I do despair!
 

Reading the rants on here are more than testiment in concluding that this 'union' really need to be consigned to history, or, at the very least, a new, moderate leadership that works WITH the Company rather than against it.

How on earth can we be competitive with a mindset from the seventies?

That is the point though isn't it. BA put together a first class contingency plan that took the legs off any strike action. It was helped hugely by the number of cabin crew who, having voted to strike 'to send a message', then decide that the basic practicalities like money, or the lack of it, neant that going in strike seemed a duff idea.

What happened was that the strike was a dismal failure. It didn't stop the airline. Maybe it is time that the membership sat down and thought about what they hoped to achieve by walking out. It would appear that their union leaders have established that the original cause has been lost, so what benefit now from continuing ?

I do worry about the mindset though of people who think that it would be terrible if an incident occurred on a plane with VCC on board. The situation is no different to having newly qualified crew on board. In fact in some cases, VCC are better qualified. I know of a number who are ex-cabin crew who are now working in other parts of the airline and have volunteered. There seems to be a widespread assumption that flights were soley staffed with volunteers. Not true. My understanding is that during the strikes, when VCC were used, they were always accompanied by full time cabin crew. In fact, the numbers of cabin crew who reported for work meant that an awful lot of VCC were stood down.

The other aspect is that assuming that if an incident occurred on a flight with VCC operating on it, that the result would be the end of the airline, that suggests a number of things.
1) That by going on strike, cabin crew are risking the airline going out of business and hence flushing their jobs down the toilet.
2) They are knowingly taking this risk. So in fact it would seem that they actively want the company to go bust and for them to have no job. Truly, turkeys voting for Xmas.

Hence my concern about the strikers' thinking. It seems to be totally suicidal. :ugh:

It will be interesting to see if BA ask for doctor's notes for any claimed sickness over the Xmas period. I suspect that malingerers who thought they could 'get one back at the company' may be in for a rude shock.

No, it hasn't. That's merely an opinion you hold. No "fact" has been delivered to prove the case in either direction. To be honest, that's why I certainly get the hump with BASSA. Everything, apparently, is a fact, yet not once is any solid evidence presented to back that up. You and I will never know how close the company may have come to bankruptcy. And nor will BASSA.

MrB

I think it is really important that you all realise that some of these posters are just trying to stir you all up.

During the recent snow disruption 40 long haul aircraft diverted as LHR had closed on Saturday 18th and the following day the airport remained closed to arriving aircraft. Flights did not return to LHR until Monday 20th. All the diverting aircraft had two local nights but this was due to the airport not accepting arriving flights until Monday and nothing to do with the disruption agreement.

I was stuck down route during this disruption and two long haul crew were staying in our hotel and they were all keen to get back to LHR as fast as possible. Most cabin crew hate the disruption agreement as it causes their future roster to be disrupted and the vast majority of crew DO care a lot about our customers. In fact many of the diverted pax were resident in the hotel with all the crew and they were very complimentary with the way BA was handling the situation.

Please take with a pinch of salt the posts by some of these BASSA supporters as they are designed to enrage you all and they are not a reflection of what the majority of crew feel or think.

The Majority of crew HATE the disruption agreement - 2 local nights is an outdated ridiculous requirement - I remember diverting into LHR ( we were LGW based) after coming back from GRU, - LGW had closed due to security alert - we landed at LHR and were placed into a hotel at LHR ... for two nights - how ridiculous...
Most crew just want to get to their destination during disrpution and have sufficient rest in which to do so ... 15 hours is plenty of rest time during a diversion..

I am sickened that some of my colleagues think its appropriate for customers to suffer, just so they can have their two local nights ...Madness.:mad:

Birtiebirdy,
That's the whole point, the vast majority of crew do not want the disruption agreement and the couple on here posting that they did want it are just winding you all up for fun.

