It's nowhere near £500 for u/s crew rest.

Actually SP when the bunk lights fail that they fail 'on' for safety so you don't fall down the stairs. The CB's must be manually pulled (with the captains permission!) for the lights to go out.

But I guess you already knew that!

And it would probably trigger a 'cabin crew falling down stairs' payment ! :E

£208.14 is the current diversion payment, which I'm told is the value of the 'Can't get to sleep' payment.

£208, Thanks Carnage, I stand corrected. Phew, I though £500 was a bit much. £208 is far, far more reasonable for a light that won't go off who could dispute such a critical payment! :ugh:


SP, just out of interest what does the Flight Crew controlled rest have to do with you? Last time I looked the Cabin Crew came under the command of the Captain, followed by the SFO/FO then the CSD, not the other way round? Hence the reason why the CSD has to report crew rest to the Flight Crew but flight crew only need to 'inform' the crew about controlled rest so they don't get disturbed. Also 'controlled rest' is detailed in flight crew orders irrespective of 'heavy' crews. So, your point is and what exactly will you be reporting?

Instead of just likening WW to a Mill Owner, give the forum a good, valid reason why BASSA shouldn't accept change? Surely the removal of various destination based payments will level the system out and be of benefit to the majority of Cabin Crew instead of those old enough and 'senior' enough to cream off the lucrative trips?

I have it on some reasonable authority, that if any group fails to reach agreement by the end of the month, that the targets for that group when the company come to impose a solution will in all likelyhood vary upwards, ie the imposed savings will match the current business needs rather than those back in January when they were originally set. The business has gone downhill since then.

So, SP, you may be right or you may be wrong in your allegations, but you see it doesn't really matter either way, because the letter of the law and the man at the helm will (right royally and legally) have his way with you, all BASSA can do is mitigate the extent of the shafting, and this they seem totally unprepared to do, and it is his that we have been advising about for some months, to no avail.

The rest of the employees will welcome it and whilst feeling sorry for the some individuals, feel that justice has been done and that as a company we can move forward as a more focussed entity.

Especially that bit that common sense will surely prevail before next week.

SP: how would you have run Aer Lingus?
 

"Walsh changed the "core business" at Aer Lingus and now look at it...unable to compete with RyanAir as a low cost carrier."

I'm curious how you would have competed against Ryanair had you been CEO of Aer Lingus. The options were pretty limited. Remember Aer Lingus was pretty much a short haul operator pre-Ryanair. It earned the bulk of its revenue flying DUB-LHR, with a "normal" economy fare being about £250 return, and business class of £350. I'm not a Ryanair fan, but the airline (and MOL especially) deserves huge credit for reducing the "normal" cost of flying to London now to no more than €50/£40, a high proportion of which is passenger tax and airport "security" charges. 15 years ago Ryanair was messing about with a handful of clapped out planes. It now carries far more passengers than BA, is a much larger customer of Boeing than is BA, will have the second largest fleet globally if and when it implements its latest fleet enlargement, and is profitable (ex-provision against its Aer Lingus ahareholding). It also has a better safety record than BA over those 15 years. In short, it is a fearsome competitor and, bad news for BA, it has signalled its intent to do to long haul travel what it has already done to short haul.

WW's problem at Aer Lingus was that he could not grow the airline (ie aircraft numbers) because the Irish government, then the only shareholder, could not afford to invest in the airline. Nor, however, would it sell the airline. Of course after WW's departure the government did exactly what WW had recommended. They privatised the airline, having already authorised a big increase in the fleet with a consequent increase in routes. Aer Lingus has, and continues to go through, the painful process of restructuring to make it competitive versus LoCos. I suspect the same debate you are currently having on CC T&Cs has happened, and continues to happen, within Aer Lingus. I know they have had several rounds of job cuts, even whilst they were expanding their route network.

Moving to a structure that allows legacy airlines to compete with the LoCos is painful. WW probably has more knowledge and experience of taking on the "daddy" of LoCos than any other airline executive globally.

Are you sure you want that claim put to the test, given Ryanairs recent record of having to climb to reach the runway off a circling approach in Ireland, throwing on 80 degrees of bank in an unstable approach in Rome or landing with take off flaps at about 200 knots in Oslo? A better luck record perhaps!

How did you work that one out? Each airline has had one major incident, both very similar with similar results. Minor incident wise RYR have had gone off the runway at Limoges, Lodz and Aarhus, and had the extremely nasty incidents mentioned above. BA have had no similar inceidents.

Carnage #1050
 

Based on the fact that BA crashed at Heathrow recently, Ryanair haven't. And weren't BA "lucky" with that one? I read that fuel leaked from the plane and would probably have ignited had the plane reached the runway and caused sparks, rather than coming to rest on the (very wet) grass short of the runway.

