Hi jetset lady, yes best not turn this into a LHR vs LGW debate. That debate has been going on since 1991. We all know where it ends and is usually forgotten once said crew member has transfered to LHR, where LGW and it's plight are a distant memory. It's always been LGW vs LHR, EOG vs WW LGW, WW LGW vs WW LHR. For the record, I've always been a staunch supporter of LGW and it's where my heart is - and don't assume that I am WW LHR. I consider myself between fleets at the moment.

I'll try to explain how I see things at BA in the spirt of healthy debate. I'm not having a go at anyone or thinking that one base is better than another. I'm debating from the point of view of an observer and as an aviation student rather than a BA employee.

For a start, I am well aware that there is a premium product at LGW. I've helped deliver it myself over the years and it's a darn good one. I've also had to deal with the aftermath of the crew crisis late 2007/early 2008 when we were sub-contracting flights out to Monarch and Astraeus. We were having to downgrade many Club Europe pax and the reason given was crew shortage.

The crew shortage at the time was caused by a higher than normal attrition rate and the 900 hour rule. So why the higher attrition rate? It was the first year of the SF LGW contract (which we all know is the EOG contract dating back to the Dan-Air purchase - but with long haul) and crew were leaving because of 'mixed flying and the associated fatigue'.

Part of the 'new' contract allowed for less MBTs after long haul flights which meant not only were crew worked harder and suffering from fatigue but they were hitting the 900 hour limit quickly and then being forced to sit around on their basic for months on end. In the end, it turned out to be a HUGE false economy. People were sacked over it.

As for operating minimum crew on the 737, ok fair point, you've proved that you can do it. Does this mean that the 777 will now go out with 8 crew, keeping in line with Thomas Cook and Thomson? No, of course not, and why not?

If you think it's fair to take away terms and conditions from WW just because LGW don't have it, you may need take on board a couple of points.

1. You may well be at LHR one day, if you choose to be. With LGW finally being part of the NSP, movement will happen in bigger numbers over the next couple of years. After all these years of fighting to be part of the NSP, it would be such a shame to find that the option to transfer to WW on its current terms and conditions no longer exists.

2. SF LGW is by no means the bottom of the rung when it comes to pay and conditions. A lot of people in the company have it a lot harder than you do.

For example, as crew or ground staff, if you go sick, you at least get your basic. Go sick in any other department, you get zero. Depending on where you work, you may get SSP (£75) for 6 weeks if you've served enough time, possibly more if you've been around for a while but it runs out at some point. Get a long term illness, you're on your own and possibly out the door. How is that fair? It's not but it's in the terms and conditions.

In the end, we know why LGW is different and we know why SF LGW was created. We know why the company are trying to create a version at LHR and fair dues. I can see the business case for it, especially the flexibility aspect of it. What I don't agree with is taking away terms and conditions from an existing contract just because another airline doesn't have them, or in your case, another fleet. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on making life better at LGW and fighting for improvements there rather than bringing down another fleet who's only crime seems to be its very existance?

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I guess time will tell.

VS-LHRCSA,

Exactly. From a business point of view, it unfortunately makes sense.

As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, they are not actually planning to take away anything from the existing contracts. The contracts and fleets will run side by side, until eventually, as people leave, retire, transfer etc, the old fleets at LHR will cease to exist. Yes, the chances are high that the most lucrative trips will go to the new fleet but at the end of the day, BA has a responsibility towards it's share holders and the managment have to be seen to making the move towards improved efficiency, flexibility and, ultimately, profitability.

I'd love to be able to concentrate on improving LGW's terms, but, realistically, I know that's never going to happen. The recent MOA negotiations have proved that. No one, apart from a bitter minority, wants to see you guys lose what you have fought so hard for, but times have changed and the old days are well and truly gone for all airlines and all fleets. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. :(

Jsl

As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, they are not actually planning to take away anything from the existing contracts

Errrrrr not true. If the lucrative routes like you say are going to the new fleet the crewmembers earning potential is being taken away from them?

Less than their annual hourly rate!!....are you sure?.;)

WTDWL.

OzzieO,

I meant technically, as in terms and conditions rather than earning potential, hence my next sentence regarding the lucrative routes. Our earning potential is constantly going up and down, whether it be down to market forces, wars, natural disasters and all the other things that can affect the operation. It always has and it always will. Sometimes, it will work to our advantage, other times it won't. That's the nature of the job. If you can't handle that, then maybe you'd be better off in a fixed salary job.