No one delayed any flight because of the disruption agreement during this recent snow. All the delays were because the BAA closed the airport to arriving flights and nothing to do with the disruption agreement.

Betty girl
 

Betty Girl, I couldn't agree more. I don't bother feeding the trolls myself (ugly buggers, trolls)

Betty Girl,

In the main I think you're right. However, I've read elsewhere of one crew member who is boasting of having insisted on his/her 2 nights whilst the rest of the crew went home.

MrB

Crewfriend,

Having worked a day off as a volunteer in the terminals last week, I had the chance to experience first hand the heartbreak, stress and desperation of many of our customers. I was trying to rebook pax using the emergency staff rebooking line and having to tell people who had already been stranded for two days, that there was nothing for another 3 days and they were going to miss their Christmas.

I became even more convinced, than I already was, that in times of mass disruption, we as crew should revert to Sceme rules only re max hours/min rest. (Yes I am cabin crew and an SCCM of nearly 30 years seniority). SF LGW do this, as do Fight crew. I tried to imagine what one of those customers would feel, if they knew that there was no aircraft or crew available to operate their flight, because the cabin crew had insisted in having 2 local nights at an outstation. They would be disbelieving that cabin crew would need MORE rest than the pilots. They'd be furious, with good reason.

Two years ago, at the start of all this, I suggested to the union that a negligable-cost-to-us way of helping to meet our cost savings target would be to keep industrial rules for planning, but revert to Scheme rules off-schedule. It doesn't cause major trauma to crew at LGW and even has some benefits in roster stability. Needless to say my suggestion wasn't treated seriously.

We are in the mess we are in now, because BASSA hasn't changed with the times. They STILL think the best way to protect agreements is to say no to everything. You may feel that's served you well over the years, but the trouble is that is just stores up trouble for the time when economic neccesity means the Company can no longer shy away from a face off. You may feel that the Company is out of order "imposing" things, but there comes a time, when it is no longer able to sit around waiting for BASSA to negociate properly, or agree to work WITH them in times of severe disruption, but just has to get on with it to save the airline.

You may think that this is nothing to do with saving the airline and all to do with union busting, but I'm afraid that exposes your total ignorance of BA, the airline industry as a whole and basic economics. The same ignorance shown by BASSA in presenting an offer to the Company claiming £172m savings, that actually turned out to be worth £52m. That was either gross incompetence or disgraceful deceit, there is no middle ground on that one. And I remind you, that when that offer was rejected, BASSA on a show of hands at a meeting voted to no longer negociate with BA (unless it was based on this discredited offer). So please don't keep going on about imposition. BA even extended the negociation deadline from June to October to try to accomodate BASSA and Amicus negociating through ACAS.

At some point they had to act. In the same way they had to act (fast) when our customers Christmases were threatened with destruction during the recent bad weather. Did they ask the unions for the DA to be implemented? I don't know. Were they able to contact BASSA? Did they answer the phone? Did they say no? Did they try to play politics? I don't know, but actually now, I don't care, I'm just glad they did what they had to do to minimise the appalling impact it was having.

You were proud to insist on your 2 local nights were you? I won't say, if you'd experienced the distress of our customers in the terminals, you wouldn't feel that way, because I suspect that's probably not so, but you need to be forced to see that this disconnect you seem to have, between happy customers and a thriving business which PROTECTS your future, can't go on.

The way you think things should be, what you think is right (or your rights) is fine, in a bubble where we are the only airline and there are no competitors, but in the real world it's pure idealistic dreaming.

Excellent post Beagle 9.

I think you express exactly how the vast majority of us feel, whichever side of the door or whichever department we work in.:D

Beagle9 - what an excellent post and you are to be applauded for putting customers first :D

I think you have hit the nail on the head - all this selfish behaviour on the part of the few militants is indicative of the "me,me,me" mindset that Bassa has encouraged.