The BA38 incident wasn't the BA crews fault and their intervention prevented an accident from being a tragedy. Speculation about wet grass preventing a fire is just that - speculation - and improbable speculation at that given what we know about the impact.Jet fuel doesn't ignite from a few sparks. Contrast that with the three unstable approaches I detailed, which were completely attributable to the actions of the crew. You'll also note that Ryanair had a rather similar crash a few months back when they hit a flock of birds at Ciampino, as Hotel Mode has pointed out.

Didn't Ryanair have a hull loss somewhere else, though?

In any case, there is NO significant difference between BA's and FR's accident rate. 1 accident out of BA's thousands of flights over many years is not statistically significant.

Sorry to go off topic......

But this thread is about BA Cabin Crew, so lets go back there

Erm, I think one of the reasons airlines do NOT use safety data in their publicity is because they know it is pretty much meaningless. Is Air France safer now than it was a month ago/year ago/decade ago? Ditto Ryanair/BA/United, virtually any well regulated and trained airline in the world.

This is a bit of a distraction (perhaps the point, given the lack of concrete facts concerning the main points raised on this thread?)

BA must adapt to survive. The board, the shareholders, and the majority of staff think WW is the man to do it. ANY staff group that seeks to hold the company to ransom with unreasonable demands WILL be steamrollered.

We're really going off the topic now talking about aircraft crashes.

It's obvious to anyone who reads these threads that BA cabin crew need better representation from a sensible trade union rather than a union who's sole aim appears to be to gain power and wants to be seen as though they are really running the airline.

Cabin crew pay high monthly union fees and deserve better representaion to protect thier jobs and future employment. The outcome of non negotions will probably adversely affect the crew in the long run.

Most crew I have spoken to have a sensible approach to the issue, they must speak louder to be heard above the small minority who think they work for the union instead of the airline.

Most crew do have a sensible approach towards the issue but the problem is the consequences faced should they raise their opinion. Nobody is brave enough to take the first step. It only takes one person and the others will follow the lead. I would love to walk into the BASSA office and say exactly how I feel about their standpoint but in that case I would be in for a tough fight. I have also heard that the negotiations are not progressing at all and we are only seven days away from the deadline before BA, what I think (better to point this out because I obviously have no authority according to a certain member), remove all offers for part-time and unpaid leave and introduce their cost saving plan as well doing CR instead of VR.

We are working for BA, not BASSA. BA is running the business, not BASSA.

When are they going to resolve the situation about hot towels? I came home from a trip this morning and the CSD asked them to be done before second break was over. Number 10, as well the FC PSR, refused and referred to BASSA which left a temporary crew member to do them. One of the passengers came to the galley and said they were positively surprised about the hot towel and asked if it was something new. Number 10 said it had been going on since January but not agreed by the union as it has been agreed not to put any more work on us. The passenger raised his eyebrows and asked why BA needs permission for a simply task like that. We are becoming a laugh stock. Seriously.

Good job nobody told him about the "Can't get to sleep in the bunk" payment!!!

It seems so odd to me, perhaps because I've never been in a union, that the employer would even have to consult with the union to make some changes. As previously mentioned, the issue of handing out hot towels in WTP and the union vetoing it. To me it just seems something that the employer would inform the CC that as part of your duties you now need to hand out hot towels as part of the service to WTP passengers. In a more general sense it puzzles me that it seems the CC crew and the union are defining which duties they will perform as part of their job rather than the employer adding and removing duties as they see fit from a business perspective. Then I would expect the union to only get involved when those duties fall so far outside of their job description or in disciplinary cases. It seems nowadays that the union is almost working as a third party and really sees their members as contractors to which they enter into contracts with a company. I wonder at what point does the union become the tail that wags the dog?

I fully agree Jean-Lill, but how do we get them to do this? The Unite Website is advocating that BA have "parked" the new fleet, and that talks are progressing,:D whilst the BASSA Chairman has spouted off the usual BASSA rhetoric about WW wanting to smash the unions and seems more distressed about a crew member who has been disciplined for posting a Union sticker on BA Property.:eek:

Our lives really is in their hands. There is never any real debate on the matter, and quite frankly we're now just wasting time trying. Unable to understand any of the real factors at play here, SP et al simply quote the BASSA rhetoric - if I hear "sweetheart deal" "smash & grab" or "management buy-out" one more time I'll scream!

People are also talking about CR. I don't think we'll get CR. I think what we will get is compulsory New Fleet, though. BA can't make CR and then employ staff for their New Fleet, so they will have to make a certain amount of us New Fleet. Can they do it? Not sure - but I'm sure they've looked into it!

