OK, lots here to read through, not skim through.

Yes I am cc, and no, not fishing.

I am afraid I dont trust 100% what BASSA, BA, or even the Government says. Call me a healthy sceptic, I am sure you have called me a few things already!!

I will have a slow read of todays posts, but it probably won't be until tomorrow, and it will probably not change my mind that striking over this issue will not provide us with a positive outcome, but will more likely to lead to dismissal.

SoThere

I knew I should have gone to bed.

Part of the fun of this job is having the time in Hotel rooms and at home to do Open University courses, and generally hunt around on the web, sometimes you uncover some interesting, and occasionally thought provoking stuff.

Such as........Twrecks says "As with the demise of the 757, crews would be able to hold another license."...........as you head toward the picket line, will you be able to hold up your 'licence' for all to see? No, I didnt think so, as we do not hold a licence on any aircraft. Not incendiary, or anti-anything, just a fact, that is never aired.

SoThere

I really need to go to bed now!

Crunchy said "We all know every department in BA is being hit, but CC are being hit the hardest".............um, I maybe wrong, but I think the staff in the Terminals are going to be reduced by around 25%, and that the Cargo people at LGW are already into the 90 day period leading up to termination of contracts.

We are not facing that sort of thing, yet.

You both disappoint me.

So, whats the problem? Is it so bad that i think for myself, do my own research, and do not implicitly trust everything that is said to me or that I read?

Or is it because I said that 'we are not licenced'? God boys and girls, its the truth! Its about time people started treating us as adults and told us truths, not just things we would like to hear.

I bet you had an open mind and a free will once!

Hi imastweardsothere

You can read this over your morning Tea.


It's seems you are keen for us to fight . Their is something odd about your threads my colleague, I can not put my finger on it. :suspect: So for the moment I will treat you as a curious guest. I would just like to reassure you that the majority of Cabin Crew do not want industrial action, and no industrial action is currently proposed.

Nevertheless, I would suggest you voice your concern's and opinion's on the subject of strikes :oh: to closed forums such as the BASSA website or Crewforum which are more suited.:)

Quoting "Imastweardsothere" just to do doors, evacuations and PA's is? Any ideas anyone?

Yes because thats all we do get trained for as crew. :} no firefighting no medical or CPR or defib or decompression or restraint, or dangerous goods or anything like that.

Someone forgetting exactly what they did on their "CABIN CREW" training??
:ok:

Its a shame you cant have an opinion on here that differs to the view of 'the mob'.

I do remember my basic training, and how proud, abd nervous i felt after it.

I just cant help feeling we are walking into a well planned trap.

We need to stop emotive posts about being on mimimum wage and the like, and fines that have happened in the past. We need to think about how and what we can change to stay in business and in a job.

With BA currently in talks with unions about existing contract changes, the possible introduction of a new LHR fleet and a recruitment freeze across the airline, I wanted to ask how the operation is going now that BA has entered the summer season.

BA normally have new entrant courses running pretty much constantly throughout the year to cover natural wastage etc. but no such courses have run for some time. How is this possible?

Are existing crew working harder than normal and hitting high hours or are things 'ok'.

Balboy; You are correct so far this year there has been 4 NECC courses with the latest 2 due to finish in the next couple of weeks. There is no news of any more at this time and many of the trainers are being encouraged to look to other courses they might deliver?

You think so? New courses are starting in first weeks of May.

Training courses for those in the holding pool? Sorry but Im still in the pool after 18months for lgw and have not heard anything or found any news about new courses in May. :\

Courses for 11 month LHR temps, not LGW.

Surely you must be wondering if BASSA is working for YOUR best interests given they have refused BAs offer of 24hr slips in MEX? BALPA have agreed a temp alleviation to minimise exposure, meanwhicle the CC stay on 5/6 trips in a closed hotel.

Mex slips
 

BASSA unwilling to give alleviation for 24hr. slips in the event it makes precedent for BA to withdraw the 2 local night agreement for long range trips. Union dogma comes before cc health risk.

Seems like BASSA are being ignored for once.

7 New Entrant courses for temporary crew (11 months) at LHR have been cancelled and the vacancies will be filled internally with transfers and secondments according to the latest manpower figures.

Why don't the crews ignore BASSA and slip for the minimum time, rather than endure 4 days in a city that is effectively closed?

Kabaka
 

Because BASSA threaten to "fine" them if they disobey their dictats.

TheKabaka
 

Never mind the fines ( if true) - on a practical note just how can the Cabin Crew "ignore" BASSA....they can't just up sticks from the MEX hotel after 24 hours, roll up at the airport and volunteer to operate back. Reducing the slip requires cordination from London, that requires the approval of CC management, who in turn risk the wrath of the BASSA Reps ............................................:=

I cannot imagine anything worse than being kept in a city where there is a risk to one's health just because a trade union refuses to allow a temporary change to the time off at an out station. Surely they should have some concern for the health of their members.

Any sensible person can see that BA are concerned for the welfare of their crews and would not use this as a precedent to implimant permanent changes for time off at out stations. The union in my opinion is irresponsible by dictating that their members must stay in a city that could be a threat to their health. It it unbelievale this is the case.

On the subject of the union fining their members , they cannot. Who would stay in a union after they had been fined? It would be an intersting topic if they did try to fine a member because collecting the fine would an impossible task if not illegal. How could they force a member to pay up, by taking them to the small claims court?

Here we go, including the usual BASSA bash****ing and posturing about Cabin Crew:

:ugh:

And herein lies the biggest problem and hurdle to be overcome by the company.

