Uniform Standards assessment at SEP
 

So just turn up to SEP conforming to Uniform Standards

If you had ever worked with a certain UK operator, less than perfect uniform standard or any failing in your SEP knowledge meant you went home on unpaid leave pending a chat about your future flying career.

A bit harsh maybe but you would have to agree, BA is currently very reasonable when it comes to daily SEP knowledge and Uniform Standard conformity.


and MissM
The aviation industry does not do watertight agreements, it is a very fluid business.....and please could you concede something that the majority of posters on this forum know and that is we are only ever 90 days away from a "Notice" that changes our contracts......and that would be take it or leave it.

Tiramisu, do you REALLY believe your job is more secure now than it was 12 months ago. I'm not cabin crew and I can't see that at all. With the commencement of the Mixed Fleet your future is at real risk and there are many of my colleagues who are rubbing their hands in undisguised glee at the prospect.
However they seem to fail to realize that all employees and all grades need to be concerned. The destruction of Unite no matter what the reason will eventually affect the work of everyone in BA. Those parts of the company who do not belong to a Union already face having to re-apply for their jobs annually or whenever it suits BA. I can't imagine many of my colleagues wanting to go through that no matter how much they hate BASSA right now.
Again some of my colleagues believe they are above all of that but they too need to realize that they are not irreplaceable. If BA were to defeat the unions what could BALPA do to stop their own careers being destroyed by cheaper pilots on inferior contracts and agreements?
I think we all need to calm down and look at what is happening with a little less passion and a bit more of a cool head.

Why do people keep going on about BA trying to ruin Unite? Unite have proven in every other department that they are a sensible people who can spot the issues at hand and deal with them in a responsible manner.

Do you think the various managers want to discuss things on a one to one basis with every individual they employ?

BA need the unions as much as the oiks (including me) that work for them, simple as that.

Does BA want to destroy BASSA? Different story. Who could blame them.

Woodley/Simpson, in private may sing a different tune about BASSA, who knows.

Syndicate9,
I've never said my job is more secure now than it was 12 months ago. All I have is an agreement that gives me protection of my present terms and condition and future earnings and a pay rise for the short term.
There are no guarantees for anyone in the airline industry and I am fully aware as an old contract CSD, that mine is the contract that BA would like to be rid of. I'm not looking at things with passion but it's more of a case of being realistic and level headed.

BA are currently engaging with us, trying to make CSD's on Eurofleet more productive. They've been holding feedback sessions for Pursers and CSDs last month and again this week to gather ideas from us as to how to achieve this.
There are also other things in the pipeline which I'm not at liberty to post here.
If BA were really trying to get rid of us, they wouldn't be spending the time and money investing in existing fleets and current crew which I belive they are.

All I have done is played my part in a dispute which I believe was totally the wrong fight. BA is a business and who's to say that if it was my business, I wouldn't be doing the same. We need to be competitive to stay ahead of the game
The unions need to get back with BA to salvage what they can while they can.
And another thing, one only has to reflect at the effect the Ash Cloud had in April which could happen again in the future with disastrous effects on all our jobs, never mind Mixed Fleet.

Rover90

It's only an interesting turn for BA because uniform standards have never really been an issue in the past. They are, in my opinion, looking for every possible reason to suspend you should you work on the legacy fleet.

It may not be necessary for you to have a watertight agreement but for some of us on EF and WW fleets we need such an agreement to protect us from Mixed Fleet. Perhaps you don't understand it but Mixed Fleet does mean an end to existing fleets and sooner or later we will be out of employment. I am sincerely sorry if you have a problem with that some of us are sincerely concerned about our livehoods.

Tiramisu

There's a strong rumour that they will be transferring all 767 from EF to WW for a couple of years. Where would that leave you? It certainly doesn't indicate that they are wanting to make you more productive. Don't be mislead by this company.

Miss M,
Bill Francis and Glenn Reynolds have both categorically stated that as long as the 767s are here, and that is till at least 2016, the CSD role will exist on Eurofleet. If not, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

It would appear we work on the same aircraft for the same employer

I am WW CSD, and you are a Purser on WW. Perhaps you could let me know where I am getting this wrong.

Haven't posted for a while!!

Don't know what has happened with BASSA/Crewforums being replaced with an 'X'???

