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

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

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 IV

Old 16th Feb 2011, 15:01
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US
Posts: 78
Pretty interesting reading, after scanning it.

One wants to buy her leader a drink "downroute." Hm. Guess she didn't get the memo he doesn't work at BA anymore....!?

Sad, really.
baggersup is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 17:23
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: US
Age: 73
Posts: 35
Davidexba

After reading that list of comments by those poor misguided people I can see why this just seems to go on and on.

I guess not being directly involved gives one a different perspective.
MCOflyer is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 17:31
  #463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
Originally Posted by MCOflyer
I guess not being directly involved gives one a different perspective.
Being in the real world shifts the perspective as well!

However, I happily accept [with some reservations] the right for workers to fight for their T&Cs. The peculiarity here is that extant T&Cs are being assured, so the Union is fighting for the T&Cs of people who haven't even joined BA yet. Bizarre?

Oooops ... I forgot. One crew member down at LHR, so the CSD actually has to do some work on a long-haul.

IMO, THAT is what it's all about ... legacy CSDs [predominantly Union Reps, I suspect?] being required to get off their butts and actually do something, instead of sleeping and/or manipulating rosters to ensure the most lucrative trips.

E&OE, but I've been reading this sh 1t for 2 years now. I really wish these sad, selfish people would just go away.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 17:58
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Tyneside
Posts: 29
From Face book: "The strike they tried to ban continues".

Oh dear...

I clicked on the "Discussions" tab, to see the message "There are no discusions".

No, I guess that sums it up.
Northern Flights is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 18:01
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
MOA

What is MOA agreement?____link
notlangley is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 18:14
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 72
Posts: 97
Perhaps it is this?

Moa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ZimmerFly is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 18:38
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Memorandum of Agreement
LD12986 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 18:48
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 1,197
The support Duncan face_book page has less than 700 supporters I see.

So did each of those supporters vote 8 times each for strike action, or do around 4,300 yes voters not in fact support Duncan?
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 18:58
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
Some Facebook users choose to remain anonymous ... I don't think you can blame anyone for that.

Although 700 sounds about right


BTW, "Duncan Speaks" on the other thread.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 20:23
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Athough some of the posts on the FB page are far from former crew members, 600+ supporters shows the strength of his following bearing in mind many BA CC are not of the FB generation and some will avoid any online activity connected with the dispute because of some of the suspensions.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2011, 23:29
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
BTW, "Duncan Speaks" on the other thread.
Sadly been taken down by mods. I must admit unless I read it wrong, it did not seem to propagate "forum wars" or some such. It did purport to be a response by DH to something that he read here. I guess if you weren't quick enough or didn't read it properly (possibly like me) you'll never know.
Dawdler is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 08:52
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 1,197
Response to Litebulbs' post on the other thread

What are the odds of a major UK airline being in a fight for survival and in dispute with a major section of its workforce for over two years, which has cost more than the required savings from that section, still being here today?
100% self evidently. BA's management strategy was obviously approved by the investors and bankers, allowing BA to continue trading despite posting successive enormous losses followed by a tiny profit.

Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?
BA are of course entitled to use rhetoric, just as BASSA are.

But the rhetoric will not solve anything from either camp and it is pointless for interested parties and managers alike to carry it on. Flap62 is correct to a point.
I dont agree. Opinion is everything, and is shaped by rhetoric. From what we have heard, many BASSA members listen only to BASSA and ignore/dont read anything from BA. If true, the leadership of BASSA are the only people who can solve this dispute peacefully should they choose to do so.

You have to look at the demands made by both branches and discuss them. Is there opportunity to return to the pre dispute crew complements? Yes, but you pull the part timers back onto full time and use new contract staff.
Additional crew will cost money whatever fleet is used. That cost will have to come from somewhere. Further, what would you say to those BASSA members who opted for a part time from a lifestyle choice that their union now tells them they must return to fulltime work?

Make the MTP contractual and negotiable.
BA may well agree to make it contractual and negotiable. Do you think BASSA will agree to the negotiable part?

Say ok, agree to binding arbitration, but anyone that is found against on an item that could be deemed criminal, will be pursued through the criminal system.
BA have already offered arbitration. Are you saying reinstate those found guilty of gross misconduct unless its criminal?

Staff travel: reinstate it with length of service set but with the dispute 'length taken away and rounded up to the nearest year, pending any ECoHR decision on the legality of punitive measures for protected industrial action.
ST removal was/is a useful tool employed by BA to deter strike action. Unite are set to take BA to court over the legality of this approach. They therefore have no need to include this requirement in any settlement, particularly a settlement that from your list effectively goes back to where things were before all this started.

Then have a serious look at the CSD/Purser grades based on how much and the way they are paid and I am not talking about cuts in the levels.
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you proposing a pay rise for CSD's in exchange for them reverting back to an easier workload?. Some would say that if BA had offered this at the start while imposing cuts elsewhere (eg Gatwick) a dispute with BASSA would never have arisen.

BA need the current crew and each new employee acts as a duplicated cost, until the equivalent existing crew member leaves, unless the average existing crew member earns over £15000 in allowances per year, so the negotiations being over are not true, in my opinion.
That is working on an assumption that BA will maintain current flight schedules and thus crewing requirements. BA may be set to open up lots of new routes, or to close many. We don't know.

