Andyismyname,
You make many comments on here ..........
FYI - When the last set of serious negotiations were made in '97 there was basically some money left over in the pot due to the changes made, and these would re occur annually. It was decided to spend this amount by forming a destination payment on more arduous routes, and is the choice of the unions which routes are paid it.
Simple really.

CFC..............but didnt the dstination payments only apply to LHR routes? I thought that is why the MIA service which came up from LGW didnt attract the payment.

In the current climate can we justify it?

Maybe the money left in the pot was in LHR WW's pot..??

Yes, as we did our own bit of divide and conquer. So, do you think we can justify the destination payments, or the back- to-back payments, don't forget, that although we get a hotel room and allowances and a payment. I can't justify it! Not now!

It was twelve years ago the destination payment was introduced! Do you really think there is money left in this pot? I don't think so!

In my experience they are cutting down on the number of B2B because they aren't as cheap or effective as before. I have had a pretty fair share of Eastern Coast nighstops the last year.

Think about DFW and IAH that have come to LHR from LGW. They are both giving destination payments. At LGW they didn't receive it.

You're all missing the point.

The money left over was from changes to our agreements and was originally put onto arduous routes at both LHR & LGW. However with LGW going to SFLGW, all dest. payments are out of LHR only now. Its irrelevant if some routes were originally at LGW.
There has been more of these destinations recently and the 'pot' has been split more, hence the payment has dropped dramatically over recent years.

We're not getting anything extra - just monies that were owed to us from '97.

Calm down, I was trying to enlighten you about the destination payment.
I did say, twice, if you want a full indepth answer as to how it came about and why we still have it, go onto our in-house forum and I'm sure there's a few who could answer more fully than I.

I'm all for change,especially for the good of the company, but I've never heard any cabin get angry about being paid destination payments..!!!!

Any of your allowances you can't justify receiving, then please pass them on to Dreamflight, I'm sure they'll be very grateful...

Please remember that ALL of our payments have been fought hard for by our colleagues i.e. 3rd MBT on a transatlantic after a two week strike in 1971. Whether it be called 'destination', 'west coast' or whatever these are our payments and our form of income and I'm glad to see our representatives from both CC unions working hard to keep them.

Happy Flying!

CFC you have hit the nub of the problem on the head

Thats OK when the government of the day are picking up the tab, but 38years later restrictive practices like these have no place in a privately owned airline trying to compete on a global scale, with people that can do it better, quicker and for less money, your shinning example is why Cabin Crew now have a bulls eye on their back and Willie Walsh has a large bow and arrow:ok:

".............both unions working hard to keep them". I think they are pushing the proverbial up hill.

I fear that if we dont achieve a negotiated solution by the 30th, Willie will be able to say that because of the economic circumstances he has no option but to nullify our agreements, and impose our new working practices.

The future is ours to grasp, not to throw away.

I would still like to know how much money is left in this pot since 1997 or if the company is being forced to take the destination payment out of its own pocket. I still find it very hard to believe that there is any money left in it twelve years later when you think about the number of destinations and crew being owed to.

nuigini, pop along to the union offices, either one, next time you're in CRC.

They will be able to answer all your questions.

Each year there is money left in the pot. It was not just however much was in it when our pay was restructured.There is a similar amount left over each year.

Hellooooooo........... pop along to the union offices and you will be preached at. "Willie is telling lies", "everything is rosy" etc.

Look at the figures, average cost at BA £29000, average cost at Virgin £14000.

That is around £15000 per head, and there are around 13000 of us........do the maths, that is £195 million that could be saved.

There is no "money in the pot" for payments.

We need to negotiate permanent changes by the 30th, or they will be forced apon us, which will be very unpleasant.

I was talking about the destination payments, specifically....:ugh:

Right, that's me off from here for another few months....!

13, I was just trying to explain why I dont think there is any money left in the pot this time.

The pot has a serious leak.

PS. the dest. payments weren't negotiated in the '70s......

13

But what are saying, is that things negotiated in the past, be that in the 1970's or 1990's cannot change.

That is where you are fundamentally wrong - times have changed and a new set of basics need to be established for the 21st Century.

I would suggest that the complexity of the CC agreements is precisely because BASSA have refused to change the basics, and what you have is a 1960's contract with bolt ons from the 70's, 80's and 90's for BTB, telephone allowances, MBTR, early day report allowances, destination payments etc etc to say nothing about the restrictive practises of 2 local nights when disrupted in WW or 15/18 hours in SH after a 'long' day or not doing fixed links through LHR requiring numerous extra CC sitting around all day.

I would liken the CC agreements to a Microsoft Operating system, it is an elephant balanced on a pin, totally not fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

Rest assured, that if BASSA won't negotiate sensibly in the next fortnight, the elephant will be toppled and a new simpler structure imposed.

A vote for a strike = a vote for the dole.

Why not just contact UNITE - Bassa or Amicus for the facts rather than make it up as you go along.

Twice now the CC unions have met BA's requirements only to see the goalposts moved. Willie will not rest until he gets his own way.

Having been CC with BA for 30 years now and never really been union minded, I now can't wait for the ballot paper to drop on my mat to vote for strike.........and you will see me on the front line supporting my 14,000 colleagues (30,000 if the whole of Unite come out)!

I suspect most of your 14000 colleagues will be at work whilst you're on the front line. It's all well and good saying BA move the goalposts, but times change, and sadly whatever you, and indeed I, gave up at the last cost saving round we are now in a situation where BA could feasibly be looking at insolvency. Not either of our faults, but that's where we are. The current Unite proposals to BA were apparently somewhat optimistic with their sums, and also included not claiming a pay rise as a cost saving. I'm sure you can see why BA weren't impressed by that. Simply tinkering round the edges and trying to preserve outdated agreements by cutting rates for new entrants doesn't get close to delivering the efficiencies needed in the timeframe needed. BA don't need trickle-through savings from new starters when it only takes one old contract CSD to insist on his two local nights at Prestwick to scupper the operation.