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 26th Feb 2011, 19:08
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 1,197
So KW has started his tenure by imposing a bonus on the CC

If nothing else, it will annoy DH. He will get bu88er all.
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 20:17
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 73
Posts: 706
Whilst Dh & his Bassa weasels are contemplating their navels, real, professional aircrew have just rescued 150 civilians from the Libyan desert.

Enough said about Bassa, before I get banned (again)!

Well done to the military.
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 06:38
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 47
Posts: 209
Thought I would drop by again and see what has happened on the forum over the past few weeks.

I see that we are now comparing a military special forces extraction to the day to day operation of an airline.

Keep taking the pills.

Bye again.
Joao da Silva is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 07:07
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
I think you should read this JdS to realise there have been some very substantive discussions posted in the past week:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ons-iv-29.html

It is clear that BASSA has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory during the course of this dispute due to its administrative incompetence, refusal to engage in negotiation, and elitist senior longhaul CSD-centric agenda.

BASSA now faces censure from the Certification Officer, a possible High Court challenge for maladministration (the costs of which would be borne by BASSA's officers), and Unite itself could be liable for the full costs incurred by BA as a consequence of this strike.

Any future withdrawal of labour will not have any significant effect on passengers, and BASSA is not having a significant effect on forward bookings.

As an aside, it appears Holley's Employment Tribunal hearing judgement will be released tomorrow (Monday). Whatever the outcome, he will never work for BA again.

Last edited by VintageKrug; 27th Feb 2011 at 08:32.
VintageKrug is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 10:06
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
As an aside, it appears Holley's Employment Tribunal hearing judgement will be released tomorrow (Monday). Whatever the outcome, he will never work for BA again.
Where has this been confirmed? The decision should make for interesting reading!
LD12986 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:01
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
vintagekrug

There is a move on the part of Bassa to donate bonuses to something called Crewdefence. If 4000 strikers donated an average of 500 quid that would be 2 million!

I visited Crewdefence's web site. No accounts , no management named, nothing. What happens to money given and how is it, or how should it be, regulated?

I ask you because you seem to have a grasp of the legal niceties and I haven't got a clue.

With such large sums potentially being involved i'd have thought that there should be some sort of regulatory structure - otherwise you are not sure that you might just as well be sending your money to a long lost Nigerian relative who's tracked you down on the interweb.

Also, the web site says:

'CrewDefence exists to support your official union representation and the cabin crew community as a whole, with access to the very best solicitors and legal advocates.'

Surely the branch funds are there to carry this burden and Unite have a very large budget to play with? Furthermore I question the use of the term 'Legal Advocate' - that is something that could be applied to anyone.

Last edited by mrpony; 27th Feb 2011 at 14:42.
mrpony is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:23
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
mrpony

It is genuinely nice to see somebody concerned with how union members in dispute, potentially spend a company supplied bonus.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:30
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Litebulbs

Are you being sarcastic?
mrpony is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:42
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Not if you are concerned..........
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:44
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

mrpony,

I very much doubt that a large number of Bassa members will donate their bonus to this cause. Some may but I expect the vast majority will just spend it like anyone else would.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:53
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Litebulbs

I'd be concerned if you were being sarcastic.

Bettygirl

You know better than I about how CC might spend bonuses.


Still, who are crewdefence and how is spending allocated and recorded?
mrpony is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 15:07
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
mrpony

I am sure there are posters on here who will contact the hyperlinked legal and financial sites displayed on the website. If they are happy, then I am sure the Bassa membership will be too.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 16:13
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Litebulbs

Yes, I thought that for a moment but those are just links to sites that don't legitimise Crewdefence in any way.

If people are willing to part with their money at the end of the day it is their lookout. I just think it seems unattributable and unregulated. At least BASSA's accounts are meant to be operated according to a set of rules and it can be called into line if failing to do so.
mrpony is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 17:38
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

I think, and I am not an expert so may be wrong, that Crew Defence was set up by some cabin crew and not Bassa mainly because some of them wanted to finance some kind of test case against BA about the sackings and removal of staff travel and deductions of extra days pay.

If they want to waist their money, who are we to stop them.

These are my views and not those of BA.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 19:03
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Bettygirl

I'm sure you are right. But that seems even curiouser to me.

1.Why would members of a branch of a Union that gets 1.5 million plus annually, and has the backing of UNITE, resort to finding their own legal funds?

2.For costs directly related to action taken at the behest of and with encouragement from its leadership?

3.Which legal cases are being funded by the Union?

All very bloomin' strange if you ask me. The only rational explanation is that Crewdefence is set up to fund those legal costs that the Union will not stump up for because the cases are too weak. In which case why say it is to support the 'official union representation', because it isn't! The lack of clarity about who they are and what they do and how and why leaves loads of questions about Crewdefence.

That's all.
mrpony is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 19:15
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Look, as I say I am no expert, and my understanding may be wrong, but I believe it was started at around the time that DS and TW asked for the BA agreement to be put to cabin crew (the one that never was) and part of that agreement required Unite to agree to not take legal action against BA with regard to staff travel and disciplinaries.

So I believe that some crew were upset by this and set up Crew Defence but as I said I am not completely sure of my facts, so please do not assume I have got all the facts completely right.

These are my views and they may be completely wrong and they are definitely not those of my employer BA.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 20:23
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Bettygirl

Sorry to drag this part a wider debate on. I didn't mean to imply that you knew what the score was and that could have been better expressed as, "I'm sure you might be right".
mrpony is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 01:04
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cardiff
Age: 59
Posts: 25
BA Vs Emirates - From PAX perspective

Having in the last 4 days travelled BA CW from Rio to London and then continued my journey to Mumbai Via Dubai on Emirates business class I am in a good position to review the 2 services.
  • Equipment - Got off an ageing BA 777 onto a pretty new Emirates 777 300 ER. The Emirates fit out was way ahead of the BA cabin with nice touches like wireless ICE control, electric blinds and the toilet bag provision was superior to that provided in BA's 1st. On a personal note I found the BA bed more comfortable to sleep in even though Emirates provide a mattress to lie on.
  • Service - Emirates win here - Young, energised and keen to help Versus BA matronly seen it all before and lets get the blinds closed and get you all of to sleep approach. I found myself wondering how BASSA would react to having to manage mattresses in CW. Did Emirates management have to negotiate with the cabin crew union before introducing this touch? The prepare cabin for landing task was a pretty major undertaking on Emirates and they were given 15 minutes warning into Dubai but did it with a smile nevertheless.
  • Cost - Well the reason I was on Emirates down to Mumbai was it because it came at less than half the price of BA CW.

This is the scale of the mountain BA have to climb, the management know it but BASSA are still of the belief that they are the custodians of the premier airline service. Time to wake up, the world has moved on and BA need to move with it and cannot possibly do it with the old BASSA millstone around its neck.
pencisely is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 08:37
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
pencisely

"....young, energised vs matronly...." would probably be seen as discriminatory by the Equality Act 2010 in a combined age/sex claim, in my view.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 08:43
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
"....young, energised vs matronly...." would probably be seen as discriminatory by the Equality Act 2010 in a combined age/sex claim, in my view. "
Why did you post this LB - just felt like stirring it ?

You are , of course , correct that a company saying this would be liable, but this is a private individual expressing his/her thoughts as an opinion and therefore not subject to this legislation.

So once again, why ?
AlpineSkier 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.