SOSR
 

Or the previously quoted "Some Other Substantial Reason"

Possibly "old" law, but if you don't want a gripping read :confused: check Hollister vs. the NFU...

One report of the Industial Tribunial on the above contains the following comment

<<Ellis v. Brighton Co-operative Society Ltd. [1976] I.R.L.R. 419, where it was recognised by the court that reorganisation of business may on occasion be a sufficient reason justifying the dismissal of an employee. They went on to say, at p. 420:
"Where there has been a properly consulted-upon reorganisation which, if it is not done, is going to bring the whole business to a standstill, a failure to go along with the new arrangements may well -- it is not bound to, but it may well -- constitute 'some other substantial reason."'>>

It's not my job to do BASSA's legal work, but we know WW likes using the legal system, so before ticking "yes" or"no" on that ballot sheet, make sure BASSA have got sound legal advice.

Those are the kind of CSD's I love! The ones who actually do want to work on the aircraft, instead of sitting in their little office throughout the flight, and won't give you a hard time because they have to do a trolley themselves because a crew member has gone sick downroute.

This company is very aware of its VIP's, Executive Club and Gold Card members, they should make the CSD part of the service.

Me too, obviously. :) Seriously though, she wouldn't shirk from anything, there's quite a few like her too.

It is a fortune when you take into consideration that you actually on EF (where you bid) average 500 hours per year. That's a bit more than half-time when you actually are allowed to work 900 hours.

They should be all like that!

Unfortunately there are some CSD's that only sit in their office, eating and watching films throughout the flight and give you the evil eye when you happen to come into "their area" to get some paper work or something out of the duty free trollies. When you think of how much some of they earn...

That is possibly the crux of the problem. When you have massive CRC turnarounds of 2-3 hours between flights then the disparity between duty hours and flying hours grows ever greater. Don't forget that the 900 hour limit is based upon flying hours only and not duty hours.

With correct rostering coupled with more effective utilisation of the CC as a manpower asset you could actually have less time in uniform and more time in the air earning your allowances.

Exactly. It explains why some duty days are for example ten hours long with only four and a half block hours. It could become a lot more flexible and efficient. If you were to suggest an improvement with fixed links certain crew would never approve as they are "far too tiring".

Sadly that's not an attitude confined to CSD's, it's company-wide, endemic and simply "the BA Way"

CRC

If you choose to go on stike the only line you will be on will the line at the unemployment office... You need to get a grip at look at the state that BA is currently in.

If we do not make changes soon we will be all out of a job, and trust me when you go out into the big bad world you will get quite a shock. Other organisations would not put up with this nonsense.

Some crew don't care. Have you not read some of the comments made by certain people at one of our other forums? There are crew that would rather see the airline go bust than changing their T&C's.

How can we change their thinking?

I have no idea how to change opinions and the way some people think. I find it amazing that some of the crew I fly with think that the last results we produced were made up, fudged etc!!

There is no quick fix here, the good old days are gone for good, the travel market has changed beyond all recogniction and we will have to change in order to survive. If we don't the winners will only be Virgin, Air France, Lufty etc. Our jobs, pensions will all go down the drain!!

I flew with one chap recently who asserted that he would strike because he 'thought he should have staff travel for life'.

I couldn't get him to see that a strike would result in no pay, no staff travel etc.

Some peoples ignorance scares me!

Some crew aren't thinking themselves. BASSA is doing the thinking on their behalf.

The "almost" strike of a couple of years ago is probably still fresh in most peoples minds.
It was the one about 16 different points that most crew couldn't list, the postings here were the same then, Willie will fight you, you will all be sacked, BASSA will be finished etc etc.

What happened? That's right, some wishy washy soloution, a go sick free card whenever you want and BASSA left to cause chaos for another couple of years.

Maybe different this time, maybe not, I'm guessing a lot will take the gamble.

Look already we have gone from a 2000 strong new fleet and a list of 32 possible cuts from current crew to just 500 new crew and all current crew untouched, apart from crewing levels.

If they keep up the "no" vote it may just keep getting better.

We all hope Willie will sort out BASSA once and for all, personally I'll believe it when I see it.:sad:

I use to belong to CC89; when Mr Walsh graced himself on BA I joined BASSA! Go figure.

