Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Old 30th Jun 2010, 08:41
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ava's logic is that, as she has lost so much by striking, she must continue to do so.

There is a concept in accounting known as "Sunk Costs", and it's about the realisation that you can't let emotion take over and pursue something to the bitter end, just because you have already spent a lot of money.

An example would be that you have spent £10,000 fighting a strike. You are offered £5,000 to stop, but you refuse because you have already spent £10,000 and the £5,000 won't cover what you have lost.

It's the wrong choice. The original outlay of £10,000 is blinding you to the clear fact that if you take the £5,000 you will be better off than you were earlier today, and that it's the best way to mitigate your position, even if you won't be better off than when you started.

The £10,000 is a Sunk Cost. It should be irrelevant to your choice now.

In short - consider everything on its own merits and ignore the past. You should only continue to strike if you think that there is a better offer coming - but don't forget that a better offer of £6,000 is really no better if it costs you a further £1,000 to achieve it.

BASSA don't recognise Sunk Costs, and soon the only thing sunk will be them
JuliaHayes is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 09:00
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 62
Posts: 1,214
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good post Julia.

If Ava's posts are to believed, she's now having to pay £500 per commute. Assuming 2 commutes per month, that would make her £12K taxed income pa worse off than if she had accepted the BA deal. Perhaps equivalent to say 15K off her gross salary before tax. (I've no idea what the SA tax rate is)

I wonder what she would have said a year ago if BASSA had explained to her she had a choice of either a £15K pay cut or to agree that the CSD's should push a trolley?
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 09:47
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,319
Received 16 Likes on 10 Posts
CSD's should push a trolley

ah, but wasn't the original official reason 'imposition' ? Don't hear much about it now. Such a silly union.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 12:19
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I wanted BASSAmentalists to come up with one of the most hilarious and inappropriate descriptions of themselves, I could not have thought of one better than AH's on the other thread, viz:

They don't want any of us 'Heritage' crew.
But then I realised it wasn't an attempted joke. It is indeed true. Willie Walsh inherited them.

ChicoG is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 12:20
  #305 (permalink)  

A Runyonesque Character
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ava Hannah: They have been constantly comparing, and exaggerating, our salaries to other LCC's throughout this dispute with the only purpose to make us appear us overpaid belladonnas.
What an unfortunate malapropism.
The SSK is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 12:49
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Life in the real world

Continuing the theme from the other thread about people not knowing what is happening in the real world: two reports out today that should demonstrate the pressures employers are under:

BBC News - Forecast suggests 600,000 public sector jobs to go

Some 600,000 jobs are expected to be lost in the public sector over the next five years, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said.
BBC News - Dismissal warning to 7,000 Neath Port Talbot staff

A council is warning it may dismiss its 7,000 workers and re-employ them on new terms without agreement on savings.

Among changes Neath Port Talbot council wants are to cut overtime, food and travelling allowances and freeze pay.

It says the savings would help avoid compulsory redundancies and dismissal is a "last resort".

But Unison, which represents 3,000 council staff, described the move as "a big gamble" and said the authority was "negotiating with a gun to its head."
ChicoG is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 13:53
  #307 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
This country has been in Boom since 1992 (or so) and now it is time for the bust. Anyone who thinks that we are starting to lift out of recession has been listening to politicians. We might be 'bumping along the bottom' of the slump but my guess is that there is a lot more pain to come.

Unison appears to be stuck in 'boom' mode and, further, they have no option on their control panel for 'Accept some redundancies and try to negotiate the best interest of your members'.

Having had the big boom of mgmt dominating all and now the big boom of unions dominating all, perhaps (just perhaps) we might find in a few years time that we reach a state of balance? Nah.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2010, 20:29
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,759
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
"They don't want any of us 'Heritage' crew."

"They don't want any of us 'Heritage' crew. "

If by "Heritage", the Champagne Charlies' current nominated poster over on the other thread, means "striker", then it is NOT WW and/or BA that do not want strikers.................it is us, the fare and salary paying customers that do not want "Heritage" crew.
We want JSL, Tira, and HiF., not the baasa'd champagne charlies.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 11:14
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Geneva
Age: 72
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting post...