I believe that if more crew were as kind-hearted as you and did see the distress caused to customers first hand instead of choosing to be in the Bedfont-Bubble, then maybe they could extricate themselves from the grip of the monster that Bassa has become.

Isn't it strange that crew were recruited for their genuine warmth and attention to the customer? What happened?

bassa - thats what.:mad:

Beagle9 excellent post.

Unfortunately if you spoil people for a long period of time some of them will behave in a very spoilt mannner.

By their actions the militant ones are hastening the onset of what they fear most, namely replacement by cheaper more motivated staff. Inevitably the excellent non-militant cabin crew, of whom there are many, get tarred with the same brush.

If the militant ones could bring the company to a halt and make it cave in on a regular basis like they used to it might be worth a try. As they have proved several times this year they can no longer do that what is the point in trying further industrial action?

Draglift, I presume your last question was rhetorical? I feel it's time that the vast majority of decent CC stand up and get counted. The militant element of BASSA have caused so much damage, distress, anger and so many problems. This sorry mess must be ended - once and for all.

The sad truth of the matter is that the membership of BASSA have it in their power to stop this lunacy once and for all. As with the last vote a majority of a minority, which, when taken in context, was a very small proportion of total membership voted for further industrial action.

This dispute, if BASSA are to be believed, only ever hedged on imposition. Yet here we are a year and a half down the line. Two ineffectual strikes later, Reps suspended for bullying and harrasment or just not bothering to turn up for rostered trips and still BASSA maintain that they are the victims. The company has demanded nothing from them apart for accepting that the new crewing levels will say. By their own actions BASSA have relinquished any hope of influence over New Fleet as they just aren't prepared to negotiate.

Considering that Len McKlusky managed to achieve the highest office within the Unite group with an outstanding majority of 14% of total membership it just shows how dysfunctional the Unite organisation is. Add into the mix the abject inability of BASSA to organise anything or negotiate anything and I pity the company negotiators who have to deal with the mess.

Come on all of the normal, hard working, pro active CC members. Please don't sit on your vote, don't take the easy 'no return' option. Either vote Yes or No and lets have a full, true, representation of feeling and then we will all have a common ground to begin meaningful discussion.

Always remember that, in the current ludicrous system, a non returned vote is a vote in favour of IA and is what the militants want.

Over to the discussion on CF and the BASSA forum. Good luck.

Just one point -

Is that the truth. or were some reps suspended as part of due process, when investigating an allegation of bullying and harassment?

Symantics I suppose but, yes, 'alleged' bullying and harassment. It is the truth, they have been suspended over allegations (as yet unproven in some cases, proven in cases where the individual has been dismissed) of bullying and harrasment and behaviour bringing the company into disrepute.

I wouldn't call it symantics at all. A suspension pending investigation is very different from suspension as a punishment.

Fair enough, though I am fairly familiar with the process which does, quite clearly, state that any person under investigation will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. This has led to some people claiming suspension as a punishment when it is used whilst awaiting investigation although the rules quite clearly state the reasoning behind it.

I agree and it appears that the branch in question have used that tactic, which I think is wrong.

Why did not BA bother to approach BASSA to have the DA activated?

Even if BASSA would have said NO, it would have been a different matter as BA would have shown a bit of dignity instead of putting another imposition on us. I don't doubt for a second that BASSA would have allowed it to be activated. It's about gentlemen's agreement, something which our LT doesn't seem to be honouring.

I agree with Betty Girl that many crew, myself included, hate the idea of having 2 local nights after a diversion. BASSA have agreed to a reduction to 15 hours. However, as long as BA does not does seem to be willing to reach an agreement with us, I and many others will be sticking to current scheduling agreements.

My next trip is an LR and if we divert I will be requesting 2 local nights as per our agreement.

Crew, please. Remember that our DA is contractual and they cannot suspend nor sack you for requesting it.

Stick to your current agreements.

Such an insult.

