Meal Chucker.
 

Embargoed to just people on strike, or the whole bargaining group? You still have staff travel now though? (LGW or LHR strike?)

LHR maintenance base strike. (over threat of 12hr shifts in central area)

All staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years from all strikers.

Returned with full seniority.

I remember the action and I was still there then. It was my understanding that the particular fleet stream, or part of, had ST privileges embargoed, not individual strikers. It appears that I was wrong. But, that is not mean that it was right and it still should have been challenged, but then that would be relying on the top table of stewards at the time!

The more I think about it, it may not be a valid comparison.

Wasn't it an unofficial strike by the maintenance base engineers in sympathy for the central area guys (who didn't strike) over 12 hr shifts?

I seem to remember it only lasting a few days before it died a death!!

I will ask around over the next few days. Probably best to take this to the other site now anyway:ok:

Another point about staff travel.

If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.

You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.

Who would have believed our pilots would have fallen into a dispute leading to the threat of industrial action in 2007. And now they are held aloft by the LT as shining examples of how to conform. Two or three years down the line there may be further dispute. Cruise pilots perhaps.

And now, for any group, a collective grievance against the company will result in a permanent loss of staff travel. If Walsh succeeds this time, there will forever be a loaded gun at the table when new change is required.

I do believe that staff travel will ultimately be returned.

But BA will not be culpable. HM Goverment will be.

There is no law against discriminating against workers who undertake legal industrial action in the UK. However Article 11 of the ECoHR, when considered with a wider view, as is now the norm, does make such discrimination illegal.

The British Goverment has failed in its obligations to legislate compliance with Article 11. If Walsh does not relent, then the challenge will be to force the Goverment to change the law in line with EU law. A long winded process I know.

For now I do believe that Walsh can state that he has not broken UK law by removing the perks. He has however broken EU law as a result of the Goverment.

PC767
 

The major problem with that, is the UK opted out of the ECoHR being binding in UK law and that was under a Labour Government. I don't think the current arrangement will be too quick in opting in.

Eddy

ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike. BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.

I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.

I know many in this company are thrilled that some of us have lost ST. I can only hope that it will be reinstated fully so that that they will get to taste theiw own medicine. The one who laughs the longest. It's a dangerous wish because as suggested it could be used as a bargain tool in the future. If it goes that far, they won't get any of my sympathy.

Litebulb.

The HRA 1998, however, gives effect to the ECoHR and is binding in UK law.

Miss M.

I concur with the view that staff travel will be used as a bargaining tool in the future.

There are many in BA who are glad at its withdrawl, indeed there a few on this thread who are happy with the current stance.

With the theory, what goes round comes round, to mind, I'd be careful in what I wished for.

Re : YouTube - BA's culture of industrial relations and people management.
 

Ahhh... one academic's viewpoint based on evidence garnered from only one side of the story. What I find totally gobsmacking is that if BA is such a terrible employer with appalling people management skills, dating back for years, how come there are so many folk who would give various parts of their anatomy to work for the company ? The good professor doesn't seem to have an answer for that.

The Lisbon Treaty gave the UK the opt out protocol, unfortunately.

Only Article 13 of the ECoHR was not incorporated into UK legislation, the belief being that the HRA gave UK citizens the rights which Article 13 would have provided, ie, the right to take proceedings in the British courts if they considered that their Convention rights had been breached.

Also the HRA states that all UK law must be read so far as it is possible to do so in a way which is compatible with convention rights.

There is no precedent set in the UK for the scenario BA cabin crew find themselves in. However the HRA provides the vehicle to challenge the UK Government, whereby they would consider the removal of perks of employment for taking lawful industrial action, a breach of the wider view of Article 11.

As far as the threat of removing ST from other groups of staff who go on strike goes, that has and will always be a possibility. The action by cabin crew has not changed the position. ST, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, is non-contractual and can be removed at any time for any reason. Anyone who builds their lifestyle based on non-contractual or variable items is riding for a fall. One of the reasons I left my previous employer was because a proportion of my pay came in the form of on-call and overtime payments. Of the offers I had, BA was not the highest overall package, but it was the highest consolidated pay.