Anyway, the whole dispute has gone worse at the moment! The bad feeling at work is terrible - there is a MASSIVE divide between strikers and non. That's without the tension between Crew and other departments-volunteers. Also, people (including myself) are always paranoid about everything. Saying the right (or wrong) things, doing the wrong things, speaking too loud. I always do things properly pretty much anyway but still...

Whilst at the beginning of this dispute I did believe the 10% of crew being on MF in 10 years, I really am starting to doubt this now.... Why??? 1250 crew being recruited in 1 year - there are about 3000 crew on Eurofleet. Now I am not an expert in Maths and I know they obviously factor in turnover but... honestly??? And I do have quite abit of time left.

I also do think that the salary for Mixed Fleet is SHOCKING, and whilst CSM is reasonable for that much responsibility is quite a bit less than CSD and even Purser! Sorry, I know Market Forces and all that - but come on! We are living in the 21st century so around £1200 is not alot (this will be max take home - including allowances downroute - where just a pizza can cost £15 in some destinations!!!) Living in London too - looking around if you wanted to live by yourself your outgoings would be around £1000-£1200 minimum and that would be a bedsit in Hounslow... OK people can join elsewhere but first of all people deserve a good wage and also it is concerning if they do starve us of work. There are never any guarantees with anything, HOWEVER they are not getting rid of crew - if they starve US of work, or force us out/onto Mixed Fleet this is replacement of crew which no matter how you look at it IS unfair!!!

I assert that us (particularly post-1997 crew) are NOT overpaid anyway, particularly our starting salary. Will Mixed Fleet work??? Hmm... who knows it sounds very idealistic from a management point of view, and there is nothing wrong with them wanting to increase standards but whilst we do have some VERY SOUR apples, we do still have some of the best crew (IMO!) Not saying other airlines don't have crew as they do - but we do deserve our pay really. Not saying change in BA is not necassary AT ALL but is the way this whole Mixed Fleet being set up the way to do it???

MissM
So what you are saying is that we have been less that optimum at adhering to uniform standard in the past and we are now going to be really off side because BA are going to start taking a closer look at us and flagging failures.

Good heavens, how could we be falling short in any way when we are so wonderful. I am appalled!

Sidebustle,
I know change has been hard but I really don't think it is going to be as bad as BASSA are scaring people it will be.

Yes Mixed Fleet is here and BA will make huge savings from it. They are also making huge savings from us working with less crew.

I recently had a meeting with one of the E/F Fleet Managers and she told me that she had been offered a move to Mixed Fleet but she chose to stay on E/F. She told me that there are NO plans to get rid of WW or E/F and that we would just gradually get smaller as Mixed Fleet gradually gets larger. She said that all new entrants would go on to Mixed Fleet but that would only happen as routes expanded and as WW and E/F crew retire or leave etc. NO ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO GO. She even predicted that there would be some promotion on both fleets as a lot of senior crew are due to retire in the next few years. She said she intended to help make E/F as good if not better than Mixed Fleet and could not understand why the union had taken such a hostile stance to negotiations that in fact were designed to protect current crew.

I choose to believe Bill Francis and this Fleet Manager. The choice is believe them or BASSA and I personally lost faith in BASSA years ago.

Yes Betty Girl what you say makes sense. But then again, thinking about it, so does the theory that they want to, in effect replace current fleets... I mean noone knows - even BA probably don't know how Mixed Fleet will work themselves! And yes, the union could have been less hostile.

I just really hope we can continue on our current salaries for many years to come, that is the main thing really... I do also believe that there should be agreements with Scheduling etc... I don't mind working harder and would rather work harder than work for less, however would rather not work to Scheme!! I do think a collective force (ie. Union) of crew should be able to negotiate agreements...

Actually that is a point - is Mixed Fleet really scheme or have they an agreement?

I do think BF et al has tried to be fair aswell, it's just the bigger picture and future... it is hard (well impossible!) to predict, but I think if their plan, or what they will in the future plan is to transfer our good work to them, is unfair.

Well he has promised to be fair! but as you say no-one really knows.

I was feeling down until I spoke to this Fleet Manager and she was so positive about E/F and how we could do better than Mixed Fleet, it really made me feel a lot more positive. If you want PM me and I will let you know her name and you could talk to her yourself.

