BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to correct you but:
Project Columbus was just that, a project. BASSA got wind of it and started screaming blue murder then the economic whirldwind hit. BASSA put 2 and 2 together and, as usual, came up with 5.
As part of the negotiations BA offered to shelve MF and discuss savings options with BASSA which were to include combined payments. BASSA, once again fearing it would primarily hit the core CSD's, refused point blank to negotiate and off the whole mess started.
Yes BA have made mistakes. Weak management, inneffective control of a beligerent Union and a point blank unwillingness to curb the control of BASSA in the past has led to such an Ivory tower that when a CEO has the balls to take it down the sheep bleat blue murder. It's been too long coming and the pain of the adjustment is, subsequently, harsh.
I still feel I have to correct you because BA always wanted changes to our agreements as well as the crew changes.
As part of the negotiations BA offered to shelve MF and discuss savings options with BASSA which were to include combined payments. BASSA, once again fearing it would primarily hit the core CSD's, refused point blank to negotiate and off the whole mess started.
Yes BA have made mistakes. Weak management, inneffective control of a beligerent Union and a point blank unwillingness to curb the control of BASSA in the past has led to such an Ivory tower that when a CEO has the balls to take it down the sheep bleat blue murder. It's been too long coming and the pain of the adjustment is, subsequently, harsh.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelstrum,
You agree then, they were asking for more than just reduced crewing levels.
That was the only thing BA implemented without agreement which caused Bassa to go mental and call for strikes but at the time discussions were about a whole raft of savings, as you say, some combined payments and working later for E/F on last day, only one senior rank on E/F etc etc.
You agree then, they were asking for more than just reduced crewing levels.
That was the only thing BA implemented without agreement which caused Bassa to go mental and call for strikes but at the time discussions were about a whole raft of savings, as you say, some combined payments and working later for E/F on last day, only one senior rank on E/F etc etc.
Betty Girl,
As I recall they were not being as specific about what changes were required.
The requirement was to save a sum of money, in the same way that all other departments were tasked with saving a set sum of money.
Other departments realised just how serious the financial climate was, after checking BAs figures with other sources, and then some of these departments engaged with their members to find out the preferences of the members. All these other departments engaged and negotiated - except one!!!!
I do not doubt that BA have made the 'initial' required savings, but NF is also about recovering the costs incurred by strike action. Why should all the other workers in BA suffer financial loss caused directly by the intransigence of bassa.
Alas, part-time being offered out of order is a direct consequence of bassa continuing their path to destruction. I am sure that I would also feel that it was unfair if I had been passed over for transfer onto a part-time contract, but while bassa continue with their present stance there is no direct contact between BA and the 'collective bargaining group'.
It may not appear the moral course, but I cannot blame BA for 'rewarding' workers who have demonstrated their loyalty over others who have shown such disregard for BA as a whole and their other 'colleagues' across the airline.
As I recall they were not being as specific about what changes were required.
The requirement was to save a sum of money, in the same way that all other departments were tasked with saving a set sum of money.
Other departments realised just how serious the financial climate was, after checking BAs figures with other sources, and then some of these departments engaged with their members to find out the preferences of the members. All these other departments engaged and negotiated - except one!!!!
I do not doubt that BA have made the 'initial' required savings, but NF is also about recovering the costs incurred by strike action. Why should all the other workers in BA suffer financial loss caused directly by the intransigence of bassa.
Alas, part-time being offered out of order is a direct consequence of bassa continuing their path to destruction. I am sure that I would also feel that it was unfair if I had been passed over for transfer onto a part-time contract, but while bassa continue with their present stance there is no direct contact between BA and the 'collective bargaining group'.
It may not appear the moral course, but I cannot blame BA for 'rewarding' workers who have demonstrated their loyalty over others who have shown such disregard for BA as a whole and their other 'colleagues' across the airline.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an unusual move by the company they gave each department a target based upon their relative productivity and told each department to come up with a way of saving that amount.
