But that's exactly how you're actions are perceived.

So, if you want to destroy our livelihoods, then we have to fight back.

You are clearly unable to provide an intelligent and reasoned analysis of why you voted YES.

Can you blame BA and its supporters for wanting to be rid of troublemakers like you?

Ummmmm, not if that mistake has been taken airborne there isn't! Couple that possibility with the tight turnaround times and the wish of the company, passengers and crew to get the aircraft away I would humbly suggest that the engineers role is, at times, very pressured, safety and time critical to all of us who fly.

Irrespective of all of the 'my jobs more critical than your job' playground speak I think this could be a very telling time for those who choose to support IA. Len McKlusky wanted a yes vote, it is his first big show in his new (secure) job and he wants the ability to spout his rhetoric to the press.

This is now no longer about imposition, Mixed Fleet, pay or conditions. This is now, according to the press from various sources, about the CC community wanting their toys back after their tantrum.

As always I feel deeply sorry for all of the crew who have been led down the garden path by these self centred individuals on the BASSA board. Let them take the first step across the fence at Bedfont on day 1 and see what happens.

As alway, good luck!

Eddy, sure you dont mean to but your posts seem to be indicative of the mind-set of some crew who think they are so special you've almost elevated us to cartoon super-heroes! I'm sure you don't mean them to come across like that, but were I any other employee reading them, I'd be pretty miffed, to tell the truth. Rather shows a lack of awareness for what all other departments actually do.

Yes, what we do is special and our medical training is good but my point is, we're all dependent upon one another within the company - everyone is expert in their own field and is deserving of the utmost respect.
Let's leave the egos behind, stop the tit-for-tatting and concentrate on what lies ahead, eh? :)

Just a word of warning to all those who have voted yes. During my working life I have listened to the union twice and lost my job twice (along with several thousand others) and your new leader Len was in charge both times. He is now at the top of his career and I am still living in a 3 bed semi, a few of my colleagues actually committed suicide as their lives fell apart thru losing their jobs! Just please beware of listening to someone who has nothing to lose by their actions it could cost you very dearly. Good luck all, an EX docker.

Eddy... there are many realtime events in Engineering during which there are many opportunities to **** up royally! Starting/operating engines, taxi-ing a/c, operating powered flying controls, working at height, replacing slide rafts, replacement of high voltage equipment etc....:E

Work to rule or 'guerilla action'? If they call a strike, could they make their members turn up, but then let them "change their minds" after they have checked in for work? It would initially cause havoc, but then again, as such tactics will be revealed to "No" voters, they would find their way through friends and colleagues to BA management. No big surprise then.

I don't think it would be legal to deploy "Chaos" Alaskan style strikes in the UK. Also, handing out flyers to pax about "evil management and hard working conditions" would not create a big stir nowadays. Budget airlines and global recession have changed the perspective of the average pax.

What most of you on this forum fail to comprehend is that the 78.5% of us who are supporting our union, realise only to well, that this whole dispute is about union busting. Bill's promises are empty without a union, We are all only 90 days
away from being on the new contract ourselves. You only have to look at recent events at Aer Lingus to see how the company can impose changes at will. Without a union, you have no legal voice, and you have to fight with no protection. It's good to see their Pilots are supporting them!! Wake up people, if you still can't see the bigger picture, god help you.

I will never suport a "guirella action". We are already working to our agreements and such action wouldnt make too much dispruption.

Blue ribbond
 

You said :"So, if you want to destroy our livelihoods, then we have to fight back"

What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?
And does your "crusade" to save your livelihood give you the right to wilfully undermine another group of colleagues' legitimate right to take industrial action?

It seems to me that there is a pungent "dog eat dog" culture in this airline, and that the boss has been very successful in pitting each group of employees against cabin crew.
Though I thought this type of methods belonged to a more obscure part of history .It is all well and good in the UK.

