My Last Flight Experience
 

My wife and I flew to Boston a couple of weeks ago. On the flight out, the CC were good, especially the women CC - they had to sort out an overbooking situation and did it very professionally. The male CC were all a bit dour, but all in all not bad.

The flight back was okay until the dishing out of the breakfast - by a very unhappy looking male CC - glasses on the end of his nose looking down at you - he even dropped the breakfast muffin in my lap becasue he couldn't be bothered to look properly. Apart from that, not too bad.

Enjoy your trips

moleytt

Wascrew asked a very simple question:

"Ref mrs malone

Did she strike?
If so did she loose her staff travel?
If she lost her staff travel how does she commute from lax?
If she didn`t loose her staff travel I wonder which cabin she gets accommodated in?
If she did loose her staff travel and has to buy full fare tickets same question as above."

As there has been no answer, can we assume that she did not strike and unlike many of the "rabbits" has lost nothing?

Did she lead from the front or push from the back?

Surely someone must know and be prepared to admit the truth.

I wouldn't be surprised if BASSA subs were being used to pay for the commuting costs of reps.

It would not surprise me if she was attempted to be transferred into a comfier seat for her commute by onside cabin crew.

It would surprise me if that happened with the captains' agreement, and I would have thought that most captains would be scanning the Pax List for her name, and ensuring that she travelled in the correct class (unless already upgraded by groundstaff, of course, which is a disctinct possibility).

As to a full flight and junpseats ..........

Real cc or volunteers?
 

Moleytt
Just out of interest were your cc "real"?
Only asking as the volunteers are back on board in force to keep their aircraft recency.Most flights have about 3 on at the moment.

617 Sqn writes:

I toally agree. We've just flown LHR-NBO-LHR in J & the service both ways was excellent. We had a 2 hour delay on board at LHR due to an anti icing system being u/s. We were kept fully informed by the skipper as to the progress of the servicing & the on board situation was handled brilliantly by the cabin crew.

On the flight home, with it's 23.30 departure, the dinner service was both friendly, efficient & incredibly speedy, let brilliantly by the CSD, Sharon.

As a side note, it would appear that the security staff at LHR have been on a customer awareness course. They were all polite, smiling & extremely helpful! Well done.

Reply to Litebulbs
 

There is this

notlangley

Thanks for the link. How wrong was I! So it is going to be based on "apt for incorporation"

Do you think the tone of the other side of the United union is different?

Posters on the CC thread seem to be agitated recently. I think there is a good deal of anxiety over what may have been agreed to by TW and WW. Some will be pleased, some will not be pleased and some will not care. What will be interesting is what will happen next.

The author of the Union update appears to be of the opinion that the financial downturn was temporary
____Reference:-__link

One potential downside to a successful appeal, is that the financial award could be severe enough allow some other substantial reason for a fair termination of existing contracts; defeat from the jaws of victory.

There is some discussion about the BASSA chair not being derostered.
Here is a copy of the agreement we operate where I work, one of the unions involved being Unite.
I would guess this is a pretty standard agreement to comply with legislation.

Quote:

---

2 Governing Principles

---

Quote:

---

2.1 The Company and the trade unions jointly recognise the importance and value of ensuring that staff have access to properly trained and accredited lay representatives. It is also recognised that the spheres of operation of lay trade union representatives should reflect the Company’s organisation within the context of Annex 2 to this Appendix.

2.2 It is jointly accepted that a balance must be struck between the following requirements: (a) ******* operational, safety and business requirements and obligations to provide service to the customer;
(b) the need to keep to a minimum both additional cost and interference with ****** business;
(c) the mutual benefit to ******* and the trade unions of reasonable opportunities being afforded to lay trade union representatives to carry out relevant trade unions duties and to trade union members to take part in relevant trade union activities.

2.3 Accordingly, unreasonable requests should not be made and no facility covered by this Agreement should be unreasonably withheld.
　
2.4 Any specific request for such facilities should be made as far in advance as possible and should be for the appropriate time and/or resources necessary to meet the purpose of the request.
No facilities will be granted in respect of any activity, which are proposed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

2.5 The Company recognises that the role of the representative within the Company and his/her trade union will have a bearing on the amount of time off requested. For example, representatives involved in Company-wide bodies may require additional time off compared with representatives who have a purely local role. However, it is not the intention of any of the recognised trade unions that an individual representative’s trade union duties should have any significant impact on his/her work for the Company or on the work of his/her colleagues.

---

The bolding and italics are mine!

Re above... It would be odd for any organisation or body to be willing or indeed bound to deliver troops to the opposing force..!

west lakes
 

Well you can't argue with that......

OK, maybe a little is "Contemplation and furtherance " the same as scrutiny of a potential proposal to end a dispute? I think BA are protected and therefore I owe an apology.

Litebulbs
 

The result is not really very important - as you say the real issue here is if there is an adverse outcome for BA and the court awards compensation at the working down level the savings that BA have achieved over the last year would have been wiped out. A rough estimate would be 3x11500x12x the working down payment. I do not know the level of the working down payment but if it is £100 that is £41.4M per year.

This cost will have to be recouped from somewhere in the IFCE budget and the simplest way to do this is the 90 day notice and re-engagement on MF terms and cinditions. While this has been mooted many times on this and other threads but BA has not yet been pushed into a corner by UNITE during this dispute, their thinking and manoeuvering has kept them ahead so far. IA was the UNITE final option, we have yet to see the BA final option, perhaps it would be better if the CC community do not push BA too hard. BA still has options and none of them would be pleasant for the cabin crew.

How much power over negotiations should a lay trade union representative have?
As Red Adair said

Juan Tugoh
 

I just hope that if the appeal is reversed, then it is used as no more than a negotiating tool, not a massive flag waving fingers up to BA. I wouldn't say the moral high ground will have been gained, but played right, some concessions could be gained. I doubt that this will be the case however.

Just to add to the de-rostering

1/ As I recall Mr Holly was dismissed for de-rostering himself for union duties, so BA has set a precedent with not de-rostering reps. Why should the BASSA chair be any different?

2/ I seem to recall that the facilities agreement was withdrawn from summer '09, can't remember which party instigated that.

Litebulbs
 

I share your concerns, and I guess it will have a lot to do with who is doing the negotiating. The experienced UNITE team are more likely to use it as a tool to help reach a negotiated settlement, whereas BASSA are likely to use it far more belligerently. It seems that it is UNITE is the main negotiating body and that BASSA are being sidelined, so hope remains. BASSA will spin the result and that may lead to problems in gaining a resolution that will be accepted.

Hopefully UNITE will be given a fair warning of the options of failure to agree before BA were to do anything as drastic and final as the 90 day option. BA have shown a lot of restraint in not going down this road so far, let us hope they are not pushed into a situation where they have to re-issue contracts.

Liebulbs - typo I hope:eek:

Completely agree.

Litebulbs: a week or so back on this thread you wrote something to the effect that you and one other are 'disregarded' as to your input.
As a lurker on this and t'other thread I would like to disagree and thank you personally. An unashamedly pro-union person, you have provided a constant input of sanity. Your contribution is immensely valuable.
Thanks again.