You have your oppinions and you think you are right
I have my oppinions and I think I am right
You do your job
I do my job
But who is right

Make of it what you will
 

Ultimately the experience argument is pretty sterile because the role of a pilot is so different to that of a steward/ess.

In the highly technical piloting profession experience is critical and is reflected in the minimum experience levels required for command. These in turn are dictated by insurers who understand that pilots in charge of big bits of metal have to have extensive experience of their trade to operate as safely as possible. More experience is generally regarded as a good thing.

In the highly 'people focussed' cabin crew trade experience may or may not be an issue. Some people are excellent after only a few weeks on the job, and maintain that standard for the rest of their career; others are attracted by the lifestyle and never really become dedicated to their passengers. They will always do the minimum amount of work and, essentially, will never improve with experience. That's human nature.

BA has a large number of long serving cabin crew, and the above is as true of them as anyone. Some are excellent, a lot are mediocre, and some are truly terrible. Experience will have improved some, disillusioned others and had no effect on a few. It is no guide to how good they are at their job.

'Bullying'
 

So, from a survey of 1905 cabin crew, ie not even all the thousands of those who went on strike!!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Ah well you see, it's one of those "overwhelming majorities" that unite so often obtaines .... 17%! :ugh:

And I see that once again, unite wants to sit down and talk with BA. Why should BA bother, as the last time they did, unite changed their minds and reneged on what had been agreed.

Pointless.

Tomkins
It's "ied" actually - Improvised Explosive Device"

Are you seriously suggesting that serious decisions are not made at the front of the aircraft?!

Litebulbs
see above as an example of the difference between our roles.

And yes I will have been involved in more medical incidents than the average crew member.
Because there are 11-15 crew per a/c and only 1 captain. So I am 11-15 times more likely to experience each situation than an individual cc member.

We also train in the simulator to deal with emergencies.
I will, for example, have practised at least 10 NITS briefs annually. Whereas most crew do 1 per year .

The Survey

I think it is a very poor scientific methodology to extrapolate a conclusion from such a poor return to a survey. Particularly on such an emotional subject.

To claim that
and
is laughable.
Surely if you had been bullied or witnessed bullying you would feel strongly enough about it to spend 5 minutes filling in a survey. The real figures are probably much closer to the number of actual respondants. ie
a) been bullied- 49.9% of 1905 = 951 which is only 8.6% of those surveyed
b) witnessed bullying- 42.5% of 1905 = 810 which is only 7.3% of those surveyed

It is also worth noting some of the ways people felt they were bullied i.e. unfair criticism(the unwanted truth perhaps), excessive momitoring (or any monitoring), malicious lies (more unwanted truths), witholding information, blocking promotion (promote everyone, CEO for everybody), overruling decisions(maybe they were bad decisions), removing responsibilities (I thought BASSA didn't want responsibilities, hot towels anyone), unrealistic targets and refusing leave (wouldn't we all want time off when we want it, X-mas off everyone)

The survey apparently covered all BA sites but only 27 replies were returned from sites other than Heathrow ( 1.4% of the 1905 replies). Not very representative!

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Regards

I believe Red Len is at Kempton threatening to have BALPA expelled from the TUC is it's members 'continue to strike break'. Huh? Will he be expelling BASSA for having over 50% of their members strike break too?

Nothing like having a safe staedy hand on the tiller during this time of economic uncertainty is there!

Ironically Len McKlusky swept to victory with the same sort of numbers used to complete the BASSA survey. 14% of the total membership but 80% of those that voted. Sad that even the membership can't be bothered with the spin coming out from Unite.

As to booting BALPA out, personally, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it if he did!

As most VCCs were members of UNITE will Len McKlusky be arranging for the expulsion of his own union from the TUC as well? Or, is this just posturing for the faithful?

While you may not have agreed with what Tony Woodley said it normally had logic and was not just bluster to please a few diehards.

What's it got to do with balpa it is not there fight
Red ken need to try living in the real world
Any further action will have next to no impact on ba

Question?

When is someone going to put the ramblings from DH here. I have already read them on the BALPA forum, but am a bit surprised that they have not appeared here.

There is absolutely nothing new in his ramblings - same old same old!!

The water has got so mudded since this all began, but I still have not heard a sensible offering from a bassamentlist.

They are on the Pax BA thread. Thanks Top Bunk.

So if you are not getting any better at the job that must really mean that you are getting worse as it is pretty hard to remain constantly in a state of limbo.After how many years does someone start becomming worse.(3 years by chance)I wouldnt envy you being treated by a novice three monther,as they would probably spend half an hour running around the a/c trying to find the medical kit.
When you come out of training most of it dosnt make sense ,it is only with time that things begin to click into place.If you have a heart attack(for example) on board the first time you maye be at a loss and rely on those who have dealt with the same situation before,the second time you will be more confident as you have experience.....this goes for any situation,long service means more experience.As long as you are still happy and wanting to do the job long srevice should be regarded as a benefit.

