Very funny.

However it does nothing to achieve a balanced argument. It just underlines my belief that certain members of this site simply hate cabin crew and Bassa.

But, it was funny.

The issue of the letters.

They simply point out what many people are thinking. On one hand Walsh tells the world that BA is going out of business, then whilst workers are being asked to work for nothing, it is revealled that not only do current members of the board still recieve free unlimited first class travel, but it is for life, regardless of whether they are still a BA employee, and extends to their spouses and children under 24yrs. Current members of the board having such a perk I could cope with. But to extend this perk whilst we are desperate to save cash. Mixed message.

The issue of bullying is particularily sinister. It has transpired that some senior department managers issued an email to all their staff which listed the BRS options. They were required to submit a response. The final option was on the lines of 'I do not wish to help the company out and I will not be taking any of the options'. Ticking this box, it was suggested, would lead to a discussion with the reciprients manager on how they could help the company. Figures are not being released to indicate a department breakdown of where the options were exercised. To make matters worse those who have opted to work for free are to lose 2 days annual leave!

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6586907.ece

Another interesting artilcle. Walsh's messages do not add up.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2009/06/how_bad_is_it_a.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

The issue of the letters: do you think the cost of free (note the word free) first class travel for board members compares in any way to the volume of savings the company required from IFCE? How do you think the cost of travel for former board members compares to the cost of travel for retirees from BA?

The issue of the letters: do you think, given the fact that BA apologised to the unions over two weeks ago, admitted the emails were poorly worded and stated that nobody should have been asked to work for free, that publically criticising the error in an open letter is a little mischievous?

With reference to the rather short Businessweek article, I think it's been pointed out more times than enough that BA have to invest in their premium products in order to keep market share in what few profitable business areas there are. The LCY route has strong forward bookings from the one of our major customers. Do you think the better business strategy is to keep on providing what the passengers don't want to pay for, or provide something new that they do want to pay for?

The latest thing on the BASSA forum is to criticise Bidline (and how apparently expensive it is!!) and the pilot hotel agreements (and apparently how expensive they are!!!!)

So let's get this right then:

No-one can even suggest the CC agreements are expensive because they are 'of no concern of anyone apart from CC'

yet CC are allowed to comment on other work force agreements, no hang on, pilot agreements, demanding cuts etc so that BASSA can preserve.......

looks like double standards to me!!!

Never mind eh!!!!

SS

What little support I have for my CC colleagues is fading fast - and just to emphasise my position I wish the best for the CC as I don't want to see people out of work etc but.....

What I think and what I'm told to think is the issue. In the same way that, as cabin crew, I'm told that I can only think if bassa tell me it's alright, I also have BA telling me how to think.

Daily I receive missives from BA telling me how bad things are, premium travel has collapsed, premium travel may never recover, the banking sector has vanished, the banking sector was a major premium customer, the banking sector business may never recover.

Oh, by the way we've pushed ahead with plans to launch a business only route, financed by the banking sector.

I think the LCY-JFK route is a good idea. I'm not certain about the timing. Whilst I think Walsh is over-egging the situation for his own ends, I also think that Bassa is under-reacting. The vast majority of members on this site subscribe to Walsh vision. The Business week article rather sums up the thoughts I've had for sometime.

Time for change, agreed, opportunistic smash and grab by BA, expected - why shouldn't they try. Why am I challenged for reading between the lines, because Walsh has made it a pre-requisite that no deals go forward unless all departments have a deal. This may explain why the polite and friendly Captain joined me for lunch in Cranebank recently, told me he had applied for VR and was ready to leave, then told me that I would have to earn less and work more, so he could take his cash and go. You wonder!

The bidline argument is a reaction to pressure from pilots that we, as cabin crew, must change our T&Cs.

For what it is worth I believe it is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction that plays no part in my departments negotiations. However I cannot tell you how many, otherwise friendly pilots, have placed pressure on cabin crew, critisied cabin crew, and delivered un-prompted lectures to cabin crew. There is bound to be some form of backlash. It doesn't help and I've ignored it, but it's to be expected. The term, it runs both ways, could be considered.

Let me guess SS, does it go along the lines of "pilots have guaranteed upgrades to rooms that cost BA sooooo much money"?

Partly true. The business only route is being launched to serve a single bank. One of our biggest, if not the biggest, customer. If we can deliver something they really want and which also ties them to us for a few more years it would be madness not to.

I really don't mean to be rude but I hope you've been thinking more than they have. That article is so brief, so superficial and so lacking in analysis and insight that it's borderline worthless.

Evidently he was confused. The cash for his VR offer comes from the central budget of £78M set aside for VR, in common with all other VR payments. The productivty improvements which allow him to access VR funding come exclusively from the pilots.

It does rather prompt the question (from PC's balanced post) as to how you would structure the airline if you have a clean sheet.