P.S. We all need to actually look at the facts as stated by the company, which you can believe or not. A lot of what is said on this forums is polarized views from one camp or another, all with different reasons and agendas, some just wild speculation and some just to scare us and this is coming from both sides.
My advise to you is to reread the agreement sent to us by Bill Francis whether you signed it or not (without any of the union scare mongering attached) and realise that this will probably be what is accepted eventually by the union, as Simpson and Woodley thought it ok. The only stumbling block was staff travel and disciplinaries.

One of the major problems now facing 'old contract' crew is whether they will collect their pensions based on their current pay scale, or (as many see it) being forced onto a new (mixed fleet scale in the future) as the legacy numbers wind down (which they will in time given the turnover rate of crew).

Its a prospect that not many others in BA will have to contemplate but a great worry to those who embarked on a career as cabin crew as a long term job.

Why have the posts regarding the shutdown of 2 cabin crew forums been removed?????

Slidebustle - I agree that MF pay isn't stratospheric, but why then has BA had no problems with filling the vacancies with high quality (I had the pleasure of meeting some of them a couple of weeks ago) applicants?

Its not a nice world out there, and yes market forces are now taken into account by BA and its competition. The MF offer is entirely in line with what you could expect elsewhere given the skillset required. What it does do is emphasise what a good employer BA has been over the years, and how crazy BASSA were to reject any efforts at negotiation.

For what it's worth, looking at the equivalent scene for flight crew these days, and what the job entails, I'm not sure I'd rush into £100 000 of debt to sit where I do now either, but people still do so why should the companies change their stance there either? :(

Fair in a business world, I don’t think so.

What one manager promises to do today is not necessarily what the next appointed manager will stick to.

Historically within BA managers are moved around departments and the replacement is given a lower budget than his predecessor.

I also believe Bill will transferee futures routes in a fair way, I do however doubt he will be around for very long.

As for the new head of IFCE he has to make cuts and route transferee will make him the biggest savings.

Anyone with an ounce of business sense can see the savings that can be made by moving the routes that generate ETP, box payments, etc; can’t be ignored.

So please don’t think fairness comes in to the business plan, when we have no union representation as much work as is physically possible will be moved to the cheaper operator.

It’s nothing personal it’s just business accountancy.

Miss M
 

They have exercised their democratic right to go to work. Just as you exercised yours to take industrial action.

It begs the question of course, as to why so many voted in favour of IA, but then declined to take part. I would suggest BASSA were unwise to vigorously encourage a yes vote without highlighting the consequences for it's members if IA should be required. Anyone who believes taking action that would cost a company tens of £m's, wouldn't be met with an aggressive response needs to be briefed on the realities of industrial relations, which is the unions responsibility. 'Sending a message' to WW is one thing, but what if he (of course) calls your bluff? You have to be prepared for, and accept the consequences, and failing to fully and accurately brief BASSA members accordingly has left you where you are now. Had your strike action been fully supported by the members, no amount of volunteers would have kept BA flying.

IMHO BASSA have completely failed those it is there to represent. Had they briefed properly, they would have got a very different ballot result. They may have found themselves in a weaker position in terms of ballot results, but the ballot is the massed opinion of the people it represents, and BASSA should be listening. With the greatest of respect to BASSA members, they have been duped by the ultra hardline leadership, who have used at times ludicrous propaganda to get the result they wanted, not the result the membership would have wanted if they had been responsibly briefed by BASSA.

Let me give a simple analogy. Your doctor is there to look after your health, and ensure the best long term outcome for you, and in a similar way your union should look after your long term welbeing in the workplace. When faced with problems, you go to your doctor, expecting an accurate diagnosis, to be told all the facts and consequences, and given realistic options, for the best possible outcome, giving you the final say. That is what he/she is there for. You would not expect your doctor to recommend a course of treatment without telling you of the side effects, or giving you options, or hiding facts from you would you?

Let's imagine for one minute BASSA had acted responsibly, and the ballot had returned a no vote for IA. Likely as not, you would all be very much happier now, with no pay cut, share incentives, enjoying the fruits of your labours with your concessionary travel, no new fleet, oh - and working to the same crewing levels as you have been for the past year or so.

