BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a completely different topic, but relevant to this thread, I happened upon this today from the election of officers to BASSA in 2008.
[quote]Lizanne Malone's
I wonder if most of us would agree that " one of Britain's most aggressive employers" has been as aggressive as her.
[quote]Lizanne Malone's
track record on equality issues is second to none, she argues that "in facing down one of Britain's most aggressive employers, whether bargaining on pay and conditions or campaigning in solidarity with others, fighting back and winning is not a gender issue - it's a union issue!"
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,811
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
I think Mzzz Malone really misjudged her opponent. 
i'm not sure where the "equality issues" come in either, but perhaps male CC get paid more than female CC?
Otherwise, with you entirely ... she wanted a war, and she got one.
i'm not sure where the "equality issues" come in either, but perhaps male CC get paid more than female CC?
Otherwise, with you entirely ... she wanted a war, and she got one.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting contribution that has been made by one of the CC on ‘the other’ forum : British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only) : regarding their payslip.
They report the data from their payslip: their wages are £21,000 and their allowances are £28,000. This total remuneration is for a CC member who works on a 75% contract.
Using the 2009-10 tax rates, and assuming no other incomes (for example, additional earnings or interest), they will pay £2,905 income tax, making their net earnings £18,095. Thus they actually take home (net pay plus allowances), £46,095.
If one was working in a ‘normal’ environment, where all the remuneration provided by one’s employer was subject to income tax, then in order to take home £46,095, one’s gross remuneration would need to be £60,041.40
And remember that this is the situation for this particular contributor to the CC forum who works on a 75% contract. If one increases pro rata their wages and allowances for an 100% contract, then they will be taking home £61,028.33, equivalent to a gross income that is subject to full income tax of £84,930.33
One can see why so many senior CC are very reluctant to try their luck in the job markets ‘outside'.
They report the data from their payslip: their wages are £21,000 and their allowances are £28,000. This total remuneration is for a CC member who works on a 75% contract.
Using the 2009-10 tax rates, and assuming no other incomes (for example, additional earnings or interest), they will pay £2,905 income tax, making their net earnings £18,095. Thus they actually take home (net pay plus allowances), £46,095.
If one was working in a ‘normal’ environment, where all the remuneration provided by one’s employer was subject to income tax, then in order to take home £46,095, one’s gross remuneration would need to be £60,041.40
And remember that this is the situation for this particular contributor to the CC forum who works on a 75% contract. If one increases pro rata their wages and allowances for an 100% contract, then they will be taking home £61,028.33, equivalent to a gross income that is subject to full income tax of £84,930.33
One can see why so many senior CC are very reluctant to try their luck in the job markets ‘outside'.
Like 617sqn says, our meal allowances are 59% taxable. Taxes are even higher on EF and SF.
Pay rates again
Hasn't the pay and allowances thing been done to death already ? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the broader dispute, surely it is intrusive (bordering on demeaning) that people have to disclose their own earnings to defend their point of view ? Yes, OK, some BA CC are surprisingly well paid and generally above the industry norm, but that isn't directly the issue is it ?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gross Remuneration - Mea Culpa
I apologise that my misinterpretation of the original post led me to produce data that “cause mass hysteria and get a queue for the outrage bus.” I shall request that any such potential passengers form an orderly queue.
If the data are corrected (allowances of £7000 of which I understand 59% is taxable), then the net money for this individual is £24,269 which is equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £28,717
If the pay and allowances are factored pro rata for an 100% contract, the net money is then £31,927 equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £38,290
If one takes the data from the CAA table for the average cabin attendant cost to British Airways*, and exactly the same factors are used for allowances, then the average net money is £27,058 equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £32,204
If, as I assume, within the CAA figures there is a number of staff who are on less than 100% contracts, the average will be an underestimate for the average 100% contracts.
I have not included employee National Insurance or pension contributions in these figures, as this is a more complex calculation. Thus these net of tax figures are overstated, but are indicative.
I shall now retire, and leave others to debate the appropriateness of these indicative salaries. The Institute for Fiscal Studies provides a helpful web site:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
* The CAA Document states: Included are gross salary (before deduction of income tax, pension social welfare and voluntary payments), overtime pay, sales commissions, flying pay and subsistence allowances, (such as cost of living allowances, station and overseas allowances) and all crew hourly flight allowances (i.e. those in excess of travel and incidental expenses).
