here are aware of the Moebus report commissioned by the EASA to evaluate fatigue/stress/alertness in both flight and cabin crew.
"Tasks of Flight attendants (FAs) require a sufficiently high level of alertness and
cognitive performance to ensure safety and adequate response especially in nonroutine
situations. From the viewpoint of general health and physiological needs, the same
requirements for cockpit and cabin crew should be applied. It has been shown [Vejvoda M
et al. 2000] that the fatigue levels of cabin crew towards the end of flight duty period
tend to be much higher than those of cockpit crew. In addition, flight attendants have
reported increased perceived stress and workload due to changes in duties and
responsibilities since “9/11” [Nesthus T et al. 2007]. This result from a study among US
cabin crew appears equally applicable to European cabin crew and may further contribute
to higher fatigue levels.
It can be assumed that during onboard service periods, hypoxia is more severe in cabin
crew than in cockpit crew. Although the resting SaO2 is well preserved up to ~2400 m
(max. cabin altitude), the drop in PaO2 decreases the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs to
the blood and then from the blood to the cells. This decrease in oxygen diffusion rate
becomes apparent during physical activities as an arterial oxygen desaturation at altitudes
as low as 1000 m [Muza SR et al, 2004; Mollard P et al, 2006]. FAs’ duties include
considerably more physical activities than those of pilots. The high heart rate values that
are recorded from cabin crew are usually associated with hard physical workloads [Vejvoda
M et al, 2000]. This may be an additional cause of fatigue in cabin crew.
The task of cabin crew contains safety aspects such as identification and management of
non regular in-flight situations. These comprise e.g. insidious hypoxia (loss of cabin
pressure), fire on board, weather conditions, handling of medical events, and unruly
passengers etc. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the performance of cabin crew is
of crucial importance to safety in emergency situations. Fatigue and lowered alertness in
cabin crew may have negative effects on safety, although the degree of these effects is a
matter of ongoing discussions. However, normal pre- and in-flight duties and passenger
services also require adequate performance of cabin crew (an extensive description of flight
attendant duties is given by Nesthus et al.2007).
Although the hazards of impaired functioning of cabin crew may differ from those of
dysfunctioning cockpit crew, the maintenance of optimal alertness and performance of
cabin crew is of crucial importance. Therefore, the same duty and rest requirements should
be applied for both cockpit crew and cabin crew (e.g. see answers to questions 11 and 12)."
"Tasks of Flight attendants (FAs) require a sufficiently high level of alertness and
cognitive performance to ensure safety and adequate response especially in nonroutine
situations. From the viewpoint of general health and physiological needs, the same
requirements for cockpit and cabin crew should be applied. It has been shown [Vejvoda M
et al. 2000] that the fatigue levels of cabin crew towards the end of flight duty period
tend to be much higher than those of cockpit crew. In addition, flight attendants have
reported increased perceived stress and workload due to changes in duties and
responsibilities since “9/11” [Nesthus T et al. 2007]. This result from a study among US
cabin crew appears equally applicable to European cabin crew and may further contribute
to higher fatigue levels.
It can be assumed that during onboard service periods, hypoxia is more severe in cabin
crew than in cockpit crew. Although the resting SaO2 is well preserved up to ~2400 m
(max. cabin altitude), the drop in PaO2 decreases the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs to
the blood and then from the blood to the cells. This decrease in oxygen diffusion rate
becomes apparent during physical activities as an arterial oxygen desaturation at altitudes
as low as 1000 m [Muza SR et al, 2004; Mollard P et al, 2006]. FAs’ duties include
considerably more physical activities than those of pilots. The high heart rate values that
are recorded from cabin crew are usually associated with hard physical workloads [Vejvoda
M et al, 2000]. This may be an additional cause of fatigue in cabin crew.
The task of cabin crew contains safety aspects such as identification and management of
non regular in-flight situations. These comprise e.g. insidious hypoxia (loss of cabin
pressure), fire on board, weather conditions, handling of medical events, and unruly
passengers etc. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the performance of cabin crew is
of crucial importance to safety in emergency situations. Fatigue and lowered alertness in
cabin crew may have negative effects on safety, although the degree of these effects is a
matter of ongoing discussions. However, normal pre- and in-flight duties and passenger
services also require adequate performance of cabin crew (an extensive description of flight
attendant duties is given by Nesthus et al.2007).
Although the hazards of impaired functioning of cabin crew may differ from those of
dysfunctioning cockpit crew, the maintenance of optimal alertness and performance of
cabin crew is of crucial importance. Therefore, the same duty and rest requirements should
be applied for both cockpit crew and cabin crew (e.g. see answers to questions 11 and 12)."
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a slight confusion here, CC do indeed work hard for their wages, it is not easy money. Indeed I doubt whether there are really any really easy money jobs anymore, if there are then there is some appalling management out there.