Hubert,

What you say seems to be reasonable.

Given your analysis, the current inactivity of BASSA seems incomprehensible. All the decisions regarding MF are being made without any input from the negotiating body for the crew - whether people like it or not BASSA still are the recognised union. They are playing a waiting game according to DH, but what are they waiting for? The court cases to be decided? That could take a while, appeals tend to follow court cases. Whatever they are waiting for MF continues and actions become Custom and Practice which gain weight in law.

BASSA need to end their current dispute and start to represent their members in the developments that are happening now. The current stance of no negotiation just seems to allow BA to do what they want, move routes as they see fit etc. The only crew with any form of protection at the moment seem to be the ones that were shrewd enough to accept the deal recently that was excluded from BASSA members.

You can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the dispute, the reality is that BASSA have been marginalised and are excluded from any influence while they continue to sulk and pout AND DO NOTHING. BA are doing exactly what they need to do at the moment without any CC representation.

Hubert Daventport,
I agree with what you say but this is why Bassa should have engaged in negotiating the monthly travel payment instead of striking over the imposed crewing levels, which a judge has ruled as reasonable in the light of the unions not attending any meetings.
We as crew have been very let down by the union and those that chose to strike have been let down the most.

If the monthly payment is accepted by all crew eventually, it will mean that it wont matter which routes transfer. The problem lies in the fact that, had negotiation taken place it could have been a more realistic figure and at the moment the figure is more like a safety net just in case you don't archive all your box payments or ETP. Also at the moment the union has not accepted it and only 1000 crew, myself among them, has this safety net.

Lets hope for all our sakes that some of the more decent and intelligent union reps can move forward and sign an agreement, probably similar to the one on the table but hopefully better and we can all get on with our lives.

Miss M
 

Sorry to have another pop at your posts, but really...

BASSA have shown they are incapable of real negotiation. They are however very good at propaganda. The question is why so many choose to ignore fact over fantasy?

This is a paragraph from the draft copy of Operation Columbus.

The strategy for growing the new fleet relies upon growth of the network, attrition in the old fleets and the appetite for existing crew to reduce their hours through voluntary part time, sabbaticals etc. Recruitment into and promotion within the old LHR fleets will be stopped, and routes transferred to the new fleet as crew numbers reduce in the old fleets. The scope includes designing packages to enable transferee or secondment into the new fleet. Given the difference in remuneration between the old fleets and the new fleet, an important part of the Columbus programme is to make the new fleet as attractive as possible in non-financial ways i.e. lifestyle flexibility, to encourage as many transfers as possible.

It is one of the most worrying parts of the proposal, to make the new fleet attractive I would imagine that the old fleet would have to haven degenerated into something rather awful.

Having looked at the document again I was shocked to see how much of it has become reality.

I do have serious concerns that the final part of the plan is the one that will damage our futures the most.

I have no doubt that our life at BA will be made very unpleasant in an attempt to drive us to New Fleet.:{

BG

The safety net you describe is in the £6,500 region if I remember correctly.

I doubt that we would have triggered the payment over a three-year period.

Having not triggered the payment I believe BA would remove it.

My worry was that if we had needed that safety net many of our routes would have already been transferred to MF.


Without the safety payment the routes that generate good allowances for us would now be fast tracked over to the MF.

We would now be left with all the trips that have no premium pay attached to them, with no safety net.

I also agree with the MTP but do feel it was offered with a lot of unacceptable conditions tied in.

It could have been a starting point for negotiation, but many people had the staff travel issue on top of this to think about.


I know it is a bit cynical and I hate to be so negative, however past experience with our management leaves me in a sceptical position.

Proud to be in BASSA. Other airlines know how this company have behaved. You can go on and on about MF etc etc but those crew who have held firm will remain so.

Hubert,
The agreement is NOT for three years only!
It is the pay deal element that is only for three years.

This is what upsets me so much, is that so many people have been misled by union officials, who seem to be on a totally different agenda, than the one of negotiating a good settlement for us.

Some crew have been attracted across to mixed fleet already to be CS M's and Future Talent but no one is being forced. Probably more VR may be offered in the future but even with all this BA have told the city, who they are not allowed to mislead, that they estimate it will take 10 years for Mixed Fleet to be 40%.

