Oh you pedant! You know what I meant.

That has always been the case. The company's projections at the last Investor Day was that Mixed Fleet would constitute 40% of crew in ten years' time.

It is only BASSA's particular brand of fear and paranoia that is responsible for the suggestion that existing crews will be forced on to Mixed Fleet or starved of work.

What Mixed Fleet does bring is internal competition at LHR and a bit of healthy competition is no bad thing at all.

Safety Concerns

If as has been suggested (and which you have not sought to deny ) you are indeed one of the architects within BASSA responsible for instigating and then perpetuating this unholy mess, do you not feel the slightest guilt or remorse about the way that BASSA have shamefully failed to explain fully to the branch membership all the aspects of the action taken.

Is it not remarkable that a deal which, according to the Unite leadership, is the best that could be expected in the current circumstances and which would have addressed the majority concerns has been cynically rejected by the BASSA leadership. From an outsider's perspective, the reasons for this seem to have more to do with the fact that the people who would possibly lose out are those who have been dismissed. Since these represent less than 1% of the membership it seems slightly strange until one factors in that these self same dismissed staff include a number of reps - oh and the branch secretary, although his dismissal was not connected with the dispute.

Colonel White
 

If it was me, which it is not, then the protection of the 1% would be a right and just cause, worth IA.

Before the frothing starts, there will no doubt be individuals who would have been dismissed for actions regardless of the dispute in question and I believe Unite would be responsible enough to point that out. The days of you can't touch me are long gone.

So going on strike because someone has been sacked for damaging company property, or taking actions that could impact on the safe operation of an aircraft during the dispute is a "right and just" cause? Do me a favour. :ugh:

The majority of those who had been suspended and had their cases concluded have not been sacked and have returned to work, so the suggestion by BASSA that the company is engaging in a form of, to use its words, "cleansing" is utter tosh.

Why should be people who, for whatever reason, behaved in an utterly reckless and foolish manner during the dispute be protected from their own stupidity and lack of judgement?

Actions have consequences.

LD12986
 

I would suggest that you actually read what I said.

MPN11
 

Sorry, I don't know how to "quote" on here or any such technical thing yet... Or maybe I am not allowed to do that yet...

But, the quote that you quoted (if you get me..!) about the BUD flight and motivated crew etc...

I have just finished a 3 day 8 sector trip, 4 of us on the crew. Purser, No.3 and myself No.2, all non strikers. The other crew member did, but regrets it now. I can honestly say, that having established our common position on the BASSA saga, it felt just as described. We were happy, cheerful, there was laughter and joking in the cabin, double drinks and chat with the passengers. No mechanical motion through going. At the end of the 8th sector, it was as if we had known each other for years and been working together for months... All the passengers got off smiling and happy, even with wind delays and the synonymous Heathrow wheelchair problems.

I hope that is what it will be like in the future and things can get back to giving passengers and enjoyable as possible journey. Passengers get off the aircraft happy, I am happy. I feel I have done a good days work when that happens.

I am glad that some do recognize that we are not all like the BASSA Massive and don't all have yellow pens stuck in our shirts etc...

Very best to you all... :)

@ Tray Surfer ... I think I really like you ;)

@ MPN11 - *blush*

Well, one likes to try...

Maybe MF will get me one day... :)

Litebulbs

I can understand that a union may ask its membership for support in the situation where 1% of the membership have been sacked, provided that union can demonstrate unequivocally to its membership that these dismissals were unfair. The trouble is that if the dismissals were unfair, I would expect the union to follow the normal course of appeals within the disciplinary process and if that failed, to resort to an Employment Tribunal.

The days when an employer can cheerfully sakc someone for no justifiable reason are long gone. There is adequate legislation and due process to cover these situations. Consequently, strike action is wholly unnecessary.

Taking a case to an ET does not get a job back, just compensates generally. Now IA potentially has a cost in the £M as proved in this dispute. This makes the dismissal and the cost a business decision.

And on what basis would IA (which as you note would deprive the hand that feeds CC of millions) over the dismissals be justified?

If the majority of the collective group felt that the dismissal was unjust.

And how will they obtain accurate information about the exact circumstances of the dismissals to establish that it was "unjust"?

Because if due process has been followed, then there would be an investigation. That investigation would be used as the basis for the process. The investigation is carried out by the employer. But there would no doubt be a representative of the union along with the affected employee at the disciplinary meetings who would be party to the information used. That would then be passed to the membership. The membership would then decide for itself if the decision was unjust. All above board and within the law.

Disciplinary investigation
 

What of the rights of those dismissed Litebulbs? Do you think it would be proper for the reasons for their dismissal to be put before the membership and most likely discussed on BASSA forum, then on here once someone cross-posted?

You have repeatedly called for independent arbitration in respect of the dismissals. This has been offered by BA and apparently rejected by BASSA(but quite why any BASSA member would want to work for an employer they truly believed was accurately described in that ridiculous diatribe posted on the other thread is beyond me:ugh:)

The first right would be whether they wanted to pursue the course of action. If the employee genuinely believed that they had been wronged then no doubt you would use every avenue to maintain employment as those mortgage bills are only another month away.

But come on Litebulbs, surely even the staunchest union supporter would not believe that BASSA would properly report the reasons for dismissal without spin so that the members could make a reasoned judgement.

Even if they did, do you think the BASSA members would accept any dismissals for fellow members, especially dismissals for (for example) failing to turn up for rostered duty because they were preparing a strike ballot?

Which therefore begs the question... Why hasn't the information on these dismissals been passed to the membership for their perusal?

Surely if the dismissals were some outrageous campaign against BASSAs membership then the evidence would massively bolster support for them?

A cynic may suggest that the cases that resulted in dismissal went so far beyond the pale that even the BASSA membership would see that justice was served. So by not releasing the details they can continue to insinuate the conspiracy outlined above, even though it's cobblers.

HM - The union have participated in the process but have to keep the details secret both by duty to their member, and likely a confidentiality agreement with BA.

If the dismissals were unreasonable then the (ex) employees can try employment tribunals. I ony know of one (DH) and that was singularily unsucessful.