However, it is also a truism that at BA the CC do receive particularly good remuneration and that many (certainly not all) would not be able to get a job elsewhere that would allow them to take home as much money. What is slightly galling is that there is little recognition amongst the CC community that there are in a fortunate position where they have a job that requires little formal pre-employment training nor significant post employment training in comparison to other similar remuneration jobs.
There is, amongst some (by no means a majority) of crew, a belief that they are entitled to their high salaries and that they are the best merely because they work for BA. Some of them are the best, but there is a significant number of free loaders that resent passengers and only care about box payments and bunk rest.
However, it is also a truism that at BA the CC do receive particularly good remuneration and that many (certainly not all) would not be able to get a job elsewhere that would allow them to take home as much money. What is slightly galling is that there is little recognition amongst the CC community that there are in a fortunate position where they have a job that requires little formal pre-employment training nor significant post employment training in comparison to other similar remuneration jobs.
There is, amongst some (by no means a majority) of crew, a belief that they are entitled to their high salaries and that they are the best merely because they work for BA. Some of them are the best, but there is a significant number of free loaders that resent passengers and only care about box payments and bunk rest.
Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 30th Dec 2010 at 09:23.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the past it has been difficult for Pilots to give Developmental feedback to Cabin Crew, and vice versa, principally because of the split and dysfunctional relationship between Flight Ops and IFCE.
One good thing that is coming out of the dispute is the increasing emphasis on the"One Team" approach to operations. It will take a while, but there may well be a future in "reverse feedback" to pilots from Cabin Crew. It is something we do in the simulator, but is harder to do on the line as a routine. It needs training and practice, neither of which we have had.
In this months Flight Ops newsletter it is mentioned that in the "Service Style" questionnaire customers are asked whether pilots:
1) Conveyed warmth and friendliness in their announcements
2) Were informative about issues during the flight
3) Were smart and looked part of a professional team
4) Overall I had a positive impression of the Pilots' customer service
I don't think this will be fed back to individual pilots though, maybe it should be?
One good thing that is coming out of the dispute is the increasing emphasis on the"One Team" approach to operations. It will take a while, but there may well be a future in "reverse feedback" to pilots from Cabin Crew. It is something we do in the simulator, but is harder to do on the line as a routine. It needs training and practice, neither of which we have had.
In this months Flight Ops newsletter it is mentioned that in the "Service Style" questionnaire customers are asked whether pilots:
1) Conveyed warmth and friendliness in their announcements
2) Were informative about issues during the flight
3) Were smart and looked part of a professional team
4) Overall I had a positive impression of the Pilots' customer service
I don't think this will be fed back to individual pilots though, maybe it should be?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Us being responsible for more lost days due to sickness could have something to do with that we cannot work, for instance when having a cold
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sickness
Essessdeedee, I believe that you have just hit the nail on the head, we could have a destination based scale of sickness - LAGOS (sniffle and I'm on the phone) - NARITA (The Plague won't stop me!)
Caribbean Boy makes reference to "Social Sickness", I am led to believe that BA actually sends scouts to major social events looking for those crew who at certain times of the year find it "Socially" unacceptable to be at work.
Caribbean Boy makes reference to "Social Sickness", I am led to believe that BA actually sends scouts to major social events looking for those crew who at certain times of the year find it "Socially" unacceptable to be at work.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ESSESSDEEDEE
How do you know CC don't go sick for HKG, SYD, NRT's? Are you monitoring each and everyone? I, for one, go sick when I am sick i.e. not fit to fly. I have never gone sick because I don't like my roster.
How do you know CC don't go sick for HKG, SYD, NRT's? Are you monitoring each and everyone? I, for one, go sick when I am sick i.e. not fit to fly. I have never gone sick because I don't like my roster.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a crewmour to me. Would BA really send individuals to search a haystack for a needle they might never have seen before?
@Tolliver: you can tell by the number of standbys/QRS on your crew. Lots on an Xmas DEL, none on a weekday HKG for example.
@Tolliver: you can tell by the number of standbys/QRS on your crew. Lots on an Xmas DEL, none on a weekday HKG for example.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scientific or anecdotal evidence?
The argument that you have more sick days doesn't wash with me - regardless of the 'scientific report' (all that says is you have a job with safety accountabilities). Statistics at where I work (the major ATC provider in the UK) show that ATCOs have less sick days than office workers in the corporate centre and other offices within NATS... so something doesn't compute with your argument.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is really unfortunate that from time to time this thread descends into a 'lets have a go at BA cabin crew and make them out to be lazy, uneducated and therefore unable to do any other job and malingerers to boot'.
Please lets get back to a normal debate on here and put aside all these unstereotypical versions of cabin crew at BA.
Thanks.
P.S. There are many steriotypical versions of ALL occupations available and in particular pilots have there own steriotypical versions which I am sure we are all aware of but I wont be so rude as to point them out to you.
