BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

[Litebulbs]

I agree that BA are not discriminatory, but are some suggesting it should be. That is the core of my point. I am not asking anyone to agree, it is just my view from what I read on here.

[notlangley]

Welcoming this Len McCluskey says:

Of course, the time it has taken for the company to acknowledge its crew is concerning. When a company deems it an acceptable strategy to wage an all-out PR war against its own front line employees, the end result will always be disastrous. Being valued and having respect and dignity at work is what crew have been fighting for, so I am pleased at the tone of this changed approach.

Mr Williams goes on to say that he wants the angry words of the past put behind us so that we can find a language to reflect a common purpose and indicates that he is prepared to meet to seek a successful conclusion to your dispute.

This is music to my ears because we have been seeking such a meeting for some time. I have assured him that this union, and every single one of our Unite cabin crew members, would also like nothing better than to put this dispute behind them, and not only look into the future but also to “seize it”, as he rightly suggests. However, the solution and ability to seize the opportunities before us must rest equally with the company, not just cabin crew. We remain willing, but BA must also have the ‘will’.

The fact that this dispute has had more ballots than any other in recent memory should serve to tell the company something. Clearly something is wrong in the way that the company is being managed but also led.”

Len McCluskey goes on to stress that Unite’s commitment to finding a common solution to the dispute is such that he will make himself available to meet with Keith Williams at anytime:

Today, I call upon Keith Williams, the new CEO of BA to meet me and cabin crew representatives anywhere, anytime to see if we can reach agreement. As the new CEO of BA, it is he, more than any single cabin crew member, that can play the biggest part in achieving this goal.

We have consistently said that negotiation not litigation or intimidation is the only way to resolve this dispute.

The spirit of the cabin crew will never be broken. Many remain in fear, not only of work moving to mixed fleet over time and the obvious implications of that, but also to simply be themselves in a company that has sacked 18 crew and suspended 70 more simply for supporting their union. For BA to have created a workplace where good people are genuinely frightened to talk to each other, in case they say the wrong thing to the wrong person is plainly wrong.”

However, Mr McCluskey also warns Keith Williams that he should set aside careworn BA lines about running a full flight schedule should industrial action follow this fresh ballot:

Keith re‐states the line that the company will run 100 per cent of flights and any action taken will have no effect. How he can say that, I don’t know. He has no way of knowing what weird and wondrous initiatives we might take should we engage in industrial action. I’m afraid in this regard his thinking is outmoded.
It also gives weight to those who argue that his letter to crew is disingenuous. I hope not, but we shall see.
If BA is serious in its intent to resolve matters between us I am of course eager to move forward. It is the case that Keith Williams has never had the opportunity to meet a single one of our excellent cabin crew representatives. I am proud of them and I am firmly of the view that it could only be a positive step for him to now do so.
I will have my team ready and able to meet today. BA have my number – all they have to do is simply call me.”

________link

[Ancient Observer]

Can BA afford to be UK based?

Can BA afford to be UK based?

One of the "Western" views of business is that all businesses should meet all "Western" laws.
That's fine, it is how Westerners have been brought up.

However, with the real growth in business - and Aviation - now in Asia, should legacy carriers who do not have a profitable business model remain in Europe at all? Ryaniar has a working business model for Europe, but the big legacy carriers struggle, especially when compared to the Asian carriers. Asian carriers also have an equally good safety record, and newer planes.
Asian carriers are not burdened with Westerners rules and laws, but meet and exceed the important ones (ICAO).

They also appear to pay all their staff much less, (other than the top team).

Maybe the most successful of the legacy carriers will be the ones that move their centre of operations out to Asia?

[VintageKrug]

A very good point, Ancient Observer.

I would anticipate IAG eyeing acquisitions in the East with considerable interest.

BASSA must balance the need to protect workers with the obvious availability of foreign based crew working for subsidiary companies. British Airways Asia springs to mind....(though it was set up for different reasons).

[R2D2-LHR]

I think Len might be waiting by the phone for a long time, has he forgotten that BA stated that Willie Walsh will still be in charge of negotiations with Unite?

[notlangley]

Ancient Observer said

Asian carriers are not burdened with Westerners rules and laws, but meet and exceed the important ones.

So all that an oil state subsidised airline need do is buy landing and takeoff slots at JFK & Heathrow and use their low paid early retiring staff to cut costs and bring spritely service and thereby obtain a threatening toe-hold on the Atlantic route._ Please someone tell me why this can’t be done - but only if you can quote a source.