To be really good at something, you probably need:

1. Natural ability

2. Practice (Experience)

but also,

3. Desire to be good.

If you don't have 3, no matter how much 1 and 2 you have, you'll probably pretty average.

As a CSD, I don't think I had a lot of 1., 15 years ago, when I got it. I did however, have a lot of 3., so after a few years of 2. (probably 5-10, if I'm honest) I think/hope I got good at my job. My annual appraisals would suggest I have.

My point is, that some people with a lot of natuaral ability will be a good CSM/CSD/PSR almost straight away, others will need longer, but the one thing that will always prevent exceptional performance is lack of motivation. The old phrase "you never stop learning", with the proviso that "so long as you want to".

Experience is great, because it presents you with a wider range of situations to deal with and to store in the memory banks, so long as you are willing to learn from your mistakes and are not just repeating them time and again.

Experience
 

I think BA need a mix of youth and experience. On WW currently, we dont have enough youthful exuberance, and no doubt Mixed Fleet would benefit from some experience. Experienced leaders and keen workers.

Why does it always come back to comparing pilots with Cabin crew? Completely different jobs with completeley different requirements and remuneration packages.

If you don't mind me asking but why are you all arguing over semantics. It is a complete waste of time and really boring to read.

On a more relevant note, I have just been in work and a young lad who was near the top of the transfer list has had it confirmed, in an email from Manpower and Planning, that people below him on the list, who had signed the agreement, will be being transferred before him.

Even I, who was against the strike because I felt it was the wrong strike about the wrong issue, feel that this is unfair and cannot understand why signing the agreement would make a difference.

I feel this is discrimination and I don't know but I would have thought the ops and choice agreement would form part of an agreement between Bassa, the bargaining union and the company, so cannot understand how it can be ignored without their agreement.

I am not at all happy with what Bassa has done to BA but I do not think what BA is doing right now is right or fair.

I am not sure that it is discrimination, though it could be seen as provocative.

BASSA have elected to be in dispute with the company for such a prolonged period of time, it should come as no great surprise that BA is getting on with the business of looking after those that it can. As there is collective bargaining in place it cannot deal with the BASSA members and those that have not signed the new deal until the dispute is settled. This may appear to be harsh but it is hardly surprising.

Some might say that BA is flawed in many different ways but a major factor in how cabin crew feel about BA as an employer stems from their misunderstanding of their own role , and rights, within the workplace.

When so many sccm's fundamentally misunderstand their responsibilities, and some other crew have no idea how the chain of command works - or are unwilling to accept that management are allowed their own terms of reference - it's no surprise that Bassa / Unite can get away with their propoganda.

The point is ........ Until crew understand the issues and engage on an intellectual level, without resorting to spin and bluster, they will continue to rush headlong towards the cliff like lemmings.

Its pure speculation but I wonder if the reason BA are transferring crew out of sequence is that they wish ensure those who backed BA are where they want to be before a new contract is imposed which slams the door on transfers?

Hand solo,
Maybe but maybe it is just that they feel they can. It has certainly upset those that have been passed over!

Boondocker,
You don't need to apologise to me.

I just can't understand why a little remark by a poster (who incidentally is not air crew or work for BA but does work for another airline) saying he would prefer a cabin crew member to look after him in an avmed situation can lead some posters to reduce this thread to a hypothetical argument about the chain of command and who is more important in a medical emergency situation.

We are ALL important because we ALL have a specific and laid down role to play in these complex situations.

Before accepting the offer of jumping to the front of the queue of any part-time list and bypassing the Opps and Choice Agreement I would be asking myself one question.

Am I, although it might suit me now and by accepting such an offer, agreeing that I find it acceptable that the same or similar methods of coercion could be used in the future once I have individually varied my contract?

Boondocker,

I can see what you are saying but the INDIVIDUAL OFFER does not individually vary our contract. It actually confirms that ALL our terms and conditions remain the same but with an added top up and confirms that they can only be altered through future negotiation plus it confirms a two year pay deal.

However although the offer to the union is similar it has some horrid obstacles in it with regard to future legal action.

So although I have signed the offer because I am no longer in the union and did disagree with the strike call, when reading the version the union has to agree to, I can understand why they would not want to sign it.

You can read both versions by clicking the link on the front page of the Cabin crew ESS.