I agree. As a gold card holder for many years, I am fed up with the "Heritage" crews, their bleating and rude behaviour and giving the impression that they are doing me a favour when I fly. I would like the opportunity to know where and when New Fleet will be operating so I can choose not only the flight I want to take but also the crew. It is time for change..
Swissflyer is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 12:13
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is time for change..
And that is exactly what pax/shareholders/the BA Board both want and need yet BASSA seem unable to grasp/accept
k3lvc is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 13:20
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this really right?

Having followed all of this I really don't understand what it is all about.

Firstly BA and the unions started to negotiate, but the Unions were not willing to sit in the same room as each other at ACAS (as documented in the court case). The court case also highlighted the Unions cost savings were not as large as initially claimed.

BA fed up with this imposed a change in staffing levels and work requirements, to meet financial targets.

The Unions decided that this was illegal/wrong (your choice), but it was shown in court that this was legal, and in line with the agreed contracts. The Judge, despite basically throwing the Unions case out of court as baseless, even pointed the Unions in the direction of what needed changing if they want things like this covered by the various contracts.

The Unions then decided to strike over imposition. An imposition of terms they were willing to accept? Why not enter negotiations and say you are willing to accept the changes, provided the relevant contracts are changed to require agreement in the future? In other words use the acceptance as a goodwill bargaining tool?

Then they strike. The offers get worse. They still strike. They are told they will lose Staff Travel if they do, and are surprised when they lose Staff Travel?

Then an offer which is pretty similar to the original offer is on the table (except now with New Fleet), and they will accept it, but want Staff Travel back.

Member of senior BA management on a online forum (taken from thread on here) says that if they accept the deal, then BA will restore Staff Travel without Seniority, except on 1 route, where they will restore it with Seniority (to appease commuters). But some CC don't understand this/trust this/or something.

But in essence the CC are in a worse position than before the strike, with a similar offer on the table, a New Fleet being introduced, and pax avoiding BA now. This forces the company to have to make MORE savings, so putting more pressure on ALL areas (CC included) to cut MORE costs, and to speed up the introduction of New Fleet.

And CC wonder why the public isn't on side - they went on strike over the legal imposition of conditions they were willing to accept!!!!!!

Personally I hope the moderate members accept the offered contract, and then BA uses SOSR on all those on the original contracts.
SwissRef is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 15:31
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 62
Posts: 1,214
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Meanwhile BASSA supporter in Chief Ava Hannah point out that most CC's don't understand the "real" issues at stake

Q to Ava:
If this offer is as acceptable to the majority as it is to you, why would they jeopardise their ST to protect yours?
Answer from Ava:
Because they are thinking shortsightedly. Unfortunately some in this airline don't understand what is at stake.
Q. to Ava:
It is possible the writing is on the wall, and perhaps your best solution is simply to vote to accept??? What's the alternative?
A. from Ava:
Unless Staff Travel is reinstated without any sanctions, I can't
vote to accept this proposal.
So, to summarise her views, the rest of the CC don't know what this IA is about and should strike and lose ST. But if she was given back ST she would vote to accept the deal she feels the others should reject if they knew what it was really about.

I have to say that the double standards shown by BASSA are quite breathtaking. They expect the remaining staff to strike and lose their ST while at the same time saying they will accept the current offer if ST is returned to them. Incredible!

PS Excellent summary Swissref

Last edited by Mariner9; 1st Jul 2010 at 16:08.
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 19:26
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Non Doms

There's been alot of talk about commuters and non doms, so I thought I'd clarify the tax position of commuters.

Your domilicility is not determined by where you live - it's alot more complex than that. Generally you are domiciled where your father is born and this is incredibly difficult to change. Just because you move abroad doesn't change your domicility, just your residency status.

If you are domiciled in the UK you cannot avoid paying tax on ANY UK earnings, irrespective of where you live. Now, I would imagine, as working for BA would mean your place of work is the UK, that, unless father born outside UK so therefore classed as non dom, the commuters have to pay UK income tax.

The only way around this, if you are UK domiciled, is if your place of work, hence your earnings, are outside the UK and you spend less than 90 days in UK in a tax year. Then you are "normally" not liable for UK income tax on such earnings ("normally" means you have to have a formal contract showing your place of work is outside UK and you have filed a P85 with HMRC and they have accepted your non resident status)

Therefore, I would summize the majority of commuters do not enjoy tax free salaries and will be hit hard by the removal of ST and having to buy their own full price tickets.
harrypic is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 20:25
  #314 (permalink)  
77
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
harrypic

Unfortunately you are wrong in your assumptions. They are not Non Doms. I believe they are considered as not ordinarily resident.
They pay tax in the UK on earnings whilst in the UK. As they spend a lot of time overseas for work these earnings are not taxed in the UK.
As long as their country of residence has a reciprocal agreement with the UK then a good proportion of their salary can be tax free,
I believe it is an old maritime arrangement. Again I believe the UK revenue has tried to repeal the rules but it is rumoured they have been thwarted by MEPs who use the same rules.