Now after the massive global cock up on the opening of T5 in which the said gentleman said "the buck stops with me" but in fact 2 other managers heads rolled, the buck didn`t really stop with him but surely with that mess he should have gone(?)
The fines.. another manager (who I believe also ran for CEO post?) his head rolled.
So the bucks or mistakes never seen to stick to him.
Question? Why?

was it he had this plan in the making already, credit crunch/ressestion here or not? He`d make BA like Aer Lingus? Now a basketcase. He got removed by the Irish Government because he was such an excellent CEO?

Just wondering if his was on the cards all along.

If things are this bad why wasn`t part time etc offered straight away like after Sept 11th?
His bee has always been to crush any union in the company whether the company is taken to its knees.
As for the NAPS pension will it be even shorter when crew leave and take their pension with them? Less members bigger short fall possibly.

Plodding Along

We have gone from 2000 to 500 crew on the proposed fleet for the time being. All new aircraft coming to BA will belong to this fleet which will be crewed by cabin crew on different contracts and working to scheme. Routes will be transferred to this fleet accordingly and present crew, on the "old fleet", will not be able to transfer unless they resign from their contract and accept the new one. Eventually there won't be any aircraft left in the old fleet.

That's their plan, I think.

Tiger

Things are more than twice as bad as after Sept 11

This time we really might go bust

Well it sounds like a fine plan, (unless of course you are cabin crew).
As an outsider it would seem that it is the only way to get rid of all the restrictive practices that currently exist.

If the airline goes bust, my reckoning is that it would disappear totally.

No part of the airline is making money at the moment, at what should me the best part of our year. As a result, there is no need for anyone to 'resurrect BA', as the population is already proving it is too expensive.

The only hope for any of us to stay on a decent salary is to negotiate it's reduction, if we don't negotiate, we will be presented with no salary, no staff travel, no pension.

BASSA needs to be driven to change. Don't listen to the loudest voice in the briefing romm, and let them make your up your mind.

You and your family are your prime concern. You need to force BASSA to look after YOU by negotiating on your behalf for a BA that can survive, and hopefully in a few years, thrive.

Andy, I agree with you..

But, does that mean cargo isn't making any money either..?

I only ask 'cos I thought that , historically, Cargo has been a good source of income for BA.

13. Having watched and read the pieces by Keith Williams and Willie Walsh, no areas are making money at the moment.

We have to change. As painfull and awkward, and embarrasing as it may be, we have to negotiate the change to our outgoings and lifestyle.

I am sick of BASSA saying "We have put proposals and the company have refused".............etc. This is life or death of the company.

I expect my dues to be used to secure my future, not to kill it.

BASSA needs to learn to negotiate, and needs to start NOW. If BALPA can, surely we can to?

What sort of deal is BALPA doing ???

It's due for release on Monday, it is expected to be a mix of a pay cut (% off basic and/or flying pay),and productivity increases.
(Reduced crew on long flights, reduced report time, reduced shorthaul turnaround times for links that aren't fixed etc are all possibilities)

Nothing has been leaked yet.

Plodding, am I right in thinking that if the pilots were to reject the deal, the Voluntary Redundancy package would be removed and you would potentially face having pay cut / working practice changes imposed and potential Compulsory Redundancies?

Things are so bad that IFCE are after cabin crew for 'voluntary unpaid working'!!

The current situation is extremely difficult. There are almost no airlines across the globe making money.

Those who were expected to make a profit aren't. AF/KLM is losing $120m a quarter. JAL has received a government backed $1 billion bail out. China Eastern and Air China have been merged to offset losses, Virgins figures have been proven to be based upon currency speculation which offset the airlines loss. Ryanair has used an Air Lingus write down to hide their first ever operating loss. Alitalia is as it always has been the basket case airline of Europe and Lufthansa has announced record losses.

Add on top of all that the atrocious taxation position of the UK where we are the most expensive country in Europe to get out of with and expected increase in the passenger duty tax that most other countries have binned.

The situation is indeed dire. We get the details of the BALPA plan on Monday but I think we will see and almost across the board acceptance as I for one am willing to cut the company slack in order to keep my job.