Please take out the letter, with the agreement in it, that we ALL got from BA and reread it slowly. Not the version with the union add ons in, which is totally misleading. You will see that this agreement is valid until it is renegotiated and it is the pay deal that is for three years.

If you have not got the agreement I could try and reprint it here for you. Let me know if you need me to.

P.S. I am glad that we can have a good debate without the usual poster that just seem to want to insult and denigrate crew. I have started to just ignore these poster and just respond to balanced and productive posts. I suggest everyone does this too whatever side of the debate you are on.

Many thanks BG.

I was not referring to a three-year deal. I was just going on my past experience with this company. I doubt very much that you will need the top up payment as the figure is very low. If your allowances were under this figure a lot of our routes would have quickly moved to MF.

What I am suggesting is that the initial growth of MF will be relatively slow so you will never need the top up, what BA tend to do in this situation is remove the payment stating that it was never needed.

That is when the majority of the routes will be transferred to MF.

We will eventually be left with routes with very poor allowances and have no protection.

This will be the final phase of Operation Columbus, making the old fleet people transfer over to NF because the old fleet is no longer financially beneficial.
This would most likely be done by offering a payment to buy our contracts and put us on the MF contract.

Focus on uniform
 

As a CSD on WW I'm pleased with the focus on uniform standards. Spend half an hour in crc and you will see some sights. Over the years I have approached crew on my flights who are not adhering to the laid down uniform standards and have been met with various responses ranging from tears to been accused of bullying and harrassment.

Dirty tabbards, scuffed shoes, poorly ironed shirts the list is endless and I see this on almost every flight.Arriving at a destination I'm often embarrassed especially (as in LA) when we queue up next to other airlines who look immaculate!

For lots of crew who like to bleet about 'being the face of the airline' maybe now they'll be forced to look at their poor standards of uniform dress!

BG
I'd second that desire, however I can't see BA management improving the deal on the table. If you look at the history of this dispute, the offers have got successively poorer. The last (and deemed by BA to be final) offer was more than reasonable. It gave cabin crew a heck of a lot more than other bargaining groups have had (look at the deal struck with ground crew which involves headcount reductions). From the sidelines it would seem that the reason that the Unite leadership would not actively recommend it was because whilst staff travel would be returned, seniority would not. Again, from the sideline I think that it was a real pity that so few cabin crew actually voted.

I also believe that the dispute is being perpetuated by a few people on the union side who have a personal axe to grind and who could not be reasonably described as impartial. Union reps need to be able to advise members of their rights. The role is all about being the voice of the members in dealings with management. It is not about foisting personal agendas on management and members. I'm sure that there are some good reps within BASSA, it's just a pity that the only ones we on the outside se, are the more strident variety.

Hubert,
You can't just let your imagination run wild and imagine all these dreadful scenarios and act as if they are definitely going to happen. You have to base things on fact. Fact is that Bill Francis has given his word that we can keep our terms and conditions and continue to negotiate all our agreements.

You say they removed the last 'pay back' deal after three years and yes they did but that was because it was only agreed for three years and in actual fact, hardly any crew ever got paid out from it because we nearly all earned more than we previously had, with the exceptions of a few E/F crew who had previously done a lot of split duties.

I agree this figure is low but it is now just a safety net, the previous offer was higher but that was a replacement which, although it was higher, would have not rewarded those that did the harder, longer,trips. I actually prefer the new offer but just wish we had, had an active union negotiating for us and maybe it would have been a bit better. What we got was an embittered DH dragging crew into a dispute and loosing a lot of crew their staff travel for nothing. It could have been so much better!

Colonel White,
Yes it is more of a desire than anything else. Had we had a useful union it may have been better but as you say not much hope now. Incidentally had we have had a productive union the Mixed Fleet crew could also be working to better agreements. They are going to be getting a worse deal than Gatwick now and that is thanks to Bassa.

Betty Girl is right......an offer is on the table, one which is extremely generous in my opinion given the circumstances, and Bassa should do the right thing and sign-up.