Things have to change, that much is obvious. So what do you suggest they do instead?

JSL.

Your posts overlook the fact that, as it seems, your income is not under any form of threat. Bringing terms and conditions into line with SFG is not the end game. It is written in the 'leak' that LGW is still too expensive for the company. Ask any LGW crew how they feel about that. Willing to take home less to run their households on to help Willie out? 3/4 of LGW expressing an interest to transfer to LHR is not because they want to try some new routes.

Yup, draft rates were based on pensionable pay which is significantly less than salary, they were also frozen for a couple of years, so even with the 25% premium element it doesnt reflect the true hourly rate.

Thanks for that Hotel Mode.

So what would a F/O and a Captain (on forced draught) get for say a 5 day HKG on Worldwide and a European duty of say 36 hours.

Just asking as everyone seems quite happy to discuss Cabin Crew pay on here.

WTDWL.

Well, what with it being a thread about Cabin Crew terms and conditions and all... :rolleyes: Feel free to start another thread.

Bottom line is if you want pilot terms and conditions then become a pilot. BA cabin crew costs (note not wages) are double the industry average. If WW didnt do something about it he'd be ridiculed.

JSL - Oh don't get me wrong I agree things do have to change.

But how about looking at the way we are rostered and letting the company having a bit more flexibility?

OC is going to be far to dramatic (if rumours are to be believed) and it will cause upset amongst the community. Especially while our CEO enjoys his £700K per year salary ( + plus bonuses).

Ok you got a point. A pilots hourly rate depends on rank and years in service. ie a 20 year capt rate is different from a 2 year FO. So earnings are credit hours*hourly rate*1.25. As HM states this is not quite as good as it sounds you may be making less than on a rostered trip.

However it is possible to be doing voluntary overtime in which case you have not being forced to go to work!

jetset lady, how would u feel if they took away all your trips and left you with there and backs? You d techinically have a job but your earnings would be substantially different. For once more, try to see some sense. I am LGW based , and I see every day crew being openly happy about this forthcoming announcement. Why on earth would u be happy about this? BA will be back for more...! They ve proved it and will do so again!

newbagr,

You are so right and I must thank you for helping me to see the light. Because, as a Purser, obviously I get nothing but trips, month after month and have no experience of there and backs at all! :rolleyes:

And yes, I do know you work at LGW! You keep telling us. Well done...congratulations...good for you! :ugh:

I can see exactly what both you and VS-LHRCSA are saying, but have to wonder if past history is coming into play. In your opinion, if no one knew about Columbus and the company went to BASSA and said they wanted to look at the way you are rostered, would BASSA agree to look into it? Or would they come back with a resounding, "No"?

Jsl

No prizes for guessing which way that would go. :rolleyes:

For how much longer though 10W? Watching from the outside I wouldn't be at all surprised if BASSA and their members shenanigans don't come in for some attention soon. In the current climate no company can tolerate the level of p!sstaking that I hear about in Lutonistan.

We'll see. There may come a time when company reps go to the BASSA negotiating table armed with a big stick rather than a tube of KY jelly. :E

.

So having just finished SEP and meeting up with an old pilot mate and asking about 'draught'.

''I won't tell you the rate now but 6 years ago I got £1000 for a Aberdeen nightstop''!!.

I choose to be crew because I have the personality for it.I also have the qualifications to be a pilot.

I just don't enjoy pilots doing my washing in public and talking about my wages.

Half way up the seniority on the 747-400 and he earns ***.***.Good luck to him,he's a professional pilot and he deserves it.He earns 3 times of some other UK pilots.Would WW be mad not to look into that?!.

Those who throw stones..........................

WTDWL.

BA pilots have already been benchmarked against other airlines so that argument is a red herring. As for having the qualifications to be a pilot: do you have an ATPL? If not, then you do not have the qualifications required. Your post does not add to the discussion and detracts from the reasoned debate elsewhere in the thread.

For a start can we spell draft correctly please? Now for an ABZ nightstop he'd be on a 2 day trip with a minimum credit of 4.5 hours per day. Six years ago draft was 1.5x hourly rate, so that makes it a minimum 12 hours credit. If he ws doing 3 sectors each day then that would be more like 12 credit hours at 1.5x so 18 hours credit. That means he was on between £50 to £80 as an hourly rate if your figures are true.

Can you tell me what a plumber charges per hour?

When did you get your ATPL?