I hope all of our colleagues understand and accept the facts.

This is not the time for a protest vote. To do so would be voting for redundancy & unemployment.

But first, BASSA must negotiate a solution which is aceptable to our employer.

Todays Daily Mail has an article on the BA Pilots deal:

"British Airways' 3,000 pilots are being asked by their union to take an average £200-a-week pay cut to help save the cash-strapped airline.
The British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) recommends that the pilots agree to a ten per cent cut in pay and accept 100 voluntary redundancies. Letters urging them to accept the proposal will be sent out on Tuesday and Balpa is confident that its proposals will be endorsed in a ballot, following weeks of talks between BA and Balpa aimed at limiting job cuts.

BA pilots earn £25,000 to £150,000 a year with the average salary being about £100,000. Negotiations with the other unions representing ground staff, baggage handlers and cabin crew are continuing.

BA chief executive Willie Walsh has given management and unions until the end of the month to come up with significant savings. The company said talks were going well, but unions have said they will not accept compulsory redundancies - and BA has refused to rule these out.


One of the main targets of the company's cost-cutting is the bloated allowances received by 14,000 cabin crew, which in certain cases gives staff an extra £1,000 for each long-haul trip.


The company wants to cut its 40,600 workforce by a further 3,000. About 2,500 staff have already left since last summer, with others being urged to take unpaid leave or work part time. Walsh, who is not being paid in July, has described BA as being in a 'fight for survival' after it posted record annual losses of £401million in May."

Just a health warning re the MoS article

I understand it from an "informed source" is that the numbers being quoted about the pilots cuts are wrong ( esp. the "10%").

We''ll find out the genuine numbers tomorrow when the (electronic) postman calls.......

Outside Perspective
 

By way of background, let me say my interest here is one of investment analysis of transport sectors generally, and I'm also a (very) frequent flyer!

The first point I'd make is that BA has one of the most challenging pension scheme problems in the industry, actually across all industries. BA is really a mid-size fund management company (ie its pension schemes), with a small flying subsidiary on the side. When I last looked at this specifically, BA's pension schemes' value was about 8x that of the company's market value. Academic? No. For two big reasons. Firstly, managing the pension scheme cost and deficit is a major challenge in itself. It represents a big financial risk to the company, and one that is very large relative to future profits. Secondly, new entrants to the industry do not have this risk/cost, as they never had defined benefit pension schemes in the first place. Straight away they have a big cost advantage over BA and others.

This leads on to my second point. I think many if not all posters here are missing a very important point. Airlines like Virgin, AF/KLM etc are not your major long-term threat. Ryanair is the model you need to look at, as Willie Walsh knows from personal experience from Aer Lingus. Whilst many people here are assuming that profitability will return to BA (and the other "old economy" airlines mentioned), Ryanair is still profitable. They made about €100m in operating profit in the year to 3/09, and only made a loss because of the provision on their 30% Aer Lingus stake. Ryanair has already destroyed the old short haul business model of BA and others, and has announced plans to go long haul (quoting one-way fares to the US of €10 incidentally).

Is O'Leary serious about expanding long haul? And if so, how does this impact BA? Again, you need a reality check to begin with. Ryanair is already a bigger customer of Boeing than BA, so already getting better price/financing deals on aircraft than BA. That gives them a cost advantage already even before factoring in relative staff costs.

I don't know Walsh or O'Leary. My investment style is quant driven: I just look at the financial numbers. So my views are based on affordability and just what I hear and read like anyone else. This, though, suggests two things to me. First, Ryanair can certainly afford to expand outside Europe. They've got about €2 billion in cash and near-cash though, like all airlines, they are burning through this during the severe downturn. Secondly, should such expansion come, it will be in typical Ryanair style, eg the €10 tickets, to build market share quickly and force capacity cut backs onto established players. What if they start running a business class to New York at, say €1,000 each way? That would be about a 50% discount to BA, wouldn't it? How long before BA had to reduce service levels?