In short there can be a tax advantage in commuting from overseas.
That's why so many cabin crew work part time from overseas as the take home pay can be the same as full time and living in the UK.
77 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 20:59
  #315 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Please allow me to completely and utterly destroy any ideas that anyone may have about clarity when it comes to domicile, ordinary residence, residence and taxation as far as HMRC are concerned.

Interesting reading on these subjects of considerable complexity may be found here below. Please note that much of tax law in Britain is not based upon statute law and therefore is entirely open to interpetation and whim. This is one of the conundrums facing the new government, the stabilising of an inherently disjointed and unpredicatable tax structure.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/hmrc6.pdf

Since the inception of the application of self assessment, HMRC will not rule on residency. HMRC may inform a tax payer who is not resident in the UK, that he no longer is required to complete a UK tax return, but this is not the same as the previous system under which a letter would be send to the tax payer by HMRC confirming his non residence.
Any doubts as to the sensibleness of this policy from the point of view of HMRC will be rapidly dispelled by a reading of the recent appeal court case of Gaines-Coooper v HMRC, a case which Gaines Cooper lost.
It is interesting to those who have studied the above case to note that Gaines-Cooper had apparently not applied to HMRC for a change of domicile of origin. At the moment however, HMRC seems quite content to allow questions of domicile to remain unanswered, presumably awaiting some form of statutory guidance from the present government as to both domicile and a residence test. Up until very recently however, a change of domicile of origin was a matter which had to be agreed between tax payer and HMRC.

In the case of South Africa, the tests of ordinary residence and residence apply, much as they do in the UK. Cohen v CIR and Kuttel v CIR will provide further information on the interpetation of ordinary residence for those who are seriously interested.

The internal revenue systems of both the United Kingdom and South Africa take various forms of expenses and deductions in to account when it comes to the calculation of individual income tax returns. These would be matters which would have to be declared to and agreed with the internal revenues of the countrys concerned. The compliance divisions of both country's internal revenue departments are in close communication and are, to the best of their abilities, quite efficient.

Each case of domicile, ordinary residence and residence is taken on an individual basis and circumstances which might hold for one determination in one case will not necessarily achieve the same result in another. In the event of any doubt at all on the part of a sensible tax payer, a professional adviser should be consulted. The concept of a statute of limitations in Britain and South Africa is not well developed. This helps to explain why Mr Gaines-Cooper may find himself liable for taxes ranging back over a period of some twenty five years, totalling £30 million, even though no fraud was alleged or commited. If cabin or flight crew have been mismanaging their tax affairs or declaring incorrectly on their self assessment returns then retribution might attend their efforts with, at the least, penalties and interest. It must be that the attention of HMRC has been drawn to the salary and benefit structure of the emolluments of cabin crew, and, by extension, flight crew. I would expect there to have been a compliance section established at HMRC to deal with this.
All however is not entirely gloom. In the case of this BA pilot, he won his suit.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/6697...35_TA_0408.pdf

However, it is worth noting that the results of this case will almost certainly have found their way, through the usual compliance channels, to the desk of another, more southerly situated, internal revenue service.

Please take note that the function of a reciprocal tax treaty is not to allow a person to avoid tax or to enable him to pay less tax. The purpose is to ensure at least that the tax payer is not taxed twice over. The tax treaty between the US (where tax is generally lower than the UK) and the UK provides that tax on dividends but not income is witheld at 15% concession in the United States, provided and only provided, that any income afforded such a benefit will then be imported in to the UK and declared to HMRC for taxation in the UK. At that point, the tax already paid in the US may be taken into account in the calculation of actual UK tax liability.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Last edited by cavortingcheetah; 1st Jul 2010 at 21:23.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 21:03
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having followed all of this I really don't understand what it is all about.
As you say to outsiders this has no logic. But I suspect some in BASSA see picking a fight with WW as unfinished business from the 2007 strike that was called off at the last minute after WW did a deal with Tony Woodley. There was a lot of anger at this in the BASSA camp and I suspect that some have been spoiling for a fight ever since.