Mohitomaster,

The Union strapline of 'Union Busting' has grown so stale it is well past needing to be put deep down in the bin. The Union (Unite/BASSA et al) have had no constructive, reasoned or valid argument against the requirement for the IFcE department to implement cost savings measures with the rest of the company. They have been unable to force/cajoule/bully their unwillingness to change through with IA threats and action and are left still in the water.

As BASSA were patently incapable of negotiating in a rasonable manner in the first place, as they lost grip of the power they had through vague IA threats, they had to come up with a new threat. Union Busting.

If BA wanted to 'bust' the Union they could have done quite easily and legally over the past two years after failed legal action by Unite and highly questionable actions of the BASSA board in giving advice to mmbers (former and not) and posting confidential personal information, or implenetation of various employment laws stating that the action would cause detrimental losses to the company. Given the past economic situation I don't think any employment tribunal would have disagreed.

BA would be quite happy to work with a rational, forward thinking and pro active BASSA. Sadly such an entity doesn't exist. Unite calls for negotion but seem to forget the BASSA shouted mandate of 'no negotiation'. It's still available on You Tube.

All work groups require some form of Union representation in a company as big as BA. However the time where the Union hold the power to dictated company policy is behind us. BASSA have always based negotiations upon the premise that IA will cause the company to fail and the IFcE management to give in to their demands. No longer. It will be interesting to see if the PCCC garners enough support to be recognised and perhaps we will then see a period of Union representation that represents the entire CC workforce not just those at the top.

'Work to rule'? I'm fairly certain the others of us in BA wouldn't notice the difference. Laminated Card anyone?

Edit: For Mildly Militant:

This stems from the initial messages from BASSA that, if the implementation goes through the company wouldn't be worth working for thus it would be better to 'bring it down'

No 'dog eat dog' just a frustrated sense that BASSA have had BA by the balls for too long and, IFcE, as a department have failed to change with the times for too long and been supported by the rest of the employee groups for too long. Hence the 'willingness' of the VCC community. If BASSA have a 'valid' argument then the willingness wouldn't be there.

"No 'dog eat dog' just a frustrated sense that BASSA have had BA by the balls for too long and, IFcE, as a department have failed to change with the times for too long and been supported by the rest of the employee groups for too long. Hence the 'willingness' of the VCC community. If BASSA have a 'valid' argument then the willingness wouldn't be there."

One would think that it is up to the people affected by the required savings to decide whether there is a legitimate argument for industrial action.
Furthermore,as I've said before over the past 13 years Bassa have made significant concessions.In real value over the past 14 years, CC salary have significantly decreased and conditions have eroded.This has given the company a significant advantage against their European competitors.
IB,AF,UA,CO c/c earn more and often work less than BA crew. Yet we are constantly compared with EZ jet (same earnings as BA post 97 crew) Ryan air, VS and the middle eastern airlines.Personally I think Unite has a very valid argument, and really struggle to comprehend why colleagues from other department would want to get involved.
I wonder if the loaders called for industrial action, would you feel as comfortable getting involved in a dispute that is not yours?

Please please please can we draw a line under what Eddy said last night.

I don't agree with what he said and I don't see anyone else agreeing with him either, so please lets all just discuss what this thread is supposed to be about.

Everyone's job is important for one reason or another. We need ALL our staff to be doing their jobs well to make our airline great.

Miss M.
I don't myself understand why you feel BA are wanting to get rid of you, as you put it.

The agreement guarantees that you will remain on your current terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated, so I just don't understand why you say that.

This is what Bill said only on 20th January 2011, day before yesterday, Thursday afternoon on his webchat. It could not be more clear.

These are some quotes :-


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
''I have no plans, intentions or otherwise to "starve crew of work " or force anyone to join Mixed Fleet. Couldn't be clearer.''

''Mixed Fleet crew will represent 42% of all crew in 10 years time, not 4 as you suggest.''