I woud suggest that ST is highly unlikely to become a bargaining tool. Why ? because from the staff perspective it is already something the company offers as a perk, so what could unions do about it ? Ask for an additional free flight ? But that is only valuable if the individual is able to take it up. Alter the onload priority ? That opens a can of worms if you have staff who move roles, so probably a non-starter. No, the only time that the unions would seek to negotiate over ST is when a situation like the current one occurs. In these circumstances it will be about seeking to get ST restored to staff who have had it removed. I don't believe that it is in anyone's interest to make ST a contractual item. To do so would mean that it would no longer be subload, hence it would be taxable. This would mean that any staff who rely on it as a mens of getting to work might find that the cost makes it uneconomic.

PC767
 

More reading for me tomorrow, as from what I have read tonight, you are right and I am glad you are.

I couldn't agree more.

In which case, I hope you have a lot of money to sustain yourself through what is going to be an even lengthier dispute than we could have imagined :uhoh:

Huge respect to you, though, for standing up for it. But I have to wonder how you feel about having to do so given that you said in the old thread that you would accept the offer of June 2009 if it included the return of staff travel (and thus, why didn't everyone accept it back then and the whole staff travel removal would never have even been dreamed up!)

But that's where the company had us well and truly over a barrel. So many of us commute by air that staff travel is almost vital to our being able to engage in our employment with BA. The same cannot be said of our ground staff.

The company couldn't really remove the ability for our ground staff to park at the airport so the staff travel removal threat wouldn't hold nearly the same power with them as it does/did with us.

Contrary to popular belief, ST is regarded as taxable by HM Revenue & Customs. However, staff do not pay tax as BA pays it on our behalf.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why ST is a money-loser for BA even though staff pay a booking fee in some cases.

Colonel White

ST could easily become a bargain tool for management. If a working group disagrees with certain changes to their terms and conditions, the company could say that they will remove ST. The same will happen if any future strikes should take place. Management will threaten to remove it permanently.

ST should not be contractual but I don't think it should be used as either a carrot or a threat to make people come to work during a strike. BA know the importance of ST to come. Some crew were recruited to BA and told they could still live in their home country and use ST. To threaten to remove something decisive as ST only to make them come to work is disgusting. BA are pushing some into the corner.

Eddy

I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.

A lot happened last year. I don't know why BASSA didn't let us vote on the proposal which was on the table. Did they think that BA would leave them alone if they didn't negotiate? Possibly. But, we can't turn back time and be bitter. All we can do now is to fight as much as we can.

Hiya hun,

You must see something that I don't, then. I really don't see the proposals put forth by BA as likely to have the massive impact on my earnings that you do. Nor, it seems, do many of our mutual colleagues.

Overseas cabin crew
 

MissM wrote:
Your statement is directly contradicted by skylight's post here.

Caribbean Boy

I think you will find many different opinions. BA were recruiting a lot of language speakers and they were told that they could remain overseas and still work in the UK. I don't doubt that they were informed that during standby duties they had to be within a certain range but living home and working abroad, or down in London, was indeed part of BA's recruitment drive at the time.

Regional bases which were closed down could also be included. They were told that they didn't need to move to LON as they could commute using ST.

Not quite right Mrs M, when I joined I was told that I had to be within 2 hours of LHR. If I decided to live outside of this then the onus would be on myself to ensure my availability within 2 hours if called, so BA were quite clear that altough I could live anywhere, my base was LHR and it was my responsibility to get myself there. I also find it interesting that before this whole mess started this forum was full of people virtually daring WW to remove Staff Travel saying that it was a useless system anyway?? I still can't understand what BASSA was 'smoking' at the time when they issued statements saying that BA couldn't withdraw staff travel and if they did it would not be a problem to get it reinstated immediately. Read you contract and you will find that staff travel is not a contracted right, it has always been a 'perk' that BA makes available to staff and according to the staff travel policy guide can be withdrawn at any stage.

So where to from here, WW will not return 'full' staff travel privledges as he has said as much. BASSA won't consider any deal without full staff travel being reinstated. After reading all the previous posts I am still not actually sure what these strikes are about, all the elements that have been claimed by CC have been offered at some point by BA, the deals for some reason were not presented by BASSA:ugh: CC were given full warning that Staff Travel would be withdrawn if the strike went ahead, BASSA forged ahead anyway encouraging people to go on strike as BA couldn't withdraw staff travel. Could someone tell me who BASSA's legal advisers are so that I can avoid them at all costs.