In the absence of BA's terrible management (which I think we can all agree is atrocious), how would you set up the system to be (a) simple, (b) cause the minimum of back office costs to support, and (c) pay a fair, competitive wage.

The posts about bidline over on another forum, were posted at the same time,(saturday night about pub shutting time) and in the same "style" as one of the contributors here, unfortunately by Sunday lunch time the entertaining posts had been removed from this debate here on pprune:confused:

Any newly appointed CEO, will do exactly as WW is doing, in that he/she would have no choice. Except that any new CEO would have a clean sheet, and BASSA would not be able to deliver any diversionary rehtoric against them.

Food for thought when all they want is Willy out.

1 Day to Armageddon
 

Just one more day before Willie Walsh rejects the BASSA proposals.

Nope. I certainly don't hate CC and I havent seen any vitriolic postings on here from flight crew expressing that either.

I do have some strong opinions about BASSAs current methods - but that opinion is backed up with facts. Hatred.. ? No - hatred is totally inaccurate.

I do hear that some of the posting on BASSA Crew forum are really quite quite threatening to flight crew. I guess that's what you get if a union pumps out inaccurate & Goebbelsesque documents deliberately designed to inflame and incite. Making forum posters accountable for their postings and doing away with the anonymity would be a good start.

BIDLINE

Ask any flight Ops manager whether they want to get rid of Bidline. His answer will be no. Why ? Simply because it puts the onus on the pilots to make achieve the flying hours each month. If we dont achieve the required hours we lose a significant amount of pay at the end of the month. We are also placed on a naughty list when we have around 800 hrs and are at risk from being taken off flights due to CAA limitations (not industrial limits note). Do you also want the evil that is Draft assign - as that is an integral part of Bid Line rules.

Yes, there is an extra cost to administer BLRs, but that cost is absolutley minuscule when compared to the massive efficiencies BA gets from the flight crew.

Now, lets get back to the issue in hand.

PiB

Yup, and that's exactly what any CEO would have to do in todays world, they must be certain that its they that run the company and not the unions.

It seems the new fleet will now not go ahead, and instead, the BASSA proposal that the savings be made by integrating (another) new contract into the existing fleets is on the company agenda.

So now the New New contracts can moan about the new contracts and the new contracts can moan about the old contracts - grief! I don't know whether this is a coup for BASSA or a worrying development....

From Stall Pusher:SP, you're wrong, fundamentally wrong. Read your own post again, carefully - "working for free" and unpaid leave are not the same thing! Mr Bunker tried to put you right with this:However, PC767 joined you in your fundamental error by similarly posting:Wrong again - you are both confusing unpaid leave and unpaid work! They are not interchangeable terms here!

Leave is usuallly accrued according to the number of days you work in a year. If you take unpaid leave, you get less annual leave, because you have worked less, and therefore haven't earned the pro-rated leave-paid days. To illustrate - if the paid leave wasn't pro-rated in some form then someone taking unpaid leave, and plenty of it, could end up getting more paid leave days than someone on a part-time contract, but both of them having 'worked' the same number of days in a year! Not fair on the part-timer, and perhaps not legal either.

The devil is in the detail - but that has never been BASSA'a strong point. :rolleyes:

Would be interested to hear what you base that on Matt101.

err a letter from Bill Francis:ok:

thanks DD.

Is a copy of that letter's details here?

I think its classic BA v BASSA, I have said all along BA have been playing the long game, give BASSA something to hang a victory on and the rest will fall into place:zzz::zzz:

Apparently:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dear Colleague

I wrote to you on Friday asking for your views on some of the key issues we’re discussing with the trade unions.

There was an excellent response, so thank you for your input – it has been useful to get a clear update of what’s important to you, directly from you, at such an important stage of these talks.

One thing that came through loud and clear from the results is that the vast majority of you who responded do not want a pay cut. Instead you want a solution that minimises the financial impact on all existing crew, with no cut in basic pay.

Overall, based on what you’re telling me, I have made some changes to the proposal to including the following:

* We are no longer proposing the introduction of a separate Mixed Fleet at Heathrow

* Instead we will pursue the ‘integrated approach’ for new recruits – that is new crew, on new contracts but flying with existing Heathrow fleets, with promotional opportunities to a new single grade and contract

* We will open a 33% part-time contract for up to 150 crew who want to take up that option.


I have today (Monday 29 June) tabled a new proposal to the trade unions to include these changes.

I will communicate further as these talks reach their conclusion tomorrow (Tuesday 30 June).

Regards

Promotional opportunities to a new single grade? Does that mean the end of Pursers, or the end of CSDs?

DC3.

I understand the points made about leave accrual. However at present the situation is working for free equals a loss of two days leave. I don't believe it is ethical and I haven't checked legislation to see if it is legal. Part of me thinks the situation is that volunteers have in effect taken unpaid leave then worked as a volunteer. Thereby losing leave and accruing nothing. It may be that the payroll computer cannot comprehend the concept of unpaid work.