''I'm glad you like the initiative of showing all Mixed Fleet routes on the manpower thread on this forum. We wanted to give transparency as promised, and to ensure colleagues were bidding for the right trips for their fleets.
I too read many of the rumours which once again proved to be without any foundation re high earning routes.
When we spoke about routes with Unite, we were all very clear that during the start up phase of Mixed Fleet (probably the first 18 months) it would be difficult to give much advance notice of routes moving. However, in steady state we have committed in the offer to discuss with Unite which routes will move on a seasonal basis. This would then allow us to publish them as you suggest.''


''Routes attract various allowances including meal, box, back to back and destination as an example. As long as a balance of high, medium and low earning routes are maintained in proportion to the number of existing crew in existing fleets, then the ability of crew to earn their variable pay remains too.
As an underpin to this arrangement, we have introduced the Top Up Scheme which will guarantee that your variable pay cannot be lower than that earned on average in 2009/10 (as detailed in the collective and individual offers)''


''I've always said I can see routes moving between fleets on a regular basis and I've also said that new routes will go to both existing and mixed fleets dependant on customer and business need. You're seeing a good example of this with Buenos Aires going to Worldwide Fleet and Haneda going to Mixed. I also expect Mixed Fleet to grow slowly to represent only 42% of all crew in 10 years time.''

''So new aircraft and new routes will continue to be distributed fairly and transparently all fleets based on commercial need.''

''I want to be really clear, that contrary to what you may have heard from other sources, we have NOT terminated the redeployment agreement.
We have talked in the past to all Trade Unions across BA about working towards a modern approach to an agreement that is almost 40 years old, while continuing to try to avoid compulsory redundancies.
In IFCE we have adopted an entirely voluntary approach to any leavers through increasing part time offers and voluntary redundancy. This remains our approach.
There are currently no talks underway re updating the redeployment agreement.''


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you read all of that and still think he is going to get rid of you or force you onto Mixed Fleet. That is of course if you actually bothered to read his webchat on the ESS Forum.

Dog eat dog
 

The "Dog eat dog" environment was created by bassa with their hate campaign against pilots. The long list of lies has created the atmosphere between us and acted as a carrion call for the VCC program.

IFCE like the rest of BA were given a savings target based on the cost savings BA had to agree to in order to borrow enough cash not to go bust.

All other departments achieved this. BA cannot back down as all other departments would want their money back & the banks would therefore want theirs. This is a fight bassa cannot win, the best outcome is to minimise the loss.

The continued inability of bassa to grasp reality does turn other employess against strikers. We need our jobs, strikers seem to think they are untouchable.
Each period of industrial action will inevitably lead to a worse situation for bassa members. Your call.

Strimmerdriver
 

I disagree with you I do not recall receiving any comms from Bassa regarding Pilots BEFORE the volunteering campaign started.
I think many crew have distanced themselves from pilots as a direct consequence of knowing that :
1-some were absolutely happy to undermine their legitimate right to take industrial action
2-that if they expressed their disapproval they would be likely to be disciplined .

Lastly Aer Lingus pilots (ialpa) have collected 100 000€ to support their suspended cabin crew colleague who have been suspended for working to rule.

What does that tell you?

Who do you think other departments get 'compared' to? In 'real' terms the value of CC hasn't changed as much as many in BASSA would believe it. The savings per department, if you wish to go back and have a look, were calculated on what the company felt the departmental overheads were. Oddly enough IFcE came out with a large overhead calculated by the fact that, in real terms, verses competitiors the average wage bill was too high. Why, when other departments had rationalised block payments into an hourly rate, couldn't the CC do the same? Oh, hang on, it would mean that those at the top, the same who sit on the BASSA board, those who can 'pick and choose' destination would lose a bit and those who had just joined would benefit.

IB,AF,UA,CO earn more and do less? Do you, per chance, have figures to back up that statement? I just wonder as I have former colleagues of mine flying for some of those companies and I can assure you that the working conditions, renumeration and hours are not as good as those you enjoy. If BASSA are so confident that BA are 'shafting' their workforce why don't BASSA emplore BA to benchmark CC T's& C's against those carriers? I think you would be in for a shock, especially against AF, UA and CO etc who have dastically changed since mergers, Governmental underpinning required change.