PC767
Thank you PC767, those of us not in BASSA have no access to this kind of thing usually. I, like Betty, am shocked if it's true (assuming that BASSA is telling the truth is not something I do very often these days) because it does seem to be unnecessarily provocative at a time when creeping on eggshells seems more appropriate. What would be the rational behind it I wonder as someone could only accept the offer if they had already left the Union by 14/12/10 so there is not even an incentive to leave Unite. I will be asking for more information tomorrow at work.

PS I also agree with Betty about all this petty point scoring over Av med situations; we deal with whatever we encounter then we tell the Captain what we did, there's even a crew member assigned that role in the medical drill! Very simple! No need for a "who's got the biggest appendage" competition.

Lots of posts have been deleted, probably because the moderators are as fed up as I am with this silly argument by supposedly intelligent people!!

Perhaps BA have reached a point in their manpower plan whereby they NEED to reduce 'heads' on the current fleets?

As more routes move to Mixed Fleet in Jan, Feb and March there will be a need to reduce the current manpower levels on EF and WW. (wasn't it the plan to have offered part-time to everyone who wanted it by March 2011?)

As some one already mentioned, I'm not sure that BA are able to offer part-time to those still in the Union whilst it is still in dispute with the company...collective bargaining rights etc?

It certainly will rattle a few cages though!

Just a thought....

I see what you are saying Hula but just don't understand why it would make any difference that they are in dispute because the transfers take place under an already agreed ops and choice agreement which does not affect overall numbers on WW and E/F. Plus transfers have recently taken place only a couple of months ago.

I understand that they want to reduce numbers but I think the only reason they have not been doing that, up until now, was that they WERE using it as a way to persuade the strikers that they will be given part time if they agree to the offer. So I think this is a deliberate ploy to try and put pressure on Unite.

I do think however it could be seen as discriminatory against union members because they are being treated differently to non-union members who have signed the agreement.

I also flew with a non-striker who has remained in the union and he was waiting for part time. So he has been left out too because he IS in a union and that does not seem fair.

If I was on a list I would be one of the lucky ones but it does not stop me thinking it is not right and just going to polarise peoples views about how unfair they perceive BA is.

Unfair it maybe, but to me it's perfectly understandable that BA now chooses to favour, in a small way, those who have demonstrated their understanding and loyalty. Do keep in mind that BA just seems to be re-jigging the order in which offers are made. They have not indicated that union members will not get offers at all.

It is not only about not having gone on strike. Those that didn't, but who remain in the union seem to do so with the reasoning that they'll vote "no" again. But is that enough? Should they be doing more? Just passively sitting there, supporting the union via monthly subs and thereby allowing them to continue their madness is, I'm sorry to say, a rather weak and pathetic position at this late stage.

We all know the answer to this, but why are these people seemingly not pushing their union to take another stance, change their tactics and actually, God forbid, LISTEN to their members? Those that still can't/won't see that this union just simply has no interest in those that don't want to strike, are seriously letting themselves down now, and are playing a very large part in allowing this dispute to trundle along unchecked.

It comes down now to having to make a serious and final choice. People either support the union, or they support their employer. Not an ideal situation I know, and not one I'd want to be generally acceptable in the real world. But in this particular case, which has become more surreal than any other industrial dispute I can think of, it really is time for people to plant their flag firmly in one camp, or the other, and to deal with the consequences either way.

To anyone still in the union - PLEASE use your vote - and PLEASE, if you vote "yes" then follow-through on it. Do not muddly the waters by saying one thing, but doing another. If you vote "no" or do not intend to vote, you have to ask yourselves very very seriously, why you remain a member.

Ops & choice....
 

If you're peed off with Mr Francis selecting people out of order wait and see what they have planned if strike dates are announced!!

Goodbye BASSA influence and all the "nice to have" titbits in BA that some cabin crew take for granted. Non strikers will be protected of course. BA are not going to give an inch I have been reliably informed.

Finally on BALPA being expelled from the TUC and the recent formal complaint from BALPA about a poster on the BASSA forum. A curt reply was posted on BASSA by Mr Holley and has received over 3000 views and hundreds of replies from militants. Some very choice words demonstrate disgracefully the gulf in relations between the two parties.

Well I was in a hotel bar near LHR last night and several BALPA reps were laughing hysterically about it all. Sounds like it was a wind up and Gorgeous Holley and his band of misfits have fallen for it.

Oh and it's not illegal to "spy" on a "private" forum. Read case law before you start spouting off about "illegal" activity like "cyberstalking".

Around 20 deletions - if you would like to know - and you are so right.