BASSA refused to agree anything, discuss anything or rationalise anything thus the change was imposed, 4 months after the deadline passed for all other departments.
As a result of the unwillingness of BASSA to negotiate and have a handle on whether MF was introduced or not, the dispute started. BASSA have made a complete pigs ear from start to finish of this entire IA. IMHO the company has been very patient dealing with BASSA but I'm sure that patience is wearing thin. The T's & C's origionally gifted BASSA and the CC in the 80's and only lightly ammended over the interim don't belong in this century. Every other department realised that and rationalised. Why should the CC be the same? Only because BASSA shout IA all the time?
Hasn't worked.
Time to change.
BASSA refused to agree anything, discuss anything or rationalise anything thus the change was imposed, 4 months after the deadline passed for all other departments.
As a result of the unwillingness of BASSA to negotiate and have a handle on whether MF was introduced or not, the dispute started. BASSA have made a complete pigs ear from start to finish of this entire IA. IMHO the company has been very patient dealing with BASSA but I'm sure that patience is wearing thin. The T's & C's origionally gifted BASSA and the CC in the 80's and only lightly ammended over the interim don't belong in this century. Every other department realised that and rationalised. Why should the CC be the same? Only because BASSA shout IA all the time?
Hasn't worked.
Time to change.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelstrum,
Just so we can be sure that BA were always wanting changes to our agreements and please note, I was in favour of Bassa negotiating some chganges but they were at the time refusing to sit in the same room as Amicus. I have copied for you a post made by Bill Fransis on 9th October 2009 well before the crew reductions were introduced, for you to see because I realise that you, not being cabin crew and not present at any of the meetings, may have got your information a bit mixed up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9th October 2009
You are right I have had a change of heart re future crew, following the feedback from current crew.
The proposal to mix current crew and future crew together would have required significant changes to existing terms and conditions. You saw this in the proposal, examples being the reduction of nights downroute, the reduction in days off on Eurofleet, early day reports and changes to finishing times.
The feedback from crew clearly told me that none of these changes were acceptable to them, and so by changing back to a seperate fleet for any new recruits means that all of these changes can be avoided.
Thanks
Bill
__________________
Bill Francis
Head of InFlight Customer Experience (IFCE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you that Bassa have made a pigs ear of everything and made everything worse but your statement earlier that-
'new fleet was up for discussion between BASSA and the company and the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.'
is not correct.
Just so we can be sure that BA were always wanting changes to our agreements and please note, I was in favour of Bassa negotiating some chganges but they were at the time refusing to sit in the same room as Amicus. I have copied for you a post made by Bill Fransis on 9th October 2009 well before the crew reductions were introduced, for you to see because I realise that you, not being cabin crew and not present at any of the meetings, may have got your information a bit mixed up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9th October 2009
You are right I have had a change of heart re future crew, following the feedback from current crew.
The proposal to mix current crew and future crew together would have required significant changes to existing terms and conditions. You saw this in the proposal, examples being the reduction of nights downroute, the reduction in days off on Eurofleet, early day reports and changes to finishing times.
The feedback from crew clearly told me that none of these changes were acceptable to them, and so by changing back to a seperate fleet for any new recruits means that all of these changes can be avoided.
Thanks
Bill
__________________
Bill Francis
Head of InFlight Customer Experience (IFCE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you that Bassa have made a pigs ear of everything and made everything worse but your statement earlier that-
'new fleet was up for discussion between BASSA and the company and the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.'
is not correct.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but he is referring to the proposal he wanted to put through but Bassa would not talk and were shortly to call a strike because he went ahead and implemented the bit that did not need Bassa's agreement, the crew compliments.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty Girl,
BA were willing to table new fleet well before Bill Franciss' memo above. The company were well aware of the contention that the project was causing and it offered, as part of the early negotiation, to bring MF and its inception/shelving to the table. BASSA refused to negotiate. The refused to sit in with the other Unions and they refused to believe/be briefed on the economic situation. Why should they bother with a little point of securing their members futures?