Please lets get back to a normal debate on here and put aside all these unstereotypical versions of cabin crew at BA.
Thanks.
P.S. There are many steriotypical versions of ALL occupations available and in particular pilots have there own steriotypical versions which I am sure we are all aware of but I wont be so rude as to point them out to you.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I am quite shocked at how some of the posters on here view and judge the cabin crew community as a whole. You make it sound like we're all dumb, spoiled prats with no career, bad attitude and unappreciative of our position within the company.
I've been flying for BA for nearly 15 years now (and yes I did have a job on the outside world before and I do know what the "real" world is like) and I can assure you over 90% of CC are not like that. They are very hard working, conscientious, customer-focused and loyal employees.
I've been flying for BA for nearly 15 years now (and yes I did have a job on the outside world before and I do know what the "real" world is like) and I can assure you over 90% of CC are not like that. They are very hard working, conscientious, customer-focused and loyal employees.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing
"Anotherthing" the argument is quite simple, really.The physiological needs at an altitude of 6000-8000 ft are far more stringent than at sea level. For instance whilst undertaking physically intensive duties (ie standing, bending, pushing,pulling) for a number of hours at 7000ft your body requires more O2 than at see level.
Unfortunately the current means of pressurisation of aircraft will dispense less 02 at a time when your body requires more 02.Notwithstanding the effects of jetlag, sleep deprivation and shift work on the immunity.
As to the credibility of the evidence produced...what can I say?That a team of aviation specialised doctors tasked by the European Aviation Safety Agency with the evaluation of professional flying and its associated physiological effects have gone completely mad?
I have included for your perusal a paragraph that you seem to have overlooked :
"It can be assumed that during onboard service periods, hypoxia is more severe in cabin
crew than in cockpit crew. Although the resting SaO2 is well preserved up to ~2400 m
(max. cabin altitude), the drop in PaO2 decreases the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs to
the blood and then from the blood to the cells. This decrease in oxygen diffusion rate
becomes apparent during physical activities as an arterial oxygen desaturation at altitudes
as low as 1000 m [Muza SR et al, 2004; Mollard P et al, 2006]. FAs’ duties include
considerably more physical activities than those of pilots. The high heart rate values that
are recorded from cabin crew are usually associated with hard physical workloads [Vejvoda
M et al, 2000]. This may be an additional cause of fatigue in cabin crew."
Unfortunately the current means of pressurisation of aircraft will dispense less 02 at a time when your body requires more 02.Notwithstanding the effects of jetlag, sleep deprivation and shift work on the immunity.
As to the credibility of the evidence produced...what can I say?That a team of aviation specialised doctors tasked by the European Aviation Safety Agency with the evaluation of professional flying and its associated physiological effects have gone completely mad?
I have included for your perusal a paragraph that you seem to have overlooked :
"It can be assumed that during onboard service periods, hypoxia is more severe in cabin
crew than in cockpit crew. Although the resting SaO2 is well preserved up to ~2400 m
(max. cabin altitude), the drop in PaO2 decreases the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs to
the blood and then from the blood to the cells. This decrease in oxygen diffusion rate
becomes apparent during physical activities as an arterial oxygen desaturation at altitudes
as low as 1000 m [Muza SR et al, 2004; Mollard P et al, 2006]. FAs’ duties include
considerably more physical activities than those of pilots. The high heart rate values that
are recorded from cabin crew are usually associated with hard physical workloads [Vejvoda
M et al, 2000]. This may be an additional cause of fatigue in cabin crew."
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make it sound like we're all dumb, spoiled prats with no career, bad attitude and unappreciative of our position within the company.
Last edited by essessdeedee; 30th Dec 2010 at 11:12.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tolliver
That is a good question. 
Could it be that the policies are not fit for purpose
or that the managers are overwhelmed by the volume of those not fulfilling their contract
Could it be that the policies are not fit for purpose or that the managers are overwhelmed by the volume of those not fulfilling their contract
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tolliver,
From time to time a certain type of poster on here, starts to tar all cabin crew with the same brush.
You need to realise that some of them don't actually fly or work with cabin crew and many are office bound and some work for other airlines but as long as they work for any airline they can post on here. Some of course are our own pilots and that is sad.
Just skip over the nasty posts because for those of us that actually fly for BA, we know that a lot of what is being said on here is either untrue or a vast exaggeration of reality.
From time to time a certain type of poster on here, starts to tar all cabin crew with the same brush.
You need to realise that some of them don't actually fly or work with cabin crew and many are office bound and some work for other airlines but as long as they work for any airline they can post on here. Some of course are our own pilots and that is sad.
Just skip over the nasty posts because for those of us that actually fly for BA, we know that a lot of what is being said on here is either untrue or a vast exaggeration of reality.
