MissM
Do you really believe that another strike would produce ANY positive results for any crew who participated in it?

You always state your determination to go on strike; but you don't have any clear reasons or objectives.

I honestly think that with your attitude you would be better off working elsewhere, for your own peace of mind.

Miss M wrote

Well you might, but will DH be allowed to by Messrs Woodley and Simpson. I think not.

Also you mention that ST is not important to you, but for the commuters we all know it is. Its a shame none of them could write to DH and get him to explain WHY after all this time ST hasn't been reinstated despite being promised it back in 5 mins. I hear from lots of crew why cant WW just gine us our ST back and they would be quite happy to move on. As I explain to them, Bassa would then move onto the sacked/suspendees, and then the next thing etc. It wouldn't end with giving ST back. WW is not that stupid and gullable.

Agreements will always be subject to change. In order to protect ourselves we need a strong union to negotiate with the company about those agreements. Is BASSA that union?

They didn't negotiate and then went on strike, squandering their most effective weapon, the threat of strike.

So what happens now, folks. Does anyone know or remember what BASSA want anymore?

Mixed Fleet
 

I understand the first MF routes have been confirmed from November as Las Vagas, Denver, Pisa, St Petersburg and Prague.

So its starting

Wilbelsturm,

Very good post! Lots of facts and explanations.

Your description of 'final correction' has been on the horizon for a long time. I believe that a strong union is very important, but strong does not mean intransigent or selfish. bassa have never been known for their 'negotiating skills' in my whole time in the company. They have always considered any efforts towards compromise as a sign of weakness. This lack of being willing to seek any compromise has directly led to this 'final correction'.

All other workgroups have negotiated in good faith and attempted to 'negotiate' the best deals for their members. The fact that all other groups have signed up to these negotiated settlements proves that BA are not out to deliberately destroy unions. I do not believe for a minute that WW and the LT want to destroy bassa, but I am equally certain that he does want to reduce their unhealthy power and influence over the running of the airline.

I am sure that Bill Francis wants to be as open and honest with cabin crew as possible regarding the routes that go over to New Fleet. However, he will have no influence about which routes are transferred in the future - these decisions will be made by the 'bean counters' who are not renowned for putting people before profit!

bassa's completely unrealistic attempts at negotation have allowed the opening of Pandora's box (New Fleet) and the contents of that box can never be put back inside. New Fleet had been taken off the table, but it was just the total unwillingness of bassa to negotiate that ensured it returned.

Surely it is time that bassa members demanded a change of leadership to get rid of this much of militant meglomaniacs who are only interested in their own power base. The present bunch of reps have only been looking after their own interests - NOT the rank and file members who pay their subs and expected to be represented properly.

It is also important to remember that any 'assurances' about certain routes being retained by current LH crew are dependant on a settlement being reached between BA and Bassa/Unite.

If this settlement doesnt happen, BA are free to move whatever routes they want. I have already heard some crew complaining that the new Tokyo service will probably be new fleet.

Please do not allow yourselves to think these assurances are valid now.

Yellow Pen

BASSA have different numbers as to how many have claimed strike pay. I'm sceptical to information presented by BA as they sometimes tend to twist things to their own advantage.

Betty Girl

It remains to be seen whether there will be another ballot. As I previously said I couldn't be less bothered with ST as I almost never use it but I happen to care about our commuting colleagues and what they are going through. You say that BA can't get rid of those of us on the old contract. Why not? Because no cabin crew have been placed in CL before? That's no guarantee whatsoever.

The Blu Riband

Negotiation. Not imposition. That's what the strike is about. Satisfied?

A threat of a possible strike in the future will always have an affect on forward bookings. It's one of our strongest weapon. BA might be able to depart 100% of all WW flights should a strike occur. Customers however will not get what they are paying for. Flights crewed by VCC? VCC are not anywhere near the standards of some of us legacy crew. I have had the pleasure of working with some of them and I should certainly hope they perform better at Waterside or wherever they are based.

No but it would prevent them from recruiting any more cabin crew for a couple of years and that wouldn't help mixed-fleet get going.

Wasnt the '97 strike based around similar scaremongering from BASSA about old contract crew being forced onto the new contract?

How many old contract crew have been forced onto the new contract in the intervening 13 years?

MissM
 

Laughable! You only listen to BASSA then MissM and take what they say as gospel? Staff travel back in 5 minutes amongst many other untruths/misinformation!

And how long do you negotiate for? One year,two, three before BASSA would come to anything like a compromise?

In your opinion MissM. A little display of self importance here maybe?

Funniest post I've read in ages! I genuinely haven't read anything that Bassa have published that has anything to do with pilots, that hasn't been wrong, inaccurate or misleading. That's why so many of us find Bassa's 'word' so difficult to believe.