Dress it up in any way you wish but the initial imposition didn't hit anyone in the pocket anywhere near as hard as in many other departments.
BA were willing to table new fleet well before Bill Franciss' memo above. The company were well aware of the contention that the project was causing and it offered, as part of the early negotiation, to bring MF and its inception/shelving to the table. BASSA refused to negotiate. The refused to sit in with the other Unions and they refused to believe/be briefed on the economic situation. Why should they bother with a little point of securing their members futures?
Dress it up in any way you wish but the initial imposition didn't hit anyone in the pocket anywhere near as hard as in many other departments.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your right.
Though the real problem now is that very few cabin crew trust BA and particularly the strikers believe, that he wants to force them, in the future, onto Mixed Fleet terms and conditions.
I don't actually believe that this is in the plan but even I, that have been trusting of BA, get a bit jittery from time to time and worry about how I will afford my home if things change dramatically in the future.
Couple that with their feelings of being hard done by, by the removal of staff travel and I know that this was within BA's right to do, but it is this that feeds this strike action. Fear and mistrust I am afraid and those of us that are more moderate and have a more balanced view can't even chat about it to people because it is just not possible to have a conversation about anything like this at work, for fear of someone getting upset and therefore not being able to have a good working relationship with them.
Though the real problem now is that very few cabin crew trust BA and particularly the strikers believe, that he wants to force them, in the future, onto Mixed Fleet terms and conditions.
I don't actually believe that this is in the plan but even I, that have been trusting of BA, get a bit jittery from time to time and worry about how I will afford my home if things change dramatically in the future.
Couple that with their feelings of being hard done by, by the removal of staff travel and I know that this was within BA's right to do, but it is this that feeds this strike action. Fear and mistrust I am afraid and those of us that are more moderate and have a more balanced view can't even chat about it to people because it is just not possible to have a conversation about anything like this at work, for fear of someone getting upset and therefore not being able to have a good working relationship with them.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty Girl
I would reckon that any cabin crew who signed the deal are OK for the next two years. Beyond that is pure crystal ball gazing, but that is not just BA. The airline industry is high risk. If you look at the number of carriers in Europe alone that have gone out of business in the past five years it is quite scary. I think some BA staff still have the mindset that existed prior to privatisation - namely that the company could not possibly fold - that the government would step in and prevent that from happening and really we all have jobs for as long as we want them. This just isn't true and hasn't been for at least 15 years. Airlines are highly susceptible to oil price changes, acts of aggression, terrorism, natural disasters, and that's before we start on regulatory approvals, government taxation and duty plus the global economic state. There is no such thing as a safe job and working for an airline is riskier than an awful lot of other jobs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, BA management could spin you a line that you had a job for life, but in doing so they would have to have their fingers crossed behind their backs, because it just isn't like that anymore. Instead I think that they have been reasonably upfront and provided some kind of reassurance for a timeframe that they can project against. To go beyond that is pure guesswork.
The other thing is that I feel there is a general attempt by cabin crew to personalise this whole affair. It's not personal. It's not Willie Walsh or Bill Francis having a pop at cabin crew. It's BA management seeking to do what is best for the airline. If they don't do that we are all out of work. The managers are paid to make the tough decisions. They are not automatons, they do appreciate that there are real people with mortgages and families to worry about out there who will bear the impact of their decisions. But if it is a choice between everyone working a bit harder or the risk that huge chunks of the company simply cease to exist, which would you rather they took ?