If the data are corrected (allowances of £7000 of which I understand 59% is taxable), then the net money for this individual is £24,269 which is equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £28,717
If the pay and allowances are factored pro rata for an 100% contract, the net money is then £31,927 equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £38,290
If one takes the data from the CAA table for the average cabin attendant cost to British Airways*, and exactly the same factors are used for allowances, then the average net money is £27,058 equivalent to a salary on which full income tax is paid of £32,204
If, as I assume, within the CAA figures there is a number of staff who are on less than 100% contracts, the average will be an underestimate for the average 100% contracts.
I have not included employee National Insurance or pension contributions in these figures, as this is a more complex calculation. Thus these net of tax figures are overstated, but are indicative.
I shall now retire, and leave others to debate the appropriateness of these indicative salaries. The Institute for Fiscal Studies provides a helpful web site:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
* The CAA Document states: Included are gross salary (before deduction of income tax, pension social welfare and voluntary payments), overtime pay, sales commissions, flying pay and subsistence allowances, (such as cost of living allowances, station and overseas allowances) and all crew hourly flight allowances (i.e. those in excess of travel and incidental expenses).
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrOptimistic,
I agree that discussing one's salary is vulgar and I do not think that such details should,or indeed ,need not be made public.It does not solve anything.
However,what I take issue with is someone posting on here about cc salaries ,when clearly they are not airline staff themselves .They have no knowledge of the tax paid and are talking complete nonsense.
There ends the salary debate!!
I agree that discussing one's salary is vulgar and I do not think that such details should,or indeed ,need not be made public.It does not solve anything.
However,what I take issue with is someone posting on here about cc salaries ,when clearly they are not airline staff themselves .They have no knowledge of the tax paid and are talking complete nonsense.
There ends the salary debate!!
For weeks now (it feels like) posters on both threads have asked the question "What are you actually striking about?" but if anyone knows, they ain't tellin'.
Puzzling.
p.s. It can't be that thousands were persuaded to strike because several senior officers of UNITE are throwing their pram dollies at each other, could it? They wouldn't do that...
Would they?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think being taxed 59% is outrageous, even as a benefit in kind your tax rate is lower. I am surprised Gordon Brown et al havent found a way of taxing staff travel for you to really get his pound of flesh.
However, from reading previous posts arent the rates different between different crew based at different airports?
For me, the thing I find the hardest to get my head around with the strike, aside from all the hassle it has caused me personally, is this. Why are the rules different for BA CC that fly out of LHR than they are out of LGW?
I have flown long haul premium cabins from both airports, and must say that the service has been excellent with both.
However, from reading previous posts arent the rates different between different crew based at different airports?
For me, the thing I find the hardest to get my head around with the strike, aside from all the hassle it has caused me personally, is this. Why are the rules different for BA CC that fly out of LHR than they are out of LGW?
I have flown long haul premium cabins from both airports, and must say that the service has been excellent with both.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think being taxed 59% is outrageous, even as a benefit in kind your tax rate is lower. I am surprised Gordon Brown et al havent found a way of taxing staff travel for you to really get his pound of flesh.
Why staff travel isn't taxable has already been discussed.
What is their "Upgrades " argument???
What on earth is the BA CC argument over on their thread, about upgrades? Both strikers and non-strikers are taking public positions about whether or not they get enough upgrades on their FREE tickets, and who gives them their upgrades.
They are worried that their CSDs will reduce the number of upgrades that they give to crew.
Well as far as I am concerned, the only people who should get upgrades in any circumstance, whether from Ground staff or CSDs, are FULL-Fare paying customers.
No crew should ever get upogrades, and all those pilots in First on long haul should get back down the back. End of. Simples.
No wonder BA is having a strike if all their crew spend so much time and energy worrying about their own upgrades!!!
They are worried that their CSDs will reduce the number of upgrades that they give to crew.
Well as far as I am concerned, the only people who should get upgrades in any circumstance, whether from Ground staff or CSDs, are FULL-Fare paying customers.
No crew should ever get upogrades, and all those pilots in First on long haul should get back down the back. End of. Simples.
No wonder BA is having a strike if all their crew spend so much time and energy worrying about their own upgrades!!!
Paxing All Over The World
International commuters
I accept that these CC have to report for duty rested. So, my observation is:
If it's worth using up 14hrs flying from HKG, then a day rest - in order to get to to work? Then they are being paid way over the odds. To be able to use up two days to do a sequence of sectors? (that is, HKG-LHR, rest, work + rest,work rtn LHR to HKG) They MUST realise that that is a pattern of work that no employer can support through the worst recession since the depression. Yes, living near EGLL is expensive but that is a very funny solution.