If you want to see a good analogy for what's happening to airlines, just check out the US motor industry. A domestic player that used to be "the world's favourite motor car company" now reduced to administrative protection from its creditors, caused mainly by over-generous health and pension benefits and restrictive work practices. The three old "big beasts" all in a run-down not-fit-for-purpose city, Detroit (read: Heathrow). Meanwhile the new players have far fewer workforce worries, more flexibility, and are nowhere near Heathrow. I'm actually surprised BA supported (this time) the BAA break-up. One thing that will do is allow a non-BAA London airport to be a pure low-cost provider, competing directly with LHR.

I hope my outsiders' perspective is interesting if nothing else. As I said at the start, I have no direct link to the industry other than using it too often than I really want to. My focus is on advising investors, not trying to help company managers talk up the value of their stock, so I stay well clear of them. Just my views based on the numbers I see. From that I see BA in a mess, but not as bad as some others. Unfortunately, though, you have the leanest, meanest, toughest, most aggressive low-cost provider right on your lawn. Pre-Ryanair, Aer Lingus had a monopoly of its home business, and I remember the days of paying £250 economy/£350 business fares between LHR and DUB. Look at Aer Lingus' relative position now and short haul fares generally. Incidentally, Ryanair destroyed EI well before Willie arrived. He did a reasonable job of fighting back, hampered by a then 100% shareholder (the Irish government) that was more worried about what the Unions would think of privatisation than EI's need for investment finance to be able to challenge Ryanair.

A failure to move to low-cost airline working methods and efficiencies will have only one result for BA. Ryanair could take the existing BA premium model and simply operate it at much lower cost if they wanted to. They don't need to dumb down the product to reduce the price.

e-mail received on Friday
 

urging colleagues to take unpaid leave or temporary part time work. If you don't agree to to take some time off you will have to meet with a manager to explain why you are unable to 'co-operate'

Wiggy, or any other BA pilots out there.

Is it true that BALPA was privy to a financial analysis of the airline and its current, and likely future financial state, which guided them towards accepting a cut in pay?

And is it true that the other unions, including BASSA have also been privy to this analysis?

Why isnt BASSA telling its members how things really are?

Its time for BASSA to negotiate a settlement deal. We only have until the 30th.

Well Andy, no one is listening to your defeatist diatribe.

I would not trust BALPA if I was a pilot for BA. Too many of their reps want to follow in Walsh's footsteps allegedly. But it is typical behaviour for the BA pilots to roll over. Walsh understands them and knows they wouldn't strike. The cabin crew are different, they will not have any new T&C's permanently imposed, just because of a temporary dip in business.

You have conveniently forgotten that BA would be in profit if it wasn't for its fuel hedging. Some manager in a office made a bad decision and now it is being used as a built in excuse to savagedly cut pay and conditions.

In the past when there has been a downturn due to 9/11, SARS, Gulf War, these events were not used opportunistically to cut the pay and conditions of everyone in the airline. This time is no different.

We all know why BA has lost a lot of money without me listing it all here. However:

*Why has the court case featuring a BA Director and 3 senior managers over fuel surcharge price fixing been delayed? They were committed to trial at Southwark earlier this year.

* Where are the two directors sacrificed by Walsh over T5. Where are they working now? Are they still sitting at home on full pay? Why don't they speak of their humiliation, or are they bound by Confidentiality Agreements? Walsh refused to answer that question twice, when posed by MP Louise Ellman at last years Commons Transport Select Committees investigation into the T5 fiasco.

I do not believe anything that the CEO or management of BA say. They have made so many mistakes and gaffs, they are totally unreliable.

Whether BA survives or not isn't dependant on the current T&C's of its employees. If poverty pay and conditions were the holy grail of running an airline, Aer Lingus would not be in the state it is. Is this the future for BA?

No way!!

This has been explained numerous times already, it wouldn't have made a profit because of Hedging.

It is certainly a major factor when there are other airlines out there doing what BA does with a much lower cost base, and in some cases to a higher standard.

And with Aer Lingus, yes there were massive changes, but the fact is it is still here! I guess we will see what happens to BA in the next couple of years before we can draw a definative conclusion on that aspect.

I am not a pilot but perhaps the pilots 'rolling over' is because they have had access to the full facts and are making a decision that is in the best interest of both them and the company, the best scenerio I think. Yes there might be some loss of terms and conditions but looking at the long term picture it is probably better than no job or someone taking over and ripping all contracts up and starting again!