So there may not be another ballot? So what has all this strife over the last 18 months+ been for? As for getting rid of old contract cabin crew, you can't just get rid of people without jumping through many employment law hoops, many of which curtail the ability of an employer to lay off who it wants to lose. It's just scaremongering to suggest otherwise, but it suits Bassa's tactics to develop in its members that sense of being under siege and constant threat.
Looking at it from a different point of view, when the Bassa reps said "No complement reductions" were they not IMPOSING their own solution on the cost reduction negotiations?

I should hope legacy cabin crew are better than VCC, who are trained to a standard to allow the flights to depart safely, and with some element of the service. But at least BA earns the revenue and the passengers reach their destination. (It's the only time I've seen a whole crew applauded by passengers at the gate)

Sporran, thanks.

The point above is that even the most stubborn child will eventually realise that when the talking is exhausted the imposition will come. BASSA were warned they just didn't believe that the company would do it against the all powerful BASSA.

Failure to push through change would have led to total loss in forward investment over the past two years leading to an inability to cover the atrocious losses incurred leading to a potential collapse of the business. Satisfied?

I'll repost this after checking thoroughly for the 'correct' text.


Where in the CC Contract appears the clause 'contract for life'? Is it a bit like a Hugo Chavez contract?
Managers have to re-negotiate their own contracts, often on a yearly basis, based upon previous performance but the CC should be protected and cosseted all their life? This is not a nationalised company any more it is privately owned so the quote:


Should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Contracts are made to be re-negotiated as market circumstances change. Most unionised groups throughout BA have been very successful at long negotiation thus enabling change over a long period. Sadly BASSA have failed their membership in this and whilst it seemed for many a year they they held the high ground with their aggressive stance all it meant was that the final correction would be all the more painful. Welcome to the final correction. Agreements are put into the contracts to enable them to be changed at short notices without the total re-negotiation (that word again) and re-writing. They may appear in a contract but, as the court case proved this year, are NOT legally binding.


And didn't Len McKlusky do exceedingly well protecting the 'contracts' of his previous 'bothers and sisters' in the Dock industry in Merseyside? He protected them so well that the whole docks industry collapsed due to being totally non competitive and the contracts vanished into the wind in the dole queue of the 1980's.

Lets look at Tony Woodly? Member of the TGWU which led 'negotiations' in the protection of the workers employed by the beleagured British car industry, an industry that needed radical reform to survive the onslaught of the Japanese car manufacturers. Once again a total failure to negotiate meaningfully and a demand to the strict adherence of the 'old contracts' led to the industry collapsing.

So here we have two pillars of the Union community both still employed on nice salaries (they'll be losing child benefit) after totally destroying their respective industries with their 'all for one, one for all' rhetoric.

Quote from Len McKlusky:

I would love to see them try to pull BA back into the national industry which would lead to the collapse of the airline as EU rules do not allow state subsidy of airlines. But Len would know that wouldn't he?

BASSA and Unite are terrified of losing the grip on the reigns of BA that they have managed to acquire over the past 20 years. BASSA aren't interested in the individual any more they are aghast that their bullying, yes bullying, approach to negotiations, using the 'nuclear' option from the outset, has failed.

There is a core who will constantly believe that they can hold on to the past as it is their right and, personally, I feel sorry for them. The only way to protect future contracts is through progressive, structured and adult dialouge with the company. The time of BASSA is past.


Hopefully that now contains nothing to 'derail' the debate.

Thanks
:(

I suspect you won't be given the opportunity again.

HF

I agree, strong rumours that a settlement is to be announced within the next week.

The rumours abound that Walsh and Woodley are about to conclude a deal, but Woodley is not in a position to deliver a deal. Only the BASSA leadership can conclude the deal, a result of them seizing back power after Woodley put them back in their box at the last dispute, and the BASSA leadership will never agree a deal which fails to put them back in their jobs at BA, something Walsh won't countenance. The only way Woodley could deliver a deal would be through the implicit threat to cut BASSA loose from Unite, and I doubt there'd be many supporters of that amongst Unite whilst the leadership of the union is still up for grabs.

Yellow Pen
 

I don't agree with you on this - DH knows he will never be returning to BA - any offers from BA will be put to a ballot of that I am certain, so it will be down to the members to decide

IF Woodley and Walsh can come to an agreement, such that UNITE recommend the agreement to BASSA members and it is subsequently rejected, BASSA will become far more isolated than they are now. UNITE would then be less inclined to go to bat for BASSA - remember that while it is only BASSA that can end a dispute, it is only UNITE that can authorise a ballot.

This represents a real problem for BASSA as without another successful ballot there will be no more protected IA - assuming that any further ballot cannot be challenged in court. How many BASSA members are so committed to the cause that they REALLY put their job on the line?