Time is running out.....

Controlled rest ....... all deleted, can't be bothered.

Will just wait and see what happens next week.

Another BASSA victory I suspect and the rest of us can all make more sacrifices to keep the company afloat.:ugh:

There seems to be a lot of jealousy and envy displayed here on this thread of cabin crew T&C's. It is not surprising after BALPA intelligently negotiated away the flight crew's allowance package and found an elegant solution in the hourly rate. Not many pilots say what a good idea it is these days, after the weak £ reduced their spending power by 28% against major currencies.

Flight crew also need to be reminded that if BASSA had settled first with a nice cosy sweetheart deal, and Walsh was attempting to set up an OpenSkies operation at LHR (with voluntary junior jet flight crews of course), they might not appreciate worried cabin crew giving them the benefit of their opinion.

You are on the back burner for the moment, let BASSA negotiate and all will soon be revealed.

Carnage #1053
 

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to veer off track. My implicit point was that LoCos are viewed as potentially cutting costs even on safety, yet the safety records of full service and LoCos are very similar. I'd happily get on a plane of either airline ons afety grounds.

The main point I was looking to make is that neither Ryanair or BA appear to give a stuff about their customers. I think it's a corporate policy at Ryanair which is top-down driven. At BA the issue appears to be one of internal culture at the passenger interface. The impression given is that some BA staff still view the world from a producer perspective, ie the airline ought to fit their needs rather than them meeting customer needs. The result risks being an airline with Ryanair standards of customer care, but a much higher cost base.

My interest here is that I'm no fan of Ryanair, I'm not solely price-motivated, and I don't think I'm alone in this attitude. However, when faced with two airlines, both of which give poor service, clearly the cheaper one is preferable. And Ryanair is BA's biggest potential threat long term if they expand in long haul as aggressively as they have in short haul.

Should anyone at BA care what I think? Possibly, given that I was a Gold Exec member for quite a while, contributing (along with my employer!) about £25,000-£50,000pa in revenue. I now contribute zero, and that's not just a "recession thing". I think I've flown BA twice in almost three years, both times DUB-LGW in economy on the cheapest fares I could find. I've flown long haul business class with other airlines.

WW is trying to bring about cultural change. I hope he succeeds. If he does, I might even risk transiting LHR again and use BA to fly long haul, in the expensive seats. To do so, though, requires much improved customer service at BA. The ground experience is generally appalling, eg lost luggage. I've never had any complaints about CC, and am shocked at some of the attitudes revealed here by CC about colleagues. The good ones do a good job of covering the bad ones is all I can say! To get the necessary change, though, requires lower costs, which in turn requires greater flexibility, as well as revised remuneration structures that incent staff to deliver the required revisions to customer care. The first two have a definite impact on CC, whereas there are probably bigger issues with ground services in respect of the third.

SP, you said "Let BASSA negotiate"

...........a first time for everything!!

SP - Most pilots still have plenty to say about the hourly rate, and I happen to think it was the best thing we've done in years, regardless of sterlings decline, because there's more money in my basic now and the taxman isn't going to rape me next year with a punitive tax rate on an allowance system thats been shown to be more income than allowance! And thats before we even start on the benefits of removing the money factor from bidding for trips!

You've been getting 'sweetheart deals' as your reps like to call them for years thanks to weak and inefficient management in CS&Ops, IFS and latterly IFCE. You've been protected from the economic storm by an empire building head of department and an unwillingness to take you on. For that reason, and that reason alone, your union has not had to think, let alone negotiate, in any meaningfil way for a decade. Perhaps if they had you'd have secured a scope deal that would prevent BA opening up Newfleet in the way BALPA have done.

Your rhetoric is coming straight from the pages of the BASSA forum, misrepresenting the views of every other group in an effort to vindicate BASSAs feet of clay. You have 7 days to reach a solution. The costs savings will be permanent. I await with baited breath what BASSA think will be an acceptable solution to BA.

JP - Its a shame you haven't flown BA in a while but things have changed significantly. Are Ryanair cheaper than BA? If you book weeks in advance in one of their sales, yes. If you book later in the day, then my experience has been no. BA are sufficiently confident of their price competitiveness that they've launched this. Do you get the same service on Ryanair as BA? No you don't. Every time I fly BA I get at least a free drink and a bite to eat, I don't have to rummage in my pocket for change to pay for it, I don't have to fight for a seat with the masses, I have more legroom, and whilst I get bombarded with the same endless cacophony of PAs by the cabin crew at least they're not trying to sell me scratchcards. And as a bonus I'll end up at an airport near where I'm trying to get to rather than one 40 miles away.

