The SSK is right. If I was a BA shareholder, what would have worried me is why it took BA so long to find ANYONE that would do business with them and WHY?

Given that the natural AA link-up is not going to be allowed in any form that either will want (at this stage) then they had to go somewhere. However, their failure to link with one of the other world class carriers dies, in my view, relegate BA to the second tier of global carriers.

Why could they not find anyone to sign with them?

• Too bossy?
• Too dictatorial?
• Too arrogant?
• Too indebted (pensions and unions)?
• ???

PAXboy:

The EU has approved the BA alliance with American Airlines.

American, BA Score Big For The Oneworld Alliance - Forbes.com

I'm not too worried regarding what has or not happened in the past. BA is obviously attempting to take firm control of their airline and deal with many difficult issues.

Of interest to me is what effect this will have on the future.

For purposes of this thread I'm going to have to do some exploring and learn more regarding benefits, performance, costs, etc., of AA and Iberia's Cabin Crew.

BA almost merged with KLM and Sabena in 1990, and came very close with KLM in 2000. The first probably failed due to regulatory hurdles which had largely been removed by 2000. The second failed due to inability to agree on the respective shares of the resultant cake. BA's pension burden probably played a part in this.

Diplome, I suspect that this two-way merger (forget AA for the time being, that's just a commercial agreement) will have very little efffect on crew costs and conditions for the foreseeable future. All the early benefits will be in head-office and support functions. Even after six years I suspect there has been very little convergence amongst AF and KLM cabin crews (although I stand to be corrected by a couple of prominent Prooners).

Derek Simpson is on the panel for BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Any Questions?, 16/07/2010 tonight in the UK but available to listen in real time on line for those overseas. Then there is BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Any Answers?, 17/07/2010 on Saturday and you can join in on that.

Indeed. BA has admitted that prior to the AF/KL deal they had focused on what mergers can achieve in terms of cost saving and what impressed them about AF/KL was what was achieved in terms of revenue synergies and that is where most of the benefit in the Iberia deal will come from - driving traffic and revenue into each other's networks and co-ordinating schedules and routes.

It was a pity that BA did not merge with KL as it would have given it a second hub nearby and maintained BA's presence in the regions. In truth, BA now means very little to a lot of UK pax outside of London and the South East.

DiplomeThanks, I didn't realise the reduced agreement had gone through - but it's not the killer alliance they needed.Y-e-e-e-s, to a point but it is all that has happened in the past that will force the future. Throughout the pax discussions in PPRuNE since I have been participating, many folks (I shall not attempt a %) have thought that BA is past it's prime. During this dispute so much has come to light that shows just how much the previous generations of mgmt and unions have laid traps for the future (wittingly or otherwise).

I agree that the mgmt are now grasping the nettle but I suspect that it is too little, too late. I do not enjoy saying these things - but I speak as I see and think.

Report back on BA PHX to LHR
 

I have posted here in my capacity as SLF about our upcoming trip to Britain on BA. So for what it's worth I figured I'd report back after the experience.

No international travel for me since 2000 so no recent experiences to compare this with but these are my thoughts.

BA288 PHX to LHR 06/16/10, if I remember correctly.
The crew seemed positive and I have to say I had no complaints about the service. IFE worked fine and I enjoyed the selections. Spent a lot of time listening to some classical music and a radio station program about the adventures of Josef Haydn's head post mortem. Watched an epsiode of "Top Gear" about taking vehicles across South America. Both my wife and I enjoyed both meals and there were numerous refreshment runs between dinner and breakfast. The flight was smooth as glass all the way.

The only thing that marred it for us was a truly awful landing at Heathrow where for a few seconds I was quite certain we were going to crash. We were over the threshold floating down onto the runway when the plane rolled so severely to the left I could see nothing but grass out of the window. The pilot was obviously battling to get it level again and we touched down hard on the left landing gear and took some seconds for the right to hit the concrete which it did with significant force. Plane then lurched sharply to the right so much so that I was pressed hard against my wifes seat. She was sitting to my left.

I suspect some new 747 crew were being given practice at landing the type as I was surprised to see five flight crew board the plane in Phoenix and we were informed by the Captain that there were several extra pilots on board just after takeoff. The flight up till the last moments of landing had been incredibly smooth. It was as if the AP had had control right up till then and suddenly was disengaged and the pilot caught totally unawares.

Whatever the situation there didn't seem to be much in the way of wind at Heathrow when we arrived to account for it and there was certainly no applause for the pilot on this occasion.

The return flight BA289 LHR to PHX on July 04th was far bumpier though not too much to be uncomfortable. The service was still good by and large with both the meals and IFE being of good quality. Or at least the satisfied both my wife and I.