The shame is that the 'egos' at BASSA have prevented the membership actually getting a reasonable deal, they have cost their members money in all the lost wages and perks, they are a disgrace.

Artificial Horizon

As I said, there will be many different opinions. Several of my overseas friends say they were recruited to BA and told by the company that they could stay there! They informed them that it would be their sole responsibility to get to LHR but ST would make their life a lot easier. It was part of BA's recruitment drive and I am almost certain that they said this when they recruited in the UK as not everyone wanted to move to London.

We are not arguing that it is not contractual. We are arguing that we have been punished for participating in a lawful industrial action. BA were probably hoping that they could change the minds of many commuters but surprisingly many at BFC were commuting crew.

What were the strikes about? Once and for all. Imposition. Next strike will be a different issue.

Miss M

I am confused, you have said nany times that the new crewing level are working well. None of us expect them to change.

If as you say all of this is about imposition why is your anger not directed at the bassa leadership tjat have led their membership down this path over a completely workable proposal? Why would they have done this? The only reason I can see is that as the majority of the reps are CSDs they might have put their own desires above the needs of the people they claim to represent.

I have explained this before. Some of you don't seem to understand.

Crewing levels were changed without negotiation. Most flights are working well but that is not the issue. The issue is that crewing levels changed without our union's approval. They placed an imposition on our working conditions. I know some of you will say that BASSA failed to negotiate and that we only have ourselves to blame. I don't think that's an accurate explanation of the situation as I think that BA have failed too. BA and BASSA are miles apart of how they want to achieve our savings.

Staffing
 

Approximately 1200

Bassa did fail to negotiate, bassa did fail to take the situation seriously, bassa has failed to ground the airline with it's pointless strikes, and bassa has absolutely failed in it's responsibilty towards its members.

For me this dispute is also about imposition. The constant imposition of the views of the bassa leadership over the legitimate needs of it's membership. I will be voting against this imposition at the next ballot and then I will be leaving bassa to back BA and my future, any claim by the bassa millitants that they are somehow doing something for me is untrue. One day they will thank those of us that have backed BA and made sure their jobs survived.

Why is Walsh STILL prolonging this hugely damaging strike?

He is now running a company that has twice posted consecutive record losses. Most other airlines seem to be making savings and taking their employees along with them. Why has he been unable to get his employees on side? Most other airlines seem to be managing their staff better than this.

First the pilots failed strike attempt over open skies now cabin crew over imposition of change and staff travel. Who's next?

Walsh is now running a failing pensions deficit. What's his plan? Hang on until the Iberia merger and walk off with millions and leave the next person to deal with the problems he's creating. BA isn't a well regarded company anymore. Did anyone see the recent passenger voted airline of the year awards? BA won nothing.

Time to wake up folks, this isn't a win situation. Time to move on and sort BA out TOGETHER. Restore staff travel and try and turn the company around. Nobody is the victor here, except BA's competitors.

Go on then, I'll take this one.

1) Posting consecutive losses in the airline industry in the last two years - not exactly unique to BA - have you happened to see the latest Air France/KLM results?

2) Making savings - if you can get hold of the investor newsletter you'll see that, bar the intransigence of Unite with regard to the CC branches, we're making admirable amounts of savings from the costs of the business

3) He has been able to get nigh on all staff groups on side. It's merely a proportion of one group that are fomenting revolution at the merest hint of hardship.

4) Open Skies? Not the thread and, to be frank, it's been kicked around a thousand times here. Want to know more (rather than assume), PM me and I'll let you know where the issue currently is - it's not dead, certainly.

5) Pensions Deficit. Oh for goodness' sake. Pick a blue chip company with a final salary scheme and see if you can't find similar problems. For what it's worth both BA, all the unions (even the blessed Unite) and the trustees are presenting a unified front regarding the pension deficit and are hoping that the regulator will accept their plan.

6) Walsh (as you kindly refer to him), isn't going anywhere. He's moving up the scale to be the boss of the next CEO of IAG (BA/IB merged). Keith Williams - a finance guy is next up to the plate in BA. If you genuinely think that things will change with either KW as the CEO of BA or WW as the CEO of IAG then I salute your optimism. Don't presume that he's "leaving" KW with the problems he's created. The two individuals will be fully co-operating already over the current situation. I'd wager its safe to say KW is on WW's wavelength.

