You can see a copy of the contract on Uniteba.com site.

It states they can do ground duties but it is not at all specific and of course current cabin crew do ground duties if grounded by an illness that prevents them from flying so it may not be all it is being made out to be.

Wirbelstrum,

CSMs ARE expected to do about 2 days office work per month, but this is primarily to do with Performance managing their team.

Main crew are not routinely expected to do ground work, however there is a clause in their contract that says they could be required to do so. It doesn't specify what work this would be.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that it wouldn't ordinarily be for doing the role of a ground staff member (because it requires a lot of training, not to mention that the ground staff unions would probably have something to say about it), but it might well be for times of disruption, such as we have just seen, where they would be required to "volunteer", if their 900 hours are up and thus unuseable for flying duties.

For the Company it is very convenient to have a pool of staff that they can call in to help in such circumstances, without having to rely on volunteers alone. Just imagine how useful it would have been for BA to require all those crews sat in CRC from cancelled trips in the recent chaos at T5, to go upstairs and assist queue combing etc, rather than sit around doing nothing? I'm sure the fact that CRC has been full of crew going nowhere, doing nothing, while one floor up in Departures all hell is breaking loose, has not been missed by the team who put the MF contract together.

Is the ground working clause anything more sinister than that? Who knows, but of course it gives BASSA/Amicus great ammunition to create doomsday scenarios. Time will tell.

Re. achieving 900s with 3 months of the year left? In terms of hourly rate allowances it doesn't make any difference whether your qualifying duty hours are over 9 months or 12, the total amount is the same. That many people on MF are currently heading towards the former (if it's true) is probably just the result of the startup months being unrepresentative, as Juan said. Remember when SF LGW started up? It was the same situation, but seems to have evened out, unless anyone from LGW can tell us otherwise?

As an addendum to my post above, the MF contract also says thay they could be stood down without basic pay for periods of time. Does that mean that if they reach 900 hours in 9 months they'll be temporarily "laid off" until they can legally fly again?

I very much doubt it, as who's going to stick that for more than a year or so? MF would likely be a shrinking fleet rather than a growing one under those conditions.

No, I suspect that it's there as a "get out of jail free" card for the Company if the airline suffers another 9/11, or similar, when BA faces possible extreme hardship, where it's got the flexibility to quickly cut it's overheads in a time of vastly reduced operation, again without relying on crew voluntarily taking unpaid leave, part time, VR etc.

Essentially, it's just a very flexible contract (for the Company), many parts of which, it hopes never to have to use.

On the Uniteba.com website you can see all the Mixed Fleet agreements.
You can read their contract and see their scheme document and also their employment guide.
Not that exiting but better that guessing what it says I think.

Beagle I agree with what you say.

Thanks all,

That clarifies that 'rumour' at least! :)

And so, as one rumour dries-up, another comes along (courtesy of a bassa member getting a text msg at the T5 crew bus stop this evening) ... seems bassa are sending a "top urgent" text to members telling them that BA has spent the last few days calling/texting crew (from anonymous numbers) to say that anyone voting NO will be fast-tracked by BA via the Ops & Choice system to PT working, base-changes & promotion. Discuss ;-)

The obvious flaw in that rumour, which even the most diehard Bassa supporter should be able to spot, is exactly how would BA know who had voted NO?

It is a secret ballot isn't it?

If it isn't, then my guess is that the average crewmember will be much more worried about the consequences of BASSA knowing who voted NO, rather than the consequences of BA knowing who voted YES.

Who makes this stuff up?

As has already been stated how would BA know who voted for what?

Methinks someone with too much time on their hands (not the tomato growing season) sitting in a nice half million pound house with a bottle of wine and a mobile phone (with no personal bill to pay) sends out such c:mad:p!

It's called "acting Troll" by remote control...He just fires of a few texts and then at his leisure comes here and Lurks, laughing his head off as people bite and provide his entertainment :bored:

The text isn't a fact but an open question. Bassa have written to BA seeking clarification. The suggestion has come from several different sources so I feel Bassa are obliged to investigate. It may well come to nothing.

I'm bemused. What are BASSA supposed to have written to BA about ? As others have noted, there is no way that BA can know who voted which way as it's a secret ballot being run by an independant organisation. Said organisation knows it is more that their reputation is worth to divulge individual's votes.

Secondly, if BA has been calling/texting from anonymous numbers, how on earth do the recipients know that the calls/texts are from BA and not someone stirring it ?? Moreover, how do BASSA know for sure that they are not the subject of a wind up by someone like the SWP ??

This sounds awfully like BASSA are scared that there may be a NO vote to strike action, which would mean a rapid end to this dispute. There's a part of me that suspects that this is just another attempt by either BASSA, or their supporters to sway the membership with untrue information. It's a bit of posturing. Get someone to spread a nasty fib, then be seen to be the hero in shining armour by claiming to be 'doing something about it', although in truth there is nothing that will be done or neeed to be done - it's playing to the gallery.

Like the "fight for survival"?!

You never stop fighting for survival, as a company and as an individual, as they say better prevention than cure.
And if the prevention is not as painful as the cure or possible demise of the company all the better.

Apologies if I've missed it, but has anyone seen the actual question on the ballot paper?
Is it "Are you prepared to take strike action" or "Are you prepared to take strike action over the introduction of Mixed Fleet" or some other reason?

Spot on Ranger07!

It clearly states ' Are you prepared to take part in strike action'

No more no less.

It is accompanied by a letter giving the 5 issues Bassa are balloting on, including the new one, 'introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union'


sorry but I have to laugh, as Bassa stills believes it is still in contact with BA:ugh:

Also remember the fictional writer of 2010, a certain Mr. Holley has clearly stated that these issues, if agreed by BA, will be the STARTING point for further 'negotiations'. :rolleyes:

Oh dear, Duncan is still dishing out duff (and incomplete) info on the BASSA Forum.

Yes, they can Duncan - it's just that the sacking would be ruled illegal and you could make your way to an employment tribunal to seek compensation. Could take years though and has a limit on the payout that is probably worth less to most than actually keeping their jobs.

Also, if BA can prove (or a court ruling accepts) that the dispute is over the same issues as last time, then the strike action would be ruled illegal. Now, BA could sack you and you'd have no comeback.

Beware Duncan glossing over the very inconvenient truth and make your own decision on whether you wish to accept the risks that come with striking.

This is the biggest single bee I have in my bonnet these days, and this “you cannot be sacked” falsehood still lives clearly.

It’s a real shame that a union fails to speak the truth to its own members, a real shame. Be the lie originating from a supreme ignorance of the law or a supreme disregard for its members, its bad either way.

Legal advice from those at the top of BASSA has been unreliable throughout this dispute, indeed it was LM's advice that was the reason that one of the early attempts at a strike was prevented by BA. It was the advice that you could still vote for a strike even though you would have left the company due to VR, if I recall correctly.

DH also believed that he could decide when he would turn up for work. He believed that BA could not sack him as he was engaged in union work. Sadly BA and the subsequent employment tribunals re-educated him on this matter. It would be a shame if any CC lost their careers at BA while following advice from such a source.

With all things related to your job and future livelihood it is best practice to get advice from an independent lawyer that specialises in these matters rather than from an interested party. Still, I suppose, if you are so foolish as to believe advice from such an unreliable or interested source then you deserve all that flows from such an act. Industrial Darwinism at its most dangerous.

[QUOTEFor the 1000th time - BA cannot sack you for taking part in a lawful dispute - no one can!][/QUOTE]

Any comment Litebulbs?