747-436,

You can't win, can you? If anyone dares to see it from any other way than the BASSA one then they're told to go away and stop scaremongering. Should the invitation be reversed then they're met with venemous or patronising indignation. I fear truly that whatever BALPA have managed to arrange will prove irrelevant the minute the strike ballot is issued by BASSA and our forward bookings dry up in their entirety and our projected cashflow solvency is then measured in small numbers of weeks.

I, for one, fear the worst now.

Mr B

Stall Pusher. I think that you, and people like you are in for a very nasty shock in the next few weeks. The more sensible stewards and stewardesses are handing in their BASSA resignations as fast as they can.

BALPA has been negotiating this since NOVEMBER last year and their reps have been allowed access to 'the books'.

Hence they have now agreed a package. This hasn't been voted on yet as it hasn't been released yet.

It is a perverse logic that thinks it can defy the cold financial climate we are in.

"Airlines all over the world are losing money including us but this is all Willie Walsh's fault and if we threaten to strike he'll back down" :confused::confused::confused:

It's a difficult one isn't it. Listen to the organisation who have historically been atrocious at negotiating and briefing their members also resorting to 'name and shame' tactics if people have the audacity to go against the unionistic will.

or,

Listen to the group who have just finished long, detailed negotiations with the company, using a fully independent, third party auditing teams financial appraisal of the companies financial state. Several in depth meetings with the company executive including both the CEO and the Chief Financial Officer. Also discussing the pension issue which has a massive bearing on the current struggle, which also has, upon the BACC, a member of the pension fund trustees.

Now, whose data could one trust? Even if the details aren't out fully in the open, as that would be sensitive commercial information, if one group were to make concessions to the company for the benefit of their members, would that be 'rolling over' or a rather pragmatic decision based upon current financial and economic data?

I'll let you decide.

BASSA negotiating a settlement deal? I don't believe for a second they will back down and definitely not approve anything what BA suggests.

To be honest I am getting fed up with them. Who is running the airline after all? BA's attempt to improve their WTP service by introducing hot towels doesn't seem to go very well because BASSA forbids their members to hand them out as "it has not been agreed". Ridicilous. Grow up.

You are right nuigini - I have some friends, a married couple who are crew and they are leaving BASSA tomorrow, they tell me many others are doing the same.

Especially when crew are saying that BA's products are lacking in comparison with other airlines. Perhaps they should ask themselves why. Because everything has to go through BASSA and they keep saying no.

This is probably how it all goes.

BA: We want to introduce hot towels in World Traveller Plus.
BASSA: No, not gonna happen unless you put on another crew member. It's bad enough as it is.

BA: Would it be okay to remove one crew member on the domestic routes?
BASSA: Of course. If one crew member goes, the service goes as well. You can't expect them to do both sandwiches AND drinks.

BA: Would you agree in cutting down the crew levels on longhaul?
BASSA: Service will suffer. No brekkie! Our members aren't working under those conditions. It's inhuman.

BA: Fixed links might be a good idea. Would you agree to cutting down the turnaround time at the CRC?
BASSA: Are you mad?
BA: No.
BASSA: In that case we want a good turnaround allowance and each sector can't be longer than 45 minutes. Come to think of it. No.

BA: The CSD role would need to change and become part of the service.
BASSA: They are part of the service. They do boarding, hand out landing cards and hourly cabin checks. What else? You mean tea and coffee? No, they can't do that. We say no.

BA: We would like to discuss the disruption agreement and having two local nights.
BASSA: There's nothing to discuss. It's stressful enough having to do a disruption.
BA: Would you agree to one local night?
BASSA: One night only? Isn't that inhuman? Think about the affects involved in flying. They will get tired with only one local night after a diversion. No, no, no.

BA: Allowances are a bit high. We would really need to take them down a bit.
BASSA: Again, are you mad? Look, our members have mortages to pay, children to feed and bread to bake. Think about our part-timers struggling on a part-time salary.

BA: We haven't really reached anything.
BASSA: No and if you try anything like this again we'll ballot for a strike, understood? We, the union and our members, don't enjoy being bullied around like this.