7) Awards? Relatively meaningless. Nice to have but don't really think they affect the forward booking profile greatly unless we start winning awards for most fatal catering or some such.

8) Ah, Staff Travel. What a surprise. I'm not necessarily in accord with the company's actions here but, frankly, the warning was made loud and clear to anyone regarding this one.

9) Victors? Well, there's a significant cadre of employees on the ground and in the air who now see this as a dispute the airline must win on its own terms. It seems reasonable clear that the city see it this way too otherwise, surely, the institutional investors would have pulled the plug on the board and the CEO by now. That they haven't suggest that the only people who think Mr. Walsh is going about things incorrectly are the 9,000 or so BASSA members, the Amicus contingent and Gregor Gall and his ilk. (PS loved the YouTube post earlier - nice to see an ex union researcher comfortably ensconsed in his ex-Poly professorial chair. Wonder where his political stance was forged?)

MrB

MRBunker, BA have posted consecutive record losses of 531 million and 401 million. Just because Air France/KLM have done almost as bad isn't any call for celebration or relief. The volcano will cost in the region of 100 million how much will the strikes eventually cost at 7 million A DAY? BA's pension deficit is what 3.7 Billion how much is BA actually worth 2 Billion? The financial situation at BA is dire. Can you name any UK company with a worse pension deficit? Proposed taxes are only going to make things worse. These begging proposals to the regulator will not offer long term final salary pension protection. If you think BA is a well run operation then that's nice for you but it isn't. WW simply has to reduce costs much more than the cabin crew deal has covered. How comfortable will you feel when pilots salaries and pensions relative to easyjet are being quoted in the papers as an excuse to cut your lot next. Will you be happy at the rest of the company not supporting you over your next open skies strike ballot? At least they won't be able to train as pilots as some of you have done to 'help the company' eh?

We all know BA is being slaughtered by easyjet and ryanair, those airlines having main bases in the UK and half BA's operating costs. All WW appears to be able to do in return is cut routes and prolong a damaging industrial dispute. A good manager would be able to reduce costs AND make permanent change to costs WITHOUT having staff striking. All the other UK airlines are managing to do it why can't WW?

BA still has the highest costs and falling passenger numbers with continuing falling business travel. Why would anyone with a choice book BA with the chance of ongoing strike action?

This is not the time to continue to prolong a strike. WW can stop it all by returning staff travel. Why on earth isn't he doing it?

1) Never said it was - but you were the one who pointed out the WW had presided over 2 consecutive losses. Clearly you didn't see fit to mention he also presided over the biggest profit ever made by the airline too.

2) So by your logic, BA should let the cabin crew "win" otherwise they'll keep costing the airline money. It's the long game here. This is about changing costs forever and reaping the benefits for every year to come so that we've still got an airline to work for in the next twenty years.

3) Nope, I can't, off the top of my head, name a worse pension deficit but, bear in mind, the deficit isn't subject to interest so it's not "costing" the company anything more than the contributions. The new plan involves us paying more to keep a final salary so, actually, better for the company. Are you aware of what it takes to close a scheme to discontinuance for example?

4) I may think it's a well run airline but it isn't? Well, that's me told then. I think what we have there is an opinion. Just like I have.

5) Generally wouldn't be unhappy being compared to EasyJet pilot salaries for my seniority and experience. We're pretty much there or thereabouts. I won't labour this one as it's been kicked around a lot recently and this thread's about cabin crew.

6) Don't make me laugh. I don't expect any support regarding industrial action. Bright unions know when to fight however. OpenSkies is still going on in the background. Oh, and with Unite as well. Did you know exactly where the Viking Laval legislation is at the moment?

7) BA isn't being slaughtered by EZ and RYR. We don't compete with them. I take it you're shorthaul? We use our shorthaul network predominantely to feed the longhaul network. The two products just aren't comparable business models. But hey, cherry pick your examples if it helps you.

8) You're right, a good manager would be able to reduce costs without a damaging industrial dispute. In the main, he's achieved that. Don't forget that the majority of BA have already done their bit without the need for a strike. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's BASSA that've got it wrong. Even the more eloquent posters on here have suggested they'd take the deal of Jun 2009 that was offered. Yup, that one. The one that BASSA never even put to their members. The one that was followed by a vote for no negotiation at one of the racecourses.

