PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/429571-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iii.html)

west lakes 30th Nov 2010 13:34


You can clearly see what BA give without negotiation, just ask any crew member wearing a hat!
Litebulbs
Perhaps you could re-phrase that as LGW crew who operate the LCY - JFK filgts have worn hats since these flights stated!

Litebulbs 30th Nov 2010 13:38


Originally Posted by Ancient Observer (Post 6092944)
Litebulbs.

Nope.
BA offered to take New Fleet off the table earlier in this dispute. Bassa refused that offer aswell. They refused to discuss it at all.

New Fleet is bassa's fault completely.

The terms were not negotiated by BASSA; correct. The terms are nowhere near the current T&C's that are offered at LHR. BA set the terms.

pvmw - I doubt that many people would give their right arm for a basic broadly in line with the minimum wage, plus flight pay for the main crew grade.

Litebulbs 30th Nov 2010 13:40


Originally Posted by west lakes (Post 6092998)
Litebulbs
Perhaps you could re-phrase that as LGW crew who operate the LCY - JFK filgts have worn hats since these flights stated!

I apologise for any offense caused by my previous incorrect statement.

west lakes 30th Nov 2010 13:45

I don't think anyone was offended, but as we spend a lot of time talking about the inaccuracies from union reps/officers I though we had better try and keep our facts right

Richard228 30th Nov 2010 13:51

litebulbs

The terms were not negotiated by BASSA; correct. The terms are nowhere near the current T&C's that are offered at LHR. BA set the terms.
but isn't that the point?

Had BASSA negotiated, they would have been in a position to either stop (as was on the table) or influence Mixed Fleet, its rate of delivery and routes?

By the decission it took not to negotiate, it has failed its members in this regard?

pvmw 30th Nov 2010 13:53


pvmw - I doubt that many people would give their right arm for a basic broadly in line with the minimum wage, plus flight pay for the main crew grade.
Its quite simple. If you are right, then BA will be unable to recruit new cabin crew, and the T&Cs will obviously have to be improved to attract recruits. Not the case?? Damn, reality strikes again. Pay levels aren't a reason for this dispute anyway, so stick the red herring back in its jar.

BA have been incredibly patient throughout this dispute. Try working in industry and behaving like a spoiled child, and you will rapidly be looking for a new job. I for one am heartily sick of the petulant behaviour of Woodley, Durnken Dunc, Lizzie and all their acolytes. They care nothing for the crew they are meant to represent, and only for their own ends and inflating their egos.

If they are representative of British trade unionism, the God help the staff who really need strong union representation and support.

Litebulbs 30th Nov 2010 14:04


Originally Posted by west lakes (Post 6093026)
I don't think anyone was offended, but as we spend a lot of time talking about the inaccuracies from union reps/officers I though we had better try and keep our facts right

I understand and agree, I should have given more thought to the "one liner".

Litebulbs 30th Nov 2010 14:07

Richard and pvmw,

I am not in any way defending the negotiating position of either side of Unite here. The courts have laid down clearly, the inadequacies of that process already. I was responding to AO's post about BA giving everything and that BASSA had nothing to do with it ever.

Diplome 30th Nov 2010 14:31

Courtesy of srbrenna on another forum:


29th November 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE - BALLOT ANNOUNCEMENT

We are pleased to see that a press conference was held today to announce Unite's INTENTION to ballot it's members on Industrial Action.

Whilst we would have preferred the press conference to announce that we will be giving notification on a specific date to British Airways, we are at least moving in the right direction.

Needless to say in the interim period we will ask all of our members to ensure that their details are accurate and up to date.

It is vital that you advise us if you are off work on long term sick, maternity or taking a sabbatical – or any absence that means you will not be in the workplace during any potential strike period.

YOU CANNOT BE BALLOTED IF YOU CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY INDUSTRIAL ACTION THAT IS CALLED.

We are gravely concerned that as a result of the press conference today, British Airways have conceded to meet with Unite next Monday under the auspices of ACAS. To the best of our knowledge this will NOT include any of the representatives from either Bassa or Amicus. This is unacceptable to us and we will communicate that to the JGS on behalf of our membership.

Furthermore we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole.

Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer.

We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute.

We would also like to assure you that the figures recently published on some forums suggesting that only a handful of AMICUS members took industrial action are misleading and we can honestly advise you that more than five times that number of AMICUS members actually went on strike. That is not to say we couldn't do better, because we can and we must!

Today saw information come to us that Mixed Fleet will be operating the SIN-SYD, CPT and JNB from the 08th March 2010.

Whilst this has been a long drawn out struggle with many pitfalls, one positive thing that has come out of it is that British Airways have been exposed and the true nature of their intent is now glaringly obvious. Be that the misleading rationale of an airline in trouble, or the assurances that Mixed Fleet would not adversely affect us, we can now see clearly that the leadership team cannot be trusted and neither therefore can their offer be trusted. We are now in profit irrespective of the cost of this dispute, the ash cloud and the hefty fines – and yet our work is being stripped away and our agreements are being decimated on a daily basis.

If you had any doubts about your future in this once wonderful airline, be GUARANTEED of this – unless we ALL support the call for action, and, when appropriate lawfully withdraw your labour, YOU WILL HAVE NO FUTURE- the writing is on the wall!
A frustrating example as to exactly why BA cannot negotiate with this group. Agreements mean nothing and they will not realistically negotiate.

What is particularly amazing about the above is that the vast majority of Amicus members did not strike yet their leadership will not allow them a vote on the latest offer and seems determined to force them into further loss of pay and benefits.