At the start of all of this, BA asked the crew for part-time volunteers and voluntary redundancy. Once they had the numbers they tried negotiating a plan. BASSA refused to negotiate sensibly, so BA had to impose. BASSA kicked up a fuss so BA had to start MF to cover the costs. All of this was threatened before hand, just as the removal of staff travel was. BASSA are still in dispute, so BA cannot go ahead with their plan of part-time for all who want it. BA would be in a right fix if BASSA were to win but all part-time requests had already been granted. However, BA can go ahead and grant the requests of those no longer in dispute. I think this decision makes logical straight-forward business sense.

The fact that it upsets the BASSA supporters who are being bypassed is probably pleasing to lots of people in BA. If you asked your child if it wanted some sweets, then you went in to the shop to buy it some and it punched you in the belly as you walked out the shop, would you still give it the sweets? Neither would I.

I have to agree with Betty Girl, by-passing strikers on the p/t list in favour of non-strikers is discriminatory and antagonistic to say the least. Why are BA so intent on rattling the cages of an already angry and bitter section of the workforce? If the company wanted peace then this is certainly not the way to go about it.

However, if I was in BASSA and considering striking the one big question I would be asking myself is why are BA provoking us and steering us into taking further IA?

[QUOTE]Goodbye BASSA influence and all the "nice to have" titbits in BA that some cabin crew take for granted. Non strikers will be protected of course. BA are not going to give an inch I have been reliably informed./QUOTE]

Interesting. Do you have substantive factual evidence to prove this? Or is it simply galley / flight deck FM? (eg the 90 days notice of change of contract has been doing the rounds for almost 2 years now!!)

There is a huge amount of mistrust of BA.

Cabin crew in general, strikers and non-strikes are frightened that BA will renege, in the future, on what they are promising e.g. that we can keep our current terms and conditions unless negotiated otherwise.

This skipping of people on the transfer and part-time lists, that have not signed the current agreement, is very unfair and is a worry to all crew.
You cannot sign the new agreement if you are in the union whether you were a striker or not.

The Ops and Choice agreements are being trampled over as BA already transferred people on these lists just before Christmas, so what has changed?! All this is doing is actually showing Bassa to be correct, in that BA cannot be trusted with keeping any agreement.

What BA should be doing is trying to persuade crew that Bassa is wrong and that they truly mean what they say. This is a very bad move by BA and it is just making people like me worry that BA cannot be trusted and it is just plain stupid of them.

Bassa have handled this whole dispute very badly but BA have too and the majority of crew are moderate and just feel stuck in the middle, not knowing who to trust anymore and this is certainly not going to bring trust, is it ?

Betty Girl, you said "You cannot sign the new agreement if you are in the union whether you were a striker or not"................um, who would know?

I am sure you could say that you sent a letter to BASSA resigning two or three months ago..........does anyone think that BASSA are very good at keeping records?

Just a thought!

Well of course you could do that, I completely agree and I would not blame anyone, but BA are strictly not allowed to offer inducements for people to leave the union, so I would hope that was not their reason for doing so.

I am no longer a member because I felt I had to leave because I did not go along with the mandate to strike but are you suggesting that people only get to move from area to area within IFC if they leave the union.

Would that be acceptable if BA said that only non union people could have part time in other departments!! I don't think if BA were in dispute with say pilots and only non union pilots could move from E/F to WW or visa versa or Customer Service staff could only have part time if they were not in the union. Is that right!

Do you think it is acceptable to single out one set of workers and treat them differently. I don't and I am one of the ones that could have benefited!

Betty Girl, I think it is a consequence of the collective bargaining agreement that those outside BASSA have been given the opportunity to go part time.

Those who are still in the union have delegated their bargaining rights, in toto, to BASSA and so long as BASSA have an agreed mechanism for transfers, and so long as they are in dispute with their employer, then BA do not have an obligation to go through the mechanism for BASSA members.

It s the same for the Disruption Agreement - BA might do the decent thing and inform BASSA that they are implementing it (assuming there are any channels of communication still open), but do not seek the agreement of the union before doing so.

I'm quite sure that people could sign this deal if they wanted as you have suggested Andyismyname. However, it still surprises me that crew feel disadvantaged by not having left the union in time to take up the current offer. After the first opportunity back in the summer people have had more than enough time to make that decision should this situation arise again. If crew have crossed the picket line I really don't see what benefit they feel they have from staying with BASSA when they weren't prepared to support them, do they really think that BASSA will help them if a situation requires it? Even DH has stated that these people will have to deal directly with Unite reps.

I left the union before the first strike because I felt they no longer represented my views and I did not support the action to strike. However, despite my personal views I do not agree with BA discriminating a particular section of it's workforce. The Staff Travel issue alone is IMO on dodgy ground, but deliberately by-passing strikers for p/t and transfers is blatant victimisation. And if this behaviour is acceptable where does it stop?