I say by and large about the service as there was one flight attendent who seemed to be one of the strikers. At least thats what I gathered from the snippets of conversation I heard between him and the other FA'.s. He did his job just fine and no complaints about that but I you'd been following the issues around the strike on PRUNE as I had it was obvious that he had issues with the company. As I said while it didn't impact his service to passengers I thought it was somewhat unprofessional to go on about such issues while on the job. But then again I only realised that is what he was doing because of what I learned on this forum. Not sure it would have been of concern to any other passengers.

The landing at Phoenix though was actually worse than the one in London because of all the low level maneuvering in the last ten minutes or so as the plane flew in a wide arc out east of the city over the Superstition mountains. I assume the plane was under some form of manual control at that point. There was so much change in speed, attitude and even altitude in the final minutes I actually thought I was going to throw up which as never happened to me before in a passenger jet.

As to wether or not I'd fly BA again. Don't know. Apart from two problematic landings, (which can happend anywhere anytime I suppose) the service was good. We had chosen BA as they had the only direct flight between Phoenix and London but for both of us 10 hours in an economy seat is proably too much. We may well end up trying a different airline in future if only to be able to compare.

- Peter.

Hi.PJ67.
I'm only an ex-ppl, but I would suggest that your 'awful landing' at Heathrow was simply the result of a nasty crosswind. If this is the case, it is very common practice [even in a 747] to land with the aircraft well banked into the wind, therefore resulting in your view of the grass etc.,
This prevents the aircraft drifting off the centreline, and is absolutely no cause for alarm, and is perfectly normal given the prevailing conditions. I

I can, of course, understand your concern, which, without meaning to be patronising, is simply due to your inexperience.
I have travelled frequently with nearly all trans-atlantic carriers, and always go BA if possible. Happy future landings.:)

From the other thread:

I believe this is the 'www.pccc.co.uk' pornographer.

Good riddance.

Probably volunteer flight crew!:eek:
(It was pretty windy over the last couple of days, pilots not prone to being caught unawares unless the engines stop without warning, then it takes them a few seconds to get to grips with it. I don't think you really need to worry.):ok:

JEM60

May I suggest you 'consolidate' a little more as a PPL.! Your explanation of crosswind landings in heavy jets is pure bxxxxx.
Approaches and landings in a crosswind are conducted with judicious application of drift compensation not bank. The drift is kicked off in the flare by rudder hopefully to ensure the main wheels touch in line with the runway centre line. Any bank in these circumstances is dangerous and likely to cause engine pod or impact damage.

ChicoG:

Haven't found a verifying source yet but I do agree. If Mark Everard has been dismissed I will view it as a positive.

I wonder how long before we hear cries of "Unfair" from the BASSA faithful. lol.

That pornographic website registered to Mr. Everard was one of the more outrageous actions by BASSA in this dispute.

pj67coll, you do not mention in which cabin you were sitting and service expectation is directly related.

As to the landing at LHR, the field is well known for eddies of wind around the big buildings and an upset of the kind you experienced is not unknown and can indeed happen anywhere at any time. The reverse that I have experience is an approach where the aircraft is rather 'jittery' but when within a few seconds of touchdown - suddenly everything smooths out and all is gentle. That is the luck of the draw and has less to do with automatic landing equipment and/or the flight crew than may be imagined.

Duggie

Just in case you read this (Duggie posts on the CC BA thread)

Times change.
This means the content and position of a given job changes.
The position of CC is changing.
There are many people who have to make their own sandwiches on jobs a lot more complicated than yours, there is nothing wrong with making your own sandwiches....
Good CC who think of their guests first will always find a good job.


Live with the changes

Go play politburo somewhere else. Trolling is boring.

Diplome
 

A CSD friend of mine heard of Mark Everard's dismissal on arrival back at LHR today. You're quite right on your assumption, she's up in arms about his 'unfair' sacking he being one of the nicer reps! Unfortunately I was unaware at the time that he was behind the pornographic website. She will be advised accordingly

I note that there is no mention of the on-going police investigation by BASSA!

MissM and Ava Hannah seem to have resigned from the other thread, so welcome Dougie Fashion to enlighten us all on the practices of the men behind the door and benefits of being a BASSA member! At least he's not based in JNB.

Mark Everard
 

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?

I'm sure there are other offences however iirc he did link BA to that porn website in the meta data.

Could Mr E have been dismissed for bringing the company into disrepute?

Or if he was stupid enough to actually host the pornographic images on his own site/server (especially if it is located in the UK) that could have criminal proceedings brought into play?

Paxboy, he clearly says that he was sitting in an economy seat. I think it's reasonable to assume that it was in the economy cabin.

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?


As someone who deals with a lot of disciplinaries, you can sack anyone for anything at any time quite legally. The issue however is whether a tribunal would feel the dismissal was unfair (note NOT unlawful).

So in ME's case BA can dismiss for whatever reason they choose.