Will Ryanair expand into longhaul? I think thats as likely as M O'Ls claim he'd like to buy Lufthansa. He has the cash and the opportunity to do it so why won't he? The answer is that its an entirely different market from the one he makes his money in - huge entry costs, high overheads and myriad complexities of operation that he has so succesfully stripped out of his airline. Ryanair operate in the economy market, and they can't sell business class seats because it goes completely against the ethos of what they stand for and what the business customer wants. Premium economy? Maybe they can sell that, but can you see flat beds, champagne and airport lounges in a Ryanair business plan?

As to BA, the ground experience at LHR is leagues ahead of last year. BA has the lowest rate of mishandled bags at LHR now, and the majority of those that don't make flights are late transfers from other airlines outside BAs control. Punctuality is vastly improved, even beating bmi who were advertising themselves as 'Heathrows most punctual airline'. There are a few snarly groundstaff about, but not many large airlines escape that blight.

Despite my initial reservations WW has changed BA radically during his tenure and mostly for the good. Now he is facing the last bastions of militancy in his effort to kick the company into shape.

Seem to remember that it was BALPA that negotiated the pensions deal an BASSA jumped on the coat-tails and then claimed foul. Also remember the ludicrous list of demands produced a few years ago. Not much negotiation then either. And by incorporating many of the old allowances ino our basic pay we improved our pensions considerably and, god forbid, any future redundancy payout.

Priceless!

So, what you are now saying is that BALPA messed up by getting rid of the allowance system that is now causing BASSA so much pain. As a result we have now, in this cost cutting exercise, got a 'sweetheart' deal?

You cannot have it both ways SP. You whinge a few posts ago about how unfair it all is that Pilots have 'got off lightly' and then go on to say that it was stupid for the pilots to give away allowances? This is typical BASSA rhetoric.

The two go hand in hand. Flight Crew, along with many other departments have adjusted to the current economic situation by using the measures you discussed. There is no need to 'trump' about hourly rate as it doesn't affect us any more. No one is bothered about what destinations we go to, what 'sweetie' payments we receive. What I can tell you is that, within a few pounds, I know from my roster what I am going to get paid. Foul weather, disruption or not.

The only reason BASSA are having so much trouble now is that they have inadequately planned for the future of their membership in the past. Instead holding on to the past, seniority based block payments which now so disadvantage the junior crew. Bid to specific destinations? Not a chance, every member of the crew is BA + 25 years, 'won't get on that one luv, senior trip!'. Rubbish.

There is no 'jealousy or envy', to be honest I look back at the ridiculous position you have put yourselves in and laugh! Trust me, you don't earn anywhere near my what hourly rate nets me. Unfortunately it isn't that funny when I see it impacting on the customers, the ones who really pay your wages and there are a small fraction within the CC community who will do anything to inconvenience them.

I do, indeed, wait with baited breath for the next missive to be decreed from fortress BASSA! I really, really hope that it doesn't affect the junior, hard working CC more than the ivory tower senior ones who have had their time!

If anyone takes the first step to talk some common sense into this issue they fly in fear that possibly some other crew will gang-up on them and make their flight a misery.

There is often a strong union supporter on some flights who always has a loud voice. My opinion is the sensible crew are too afraid to speak up for the reason I have given and reman silent for an easier flight.

As far as hot towels in WTP is concerned it's both disgraceful and laughable, a task that will take one person about 5 minutes out of a possible 12 hours flight time. Their union want an extra c/c for what must be an extra 5 minutes work for one person out of possibly 15 of them.s There are no aircraft with more than 36 WTP seats. I am surprised the crew refused to offer the hot towels if the CSD wanted them offered. It just goes to show who some crew think their employer is. It would be a different matter if they were asked to do an extra meal round or something, but hot towels for 36 pax and 5 minutes work for one person!!!

On euro fleet they manage hot towels on flight times of 45 minutes and one person often hands them out and collects them in again in minutes without a fuss, they do not put an extra crew member on for the task. Hot towels are something the pax seem to appreciate and are such a small effort for the crew and as I have said takes a just a few minutes.

SP, could I trouble you to edit your post above and replace the two words underlined above with the ones I think you meant to put in:

'Incredulity' and 'Disbelief'

Thanks, I think everyone could read it better then as it would follow the general trend of the thread.


:ugh:

Kit Kat, nice post!

BASSA and some members don't openly say BA has to put on another crew member. What they are saying is that after 9/11 it "was agreed that no additional tasks were to be added". Indirectly it means exactly that they should put on another crew member.