There has been no undermining your legal right to take IA. Where has this happened? Supporting the company against ill advised and idiotic strike action in order to protect my future employment? Yep. Just because I don't agree with what BASSA are doing doesn't mean that we have to accept the lunacy of the BASSA IA. I'm not in BASSA, not associated to BASSA nor affiliated to BASSA. Thus, if the company asks me if I wish to volunteers to keep our passengers flying during a lunatic Union driven, ill thought out, un necessary strike thus potentially protecting my job into the future then it is my business, becomes my business and has everything to do with me.

They have a totally different situation perhaps?

Had BASSA a valid argument, one that was comprehensible to all, one that didn't change every time Heathrow changed runway then I would support the validity of IA. They don't, I don't.

Never happened. Irrespective of who volunteered to do what your fundamental right to take IA has never, ever been affected by the actions of others. The 'impact' of that IA, maybe, the right to sip pimms and slag everybody off from the roof of an open topped bus? Never. (again, the video is still to be found on You Tube. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing.)

You are perfectly entitled to disagree. I've had adult, interesting and grown up conversations with those who went on strike. But after the aircraft has landed and we have all completed a professional service to our passengers to the best of our ability. Skulking around complaing or being surly whilst onboard or 'blanking' other members of the crew for their preferences is not acceptable. That behaviour on board would get a mention. What you do, talk about and discuss outside of the company time, as long as it is sensible, is up to you. Naturally with the caveat of not bringing the company into disrepute. :E

mohitomaster,
Perhaps what you fail to realise is that your union can't even do basic mathematics!So, I think you'll find that 7330 is 71.7% of 10220, not 78.5%! And 5751 is less than half of all BA cabin crew! Claiming to support your union rings very hollow when it is certain that 5751 of you won't actually be bold enough to actually go on strike.

Mildly Militant,
Anyone posing that question has obviously given no thought to the problem. No thought, whatsoever! Have a think (hard work I know ...) about how BASSA's juvenile crusade wilfully undermines the financial viability of the entire company, consequently threatening everybody else's livelihoods.

The boss has little to do with it - BASSA and Unite have done all their own groundwork in annoying all the other work groups in BA. Other members of Unite, who are not cabin crew, have had enough of paying 'extra' to support those who wilfully (if not thoughtfully :rolleyes:) lost themselves income in an action that was so obviously doomed before it even began.

You'll find that all those other work groups think that it is BASSA's "methods" that should be consigned to "history".

BASSA has tried to demonise pilots over the VCC issue, and indeed have a history of demeaning and belittling pilots.

BASSA has acted in such a fashion that a highly educated and unionised workforce have been so incensed by the irrational acts of BASSA that they have decided that they would rather help to try to break a strike than to support it. This is true of many workers within BA who are in many cases members of UNITE. The selfish and stupid attitudes witnessed - I'd rather see the company we all work for go bust rather than give an inch - have lead to a situation where union members of the same union would take active measures to break the strike. This is not just about pilot VCCs, indeed the pilot VCCs are significantly outnumbered by VCCs from other areas of the business.

Public and indeed workmate sympathies have been lost, and lost to such an extent that they have transformed into active anti-strike actions. The strikes are not only unjustified but that the issue has been so badly handled it has turned other workers against the strike. That is what this tells us, not that the poor CC have been in some way victimised, rather BASSA has made them into an unloved and marginalised minority.

This is a huge shame as the CC are hard working and dedicated and have played a large part in helping to make BA what it is today. BASSA on the other hand seems to represent everything that is backward thinking and wrong within BA.

Mr Bernoulli
 

You wrote :"Have a think (hard work I know ...)"

With that sort of approach to industrial relations, no wonder we don't seem to be getting anywhere...