Also, Mixed Fleet heralds the beginning of the end for BASSA (if it hasn't happened already). Mixed Fleet will have no seniority and fewer supervisory positions. So, it is likely to have a much higher level of staff turnover and staff are likely to feel less need to join a union if they don't expect to be in the job for more than a few years. Add to the that the fact that a separate body of crew at LHR forming a separate bargaining unit means that BASSA's negotiating strength is going to weaken considerably.

When Mixed Fleet starts, I await with interest to see how BASSA responds, ie whether BASSA try to undermine Mixed Fleet crew and leave them out in the cold or bring them onside and try and stir them up.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 22:06
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
77

77,

Perhaps my post was unclear - my point was exactly that, they are not non doms.

They may be considered non resident, but even if you are non resident (or considered ordinary non resident) any UK earnings are still taxable. As their place of work is UK, then that is classed as UK earnings, irrespective of how long they are out of the country for.

The non ordinary resident status only allows your foreign earnings not to be taxed by HMRC.

For example - I am non ordinary resident in Dubai, my earnings, earnt in Dubai from a Dubai company are not taxed - But I rent my house in the UK and as that is earnings in the UK it is taxed.

Therefore, as the commuters place of work is UK, its UK income and they should pay tax on it.
harrypic is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 22:25
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cavorting

Cavorting,

My post was merely to correct the misunderstanding that many of the commuters have tax free salaries, not to clarify HMRC position on domicility and non resident status. You are correct though, HMRC will not confirm any status in case they can come back at you at a later date - its a very grey area, which in a nutshell I beleive was what you were trying to say....

Why say in a thousand words what you can summarize in 20?

Last edited by harrypic; 2nd Jul 2010 at 00:16.
harrypic is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2010, 23:47
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bucks
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Against my better judgement

Despite saying in my last post that I am now going to revert to sitting on the sidelines, I find myself being drawn into Ava Hannah's latest offerings on the Cabin Crew thread!!

However, I can't make up my mind about whether she is REALLY STUPID or just trying to wind us all up!! If it is the latter she has succeeded and may or may not have achieved her aim depending on who she really represents!!

It would now appear that Ava is not dependent on her income from BA and is indeed a 'hobby jobber'!! She has a farm in South Africa - and maybe this is really how the other half (being BA cabin crew!) live!! She is NOT dependent on her income from BA and so can afford to play with the lives of those who are.

This is life in the real world outside of BA -

This week I have witnessed first-hand the anxiety faced by people who have been told that their jobs are 'at risk'. These are people who are not earning half what the average BA cabin crew member is earning and are probably working a lot harder. They were talking about not being able to afford to go on holidays that they had already booked in Cornwall, never mind whether they can afford to pay £500 to commute from S Africa. They were worried about how to pay for the necessities in life - food, school uniforms etc

Whatever the games people are playing on these forums, I would really like you to appreciate that in the real world outside of airlines people are hurting in this present climate. The ones that DO splash out and pay for BA flights to go on holiday would really appreciate it if you would just this once try and stop thinking about yourselves and start to think about those who REALLY pay your wages - the passengers!! Without us, you are nothing!! It won't matter whether you are Backing BA or, (as I see it as an outsider), are believing everything your well paid self-interested union reps are feeding you and choose to deprive people of their hard-earned holidays! If we can no longer afford to take a gamble on BA (and that is what it is at present!) you will all be getting a taster of the real world, whatever branch of BA you work in.

So wake up!! Smell the roses (seems to me you have plenty to smell in BA - how many other jobs have the part-time opportunities you appear to enjoy? Opportunities that allow you to even contemplate commuting from South Africa!!) and start to appreciate what you have before you join the rest of us in the real world.
Mocamps is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2010, 07:34
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: middle earth
Age: 60
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding some posts in the other forum from a striker. I'm of the opinion that the poster is just trying to wind people up.
For a person who has managed to create a fantastic lifestyle cannot be stupid, yet the poster shows clear indications to the opposite in their writings.

I was amused to hear about striking CC wearing their ID's inside out as some sort of playground secret society recognition, I mean come on, are these people suposed to be mature professional adults?
I would like to know, purely for curiosity which CC on a flight I was on were strikers, so any form or recognition would be welcome. The only problem is that if any move was made to distinguish this group apart there would be hell to pay with yells of victimisation.
johnoWhiskyX is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.