Regarding Mr E and a comment about posting porn, ie, it is not illegal to do so.

I would take a look at The Obscene Publications Act 1959.
I would very much doubt expert witness' are available as to its literary, artistic or scientific merits.

Just because its there and readily accessible does not mean it is not illegal. That's the problem with the tinterweb, what is legal in one country ir likely highly illegal in another country where it is viewed.

The way BASSA described his actions were those of "offending a few of his fellow employees" or suchlike.

I would suggest that posting pornographic images with the deliberate intention of demeaning the PCCC, which clearly identified itself as being the website of responsible BA cabin crew, can at least be considered disgusting, rather than being "offensive".

And in doing so, I would argue that he is surely bringing the company's name into disrepute, which I assume is in breach of his contract.

No sympathy whatsoever. In fact I think he's a five star, fur-lined, ocean going idiot.

Further, on the AGM votes, every single vote was over 90% in favour, including 99.73% voting to approve the report and the accounts.

I'm sure if they'd done one of loudmouthed, uncouth heckling, BASSA would have won hands down.

MONTGOLFIER.Of course. Too used to seeing C17s and C5's in heavy crosswinds in this neck of the woods. Wing down is very common . Didn't think re low wings.:)

I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wrong.

Litebulbs, you are correctly picking him up on the use of the word legally, poor choice of words on his part. The message is however correct, in that an employer can sack however they like, just like a thief can steal from whom ever he likes, a price may need to be paid for both actions however, or not!

In the case of Mr Everard however and as someone who also has to (unfortunately) deal with a lot of disciplinary processes this would have been an easy one. The facts that we are aware of alone (there could well be other transgressions) would have certainly been enough. This chap linked both himself and his employer (and less importantly in my view the PCCC) to a web site presenting pornography. His continued employment was certainly in jeopardy from that point in.

As a Union rep yourself I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider his actions as being wise or productive to say the least. Indeed I’m surprised that a professional union hadn’t sacked him as a representative themselves long before BA were required to take action.

From the other forum: DUGGIE FASHION
 

Apologies, still don't know how to link posts...

I find this highly offensive to our troops, ground and air, that are serving in the Afghan and Iraq theatres. Not to mention all those that fell at the Somme!

BA CC are not in the same class as the basic soldier on the ground or Airman in the air in any theatre.

Winch-control:

It's just more of the "same old same old" rhetoric that we have seen from the more militant members of BASSA used to deflect the fact that their arguments are rather empty of facts and very high in hyperbole.

I note that many members of the CC thread are trying to reason with this individual and will give them kudos for their efforts however its an exercise in futility.

Duggie Fashion is just another, in a long line of "new posters" on the Cabin Crew thread, there to repeat memorized lines and knee-jerk responses.

It would be nice if all of the references to BALPA could be eliminated as it just muddies the waters and has no more relevance to Cabin Crew and BASSA than the actions taken by the AFL-CIO.

BASSA and their supporters should debate regarding their issues rather than try to deflect from substantive responses by squealing "BALPA" at every opportunity.

Van Horck #619
 

He apparently included BA-related keywords in the search parameters, such that searching for BA would lead to the porn site. Also, whilst PCCC may not be a BA entity, it clearly belongs to BA staff. Therefore his actions caused offence and injury to BA employees.

Also worth keeping in mind that there does not have to be any direct link between the employer and its employee in the specifics of any disrepute allegation. There is at least one decided case where an employer sacked workers for their behaviour completely independent of their work relationships. The case in question involved a number of Post Office workers who were caught on camera engaged in football hooliganism at the 2004 Euro Championships. They were sacked and their dismissals were upheld as fair.

I agree it was not an action covered in glory, for which he has paid a heavy price. In my opinion too heavy, because I am sure in different circumstances he would still be employed.

However, in the current climate at the world's favourite, I imagine that if any cabin crew employee crosses that imaginary line (that is always moving) and especially a union rep, then the full force of the disciplinary process will be actioned. So why give the employer reason?

That's where we will disagree, and it demonstrates how far removed from reality BASSAWorld is. Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later.

Behavior like that is not, and should not, be tolerated. The only depressing thing is that he will now be parachuted into a cosy BASSA sinecure where he can continue to sponge of the people who pay union subs.

LB
 

You make a good point.
I don’t know anything about Mr Everards abilities as a representative but I’m forced to conclude based on what I do know that he can’t be that shrewd to have thought that his web site was a good idea – this does have to ask questions regarding the control of the reps also, was this a unilateral decision on his part or was it a sanctioned action by BASSA command and control?

I bloody hope not but don’t imagine that I’ll ever know.

No doubt that he feels foolish now and probably regrets his actions. As do most people that transgress in all walks of life. The best of us learn from it and try move on I guess. I hope he does.

