BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[Mildly Militant]

All the cuts I have mentioned above have taken place.Have they not?Many of them negotiated by Bassa.To depict Bassa as the NO union is a bit unfair I think.Perhaps it is also their role as a union to protect what little is left from their original T&C's.Otherwise what is the point?

[Juan Tugoh]

Mildly Militant

If only the recent posts are relevant then things done in 1997 and 2001 are totally irrelevant. You cannot just take a snapshot of events and make a reasoned judgment of the situation from that point. None of these events stand in isolation, the history is important if one wants to have a balanced understanding of the situation.

[anotherthing]

Mildly Militant:

...I also understand that part of the 1997 agreement was the removal of certain payments.Long day and box payments were awarded after a substantially longer duty than what it used to be, petrol allowance was removed to name but a few.

Petrol allowance, box payments etc are an outdated concept. Many companies have cut back on these types of payment over the past 10 years, not just BA.

In 2001 many c/c with Bassa's approval accepted a permanent contract reduction moving from full time to 75% or 50% contract

With BASSA's approval? You mean crew that wanted to go part time were allowed to, 'with the approval of the Union'?

In 2008/2009 VR was offered and not everybody who asked for it was given it, the same with part time many people have been waiting patiently to be offered it, assuming that the economic downturn would give them the opportunity to reduce their hours.

BA is not alone in looking for VR during the economic downturn. Like every other company, they ask for volunteers, then match the posts those people are in to the business need. If the business need states that only 'x' amount from a certain grade/fleet can be released on VR without affecting the business, then there will be people who do not get it (VR). It is standard practice, not some nefarious BA tactic.

As for 'assuming' that you can go part time just because of the downturn; this shows a lack of understanding as to how the business works, and is as good a reason as any why BASSA should stick to looking after the CC, not trying to run the company.

In most companies this alone would be perceived as a collaborative workforce willing to help their employer in difficult times.Yet, these facts are completely overlooked and the blame is strictly apportioned to Bassa.Why?

Your examples do nothing to prove that the workforce are collaborative; they are just examples of exactly what most other big companies have been doing over the past few years.

What they do show is an obviously ingrained belief from some CC and from BASSA that they should be able to tell BA how to run the business

[Mildly Militant]

JT, without entering a debate on the semantics.Comments on a forum have little to do with the financial performance of the airline.
I was merely pointing out that since 1997 C/C have accepted changes and reduction of income.

[Mildly Militant]

Anotherthing

Thank you for your thoughts, nevertheless it is undeniable that these changes have taken place without Bassa's interference.So to claim that C/C are not collaborative and resist change at all cost is simply not fair.That at some point after many T&C's have been eroded they put their foot down may be justified.

[Betty girl]

To all of you.

I understand why he removed Staff Travel.

I understand partly why he is going ahead with transfers and part time because he told people if the agreement went ahead he would make transfers, so he has done some for those that signed.

I did not strike as I have said many times.

My point is that all this is just hardening the strikers into thinking Bassa is right and that the strikers ARE being bullied. I am just trying to explain it from THEIR perspective and it IS making them more militant. Is that what we all want or do we want a settlement.

If you read the individual offer it is fine, it guarantees our terms and conditions, it gives us a pay deal and it promises to be fair with route transfers.

However if you look at the one the union are required to sign it is a lot different. It has a lot of things in it that I feel NO union would want to sign up to and this is the view of a moderate person, me. So it is just not as simple as many of you make out on here. Unfortunately many posters on here are not fully aware of all the facts and unfortunately see things in black and white.

Lets hope for all our sakes that both sides make an effort to be reasonable and actually try and end this. BA have actually got ALL the savings they wanted and for them, they actually need to do nothing, but maybe having got all they want in savings and a new fleet on lower costs, maybe now the icing on the cake is the destruction of the union.

I know many of you will think that is good but I can assure you it would have a detrimental effect on all other unions in BA and all other departments including ground staff and pilots. So please try and take a broader view of things.

[Juan Tugoh]

MM

So have all other sections of the company, CC are not unique in that respect.

I am not sure what you mean about comments on a forum having little to do with the financial performance of a company. Apart from stating the obvious it does not move the debate forward.

All sections of the company took reductions after 9/11, many companies went to the wall. That has nothing to do with the current situation. BASSA did pass a resolution at one of the racecourse meetings before the first strike ballot to enter into no negotiation with the company. This is a matter of record. Since then they have not exactly made a serious attempt to reach a settlement with BA. They are the only section within the company that has failed to reach agreement with the company.

I am sure that a pointless discussion about blame could go on forever and reach no conclusion. Blame is irrelevant, the issue is ending the dispute, concentrating on who did what to whom is counterproductive and infantile.

[fly12345]

JT, without entering a debate on the semantics.Comments on a forum have little to do with the financial performance of the airline.
I was merely pointing out that since 1997 C/C have accepted changes and reduction of income.

They have not, they simply agreed to a restructuring of their income with in many cases an increase in their pensionable pay and the introduction of new contract cabin crew with different pay scales.
Even the lucrative box payments introduced at the time was resisted by bassa and it is only still available today due to a superior negotiating skill of the cc89 team.

[PC767]

fly1234

What do you believe has contributed to a rise in pensionable pay? Only cabin crew basic pay is pensionable, in fact, the new payscales for main crew which, were awarded after the 2007 dispute, are only pensionable upto a point

The fianl three scales are not pensionable, this means that pensionable pay stops somewhere between £15k and £16k.

[fly12345]

Bep. 1997.