I would reckon that any cabin crew who signed the deal are OK for the next two years. Beyond that is pure crystal ball gazing, but that is not just BA. The airline industry is high risk. If you look at the number of carriers in Europe alone that have gone out of business in the past five years it is quite scary. I think some BA staff still have the mindset that existed prior to privatisation - namely that the company could not possibly fold - that the government would step in and prevent that from happening and really we all have jobs for as long as we want them. This just isn't true and hasn't been for at least 15 years. Airlines are highly susceptible to oil price changes, acts of aggression, terrorism, natural disasters, and that's before we start on regulatory approvals, government taxation and duty plus the global economic state. There is no such thing as a safe job and working for an airline is riskier than an awful lot of other jobs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, BA management could spin you a line that you had a job for life, but in doing so they would have to have their fingers crossed behind their backs, because it just isn't like that anymore. Instead I think that they have been reasonably upfront and provided some kind of reassurance for a timeframe that they can project against. To go beyond that is pure guesswork.
The other thing is that I feel there is a general attempt by cabin crew to personalise this whole affair. It's not personal. It's not Willie Walsh or Bill Francis having a pop at cabin crew. It's BA management seeking to do what is best for the airline. If they don't do that we are all out of work. The managers are paid to make the tough decisions. They are not automatons, they do appreciate that there are real people with mortgages and families to worry about out there who will bear the impact of their decisions. But if it is a choice between everyone working a bit harder or the risk that huge chunks of the company simply cease to exist, which would you rather they took ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel
British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.
However, I imagine that the T&C's of ALL would change.
This is my opinion of course, without any supporting evidence.
However, I imagine that the T&C's of ALL would change.
This is my opinion of course, without any supporting evidence.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are those that signed only ok for two years.
You are making the mistake that Bassa supporters did. It was only the pay deal that was for two years. The deal we signed was for until it was amended through negotiation.
Quote from deal-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurances for you
I know that you have some questions about what the introduction of the new fleet means to you. To continue to demonstrate my commitment to you and to address these questions, I am offering you the following assurances.
· Your terms and conditions – I can assure you that your existing contractual terms will be maintained for the future, unless amended through negotiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So part of me feels safe in what BA says but the other bit of me just worries like all other crew do. It is hard to explain but constantly crew are telling each other that we will be forced onto Mixed Fleet and human nature makes you start to worry if you hear it often enough.
You are making the mistake that Bassa supporters did. It was only the pay deal that was for two years. The deal we signed was for until it was amended through negotiation.
Quote from deal-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurances for you
I know that you have some questions about what the introduction of the new fleet means to you. To continue to demonstrate my commitment to you and to address these questions, I am offering you the following assurances.
· Your terms and conditions – I can assure you that your existing contractual terms will be maintained for the future, unless amended through negotiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So part of me feels safe in what BA says but the other bit of me just worries like all other crew do. It is hard to explain but constantly crew are telling each other that we will be forced onto Mixed Fleet and human nature makes you start to worry if you hear it often enough.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed."
Although now a less often SLF, I've been following this and the other thread with interest but reading this post I'm begining to think that I must be on another planet!
-- I would suspect the IAG "British Airways" brand name will be around for as long as it suits the new IAG Corporate structure.
-- I doubt the British Government would be so foolish as to step in and maitain a private sector service company. More taxpayers money going into a 'bale out' following the banking nonsense? A half Spanish owned company? EU legislation, etc. etc.
-- How on earth could this airline 'bring the country to its knees'? What is BA's proportion of the country's GDP? My apologies but this one really has me giggling and I cannot believe it was written in earnest.
Although now a less often SLF, I've been following this and the other thread with interest but reading this post I'm begining to think that I must be on another planet!
-- I would suspect the IAG "British Airways" brand name will be around for as long as it suits the new IAG Corporate structure.
-- I doubt the British Government would be so foolish as to step in and maitain a private sector service company. More taxpayers money going into a 'bale out' following the banking nonsense? A half Spanish owned company? EU legislation, etc. etc.
-- How on earth could this airline 'bring the country to its knees'? What is BA's proportion of the country's GDP? My apologies but this one really has me giggling and I cannot believe it was written in earnest.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: US
Age: 77
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.
