BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see DH's spin on events at . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE where he reiterates the laundry list of 10 issues (whereas the joint statement distiller them into three issues) and suggests that the 28 day extension is a goodwill gesture for BA returning staff travel and "justice" for disciplined crew, when nothing has been agreed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if any member money was going to any lay rep, other than for reasonable expenses, then that should be stamped out straight away. Then it is down to the members, not Unite, BA or even pprune!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Then it is down to the members, not Unite, BA or even PPRuNe!
Last edited by mrpony; 15th Apr 2011 at 10:44.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNITE and BASSA have delivered to BA a once in a lifetime opportunity to reset or redefine the relationship they have with the union. It is fairly clear to most impartial observers that this relationship has been disfunctional for years and needs to be changed. If BA now fail to act and let BASSA off the hook then it will be another management failing of monumental proportions. (BA's relationship with UNITE is a normal one, it is the relationship with BASSA where the problem lies.) The days when BA essentially let BASSA be the middle management for the CC need to be assigned to history books that look at how not to run an airline. I hope that this extension is merely indicative of real negotiations taking place and not signs of KW deciding to end the dispute by caving in - the historic way that BA dealt with BASSA and why we are in the position we are in now.
Juan,
yup. Maybe BA need to increase the number of "managers" as a section of CSDs do not want to do the real "management" job. They also need to get those managers out and about, pro-actively engaging with CC, to "replace" the management role that bassa seemed to be carrying out.
BA will need to relate to some sort of union - whether it is a re-formed bassa or PC3.
I wonder how PC3 is getting along?
yup. Maybe BA need to increase the number of "managers" as a section of CSDs do not want to do the real "management" job. They also need to get those managers out and about, pro-actively engaging with CC, to "replace" the management role that bassa seemed to be carrying out.
BA will need to relate to some sort of union - whether it is a re-formed bassa or PC3.
I wonder how PC3 is getting along?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Tyneside
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT & AO
For me, the key words in the joint statement were:
For me, the key words in the joint statement were:
...it is recognised by the Union that that the management and acceptance of change is the key to lasting peace.
Whilst I agree that there needs to be more acceptance of change, research in many Companies shows that the Climate - (a way of measuring culture) is created by the local manager.........and NOT by the CEO. (Google Glowinkowski for a recent, and UK based approach to the research)
If there is no local manager it is not surprising that over time the Union rep takes over that role. The simple fact that they are there and available, often senior, gives them that managerial role.
So if the manager is absent (at their desks, for instance, or without enough time to meet their very mobile staff), BA should not be surprised that there is no change orientation........ The Rep is effectively managing the place.
This is not bassa's fault. it is BAs, and they need to act on it NOW.
If there is no local manager it is not surprising that over time the Union rep takes over that role. The simple fact that they are there and available, often senior, gives them that managerial role.
So if the manager is absent (at their desks, for instance, or without enough time to meet their very mobile staff), BA should not be surprised that there is no change orientation........ The Rep is effectively managing the place.
This is not bassa's fault. it is BAs, and they need to act on it NOW.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst KW obviously would prefer his time as CEO is not blighted by industrial action, he is no fool and he has not just walked in at BA off the street. Have been close to WW he has seen first hand the tactics of "Lenny" and BASSA.
BA has always made clear that Unite needs to change the way BASSA operates and I can't see BA agreeing a settlement without a robust overhaul of relations rather than simple promises to restart relations which is what happened when Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh shook hands on a deal in 2007.
BA has always made clear that Unite needs to change the way BASSA operates and I can't see BA agreeing a settlement without a robust overhaul of relations rather than simple promises to restart relations which is what happened when Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh shook hands on a deal in 2007.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KW and WW
I cannot believe how naive some cc posting on the other thread seem to be. KW was promoted to his present position by WW. KW reports to WW. KW is carrying out decisions that have been make by WW. Nothing will be done without the concurrence of WW. KW may put on a different face, but the policy will be that of WW. As another poster pointed out, a perfect opportunity for the “good cop, bad cop” strategy.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pcat,
No one is being naive. Obviously WW and KW have the same aim and that is to implement cost savings and curb Bassa and of course KW is accountable to WW, but he is no more a puppet to WW than WW was a puppet to Broughton.
The point being made, was that the way he is going about dealing with Bassa is totally different to the way WW went about it, and in my own obviously naive, in your eyes, opinion, he is doing a much better job.
If you honestly believe that someone would take on the job of being CEO of BA and not be making his own mind up, how to deal with a union problem, it is you that is naive. KW has been tasked with the job of running BA and that is what he is doing and he is answerable to WW but WW is not running BA anymore in the way he used to.