I think that you will find MANY crew who are devoted and passionate about their jobs. I love my job more than anything and make sure that every single passenger who gets off the aircraft is pleased.

MissM
 

Be careful with this one. BA can and it appears already have sacked employees for whatever they want, if you believe all that is posted on pprune.

I have been doing some reading on disruption due to bad weather and there has been opinion that "a proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim" which may be recovering from disruption, could be seen as a SOSR defense for an unfair dismissal claim.

This is a rather truncated explanation and is my personal view, so feel free to rip it to shreds!

BA seem to be good at suspending and sacking crew for many reasons.

The DA, as we have been told, appears to be contractual and adheres to our agreements.

As much as I hate being stuck downroute after a diversion, and the inconvenice caused to our customers (believe it or not but myself and many crew care) for a long time, I'm actually pleased to see that BASSA have agreed to a reduction of it. 2 local nights downroute was only made as a solution from our LR agreement.

We are not all selfish.

MissM
 

Gosh MissM, a glimmer of reason and good cheer.
Happy New Year!

Miss M.

Time after time you berate BA to the point of hatred. A question. WHY do you not leave BA? Your animosity know no bounds or are YOU selfish after all.

MissM
 

Only the foolish would think that all BA cabin crew are selfish.

Surrey Towers

Because some of us have created ourselves a career with BA and brought the company to where it is today. We are not going to let a selfish CEO destroy what we have achieved for his selfish reasons.

We are a strong community.

MissM, it has been stated numerous times before but as usual you appear to ignore the facts that don't fit in with your view point. BA did seek permission to activate the DA, this permission was NOT granted by the Chairperson of Bassa. This can be substantiated by a news item posted on the Bassa forum on Dec 18th by the bassa chairperson.

•*BASSA•*Login

Instead Bassa's chairperson insisted that BF contact her personally for an explanation of Bassa's perceived breaches of the DA during the last snow fall. Permission was given last time only on the condition that no Volunteer Cabin Crew or Mixed Fleet crew were to operate whilst legacy crew sat at home, this Bassa believes BA breached.

This is probably aimed at MissM... I'm an engineer for BA and over the last 10 or 20 years we've changed the way we work. We've made significant changes which have meant greater productivity and cut out unnecessary work. Litebulbs will probably back me up on that! As a consequence BA are not starting a new line of engineers to undercut or replace us. Can you tell me any changes BASSA have made to improve your efficiency?

Miss M
 

The 48hr rule after a diversion has been an outdated process for years, which from simply a crew point of view has gone against us, as many of us have families to get back to for example. You could divert to LGW, yet Bassa would insist that the crew stay in a hotel 30 miles from LHR for 2 days!!! Bonkers.
Lets not even talk about the problems it brings to BA from an operation point of view, or the promlems it leaves our customers. Bassa have known this for years. BUT, would they ever think to be proactive and go to BA and change it. NO WAY. The simple fact is, this would still be the same in 2020 and longer if Bassa were allowed to keep it. What hacks me off so much about Bassa, is that they don't even try to change something that would actually BENEFIT their members. No, just keep the status quo. :ugh::ugh:

Miss M Wrote Um... no. Some cabin crew have been employed by BA for a substantial number of years. They have, along with the other 30,000+ employees of the company, contributed at times to its profitability. Cabin crew have also been responsible for more lost days due to sickness, created more uncertainty for BA's customers with threats of strike action, actually walked out for more strike days than any other part of the airline and as such have probably done more damage to the company's overall profitability than any other part of the workforce. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't doubt that cabin crew are a strong community, however, it would appear that not all of that community believe that strike action is the best way to resolve this dispute, as evidenced by the numbers who reported for work earlier this year. What was the soubriquet applied ?? Oh yes, Sausage Chips And Beans. Such a wonderful feel of community spirit. I might disagree with my colleagues at times, but I will defend their right to hold an opposing view to my own. What I cannot condone is the abuse that the strikers have hurled at colleagues who simply believed that striking was wrong. The acrimonious comments heaped on colleagues from across the airline who volunteered to take on cabin crew roles in order to keep the company flying have been totally unwarranted. We are just people who hold a very different viewpoint on what the effect of strike action could be on BA. We wish to preserve the jobs of the other 75% of workers who make up this company.