I disagree with those that state that Unions are entirely negative. I don't believe that to be so...but communications such as this only serve to harden the public's disdain for militant BA cabin crew.

ZimmerFly 30th Nov 2010 14:48

As usual, one wonders if this is fact, or just another red herring to feed the lemmings? :confused:


Today saw information come to us that Mixed Fleet will be operating the SIN-SYD, CPT and JNB from the 08th March 2010.
I didn't notice that happening nearly 9 months ago..........oh dear !..:}

Richard228 30th Nov 2010 14:52

Who said what now?
 
thanks for the post Diplome...

One particular bit that is funny is this:


We would also like to assure you that the figures recently published on some forums suggesting that only a handful of AMICUS members took industrial action are misleading and we can honestly advise you that more than five times that number of AMICUS members actually went on strike.
When it was actually Amicus/CC89 themselves who said this - and it is on their own website! :ugh:

see "Amicus Update" 16th November: . LATEST NEWS UPDATES

On basis that only 40 AMICUS members claimed strike pay, versus 7000 BASSA members, our democratic right to an opinion and our ability to represent you is extinguished.
They cant even keep up with their own spin and propaganda - hilarious! you could not make it up!

pcat160 30th Nov 2010 15:15

Last time I flew the routes CPT and JNB used 747’s. I thought Mixed fleet would initially only operate 777’s on long haul routes.

TopBunk 30th Nov 2010 15:22

It seems that with the Winter schedule (northern hemisphere) that the JNB's have reduced to 14 per week (all 747) and the CPT increased to ~13 per week (daily 747 + 6 777's).

From memory this increase in the CPT frequency has been a feature of the last 3 years or so. Sometimes with all 747's and sometimes with a mix, as in the case at present.

Whether or not BA would choose to mix MF crews and legacy LH crews at the same slip station in the same hotel is another question. I don't believe there are any firm plans to train the MF crews on the 747 in that timeframe.

Juan Tugoh 30th Nov 2010 15:26

It all depends on your definition of initially. If it means "at first" then that is exactly what has happened. I don't think that BA specified a time scale for MF to be expanded to the 747.

The additional cost imposed upon BA by UNITE's threat of a strike ballot needs to be recovered. This additional cost can be recovered by training MF onto the 747 in order for them to operate some more premium trips. Potentially another own goal by UNITE.

Or it could just be another scare story put out by the union in an attempt to garner more support from within the CC community.

Sporran 30th Nov 2010 16:11

I had a vcc on the flight deck this week and he stated that they were all being trained on the 744 and that MF were going to be trained up as well.

I for one hope it is true and that the training for MF is ramped up to ENSURE that the miltants and agitators get their true deserts - a P45!!!!

Ancient Observer 30th Nov 2010 16:26

More MontyPython
 
Just to add to the sketch, I can just imagine John Cleese saying, "We want those 4 things that we had before we went on strike".
"It was unfair of the Romans to remove the aqueduct, the sanitation, the education and the wine, just because we went on strike. Re-instating these would be a no-cost option for the Romans. We demand fair treatment for Judea"

In the forthcoming Movie about this modest little Employee Relations problem, which actors should play which participants?

It's a shame that Leslie Neilsen has died (RIP). I can think who he should have played.

How do we represent the majority of BA CC who have had nothing whatsoever to do with this strike, and just want to be allowed to do a great job - not to mention the other, er, "saintly" BA staff, who have put up with this stuff for nearly 2 years now.?

vctenderness 30th Nov 2010 16:57

I heard a trailer on radio Sunday for the travel show with Simon Calder. It said that they would be featuring the British Airways Cabin Crew Panto I expected The Wicked Witch (LM), Buttons (DH) Scrooge (TW) and the Ugly Sisters (BASSA reps) to come on shouting 'The strikes are on' 'Oh no they are not' 'Oh yes they are!'

The audience would then shout 'IT'S BEHIND YOU'..........:):):)

fl dutchman 30th Nov 2010 17:26

Reason for industrial action.
 
First post on this issue. I understand the reason for the ballot earlier in the year was "imposition".
During the strikes other reasons came into play ie loss of staff travel and sacked reps/staff.
It was clearly stated during the action by Unite that the strikes would be called off if staff travel was reinstated and the sacked were given there jobs back.
So when talking about reasons for the next ballot the unions are stating staff travel etc as the reasons( I think ).

My question is that if the original action was called on imposition (that was never settled) and the next action is called re staff travel etc with no mention of imposition, does that not qualify as a different reason for a ballot, even though the issues of staff travel etc were introduced during the strike but not the reason for the original ballot. Hope that makes sense.

Incidentally I agree with other posters in that this is being dragged out by certain people in the union who are supposed to be looking after the interests of the cabin crew. But are simply running there own personal agenda, which appears to be to do as much damage to the company who pay the wages of not just cabin crew but the thousands of other staff who work for a very good employer. Will they not be satisfied until they achieve there aim.

notlangley 30th Nov 2010 17:51

Ancient Observer asked

In the forthcoming Movie about this modest little Employee Relations problem, which actors should play which participants?
As it happens Duncan was offered the major staring role in this movie but he couldn’t afford the drop in income.

notlangley 30th Nov 2010 18:26

Whisper "unprotected" and no vote will be called
 
WW will not want to sack strikers because that would tarnish his image._ He therefore will attempt to prevent a strike-vote being called._ WW can do this with the ultimate weapon - a veiled threat to sue Unite for a few million pounds._ That is what was done last time - a very fast statement that the strike would be unprotected.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:38.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.