KW has brought in lots of new people and a totally new customer focused ethos has been brought in, similar to when Marshal was CEO. It is a total breath of fresh air. I do think WW did a good job as CEO and he was extremely talented at curbing costs but as a CEO he has never been very popular and I feel he lacked the customer and product focus, that also needs to be part of a CEOs vision, in an industry like ours.
Anyway enough from this naive crew member.
No one is being naive. Obviously WW and KW have the same aim and that is to implement cost savings and curb Bassa and of course KW is accountable to WW, but he is no more a puppet to WW than WW was a puppet to Broughton.
The point being made, was that the way he is going about dealing with Bassa is totally different to the way WW went about it, and in my own obviously naive, in your eyes, opinion, he is doing a much better job.
If you honestly believe that someone would take on the job of being CEO of BA and not be making his own mind up, how to deal with a union problem, it is you that is naive. KW has been tasked with the job of running BA and that is what he is doing and he is answerable to WW but WW is not running BA anymore in the way he used to.
KW has brought in lots of new people and a totally new customer focused ethos has been brought in, similar to when Marshal was CEO. It is a total breath of fresh air. I do think WW did a good job as CEO and he was extremely talented at curbing costs but as a CEO he has never been very popular and I feel he lacked the customer and product focus, that also needs to be part of a CEOs vision, in an industry like ours.
Anyway enough from this naive crew member.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Betty girl
I don't think any of us can assume we know the relationship between WW and KW, or how he/they will continue to play this match.
I would draw a different analogy ...
WW opened the batting for BA, and played a fine defensive game whilst putting up a creditable score against the opposition.
KW came in as Number 3 to score the runs and win the match.
[I have no idea who was Number 2
]
The scenario has changed constantly over the last 2 years. BASSA's apparent strength overturned by VCC, the ludicrous legal scenarios on balloting ... and indeed overall legality, which still continues.
The fact that there has been a change of CEO should not, IMO, be seen as a different scenario for CC. There is just a different CEO, with exactly the same objectives as WW, but with a significantly different game to play.
Unite now needs BASSA like a boil on the bum. Their antics could cost the Union £Ms if they don't get it right, and the entire legality of the 'continuation dispute' is as yet un-tested in the Court. DH's credibility/sanity has been exposed too often [and I have every belief that both sides of the dispute have staff reading this and other Forums]. The entire probity of BASSA's operations is questioned.
That is the situation KW now faces - a completely different one to that originally facing WW, when keeping BA flying was the prime concern. Now, thanks to WW's initiatives, KW can look towards keeping BA flying as an economic entity in the long term.
Where the CC fit into all that is, of course, entirely down to their personal circumstances, political persuasion and long [or short] term aspirations. Or, of course, they could leave ... and let the SLF and BA fly in peace.
I would draw a different analogy ...
WW opened the batting for BA, and played a fine defensive game whilst putting up a creditable score against the opposition.
KW came in as Number 3 to score the runs and win the match.
[I have no idea who was Number 2
]The scenario has changed constantly over the last 2 years. BASSA's apparent strength overturned by VCC, the ludicrous legal scenarios on balloting ... and indeed overall legality, which still continues.
The fact that there has been a change of CEO should not, IMO, be seen as a different scenario for CC. There is just a different CEO, with exactly the same objectives as WW, but with a significantly different game to play.
Unite now needs BASSA like a boil on the bum. Their antics could cost the Union £Ms if they don't get it right, and the entire legality of the 'continuation dispute' is as yet un-tested in the Court. DH's credibility/sanity has been exposed too often [and I have every belief that both sides of the dispute have staff reading this and other Forums]. The entire probity of BASSA's operations is questioned.
That is the situation KW now faces - a completely different one to that originally facing WW, when keeping BA flying was the prime concern. Now, thanks to WW's initiatives, KW can look towards keeping BA flying as an economic entity in the long term.
Where the CC fit into all that is, of course, entirely down to their personal circumstances, political persuasion and long [or short] term aspirations. Or, of course, they could leave ... and let the SLF and BA fly in peace.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly MPN, None of us knows the relationship, you and pcat included, but some of us work for BA and therefore have a better understanding than some others.
Have you personally met or corresponded with KW?
Didn't think so, well some of us have and that helps us make our, own naive, minds up about how we personally feel about him.
Have you personally met or corresponded with KW?
Didn't think so, well some of us have and that helps us make our, own naive, minds up about how we personally feel about him.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am getting a sinking feeling that KW is going to allow BASSA to still exist after all this.
There is no doubt that any large worker group deserves and should enjoy union representation. I believe that Unite or the PCCC would be the natural successors to the current rabble. For the things they have done and the way they have conducted themselves for the last two years, I have no doubt that BASSA as a unit and the careers of the individuals who have driven it should be crushed, pulvervised out of existence.