[notlangley]

No-one has come up with anything authoritative to explain why a lodge or chapel which has different powers and responsibilities to a Union should be bound by Trade Union legislation.
Are we reliant on hearsay?

[mrpony]

Len's statement - a few anomalies

Keith re‐states the line that the company will run 100 per cent of flights and any action taken will have no effect. How he can say that, I don’t know. He has no way of knowing what weird and wondrous initiatives we might take should we engage in industrial action. I’m afraid in this regard his thinking is outmoded.
It also gives weight to those who argue that his letter to crew is disingenuous. I hope not, but we shall see.
”

BA have never stated that they would run 100% nor that IA would have no effect. Len, you are wrong.

What your statement gives weight to is the fact that you have a problem processing simple english without mangling it into a new version that suits your aims.

[Yellow Pen]

So all that an oil state subsidised airline need do is buy landing and takeoff slots at JFK & Heathrow and use their low paid early retiring staff to cut costs and bring spritely service and thereby obtain a threatening toe-hold on the Atlantic route._ Please someone tell me why this can’t be done - but only if you can quote a source.

I can't quote you an actual source but if the airline was middle east owned and domiciled they would need fifth freedom rights to fly passengers between the EU and the USA. As far as I know none of the Middle East carriers have those rights, and I'd certainly hope the EU wouldn't grant them.

[Ancient Observer]

............er, yes, those rights are now freely available. Only requires a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" govt to govt deal.

Easy to do as CAA (UK) says it is good for UK.

Look, for instance, at Air New Zealand, who fly from UK to USA.

[Yellow Pen]

Yes, and Qantas from LHR to HKG, and BA from SIN and BKK to SYD, and Air India who have fifth freedom rights to fly from London to the USA along with Kuwaiti Airlines. Fifth freedom rights can be granted (but by the EU these days I believe), but so far they have not been granted to any Middle East airlines. Given the increasingly vocal opposition to those carriers expansion from the head of Air France - KLM and the head of IAG I think it'll be a long time before the EU grants them fifth freedom. There's certainly nothing in it for EU carriers.

[jetset lady]

Originally Posted by VintageKrug

And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:

. LGW - 24/07/09 - Fisher - LCY Update

you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA.

It is correct that BA did originally want to offer a la carte dining but it wasn't dropped because BASSA didn't agree. It was dropped because it didn't work in the trials for a variety of reasons.

Here:

. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree

you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.

The reason the union wanted the night stop to be at Shannon, along with the flight crew, was nothing to do with the "arduous LCY-SNN" service but instead due to a disagreement whether the stop at Shannon was a seperate sector or just a tech stop. According to our MOA, which BA agreed, you can not link a shorthaul sector with a long haul sector. However, BA took the position that as the stop was a tech stop, it didn't count. Sadly, the union refused to negotiate the LCY route until they had settled a completely different matter, so became more or less irrelevant in the planning and the route has evolved as it has purely through trials and feedback from both crew and passengers.

With regards the report at LGW, Tightslot has pretty much said it all. We report there as there are no facilities at LCY for us to check in, get the paperwork etc. We also brief at LGW. In very rare circumstances, crew are allowed to report directly to the hotel at LCY but the only time I have seen it happen was during the recent bad weather.

[Chuchinchow]

Pardon me for going off track, but what was the Employment Tribunal's verdict in the Duncan Holley case?

Or is no one else interested - apart from DH himself?

[notlangley]

Thanks for the tip Yellow Pen

The unofficial seventh freedom is a variation of the fifth freedom. It is the right to carry passengers or cargo between two foreign countries without any continuing service to one's own country . . . . . . . On 2 October 2007, the United Kingdom and Singapore signed an agreement that will allow unlimited seventh freedom rights from 30 March 2008 (along with a full exchange of other freedoms of the air).

link

[VintageKrug]

A good point, and one we hadn't fully closed off.

notlangley wrote:

No-one has come up with anything authoritative to explain why a lodge or chapel which has different powers and responsibilities to a Union should be bound by Trade Union legislation.
Are we reliant on hearsay?