If their membership had read the latest offer properly, without Bassa looking over their shoulder whispering doom and gloom, and if they felt able to accept it in good faith, they could be looking forward to security in employment for the next few years. As things stand they do not have that security, thanks to Bassa. If, in three years, BA start to fiddle with the agreement, and in doing so betray that good faith, then that is the time to talk about industrial action, not before. Any more industrial action now will clearly be counter-productive and bring forward the demise of current agreements. Strike action has become futile in this current dispute. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Staff travel will obviously still be an issue, but once the dust settles in a year or so, and industrial relations within BA are much improved with a much more rosy outlook financially as we emerge from the recession, there might be scope for negotiations between a 'New Bassa', (patent pending...... remember 'New Labour'......didn't they do well for a few years/3 elections? All Bassa need to do is replace DH & co with a Blair/Brown/Mandelson type team :uhoh:) and BA to improve the situation as far as staff travel for strikers is concerned. Those who have lost staff travel will have to be patient on this one.....they will be in a much better position to get it back next year than now....it just isn't going to happen in the current dispute. BA have won this one.

This would provide the 'legacy' crew with an opportunity to prove to the rest of us just how good certain amongst them keep telling us they are, as they would in effect be in competition with the new Mixed Fleet.

The alternative is indeed 'doom and gloom' for anyone supporting Bassa

It's dragged on so long now that maybe my memory fails me, but are you sure there's an offer on the table? To accept the offer re guaranteed top-ups you had to be non-union on 1st July, and I thought the last overall offer made my BA was withdrawn when the last set of strikes took place?

That offer is the last offer and it was turned down by Bassa but I am sure as some crew have accepted it (about 1000) it's not unreasonable to think that it would still be there if Bassa made a bit of an effort.

You might be right....I've lost track/interest myself. I'm sure if Bassa knocked on Willie's door with their collective tails between their legs he would invite them all in to talk though, as I remain convinced that he doesn't really want to sack them all.........it just wouldn't look good for the corporate image. That's why he's been so patient up until now.

My understanding is that the offer that BA made back in July hasn't been rescinded. BASSA members may have voted to reject it, but I would think that just as previously,the offer would remain on the table until such time as BASSA can persuade Unite to ballot for further IA. At that point BA would retract theoffer. Not sure what happens as a result of Unite kicking off court action. I'd have thought that if the union accepts the offer, the court action would get dropped.

BG
It’s not my imagination, it is 25yrs experience working for BA.
We are working for a business and that is what drives their decisions.
It is not about how we feel it’s about getting the job done for as little as possible.
When we have no union and we are represented by a management run staff association, I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.
It won’t be about who went on strike or not, we will all be worse off.

Bassa would almost definitely want some kind of a face-saving gesture from Willie, and that depends on how generous he is feeling, but even without anything tangible I'm sure Bassa's proven record of twisting the truth would make any agreement/climbdown look like an outright victory for Union militancy. It really is up to them to go knocking on his door.

The way I see it this is their only realistic option if they want to survive this war (sorry for yet another reference to war) in any shape or form.

Come on 'New Bassa', arise from the ashes.

Betty Girl

Did you get this in writing? Of course you didn't which means what she said doesn't mean anything. Surely you can't that naive enough that you are actually believing what one of our managers said to you?

Tiramisu

According to a different source within the company all 767 will be converted to WW configuration (sooner than you think) and be transferred over to WW for a few years before returning back to EF again.

Miss M wrote

Sorry Miss M thats wrong. Flew with one of the flight crew managers on 757/767 fleet recently and they catorgorically denied that. There was a rumour that Boeing were going to pay for the EF 767's to be converted to WW as the 787's were delayed, but that is now NOT going to happen

MissM

Do you honestly believe that every word said to you from BA management is a complete lie?

Hi dolly bird, welcome to pPrune.You and me both! I have spent a few hours on standby today and was having a good look at the uniform standards. Truly appalling. So much so that I just suggested to my manager that if Eurofleet want to roster me to a stint in CRC as uniform police then I would be happy to oblige. Many other Eurofleet CSD's would be up for it as well. I have also popped to cc direct and got a supply of lanyards to hand out in briefing for anyone not in posession of one that conforms to the standards!:)
As for the new uniform control in Cranebank, the CSST trainers have always been happy to point out shortcomings but it has taken a while to convince SEP that they should join our campaign. Time for a new culture, lets give Virgin a run for their money!