There will be a tipping point when the new are larger than the old, but the financial state of the business may be more buoyant then, which adds weight to any future discussions.
The financial state of the company depends on both revenue and costs. Your proposed settlement adds to the latter without anyclear benefit to the former (other than the removal of short-term IA losses in revenue).

I believe that Bassa will deliver another vote with convincing numbers and 6000 is a convincing number. It will be interesting if the 3000 invisible voters turn up in the yes or no camp, or that 3000 reduces along with union membership and therefore the number of ballot papers issued.
I agree. And I think they would likely still vote to strike even if BA offered your proposals exactly as written.
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 09:16
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Mariner9

Well answered points, but at least we are talking.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 09:30
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 39
Posts: 6,168
The core element that BASSA cannot and will not swallow is that full operational and management of the crewing situation is now with IFCE and not with them. No more calls to La La Lady to prevent a flight departing, no more commands to take hotel rooms in Ayrshire rather than crew the aircraft and the passengers to home base next day, no more the power and the glory of sticking two fingers up to management just to "keep them in their place".

Actually the place of management is to manage the staff, no one likes it but the buck ought to stop there, not at the whim of a militant and evidently paranoid union. I have a couple of BA flights coming up, I am not too worried about a BASSA ballot, I'm just laughing at their incompetence and intransigence. I grant you BA management have been epically inept in the past but two wrongs don't make a right and Mr Walsh has made great strides in righting a listing ship. BASSA are a cancer that needs removing IMHO, an embarrasment to the trade union movement.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 09:52
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 63
Not Yet Out of the Woods

There is a debate on ‘the other thread’ about how close, if at all, BA came to going to the wall, and whether now that it has ‘survived’, it’s all right for BASSA et al to pursue their original aims of crew numbers, etc.

The Company has survived; but no-one can imagine that the future suddenly has become rosy. Others have mentioned the need for strong business performance to invest in new products, and pay for the significant new aircraft deliveries that the Company has ordered. Add to that the ever rising operating costs, particularly of fuel, and an effortless ride to the future cannot be guaranteed.

Supporting all these expenditures requires cash. The cash will be generated by operations, yes, but to tide the Company over periods of high expenditure, some will have to be borrowed. I have mentioned already that the time that Companies get into difficulties often is as they come out of recession, as they are having to spend money to invest in increased capacity, etc., to meet anticipated future demand, but they are not yet in receipt of the revenues that future demand will generate.

So there is one other factor in the Company’s continued hard line that I suspect also is at play. My view is that the City has supported the robust management of this on-going dispute because the City sees the need to get, and keep, costs under control. If the City sees the Management weakening on this fundamental tenet of running any business, it will lose confidence in the future direction of the Company. The reaction will be that borrowing money to support the cash requirements will at best become rather more expensive, or at worst, impossible. No-one can deny that the Company needs, and will continue to need, a lot of cash to support its future. No cash, no future.
GemDeveloper is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 10:18
  #476 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,191
MPN11
However, I happily accept [with some reservations] the right for workers to fight for their T&Cs. The peculiarity here is that extant T&Cs are being assured, so the Union is fighting for the T&Cs of people who haven't even joined BA yet. Bizarre?
Not bizarre, just good old fashioned power politics.
  • Keep the rates high to attract new recruits to the Union
  • They will then be glad of the Union and see that it is working for them
  • Higher rates keep the Union of more critical importance to the Company
  • Higher rates keep the Union in more money
  • That makes the Union reps of more importance
The REALLY stupid thing is that - the Union doesn't have to do all that.

1) Unions became stronger, correcting the genuine imbalance between employer and employee. Unfortunately, the pendulum then swung too far (as it always does in human affairs!) and the Union becomes as wedded to their privileges as did the bosses in decades gone by.

2) The German unions make sure that they protest prominently but they always ensure that they settle. They try not to waste their members money on strikes that - if won - come out revenue neutral, or worse. We had many UK strikes in the 70s/80s where employees 'won' but lost on the money and took two or more years to get back to where they were.

I think I'll put the kettle on ...
PAXboy is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 11:22
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
PAXboy

Not bizarre, just good old fashioned power politics.
  • Keep the rates high to attract new recruits to the Union
  • They will then be glad of the Union and see that it is working for them
  • Higher rates keep the Union of more critical importance to the Company
  • Higher rates keep the Union in more money
  • That makes the Union reps of more importance
I take your point ... it could be described as "Power To The People [At The Top]" rather than any genuine concern for the rest of the people.


As an aside, I think I just heard on the BBC that the price of oil is going up on the back of the unrest in Libya.
BA is not out of the woods yet, by a long way.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 11:53
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Tony Woodley said
The fifth item is about stopping BA from imposing a near minimum waged workforce and killing their brand.
So the vote to strike was a secondary action and therefore would have lead in due course to Unite having to appear in Court . . .

Last edited by notlangley; 17th Feb 2011 at 12:21.
notlangley is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 12:20
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
. . . . or was it incitement to BA to break contracts between BA and individual members of mixed fleet?

[Dismissal is called "a breach of contract"]

Last edited by notlangley; 17th Feb 2011 at 12:50. Reason: addition of the dismissal statement
notlangley is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2011, 14:11
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: East of Essex, north of Java
Posts: 58
[Dismissal is called "a breach of contract"]
How did you come to that conclusion?
Manchikeri is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.