If it's worth using up 14hrs flying from HKG, then a day rest - in order to get to to work? Then they are being paid way over the odds. To be able to use up two days to do a sequence of sectors? (that is, HKG-LHR, rest, work + rest,work rtn LHR to HKG) They MUST realise that that is a pattern of work that no employer can support through the worst recession since the depression. Yes, living near EGLL is expensive but that is a very funny solution.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question asked is:
Answer seems to be that a few years ago BASSA agreed to allow LGW crews to be paid less, with worse T&C's, in order to protect the LHR "pay & practices". LGW crew numbers were relatively small then and LHR "reps" sold those fine LGW folks down the river to protect themselves. Now you know how "solidarity" works at BASSA ! ! !
Why are the rules different for BA CC that fly out of LHR than they are out of LGW?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jimtherev
Dunno. I've been reading this thread and the other thread very carefully, and I'm confused what the issue actually is!
UNITE/BASSA are complaining about imposition of 'changes' without negotiation. However, they now seem to be saying that the changes themselves are OK, its just that they shouldn't be imposed they should be negotiated.
Another way of reading this is that the union is protecting its own position and doesn't like the idea that BA and CC may be able to get along just fine without them.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That probably explains the low strike rates at LGW.
I can't believe that the union would not think that adopting different T&C's for a subset of crew might come back to bite them in the bum in the future....
I can't believe that the union would not think that adopting different T&C's for a subset of crew might come back to bite them in the bum in the future....
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy I am totally befuddled by your post.
You do realise these people elect to commute in their own time, and at their own cost?
To use your example of HKG. You fly overnight to LHR. Landing at 05:00. Spend 24+ hours in digs. Report for work at midday to go to .... LAX. Land back into LHR at midday, ish. Hang around until the HKG leaves in the evening, and sleep all the way home.
I could not do it. For me that is madness, but for a few, it suits them.
I know of a few people who do it because of family reasons. Wife and the children live in a far away sunny place, and she refuses to live in the UK.
If you think the UK is bad, the Americans do it all the time. And to a far greater extent.
You do realise these people elect to commute in their own time, and at their own cost?
To use your example of HKG. You fly overnight to LHR. Landing at 05:00. Spend 24+ hours in digs. Report for work at midday to go to .... LAX. Land back into LHR at midday, ish. Hang around until the HKG leaves in the evening, and sleep all the way home.
I could not do it. For me that is madness, but for a few, it suits them.
I know of a few people who do it because of family reasons. Wife and the children live in a far away sunny place, and she refuses to live in the UK.
If you think the UK is bad, the Americans do it all the time. And to a far greater extent.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jethrobee
How can they legally strike about the imposition when the court ruled that it wasnt imposition?
L337
Agreed,
The commuting seems to have brought out the green eye in some. Some crewmembers (pilots and cabin crew) choose to commute, in their own time and at their own expense. The only caveat is that they should be adequately rested for Duty. As you say, most of those who commute "Long Haul" arrive in the UK 24 hours ahead of their working flight to ensure they get adequate rest prior to duty. As an aside some with control over their rosters then operate back to their "home" airport, so they are probably in a better shape with regards to "jetlag/acclimatisation" at destination than the UK resident crew members.
As for the shock/horror some have expressed about the commuters only having one night off between Longhaul sectors - as has been previously pointed out that happens to all BA Longhaul crewmembers on most trips (JFK/IAD etc etc etc); feel free to call the CAA and/or the CEO if you think it should be stopped.
The commuting seems to have brought out the green eye in some. Some crewmembers (pilots and cabin crew) choose to commute, in their own time and at their own expense. The only caveat is that they should be adequately rested for Duty. As you say, most of those who commute "Long Haul" arrive in the UK 24 hours ahead of their working flight to ensure they get adequate rest prior to duty. As an aside some with control over their rosters then operate back to their "home" airport, so they are probably in a better shape with regards to "jetlag/acclimatisation" at destination than the UK resident crew members.
As for the shock/horror some have expressed about the commuters only having one night off between Longhaul sectors - as has been previously pointed out that happens to all BA Longhaul crewmembers on most trips (JFK/IAD etc etc etc); feel free to call the CAA and/or the CEO if you think it should be stopped.