[Chigley]

Mildly Militant

You mention events from 1997/2001 and 2008/9 where CC made changes "without BASSA's Interference". Well for starters in 1997 BASSA called a 3 day strike and cost the company the tune of £120 million! CC89 my union of choice at the time negotiated the current long day payments, box payments ETP triggers after longer duties etc. After causing the distress to our customers and it's members BASSA backed down to these requests from the company and once a settlement was agreed, staff travel was reinstated in full. Oh yes, and the salary band for the post '97 starters was up to £18K and in recent times has been increased by a further £4k (albeit non pensionable) as a good will gesture by BA in 2007, when we had the strike called off at the 11th hour.

In 2001, along with unpaid leave many crew grabbed the opportunity to take p/t or even take unpaid leave for up to 18 months. As did ALL other areas of BA under the business response scheme. As well as this other departments were restructured and many had to reapply for their jobs.

In 2008/9 CC did take VR as did other departments, again these departments made significant cost savings which included a complete restructure and loss of headcount which resulted in people moving into jobs they would not normally choose to undertake.

It's nice to see a new poster on here, and whilst I clearly have a different take on the events you mention. One thing I will agree on is that BASSA are not solely to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.

[yotty]

@PC767. I believe the main increase in pensionable pay was being able to opt to NAPS2. This reduced the abatement rate and effectively increased pensionable pay.

[ottergirl]

in recent times has been increased by a further £4k (albeit non pensionable) as a good will gesture by BA in 2007

Not quite a good-will gesture from BA actually. It was paid for by moving the annual pay 'cost of living' rise from October (when most BA employees negotiate) to February thereby giving 1/3 of our annual 'pensionable' pay rise back to fund a non-pensionable increment! It was another of BASSA's monumental failures that, not only did they not cost out whether it was a good deal but they didn't ask us whether we were okay with it either. So you could see it as a goodwill gesture to the pension fund from BASSA because it has reduced the pension liability.

[Beagle9]

Mildly Militant,

You are badly informed.

As Chigly mentions, BASSA actually WENT ON STRIKE in 1997 over the new entrant starter rates.

As for cuts in some variable payments like overtime? Misleading, because, apart from the car mileage payment (of which we were the only work group left at the airport still receiving it at the time), most, if not all the other cuts in variable pay, were actually added to our basic.

BASSA went on strike then, because letting BA employ new crew cheaper was seen as "the thin end of the wedge" and these "cheaper crew will be a threat to your jobs" (sound familiar).

Betty Girl

I agree with you totally re part time/transfer lists. Few people are more critical of BASSA than me, but if true, it's a mistake by BA as it gives BASSA a great opportunity to crow about BA walking over agreements.

[Mildly Militant]

Dear Beagle

I apologise for not making myself clear.You are right Bassa did go on strike regarding the introduction of the new lower basic pay back in 1997.However a settlement was agreed and the new basic was introduced.Regarding the different allowances included into your basic, it is my understanding that they only lasted a few years before being completely removed.
More importantly the point I was trying to make was that C/C did make a significant financial contribution to the business since 1997, and to claim that they have not is slightly ...biased.
I hope this clarifies my previous post.

[Caribbean Boy]

Mildly Militant wrote:

In 2008/2009 VR was offered and not everybody who asked for it was given it, the same with part time many people have been waiting patiently to be offered it, assuming that the economic downturn would give them the opportunity to reduce their hours.In most companies this alone would be perceived as a collaborative workforce willing to help their employer in difficult times.Yet, these facts are completely overlooked and the blame is strictly apportioned to Bassa.Why?

I think that it's you who needs to get your facts right. It's my firm understanding that everyone who asked for VR did get it - all 1,003 of them.

As for part-time: Bill Francis has committed to granting by March 2011 a part-time contract to all 5,594 who requested it, including a new 33 per cent arrangement.

[Mildly Militant]

Carribean boy I believe my facts are very accurate indeed . I actually have 2 friends of different ranks who were not released for VR. Around 1500 crew confirmed their VR offer and as you say 1003 were actually released.As to the part time offer crew have been waiting for years to take it yet many are still waiting despite the alleged severity of the financial situation.

[Pornpants1]

You can always rely on BASSA for the truth!

you can always rely on BASSA to tell the whole truth remember the claim that only 40 of the old cabin crew 89 members went on strike? It appears to be debunked in the latest UNITE news letter.

The day started with a quick meeting for the reps.
The meeting then began with an update of recent events and the current situation.
We know from Unite office that 250 of our 1200 members claimed strike pay, rather than the 35 or 40 that has been rumoured, which is over 20% of our membership.

Also BASSA claim to represent over 10000 crew seems false it appears their membership numbers have fallen by over 1000

National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.

full article here . LATEST NEWS UPDATES

[Caribbean Boy]

MM, there is a difference between those who claim to have wanted to leave or who registered for VR, and those who actually signed the offer letter.

Furthermore, BF has publicly confirmed what I have always believed to be true, which is that he approved all requests for VR. And why on earth should he refuse 500 cabin crew the chance to take VR when his objective was to make £127m of cost savings through the voluntary reduction of the equivalent of 1,700 full time crew?

[Mildly Militant]

Carribean boy

I have seen the letters sent to my friends refusing to release them.I believe the main reason for the removal of crew position on flights was not only to reduce cost but also to address a serious manpower shortage at LHR.

Personally I think Bassa should have been more clever in their dealings and accept a temporary crewing reduction.This would have given the company enough time to re evaluate their short term strategy and given Bassa some leverage.Instead Bassa rushed into a ballot whilst the company rushed into the MF option leading to today's situation.
Hindsight is great but turning back the clock is not an option,so where do we go from here?