Of course I have considered BA's financial situation, clearly my assessment was correct as we made our first profit (158M) in two years despite the strikes and volcano.So when exactly was your livelihood put at risk?

In other words the "fight for survival" was hyped in order to obtain significant concessions from staff, including asking staff to work for free....

Mildly Militant,

The reason we made that money was because of the cost savings in ALL departments and including OURS.

We saved £127 million and are on target with the introduction of Mixed Fleet to continue to make £65 million more each subsequent year.

These savings were unfortunately imposed on us. I personally would have much rather had a union that had worked with BA to achieve them instead of causing my community to be thought of the way we are now and actually causing BA to lose money unnecessarily through a strike that has gained us nothing but heartache.

Ahh, the twenty/twenty hindsight priciple.

I'm glad your assesment (after the event) was correct. Such a shame, at the time, that the city investors (oddly enough required in the airline world) didn't have your expertise when deciding whether or not to invest in BA as a company with its emergency business plan.

As Betty Girl has stated the imposed IFcE cuts have been part of the plan. Also many other departments wouldn't sign off permanent changes until ALL departments fell into line.

But thats all niff-naff and trivia. BASSA forecast everything would be ok and they didn't need to make any permanent savings. Whilst all the other departments, including may belonging to Unite, were negotiating their savings BASSA claimed they didn't and still don't need to change.

And still you wonder why other departments don't support BASSA's actions.

I think VCC's have been drawn in as there is now light at the end of the tunnel to change cabin crews archaic working conditions as well. This strike has been the 'last straw' and allowed the company to move into the 21st century - for example :-

Why are there no fixed links(many routes could do this), why are certain working days and associated minimum rest down route shorter for CC than pilots, why do BASSA keep blocking BA from doing their own service requirement (WT+ new product, hot towels etc), being flexible (eg if someone goes sick downroute), turfing inbound Club passengers off shorthaul Club seats as the PAX number triggers another crew member, rigid performance management to keep CC standards up

I am sure the list could go on and on - these are the things that need to change.

I think if BASSA was a good union, it would have evolved and helped to make BA great again - as BA has many really good crew - it is not though and membership should have their eyes full open to that and what could possible happen to them next, is the risk worth the reward ?

I agree with you BG but firmly believe that there clearly was a hidden agenda in this dispute.
From the outset, positions on both parts were polarised. I believe Bassa offered significant concessions offering EF to do 767 WW and agreeing to a PSR reduction on WW and 757. The list goes on. The reply we were given in Oct 09 was that MF was to be scrapped if we accepted the following:
-9 days off/month on EF
-Double nights on WW reduced to single nights (loss of allowances)
-Unspecified ground duties for crew who have reached 900hrs
-Mixed flying on 767 for EF with a PSR removed
-Reduction of Annual leave
-Removal of LDP,CAT,ERB,ETP

All in all a gradual move to us becoming the MF. This offer was rejected by a vast majority and Bassa registered a failure to agreee.Almost at the same time the imposition started and the dispute escalated.
The escalation provided an opportunity to crush Bassa by describing them as a bunch of irresponsible uncompromising militants.
If I had not worked for other major carriers before I probably would have fallen for it. However I have worked for airlines where the union was far more "militant" than the one we've got and was aware that Bassa was very reluctant to take action.
The threat to remove staff travel incensed rather than appeased and no attempts were made to resolve this situation from then on.the agenda became extremely clear:
to destroy Bassa at all cost (remember the 11th hour agreement was rejected for a difference of 10M).

The 11th hour agreement was rejected because you did not save the required money. The sum was not negotiable, which BASSA did not realise. It didn't matter if it was £10M, £1M or £20M. What mattered was BASSA trying to dodge their share of the savings when everybody else had met their targets.

The biggest problem in the run up to the imposition (1 crew member down on WW and EF!!! How drastic CSD having to take part in the service, heaven forefend!) was that BASSA consistently failed to accept the financial environment, they failed to realise that the changes needed to be permanent and, when their threats failed against the management they started on the Union busting trail.