Only then can true peace be achieved. The attitude of BASSA up to now of "The answer is NO! What is the question" and "WE are the airline" has brought about all the troubles of the recent times.
Weak BA management in the past allowed BASSA too much say in how the airline was run. WW was correct in his view that this was unacceptable and he HAD to wrest control back from the union.
BASSA were not bright enough to see by refusing to look at the books, they played right into his hands (thank the lord). But their antics, scratching cars, sabotaging certain functions in aircraft, setting up porn websites, threats to co-workers who went into work, and many other behaviours documented here and in the press, have negated any claim they might harbour to represent anything ever again.
As I said in my opening sentence I fear that KW is about to give them a window of opportunity to remain and to crow "victory" at the end. I sincerely hope not.
There is no doubt that any large worker group deserves and should enjoy union representation. I believe that Unite or the PCCC would be the natural successors to the current rabble. For the things they have done and the way they have conducted themselves for the last two years, I have no doubt that BASSA as a unit and the careers of the individuals who have driven it should be crushed, pulvervised out of existence.
Only then can true peace be achieved. The attitude of BASSA up to now of "The answer is NO! What is the question" and "WE are the airline" has brought about all the troubles of the recent times.
Weak BA management in the past allowed BASSA too much say in how the airline was run. WW was correct in his view that this was unacceptable and he HAD to wrest control back from the union.
BASSA were not bright enough to see by refusing to look at the books, they played right into his hands (thank the lord). But their antics, scratching cars, sabotaging certain functions in aircraft, setting up porn websites, threats to co-workers who went into work, and many other behaviours documented here and in the press, have negated any claim they might harbour to represent anything ever again.
As I said in my opening sentence I fear that KW is about to give them a window of opportunity to remain and to crow "victory" at the end. I sincerely hope not.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler,
All right minded people would like it to be closed down but unfortunately it has too many members.
Just like London Transport would like to get rid of Bob Crow and the RMT, but they can't, it is just not an option!
All right minded people would like it to be closed down but unfortunately it has too many members.
Just like London Transport would like to get rid of Bob Crow and the RMT, but they can't, it is just not an option!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no easy options for finishing this dispute and BA will (as it is evidently doing) have to choose from the least worst option.
BA forcing a settlement (through SOSR for example, or sacking strikers because action is deemed to be unprotected) would leave a clear victory for BA and BASSA crushed but you have to consider the demoralising impact of that on a very large contingent of crew who support BASSA. Plus there is the wider PR impact of giving legs to a dispute where the media has largely lost interest.
BA is now negotiating from a position of considerable strength. It has, and will continue to have, everything it originally sought in cost savings proposals. The growth of Mixed Fleet and maintenance of the VCC programme has permanently restricted the effectiveness of any future threat of industrial action and that is important. No-one would have predicted three years ago that BA would have introduced Mixed Fleet entirely on its own terms and built up a substantial volunteer cabin crew workforice. Some obvious troublemakers have been sacked and will not be returning to BA.
The complete destruction of BASSA has never been an option. If BA and Unite agree on a deal that is palatable to the branches (frankly, I think this is unlikley in any event) the BASSA hardcore may crow victory but they have been so indoctrinated into believing everything BASSA tells them and nothing will change that. BASSA will claim victory because they claim this dispute was always about union busting. However, at least when this is over, there will be a elections for new reps (possibly for merged branches) and some troublemakers will hopefully be soon forgotten.
BA forcing a settlement (through SOSR for example, or sacking strikers because action is deemed to be unprotected) would leave a clear victory for BA and BASSA crushed but you have to consider the demoralising impact of that on a very large contingent of crew who support BASSA. Plus there is the wider PR impact of giving legs to a dispute where the media has largely lost interest.
BA is now negotiating from a position of considerable strength. It has, and will continue to have, everything it originally sought in cost savings proposals. The growth of Mixed Fleet and maintenance of the VCC programme has permanently restricted the effectiveness of any future threat of industrial action and that is important. No-one would have predicted three years ago that BA would have introduced Mixed Fleet entirely on its own terms and built up a substantial volunteer cabin crew workforice. Some obvious troublemakers have been sacked and will not be returning to BA.
The complete destruction of BASSA has never been an option. If BA and Unite agree on a deal that is palatable to the branches (frankly, I think this is unlikley in any event) the BASSA hardcore may crow victory but they have been so indoctrinated into believing everything BASSA tells them and nothing will change that. BASSA will claim victory because they claim this dispute was always about union busting. However, at least when this is over, there will be a elections for new reps (possibly for merged branches) and some troublemakers will hopefully be soon forgotten.