Twrecks
 

"Here we go, including the usual BASSA bash****ing and posturing about Cabin Crew:"

Haven't heard much bashing, but many of us are somewhat confused as to the BASSA line. Usually BASSA are criticised for being overly protective of it's members ( e.g. the infamous two nights off after a Long Range). In this case the Company wants to reduce the exposure of it's employees to possible Health Issues in MEX, indeed there may be "Duty of Care" implications here. On the other hand BASSA are insisting the slip remains unchanged...so what's the explanation? BASSA are going to look pretty darn culpable in the unlikely event one it's members does go down with this illness.

How are they suppose to introduce 24 hour slips when it's not even a daily service?

I would think BASSA is only worried that if they agree on shortening the length of the layover in MEX is that BA will continue to keep that length even when things go back to normal.

I can understand that the C/C TU might be worried that BA would implement shorter lay overs permanently after the health scare is over but they would be foolish to do so without proper negotiations and therefore are most unlikely to do that. I am surprised anyone with any common sense could think that under the current circumstances.

Are the pilots also worried that thier TU might do the same to them? I think probably not.

Sensible negotiations are called for when the health and welfare of crew is at stake, nothing is more important.

I was c/c for 35 years+ and in all that time I never saw anything implemented as a result of a one off concession even for commercial reasons that were for the benefit of the airline. This particular issue is about the health and well being of the crew and is obviously for no other reason. I would have thought the crew would be pleased to get out of MEX as soon as possible at the moment.

Let us hope none of the crew become sick as a result of this.

The information from Bassa states they offered an alleviation for operating outbound cabin crew to position straight home on the inbound aircraft,therefore spending no time in mexico,or setting up a shuttle operation to,from mexico city,again preventing crew from having to stay in mexico,both proposals were rejected by the management.The union was intent on the crew spending no time in mexico,the company proposed a 1 night stay instead of 2,hardly reducing the risk of infection by any great ammount.The union claims the management are porporting to have crews welfare at heart,yet reject proposals to prevent staying in mexico,on grounds of cost !!The union has issued a statement to BA management,due to the fact that the company have attempted to blame the union for failing to ensure the welfare of its members,when the real story is somewhat different.Just highlights the appaling state of relations between management and unions at the moment.

All very well positioning the crew straight home again, but then who brings the next service back after that as the crew have already gone back to London?

A very good point made by 747-436. If the union wanted the crew to position back on the same a/c they operated out on; that would have been fine on the first occasion because there would have been a crew in MEX to operate the return sector. How did the union think the next service would be crewed for the return sector as there would not have been a crew in Mexico?

Perhaps that is why BA rejected that idea, just a thought.

We are hearing two side of the story now.

Maybe the shuttle proposal was the best option,but rejected on grounds of cost.Perhaps this swine flu is another red herring,just like bird flu that was going to see us all off,dont hear anything about that do we !Dominates the news and takes all our minds off the state of the economy,unemployment,collapse of manufacturing industry and mp's fiddling their expenses.

BASSAs proposals were designed to force BA to cancel services to Mexico completely. When BA pointed out that they run the airline, not BASSA, toys were thrown out of the pram and now the crew stay in MEX for the full slip.

The shuttle options BASSA presented suggest they haven't a very clear idea of where MEX is in relation to the rest of the world!

I have to agree on this: BA is running the airline. The union isn't.

But the loads never returned to pre 9/11 days. Capacity on the 747 shrank from almost 400 to 351 to 337 to 299 pax. Could 16 crew including 5 supervisory grades ever really be justified in light of that?

Certainly did not return to the original loads!

Some longhaul flights (day flight CPT, MIA and MRU for instance) do have 16 cabin crew. Is there really a need for an additional crew member on all B747 flights? Not in my opinion!

Why should there be an additional crew member in WT when that cabin is all ready covered with 5 cabin crew? A four corner service is done very easily with the purser organising the galley. Look at most airlines and you will see that the crew complement is usually like this.

I suppose with an additional crew member the service can be completed quicker and crew rest will be longer. Please do not shoot me down for this but this is the case on many flights.

The Y service in 2001 was also a lot more elaborate than these days - drinks, food, drinks, ice cream, drinks, afternoon sandwich etc. Today they make a PA at the beginning of the flight telling you to take wine for lunch with the first drinks round, as there is no drinks round with lunch! Although I have been assured by a BA CC that this is not in the service manual, it happens all the time!

L B

I can confirm what you have stated is the norm.

I travel frequently on business but only in the economy cabin on several airlines.

Drinks for the meal have to be taken with the pre-meal drinks service.
I often wondered on 12 hours flights why they do not have the time to offer drinks with the meals.

The seating capacity in the economy cabins seems to be shrinking now they put more premium seats in the aircraft, I guess the 747's must be down to well less than 200 economy seats now.

This is not how the service should be done!

According to the service manual a choice of red and white wines should be offered with the meal but some crew do shortcuts and offer it during the bar service before instead.

Baz

There are 2 basic configs now on the BA744's:

1. 291/299 (Hi J) with 14F/70J and 30WTP+177or185 WT
and
2. 337 (Mid J) with 14F/52J and 26WTP + 235 WT.

As I understand it, the WTP and WT service is combined to give a 207/215 or 261 pax service.

Previously we had 401/409 config aircraft, with 14F/about 50J and 335-ish Y. The cabin compliments have not reflected hese changes - the CSD still has no role in the service - things must change

I thought now that WT+ is between F and J a dedicated c/crew member worked solely in that cabin so the 30 or so WT+ seats is not included in the amount of M seats which I believe in now about 190 seats depending on whether the a/c is a high or medieum J configured a/c.

I presume when it is a high J cabin the WT+ service would be combined with the M service as the cabin would be in front of M.

Some CSD's do work in the M cabin to help out with the meal service but perhaps not on all flights!!!