But as it stands unpaid work volunteers have lost annual leave, which I hope will be corrected.

Whilst it is good news that New Fleet will not go ahead, I think there is a bombshell coming tomorrow (D Day). Like you Dadog I too believe that New Fleet was always a bluff - right from the leaked documents last summer which was just all so very well enacted.

Perhaps all BA ever wanted was a New new contract? Now BASSA have handed it to them on a plate ...and a pay cut...and a 2yr pay freeze:{

Let's see what tomorrow brings- the demise of the CSD? Hourly rate? All of the above? Whatever the bomb shell, BASSA will be claiming huge victory now. The glory is all theirs.

Very well played Willie.:D

So talks do conclude tomorrow. Interesting.

Assuming that BASSA have come up with costed savings, it sounds like the devil will be in the detail. Maybe BA are giving BASSA a face saving way out?

Or maybe both sides are negotiating and making compromises.

I hear that negotiations for GSS and A scales have been given an extended deadline of 31st July. If the IfCE talks are now making significant progress an extension may be offered to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's of a final joint proposal.

Compromise or not, BA still have to extract the stated savings from each group or the whole house of cards comes down.

All of you desperate to give, give,give to management to appease them should consider the rewards granted to VS pilots who sought to appease the bearded beast by giving him cost saving concessions in order reduce the redundancy numbers. Their reward, ta dah! Round two, those extra redundancies are still to happen. Nice one Richard!

I smell a negotiating rat. BA have worked on 'new fleet' for over 2 years (that we know of). I have read Mr Francis email. Its a huge concession to make, but the email is sinister in what it doesn't tell. I also note that Bassa have not commented on winning this huge concession. There is clearly more to come, and I would suggest that the happy ending I look forward to may yet be further away that it ever was. Promotional opportunities to a new single grade and contract?

Newfleet represents half the savings target for IFCE. If Newfleet is scrapped in favour of an integrated crew then you'd have to tear up the WW and EF agreements to make the required savings and probably take a pay cut to boot. I don't think those sorts of concessions are likely to be on offer from BASSA, so something certainly does smell rat-like!

The new fleet was always going to be a non runner as it would be to costly to administer and set up.

Better to reduce the terms and conditions of current staff (pay and allowance cuts),reduce manpower (thousands already wanted part time working and severance), along with the added benefit that any new staff will be taken on on a much reduced package (forecast spending down)so that it will be easier to raise working capitol/loans in the future.

A victory for common sense perhaps ?

PC767,

Re your point about losing leave if undertaking unpaid work. I think the distinction needs to be drawn again here. The only people who will lose any leave under the BRS are those who take unpaid leave, staff undertaking unpaid work will retain their full leave entitlement.

MrB

New Fleet has been the biggest hoax of the century. The most time and effort Bill and Willie have spent on it is getting a secretary to type up a fake letter and then leave it on a photocopy machine!:D

The real victory is yet to be played out. They are after our t&cs and always have been. Now BASSA have left themselves little room for manoeuvre as it was THEY who offered the new contract scenario and a pay cut and a pay freeze! On that basis, they are now going to be hard pushed to say no to the required savings.:p

I am pleased that the LT has recognised that we don't want a paycut, but are prepared to work harder. Seems they are more in touch with what we want than the people who "represent" us.

Let's see what today begins...regardless the BASSA militants are already calling for a ballot.:ugh:

The devil is in the detail.

HiFlyer 14 quotes:

However the BA letter states:

Note the last two words:

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but given the relationship between basic and the allowance based pay elements there are possibly still some significant cuts in the pipeline!

PC767,Wrong, wrong wrong! You need to read the documents on the company intranet, not listen to the conjecture and spin! Quoted directly form those documents:

"Voluntary Unpaid Work (VUW) Q & As

Is there a minimum and maximum period of VUW?
The minimum period is 1 week and the maximum period of VUW is 4 weeks.

What effect will taking VUW have on my annual leave entitlement?
No effect - annual leave will continue to accrue as normal."

:rolleyes:

As the last post mentions, basic and allowance payments, could turn out to be a real pigs ear.

The oldies with high basic will want that untouched for pen pay reasons, however any reduction in allowance payments will hit very hard due the light tax on these payments.

The newbees on low basic can ill afford any reduction in basic, but they can also ill afford reductions in allowances as they using these payments to save for the future.

Add to this staff on diff pen deals, APS/NAPS/MPS.

Just another example of having staff on various T+Cs, it will be very hard to keep everyone happy with any changes.

Best of luck to all the CC, you may need it.

Apparently BASSAs offer has been valued at £173M and has been declined by BA. Does anyone remember what amount of savings BA asked for?

BA wants to save £82 millions!

Is that £81M total, or £81M this year and a further £81M next year? It'll be interesting to see over what time frame BASSA think their savings will be achieved. I suspect BAs costings of those savings will be somewhat lower than BASSAs.