Judging from the turnout, it would seem that over half of cabin crew also hold a similar view. They may have voted to 'send a message', but clearly did not want to walk out. Is that the action of a strong community ?

What selfish reasons did the CEO have ? I thought that CEO's were put in place to manage the company on behalf of the shareholders. The object of the exercise being to provide shareholders with a good return on investment and ensuring the long term profitability of the organisation. CEO's tend to have their rewards package tied very closely to the profitability of the company, so it is target driven and a chunk of it is in share options etc. The targets are set by the board.

I would suggest that the outgoing CEO has done a good job at ensuring that a lot of the fat has been trimmed from BA. He has halved the number of senior managers, reduced the rest of the management population by a third, driven through changes in working practices on ground staff that has seen significant cost savings. He has also steered the company through one of the most turbulent periods in air transport, with the twin challenges of a downturn in premium demand as a result of the global economy, plus the rise of the low cost operators. He also managed to get the company to achieve a 10% profit margin, something that had eluded previous CEOs. I don't think that is destroying the company. Sure, it has been painful, but as the saying goes, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

BA is in a better position now than it would have been if he had not pushed through these changes. It would be in an even better position if cabin crew would recognise the need for change in their own area and stop what a lot of other staff see to be a pointless dispute. .

BA Strategy
 

It's interesting that BA appear to be encouraging crew to leave BASSA without actually breaking the law - plenty of rumours about the new individual offer before it was made public, and no actual proof required of non-membership.

So far everything that BA has done has been carefully considered. If they really want the moderates who would have been likely to vote no to a strike to not take part in the ballot, it implies that they are trying to engineer are yes vote by a smaller Union.

Why?

That will be 6th, globally. It's nice to see the cabin crew acknowledge that they , single-handedly, pulled us down the table to 6th.:sad:

Seriously though, whilst there are a great number of cabin crew who recognise the business we are in, who care passionately about the customer and recognise the value of repeat business, they are greatly overshadowed by a militant minority, whose only desire is to provide the minimum and bleat about the injustice of it all in their rush to the bunks (90 mins on a JFK, anyone?). Whilst grasping every penny from BA that they can, including invoking the 48 hour rest claim in the event of a diversion. Is this . the behaviours of a group who This is a job, as recently identified by miss M, not a career. One that she and a number of her selfish colleagues appear to be prepared to put at risk.:ugh:

Gonna have to jump to Miss M's defense a little here and say that, following the strikes, some of the BEST crew I worked with were also some of the most militant.

The majority of us, regardless of what side of the fence we're on, do love the job and love looking after the customer. Those customers will suffer if there's a strike - such is the nature of the beast - but when not striking even those who have been following Bassa's misguided advice from day one are keen to leave these issues off the aircraft.

Sorry, there is something not quite right here. If cabi
n crew really love to serve customers, how does that square with causing disruption and/or acting in a manner calculated to dissuade customers from flying BA? If they really put customers first, they would not behave in this way.

Perhaps they could try negotiating with the co. in a new way.:confused:
i.e. something other than NO!:E

... which is part of the problem.

"Cabin crew" is not a career position. It is a job. Yes, it can lead to career opportunities within the company but it is not a career in itself.

Dave Block,
Any job can be a career for someone.

You are very brave coming on a thread specifically set up for cabin crew to air their thoughts on an international forum and say that none of us have a career.

A lot of us don't agree with how Unite and Bassa have dealt with BA but this general attitude that being cabin crew is unskilled and should be low paid and not anything that someone might want to do long term and therefore not be a career is something that I don't think many of us would agree with.