9) Why isn't he returning staff travel. Personally, it's of no interest to me if he does or doesn't. What I think is pivotal though is that he's establishing once and for all who runs the airline. I think I speak for many when I say we're all tired of BASSA trying to wag the BA dog. Hot towels in WT+ anyone? For once and for all, it's not "our" airline, we work for the company. It's the shareholders' airline if anything.

MrB

PS As a general aside, and I'd love this to get back to the wider community, BASI13 is being re-written as we speak so all those spiteful crew who are thinking they can report people for fraud - you might want to check the new version with the notable exclusion.

Yes, the financial situation at British Airways is dire.

All the more reason not to simply throw in the towel and sign up to an unsustainable agreement put forward by the union.....

Willie Walsh is perhaps one of the best suited men for the job of bringing our agreements to a level where they can be sustained by both company and employee - I genuinely do not see Mr. Walsh wanting to strip our earnings back to the bone - and that's important on so many levels.

If we get to a situation where both company and employee are happy, we'll avoid the risk of regular strike action that seems to go hand-in-hand with the Bassa of today.

I maintain that Bassa is important to this company and certainly to this workforce, but I'm not sure it's the Bassa of today with its somewhat antiquainted views of how an employee should be rewarded that stretch back to the days of nationalisation.

All WW has to do is return staff travel and the strikes stop. Why not manage the airline in a reasonable way and get on with it?

These are just punitive bullying measures to teach the strikers (and anyone else who might want a strike ballot in the future) a lesson. That's great if you think you'll never want a strike ballot in your own department.

And there, I think, you make a key point. It's probably arguable that strikes are an industrial tool of the past. A forward looking union will see problems on the horizon and neutralise them before they become an issue. Do you think BASSA can reasonably claim to have done so? Did they tell you about the NI issue in the last pensions round for example?

MrB

The strikes have stopped, (Unite only said that they would be suspended, very different) Unite now have to re ballot, the result may well be very different, everyone will be in no doubt that the rest of us won't roll over. It will not be a "send a message to Willie" vote this time.

Agreed!
That's why every other part of the company has long since accepted a variety of changes to reduce costs, but when BA wanted to talk to cabin crew about cost-savings they refused to even begin talking.

Did you miss the recent announcement that BA is to begin operating flying to Cancun later in the year? In recent years we've also begun flying to places like Las Vegas, Sharm-el-Sheikh and the Dominican Republic as well as London City to JFK.
Like every other airline, whether low-cost or full service, we've dropped some loss-making routes.

The fact that BA has reduced costs without a sniff of a strike with everyone else at BA apart from cabin crew suggests to me that the problem lies with cabin crew or their union rather than BA.

If BA is seen to reliably deliver an ever-growing majority of their schedule with each successive strike period, I imagine fewer people will be deterred from booking with BA.

Because BASSA/Unite have only offered to suspend the strike if staff travel is returned.
Because the board of BA set the strategy he's following and the major institutional investors agree with it.

It might not be staff travel though.

WW is showing that he wants or feels he needs to impose a change to YOUR working conditions, your pension etc, and you or or your representatives can't come to an agreement with BA, then if you are left with no option but to strike, you could lose ANY non contractual aspect of your work.

That's what's going on now. It's all about showing everyone else what will happen if they think they might want a strike ballot next.

What dose this button do,

I just can't understand why you all striked in the first place if all he has to do is return staff travel for it to be over now!!!!!!!.

Can you explain why you went on strike in a way that I can understand because the Imposition has not gone away, infact it is about to get worse!!!!!!

Thanks to BASSA making themselves totally impotent, WW is now going to impose a New Fleet agreement on any new crew that join. Had BASSA stayed in the loop and actually talked and sat down in a negotiating room they would have had an influence on the outcome.

Instead we got a group of CSD's (which nearly all of them are) hash up a proposal completely designed to protect their job. Which is why it was not accepted by Walsh and Bill Francis. Infact alot of crew preferred the proposal put forward by Bill in June. But hey, we were never given the chance to vote on that by our CSD BASSA Reps, were we!!!!