Everyone needed to change, everyone else managed to negotiate changes including other members of the Unite group. Only BASSA, as usual, failed to agree and went nuclear at the very thought of imposition.

BASSA were offered,a long way back, the ability to negotiate MF off the table. As with all negotiations there is room for manoeuvre unfortunately BASSA refused to even start negotiation. So, the Union busting rhetoric comes from BASSA, BASSA has failed its membership through poor/absent negotition and now BASSA are scrabbling around trying to keep the dispute alive whn everyone else has started ignoring it. This continued action will only harm those who take part in it. BASSA could have prevented all of this but BASSA didn't want to.

Hi Eddy, hope you are keeping well.

Mildly wrote:
"What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?"

It is the threat from too many CC to rather see BA go bust than to concede a single penny in concessions ie to destroy my livelihood, that prompted so many other staff in BA to work to keep the airline flying thru previous strikes and no doubt this next one too. Comparisons with Aer Lingus fall down at that point as I have not heard that the EI cabin crew expressing the same stubborness to their Pilots.

Wirbelsturm
Obviously the ones busting the union are not going to advertise it....It stands to reason.

Stroppy

I have never heard such comments from c/c.Wanting to destroy the company they work for?
I am not questioning what you are saying but would be truly shocked if a fellow colleague made such remarks and would seriously consider their mental fitness.

Having said that I.A does not automatically result in companies going under, otherwise no one would ever do it.I also would doubt that Unite who has a vested interest in the success of BA(large membership) would allow such damaging strike take place.

Mildly Militant

I agree that it has been badly handled on both sides.

It was the offering, by the union, for 767 longhaul work to be done by E/F that lost you a lot of your E/F support. Most of us ( except those waiting for WW), are on E/F because we wanted to do E/F work. Having to take all Worldwide's grotty 767 work that would have meant a reduction in allowances for us ( and probably yet more money for WW), basically to protect the CSD job on our fleet was not something that most of us wanted, anyway.

However if we get back to whats on the table now.

A promise to transfer routes fairly.

A promise to keep our terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated.

A promise to not force us onto Mixed Fleet.

I don't understand the problem unless it is all about staff travel or getting peoples jobs back that have been suspended.

Well I can understand that but I don't think it is fair for a union to paint this offer as bad when the real reason for not accepting it is something else. The offer is fair and actually pretty good. It is the Mixed Fleet crew that get the raw end of this not us but that's another matter. You are not fighting for them, you are fighting as pawns for Duncan Holey, I'm afraid, who has misled you all, throughout all of this.

Mildly Militant,

I can understand that BASSA wish the Union busting idea to be there, it motivates the membership to accept actions that they possibly might not accept under normal circumstances. When a member questions an action by the board which has little or nothing to do with the current situation then the Union busting card provides an excellent get out clause.

Do you not think that, a a corporation, BA has had ample opportunity to 'bust' BASSA? Given both the opportunities presented by ill advised Union actions under SOSR and the finacial ability through the Courts to 'destroy' BASSA after Lizannes idiotic attempt to sway votes during a ballot, BA could have walked all over the strikers.

This isn't about Union busting, it is about striking a very careful balance between those who feel wounded by the company with its approach toward BASSA and those who feel wounded by their treatmentfrom BASSA. It difficult line to tread and I, personally, think the company has, for the period of this dispute, excercised extreme constraint. For how much longer though is anyones guess.

BG the offer to undertake WW767 on EF was on a bidding basis and aimed to alleviate the removal of 2 PSR pos on WW .Thus trying to avoid an end to promotion.As to the promises, that is exactly the essence of the problem is that they are aspirational and unlikely to be contractual.In light of the recent court case to establish which parts of the agreements were contractual. The company's legal team argued that what they deemed contractual was your basic pay,annual leave and sick pay.Anything else is a nicety and not a contractual right.This was partly accepted by the Judge.