Especially those who start in the briefing room by performing a little speech as well handing out printouts from BASSA.

"Especially those who start in the briefing room by performing a little speech as well handing out printouts from BASSA."

You're kidding? - you really must just tell them to naff off.

On the serious side there are EG(insert appropriate number) which deal with bullying and harassment in the work place - use them if you need to.

"BA are sufficiently confident of their price competitiveness that they've launched this."

£80 to check in at the airport! grief what a stinge that man is!

Think I'll do this in bullet-point style:

• It is claimed that taking a crew member (or two) off the LHR aircraft will cause the passengers to suffer - LGW crew operate with at least two crew less and still have great standards of service (most of the time)
• If LHR cc is brought into line with pilots and LGW cc regarding allowances, they will be able to have a bidding system (this applies for WorldWide)
• Most cc on the transfer list from LGW to LHR are on it for two reasons: They either live closer or want to earn more money, however they like the environment at LGW.
• A fair amount of cc who've transferred to LHR in the past would like to come back to LGW.
• Pilots are not bullies, although some of them can come across as blunt. Neither are pilots cc's enemy. Most of our pilots are intelligent and a good source of information for various topics, likewise for a lot of cc.
• Bassa is on a suicide mission by the looks of it. Lies, mis-information, over-the-top drama and a lot of shouting about non-facts.
• The issue of working for free has been blown out of all proportion. It was one sentence at the end of an email sent to ALL staff. As an aside, KLM pilots have been asked to work ground duties, and some are doing it.
• Do not believe everything in the media.
• Cc need to start thinking for themselves and do their own research - quickly.
• All other departments have suffered, both in past and the forseeable future. Our colleagues in other departments are not jealous, neither do they relish the changes that are needed.
• A major bank in the City is funding LCY-JFK, so it will not be "another" Open Skies operation. It's an extention to the LGW operation, so won't have the set-up costs of a "new" airline.
• Any other current dispute in a different company doesn't apply to BA.
• There is still no legal reason to ballot for strike action. It is legal to set up "New Fleet", and therefore a strike ballot would be illegal from the Bassa (not the ballot, but strike action).
• This is not the time to be obsternate (sp?) and putting fingers in ears, shouting "lalalalalala". It is time to stop wasting time and start negotiating -fast.
• It's been clearly communicated that temporary changes are not enough. And I happen to agree, as do many others.
• I'm clearly getting tired of my t&c's (for what little they're worth) being put at risk because some pre '97 cc (and their followers) are only interested in themselves.
• There are plenty of more points to put across, but I'll add as and when.

Gg

Quite! BASSA make frequent reference to these procedures to incite crew to report pilots who comment on the business plan. I wonder how they'd feel if the tactic was used against them!

Thats about £2 less than the total cost of a domestic ticket to fly to see my family. And I'll get to check in at the airport, with my suitcase, and have a nice can of beer on board.:ok:

Whilst BASSA is attempting to negotiate, BA management are messing around trying to start discussions about the new fleet and new contracts. If the situation was so urgent, the priority would be mitigating job losses now, not worrying about recruiting new crew on new contracts in the future. The fact this is on BA's mind, demonstrates that they are not serious about saving jobs and reducing costs to get BA through the downturn.


Of course threatening compulsory redundancies on the one hand whilst preparing the way to recruit new staff on new contracts creates an atmosphere of distrust. BA management appear to be evermore erratic in dealing with the immediate priorities affecting the business.

GG you need to get out more. Cabin crew at LGW are you........ummmmmmm me thinks not.

Excellent post as ever, Glamgirl
 

You should hear what some crew at LHR are saying!

"Most crew at LGW are both young and living at home so they can afford what they are being paid"

"La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la we're not listening about newfleet..................Now can we negotiate please?"

only 7 days to go and all will become clear. I know who I'm putting my money on.......:ok:

BASSA, negotiate?

YES PLEASE!! But do it for ALL of us, not just in a deal that benefits, or gives the least pain, to CSD's and Pursers!!

BASSA aren't negotiating anything! The company is willing to discuss new fleet and new contract, hardly a surprise there, but BASSA are saying that they can't negotiate anything unless the subject of redundancy is discussed first. BASSA do not run the company, they do not lead and demand in negotiations and they do nothing for their membership.

How odd, that BASSA initially refused to discuss 'anything' as the state of the company was one big ruse, then the company files paperwork to make 2000 jobs (not people, jobs) redundant and BASSA can't discuss anything else apart from this 'grave threat'?

What part of the word 'imposition' don't BASSA understand?

Discuss it now, reach an agreement which benefits your membership and then stick to it. The consequences of doing nothing could be far worse.