Not sitting in the same room again...

I guess that would be many hundreds of £ per striker for each day of strike then?....:}

I read this stuff occasionally, but I will admit I've really lost interest. :(

There are a few Trolls and die-hards blowing wind in all directions. Otherwise, as it has been for the last year or more, we just go round and round the same circuit ... until, hopefully, BASSA runs out of fuel and spins in on the downwind leg.

I am, however, occasionally amused by the literary outpourings from the 5th Form. May I just amend ...
.

I've done another forward booking for 2011 today, using my own money. Like many/most SLF, I regard BASSA as completely irrelevant to our plans. You do create the occasional giggle, but beyond that ... ONE BIG ZERO.

Happy 2011 to everyone with brains. :cool:

MPN,
I guess you could put that to music..................."bassa are just one big ZERO".

Rather a good slogan.

Reference:-_______link

TSR2 Just a bit of info for you..there are 3 basic cc grades withing BA. Old contract = high pay. New Contract= annual pay around £28k. Our friend is new contract, that's how I know. Gatwick contract= less than £20k. I wouldn't call Gatwick pay "very well paid". :ok:

What the article does not state is that the salaries and benefits were eroded as the costs were so way out of kilter with the profitability of the business. The companies were faced with three options. Maintain prevailing pay and benefits deals but reduce staff numbers, reduce pay and benefits deals and maintain staff numbers, do nothing and go bust. Last option is not a good idea, so it has to be a toss up between the first two. Many airlines actually laid off staff, but that meant they had to reduce capacity, which allowed the lowcost carriers to gain a greater foothold. The alternative, to reduce pay and benefits, but maintain the same size operation allowed others to keep the LoCos at bay. It also meant that when the market picked up, they could expand to meet demand.

Warning, thread drift
 

American Airlines, alone of the U.S. legacy carriers, has never been in bankruptcy. United, Delta, Northwest, and Continental (twice) went through a voluntary bankruptcy process in order to shed costs, leaving the creditors with losses, employees with lower wages, reduced health benefits, minimum pensions, and stricter T&C - and the stockholders with nothing. TWA, Eastern, Braniff and PanAm went out of business or were forced to merge, with all of the stakeholders getting next-to-nothing.

As a result, when compared to other U.S. airlines, AA is saddled with the highest relative labor costs and the most unproductive T&C, among all of its labor groups. In addition it still performs all of its maintenance with its own employees, while the other airlines were able to close their bases and use lower cost contract firms, many in Asia and Central America.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I couldn't let the quoted statement go uncorrected.

"Otherwise, as it has been for the last year or more, we just go round and round the same circuit ... until, hopefully, BASSA runs out of fuel and spins in on the downwind leg."

Same old anti-BASSA rhetoric. BASSA have a mandate from BA cabin crew to cause this disruption. The hope is that sufficient BA cabin crew will wake up and realise that:
a) they don't run the company
b) the company can continue operations without them

There are undoubtedly many excellent BA cabin crew with what, in my opinion, are realistic and reasonable views on their role within the company. Litebulbs, Betty Girl are prime examples. But as of May 2010, they were not representative of BA cabin crew as a whole who, despite the "22 days of Xmas" and the March \ April volcano events still voted overwhelming for industrial action.

It is cabin crew that voted overwhelmingly for the initial strike and it is in cabin crews hands to vote "no" to further strike action. Blaming Bassa for everything is rather missing the point of who actually voted for industrial action in the first place.

Just a small point BetterByBoat, litebulbs is not employed by BA and he/she is not CC! PS. I love the handle!:cool:

yotty
 

And I don't want any weight in proportion to height comments either!

I apologise for my anti-BASSA rhetoric: you are, of course, correct.

Whilst BASSA was conducting its vituperative campaigns against WW, BA and passengers, and was being taken to the High Court over its conduct, it was indeed some CC who voted for IA. We could get into an enormous numbers game here about who is in BASSA, CC87, Amicus or non-union ... but I think that's nugatory. The union [BASSA] that called for the strike achieved a majority of its members, whilst disenfranchising other employees.

Whether those CC voted "Yes" from conviction, ignorance of the facts, or simply because "BASSA said so" will remain one of the untold mysteries of this entire debacle.

nugatory
 

that's why i come to this forum first: the CC forum lacks the sparkle and intelligence we get here. in fact, i wonder if the mods might consider a compulsory spell check over there?

ps. have just noticed that on the other forum the Mods has indicated that some cabin crew have a 'horizontal career'! sorry, can't help chuckling.

Litebulbs
yotty
And I don't want any weight in proportion to height comments either! Moi? :p

Hmm... I seem to recall that certain Edwardian courtesans were referred to as 'great horizontals' :sad:

Performance ratings and pay
 

Litebulbs.
It is a doddle. Easy, simples, and hundreds of private sector companies do it every day.
it isn't always completely "fair", but then nothing in this world is completely fair.
Quite simply, performance targets/behaviours/survey feedback etc are set. Good ones get it, not so good ones do not.

Great Co.s fire 5% to 10% of their low performers each year. BA have not done this with CC and should have done so 20 years ago.
Then, we customers would not be faced with the heritage CC attitudes that some of the CC from lhr produce

"would cost not a single penny to resolve"
 

It is possible that some of the issues being voted-on affect the finances of BASSA or the wellbeing of particular officials who run BASSA (I exclude Duncan Holley from this statement).

The revenue of BASSA must have decreased

1) About twelve months ago 1,003 CC took voluntary redundancy._ I would imagine that this terminated 1,003 membership fees._ The 1,003 CC were not replaced because the manning level of certain flights was reduced.

2) Presumably the recruitment of traditional cabin crew has ceased._ There will be natural wastage which will shrink the membership of BASSA._ The total cabin crew numbers are maintained by the recruitment of Mixed Crew._ Although the 1997 contract cabin crew were accepted into the Union fold, this-time-round Unite either didn’t understand or declined the opportunity to participate in a growth area - and so BASSA is missing out on new membership fees.

3) There is a large number of part-time heritage cabin crew - the Telegraph quoted the number as being 3,000 - unfortunately I don’t have a reliable figure._ The growth of Mixed Fleet will presumably ease the way for some of the part time heritage cabin crew to move to other jobs or in some cases retire._ So that is more membership fees lost.

4) Several cabin crew posters on pprune have said that there has been a trickle of membership resignations._ This will be quantified when the results of the present ballot are published._ Then the loss of these membership fees will be clear.

Hmm, great companies fire 10% of their staff each year? I have never read that anywhere; can you point me to you reference?

Notlangley

According to the BASSA branch secretary, he is, or was entitled to an honorarium of £50,000 pa, but he was only drawing half that figure. Moreover, he has no real interest in the numbers of members in BASSA as he has stated publicly that he and the chairperson will be standing down at the end of 2011. I would suggest that having done reaonably well out of his position (earning about the equivalent of a maincrew member on top of his own pay), given that he is no longer employed by BA and as such would not be elegible for re-election anyway I suspect that he would be only to pleased to see the branch go to hell in a handcart. The poor devils I feel sorry for are those who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards. BASSA seems to have been a useful little earner for a number of retired staff, with at least two ex reps having tidy sinecures. Of course these are not tied in to the membership numbers. Someone really ought to ask to see the branch accounts for the last three years.

Try searching your own union's site Litebulbs.
http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/(JN...20Briefing.pdf

It's fairly common in the IT industry (e.g. IBM, Oracle, etc), some merchant banks, GE, Enron, etc. Can't say I agree with it, but if you're going to fire anyone then surely the worst performing x% would be the first target?