It's not so bad if you are SCCM on an old contract it very bad if you are main crew on post 97 contract.

Busting the union?
 

Surely claiming costs for court cases and sueing for lost revenue would be a good start to 'bust the union'?

The notion that BA has the power to 'bust' the union Unite is ludicrous, Unite is there to stay. That's why BA happily and successfully found a solution with Unite over pensions and agreed new terms and conditions for our ground staff. However, I think BA is fed up with BASSA and their obstructive behaviour at every corner.

Well that sums it up Mildly Militant because they were shafting E/F with their rubbish 767 work to protect WW pursers! Great.

Anyway as you yourself say, all agreements in the past have not had these cast iron bits in them that you say you want this time.

I am actually not sure that, that was exactly what the judge did say. I think he said BA had broken the agreement but because Bassa and Amicus would not sit in the same room and negotiate, he saw it as reasonable because and, this is the debatable point, BA said they were in severe difficulty and might have otherwise required to use SORS or whatever it is called and the judge agreed this was a better option.

I have signed the agreement and I really worry that some crew have not even read it!!!

Please I implore all of you. Sit down quietly and read the actual agreement, not Bassa's slant on it and you will see that it is actually a good agreement for us current crew.

I will admit that the version that the Union has to sign has bits about not taking BA to court and re-working the way they deal with BA and I think this is the sticking point and NOT what BA is offering us crew as safeguards because they are as good as they have ever been before. I think you will agree that BA have always been a good employer.

I feel that some strong personalities have got in the way on both sides of this dispute, I notice that Bassa and Amicus are arguing yet again! and I had hoped that someone other than Walsh would be involved this time because I just do feel that a fresh look by someone else might have helped. But there you are, that how I see it all.

P.S. Glad that we are able to have an adult debate between us, hopefully you wont get chased away by others that just want to have a go and not actually try and understand where you are coming from.

Thanks BG

P.P.S. It is only bad for post 97 crew if BA don't keep their promise to transfer work fairly. I just don't get all this mistrust for a company I have always found very fair in the past.

Excellent post Betty Girl - As always :D

What a dog's breakfast!
 

there are so many strands to this issue that it is difficult to know where to start.

clearly BA has got industrial relations very wrong over a long period. it is unfortunate that there seems to have been no company wide job comparison, with staff involvement, to minimise the sort of bickering over job importance we have seen here recently. presumably the 'you are BA' comment, intended to give cc a sense of worth, has backfired badly by turning in to a rather precious sense of over importance in some heads. this in turn has emphasised the grievance felt by others in the company as they see the cc union branches refusing to chip-in to turn the company round.

the job has many points of comparison with work in the hospitality industry. not all i know, but over a wide range of skills that are used on a day to day basis ( as opposed to those high-end skills needed exceptionally in an emergency). many of those jobs in the hospitality industry are paid at little above the minimum wage. as other posters have suggested many cc resent any attempt at 'evaluating' their job skills on a realistic basis: hence references to them 'living in la-la land' elsewhere in this forum.

there is nothing unusual in having people working on short service contracts alongside those who intend to stay in the industry and pursue a long-service career: the RAF pioneered this approach virtually from inception. it is unreasonable to assume that all who become cc can have a career purely in cc stream through to normal retirement. perhaps the company should look again at an outlet for cc into other branches of the company mid career? that can only happen realistically if there is not a financial penalty in such a move - again, an incentive not to over-remunerate cc at the top end.

nor should we overlook the fact that it is the skills needed for the job that the employer will value and pay for, not your personal skill levels. your personal skill level is only relevant so far as it chimes with the needs of the job. see the Goldthorpe studies at Vauxhall's where PhDs were working on the production line at one stage.

this really is a mess and i cannot see any sign that the cc union branches have any strategy, least of all an exit strategy.