I respect your opinions very much having followed this thread for many months. I worked for AA here in the states years ago and I don't think that would ever cross my mind no matter how bad things could get for an airline. I guess it's because there has never been an airline here owned by the government and so many here have been merged or gone out of business. Who knows though after Chrysler, GM and the banks. You may be right in both countries.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty girl said
I ask six questions.
1. Will a Heritage Cabin Crew member be unhappy if forced onto MF T&C?
2. Are unhappy CC less able to radiate charm to cabin passengers?
3. Are not CC the interface with the passengers, the which enables passengers to subjectively choose the best airline?
4. Why should BA management adopt a strategy that diminishes the image and the profitability of BA?_ I could rephrase this and ask "In your opinion are BA management totally stupid?".
5. Is this rumour typical of those spread by certain persons who are no longer CC because they were found to be failing in their job?
6. Are there not several of these who are persons of influence in the BASSA inner circle?
To be realistic, BA management must include a range of people - if you like "Hardliners" and "Liberals"._ And decisions such as hats for MF was maybe made by a hardliner who is slightly out of tune with the Hymn that BA management is singing.
Though the real problem now is that very few cabin crew trust BA and particularly the strikers believe, that he wants to force them, in the future, onto Mixed Fleet terms and conditions.
1. Will a Heritage Cabin Crew member be unhappy if forced onto MF T&C?
2. Are unhappy CC less able to radiate charm to cabin passengers?
3. Are not CC the interface with the passengers, the which enables passengers to subjectively choose the best airline?
4. Why should BA management adopt a strategy that diminishes the image and the profitability of BA?_ I could rephrase this and ask "In your opinion are BA management totally stupid?".
5. Is this rumour typical of those spread by certain persons who are no longer CC because they were found to be failing in their job?
6. Are there not several of these who are persons of influence in the BASSA inner circle?
To be realistic, BA management must include a range of people - if you like "Hardliners" and "Liberals"._ And decisions such as hats for MF was maybe made by a hardliner who is slightly out of tune with the Hymn that BA management is singing.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen.
That is not to say that there would not be some kind of national carrier emerge, possibly grafted onto an already existing company like VS or BMI, but it would not employ on BA T&Cs, nor would it employ the same numbers of people. Many people would lose their jobs, it would be disaster. There will be no miraculous BA2 with everybody still employed, all still on the same T&Cs that lead to a failed company. Those that got a job would be working the max allowed for the min possible pay.
This dangerous and frankly silly view has persisted within BA for many years, contrary to EU law, common sense and the example of Sabena. BA is not an asset of vital national interest, though many would like to believe that it is. There are many companies that will take up the slack and that will use the law to prevent the government from just stepping in to bail out BA should it fail.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways will be here long after this dispute and regardless of the dispute. If the Government has to step in to maintain it, then that is what will happen. BA disappearing would cripple the country, but the fight for survival has passed.
Why do you think this, and why would you even say it , when you know it would never happen?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some figures courtesy of CC89
. LATEST NEWS UPDATES
I see that from their statement that 80% of their membership did not join the earlier strikes. Somewhat different to the "overwhelming support" claimed by the unions for the IA.
We should be grateful however for CC89 throwing some light on the membership figure of BASSA which since the counter was removed from the BASSA website, has resolutely stated "around 10,000" is now revealed as below 9,000. The actual figure given is 8975 which is getting on for 2,000 less than fourteen months ago.
I see that from their statement that 80% of their membership did not join the earlier strikes. Somewhat different to the "overwhelming support" claimed by the unions for the IA.
We should be grateful however for CC89 throwing some light on the membership figure of BASSA which since the counter was removed from the BASSA website, has resolutely stated "around 10,000" is now revealed as below 9,000. The actual figure given is 8975 which is getting on for 2,000 less than fourteen months ago.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be illegal under EU law
timesofmalta.com - EU allows ?52m loan to keep Air Malta flying
Let me add quickly that I know very little about Malta and the special circumstances that lead to the EU approval, but post the article to show that the situation is not black and white.