Ignoring BA I have to suggest that the crew are better off without this representative as he has to possess questionable judgement at best, and this is the issue that causes me concern about unions behaviour on occasions, especially BASSA.

He is now being presented as some sort of martyr, unions should defend those in need and deserving of defence of course, but they should not defend those not deserving and should do so for the benefit of all the crew.

In my professional career I have been an employer of thousands, literally. I have in that role had to unfortunately dismiss probably hundreds over the years. I can describe all such dismissals, regardless of their specific details, with a single sentence “protecting the employment of those that behave appropriately, for those that don’t jeopardise the employment and prosperity of all”.

Alas I suspect Mr Everards disciplinary falls into that category. Just another sad chapter in this wholly sad dispute that has been so badly managed.

If as some suggest, Mr Walsh is an evil megalomaniac hell bent on reducing the T’s&C’s of all staff in all departments to Dickensian levels then BASSA’s management of the IA has only served to facilitate and accelerate same.

Fortunately I don’t believe he is, personally. Time will tell I guess.

That is why you have unions and collective strength; unless you have already played the trump card at the start of the game.

pmvw:

I must wholeheartedly agree. The attempts by some to excuse or minimize the actions of some of these individuals who have been dismissed (and there have been few dismissals) shows a great disconnect from the reality of business.

Mr. Everard created a pornographic website for the sole and singular purpose of disparaging BA Cabin Crew and BA itself.

A few months ago my husband's IT department came to him with a troubling report that one of his senior individuals had bypassed their filter (rather simply but creatively done I must say) and had been viewing pornography from his business owned computer. He was gone in two days. Done.

With leadership comes responsibility, not only to those you work for, but those you lead. BASSA treats their responsibility as some sort of silly child's game..Refuse to report for duty, texting during confidential negotiations, porn sites, inaccurate representations, etc., etc..

....and people still make excuses for them.

As for this comment:
No, Unions are for protecting workers and staff against REAL wrongs, for negotiating for the best possible position that allows both the workforce and the business to survive and thrive.

The Unions that my husband negotiates with would not have defended or excused a pornographic website set up to defame their co-workers and not one of his Reps would have participated in such conduct.

Not all Unions behave like BASSA.

I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wron

Apologies, I should have added the caveat of unless it's for reasons of race/colour/sexuality etc that are covered by separate legislation and which you can't sack for. However it would have to be proved that this were the case and it wasn't just for the fact that the staff member was completely useless.

Unfair dismissal is just that, it's unfair. There are no legal consequences for the employer other than to pay recompense as determined by an ET if found against the employer (or settle pre-tribunal which is what tends to happen more often). They don't get their job back. Our legal advisers are clear that in theory, whilst being unethical, we could if needed get rid of someone by firing them though we'd probably be tribunalled for it, but it isn't against the law, it just may be seen as unfair by a tribunal. There's really no such thing as common law when it comes down to it.

Whilst this does happen it clearly isn't anywhere you'd want to go unless there was a really big problem and it hasn't happened since I've been with the company.

Anyway, I digress, back to the thread!

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ser_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...eply_small.gif

Very true. And perhaps worth adding why this is the case. The main reason why employers are so anti-porn is that somewhere around 90% of all malicious computer code/viruses etc is imported into commercial applications via porn-related access (either sites or links carried in emails). Staff sensitivity, and the potential costs therefrom, is actually less of the issue, though can have significant adverse reputational impact if not handled sensitively.

The use of porn, and the known impact it can have as noted above, is what moves this case from being "a bit silly" to "gross misconduct/bringing BA into disrepute". If all he'd done was put together a spoof site without the porn, I doubt he'd have been sacked.

I doubt BA are complaining though. They've now got rid of 2 senior reps, apparently 4 more are on "gross misconduct" disciplinaries, which means they are certainly in danger of dismissal, leaving just 3 senior reps. I'll bet that any of those on long term sick will soon be leaving too. In that case, BA will have achieved what Unite has been unwilling or unable to do, namely rein in its dysfunctional branch leadership.

I find it informative that "BASSA Admin" extrapolates the loss of such people with the demise of the Union. There are quotes elsewhere about "if this goes on then there will be no Union left" or some such wording, the clear implication being that the senior reps are the Union. In fact, even with a degree of leakage, BASSA still appears to have almost 10,000 members in BA, and will continue to exist in some form as and when most or all of the senior reps have been removed. The challenge for the 10,000, as well as for Unite I would suggest, is to find new reps who actually see Union representation as a bottom up process, ie research the members' views, collate, develop a consensual position for presentation to management, report back etc. The current crop see it as top down, with the membership there simply to provide "muscle" on behalf of the leadership. Not a very modern approach to representation I would suggest.

Litebulbs,
are you saying that unions are there to protect employees that don't behave in a professional manner, deliberately tries to ruin the reputation of their employer, thieving, bullying and/or a variety of other behaviours?