No need for hearsay. Unite has specifically been censured for denying access to branches of the Union itself:

1: on or around 3 May 2006
the Union breached section 30 of the 1992 Act by
failing to provide Mr G King & Mr M King with access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch
of the union

2: on or around 6 December 2005 the
1/230 branch of the TGWU in breach of rule 10.4(a) of the rules of the union
failed to elect the members of the Cab Trade Advisory Committee

Here is the ruling:


Upon application by Mr G King and Mr M King (“the Claimants”) under Section 31(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”)(Complaint 1) and upon application by the Claimants under Section 108A(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”)(Complaints 2 and 3):


1. I declare that the Transport and General Workers Union (“TGWU”, “the Union”) failed to comply with the Claimant’s request for access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch of the T&G Union, made on or around 3 May 2006, in breach of section 30 of the 1992 Act.


2. Where I am satisfied that the claim is well-founded I am required by section 31(2B) of the 1992 Act to make an appropriate enforcement order. I make the following order:

(a) The Transport and General Workers Union is ordered to give the Claimants access to inspect the accounting records of branch 1/230 in the form of The Quarterly Returns to the Transport and Generwal Workers Union’s Region 1 going back to 1 January 2005, or from whenever such returns were first made, whichever is the shorter period. The Claimants are to be given access to those records no later than 28 January 2007.

(b) The Transport and General Workers Union shall allow the Claimants to be accompanied at the inspection by an accountant (being a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor under section 25 of the Companies Act 1989). The Union need not allow the Claimants to be accompanied by an accountant if the accountant fails to enter into such agreement as the Union may reasonably require for protecting the confidentiality of the records.

(c) The Transport and General Workers Union shall allow the Claimants to take or will supply to the Claimants such copies or extracts from the accounting records as they may request.

(d) The Transport and General Workers Union may charge the Claimants for allowing them to inspect the records to which they have had access, for allowing them to take copies of, or extracts from, those records or for supplying any such copies. If such charges are required, before any arrangements are made for the inspection the Transport and General Workers Union shall notify the Claimants of the principles in accordance with which its charges will be determined. Such charges are not to exceed the reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the Union in complying with this order. The Claimants shall be liable to pay such sum upon demand by the Transport and General Workers Union, after having inspected and, if appropriate having been provided with copies of the records to which they have had access pursuant to this order.

Unite - Transport and General Workers Union accounts - investigation by the TGW Union Certification Officer into a branch accounts

[PAXboy]

Ancient Observer

Can BA afford to be UK based?

As I understand it, on current legislation, they have no choice. This is a hangover from the full-on protectionism of the 20th Century.

I shall repeat one of my long held prognostications ... Once the legacy carriers prove to their govts that they cannot continue in the present legislative format - then they will be allowed to make global deals (not just the Euro cross-border ones already in place).

These deals will coalesce around the existing alliances of OneWorld/Star/FlyTeam etc. Eventually, that will bring about some half dozen global units that sub-contract their ops to member carriers.

Of course, before that can happen, more carriers have to fail financially because the only thing that changes laws are deaths and money. Cynical? No, just been watching the world go round for more than 50 years.

[notlangley]

Accounting records of BASSA

Excellent information VintageKrug.
At least this should prevent BASSA members from approaching BASSA - because it is Unite that is obliged to release the information.

[LD12986]

I don't think the decision if the Employment Tribnal has been issued yet. If Holley actually wins, I'm sure we'll hear about it!

And Len, when Keith Williams refers to the language if this dispute, I think he may have been referring to your friend Mr Holley.

Also, if by "weird and wondrous initiatives" you're referring to the idea of crew reporting for duty and then walking off the job at the last minute, this has already been kicked into touch.

PDF of Len's letter:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/Lens_le..._28feb2011.pdf

[VintageKrug]

Quite right. It is Unite which is legally responsible for BASSA keeping correct accounts; if it can be proven that no accounts existed, or Unite cannot produce them, then all of Unite's accounts can be said to be potentially in breach of audit, which is most serious both for the auditors and for UNITE.

But it is the Branch Secretary's responsibility to keep such records, both as part of Unite's own rulebook, and part of the 1992 Act.

The fact that BASSA has stated the accounts are not currently available should be immediately escalated, including BASSA's response, to:

1. Unite's Auditors (both of them)
2. BASSA's auditors
3. The Certification Officer
4. The TUC
5. Len McCluskey at Unite

[notlangley]

It seems to me that until the person does contact Unite to ask to see the accounts, then BASSA can play cat & mouse with the ill-advised complainant for months and months.