Hi Mildy,

I have personally heard exactly that position expressed, yes she may have been mad but would not listen to sense, and sadly it is a position that has been posted on other forums too.

With EI, I understand that they made a lot of concessions earlier which I believe is not the case with Ba/Bassa, and hence they have probably kept the support of their Pilots - also, perhaps they havent historically rubbished their Pilots and criticised their parentage either ;)

BG thanks for your kind words.As you have said in your post you were not ecstatic at the idea of WW 767 work on EF, other C/C wish it were the case... And I think that is the very problem Bassa is faced with.Over the years the company has recruited a wide variety of c/c coming from an extremely diverse background,national origins,culture,values ect. In the 80's the recruitment standards were set as to attract mostly candidates from a British middle class,educated background speaking at least a foreign language.Post privatisation cost control became more pressing, it was proving more difficult to attract candidates of the same calibre whilst controlling cost.This is when the recruitment wave of Spanish,Italian and French started. Early 2000 c/c recruitment was relaxed and targeted everyone and anyone no language required.As a result Bassa are representing an odd mix of people with different priorities, aspiration,lifestyle ect.
It is almost impossible to satisfactorily represent such a diverse bunch.of staff. I have no doubt that this fact alone makes it difficult for Bassa to reach an acceptable agreement.
This fact has probably not been overlooked by the LT when they decided to remove staff travel, knowing that that alone would put Bassa in a very difficult position. It was inevitable that many people would back the company mainly to keep their staff travel and retain the ability to commute from Europe and not out of sympathy for the company

Rather than stimulate a constructive dialogue this has cause the dispute to drag on, resentment to fester and a sincere feeling of discrimination amongst those who went on strike.Ultimately nothing is resolved, people (on both side of the fence) keep suffering and the dispute drags on. This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all. Allowing this dispute to be dealt with fairly and constructively should have been the priority on both side.Not the childish behaviour that has been observed..

concessions
 

Stroppy

As I have said before many significant concessions have been made by Bassa since 2001.In real term C/C salary has been on the decrease for quite some time.In terms of productivity we are far more productive than many European flag carriers where the max annual flight hours are capped at 700/800 hrs.

BA WW crew fly to their max all the time.PSR positions have been eliminated, many crew have taken voluntary p/t since 2001 and the list is still not closed.EF crew have a meal break but can be on duty 7 consecutive days and work 60 hr in a week.At what point does a union says no before it stops representing its members interest?

Tolliver

I don't think BA wants to bust Unite but they'd be delighted to bust Bassa.Most c/c in the Union relate to Bassa rather than Unite.

That has to be seen in the context of where we were 2 years ago, the other unions had been allowed to see the company books (which BASSA refused as they wouldn't sign a confidentiality agreement) and had decided that the company was in such a dire financial position that pay cuts and efficiency savings had to be made. We then saw one group offering very short term loans and refusing to negotiate meaningfully.
Basically we were all scared for our futures, and that of our families. A lot of us felt we had to do something. With hindsight, perhaps we were fooled.

Miss M and Mildly Militant
 

I tent to lurk on this thread rather than post, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate you coming on here and giving us your views.

I am in the opposite camp from you; I am cabin crew but am against the strike. I would appreciate you telling me what you hope to achieve if there is another strike. I knew what last year's strikes were all about, but am not clear exactly what you are after with this one.

Also, one thing I keep hearing is the fear of MF growing so quickly that it will dwarf us until we are forced onto it (and sooo often I hear less-mildly-militant people saying how they hope the strike-breakers are the first ones forced onto it). MF taking my favourite routes has indeed always been my main worry. However, Bassa's last proposal (in March I think) before the strikes last year wanted the crew member back on board. They specifically stated that, as 1000+ more crew would have to be recruited for this, these new crew would be the start of MF. This would have hugely accelerated the growth of MF, so the last strike last year was actually a strike with one of its aims being to accelerate MF! How do you square this with the anti-MF rhetoric?

Thanks for your time and thoughts,