'Crewfriend,' starring on that other thread, is a tonic.

Reading his posts, I had a mental picture of the inimitable Robert Lindsay playing Wolfie Smith of the Tooting Popular Front in the '70s sitcom "Citizen Smith."

Perhaps Crewfriend could write the script for an updated version - "Citizen Holley," with the pilot episode entitled "Tears Before Bedfont."

Humour is temporarily cancelled, as "Crewfriend" has joined a couple of others in the Sin Bin.

However, the latest missive from HQ BASSA is on the CC Thread. It includes ...

:ugh:

:ugh:

The last time Duncan said "there's nothing to worry about" was before Unite went to see a QC about the previous strike ballot...

I really can't see BA changing its position significantly.

Full marks can be obtained by answers to any two questions
 

1) Is Duncan Holley a reliable source of information?

2) Does anyone have a reliable source of information to support the statement that Mr Holley has taken his case to Appeal?

Candidates can answer questions in any order - however candidates who answer question (2) first, should state the relevant UKEAT number in their answer.

I've just had a translation of the post above the one above sent to me:

Look, we haven't got a hope in hell of winning this thing, we can't strike anyway. The hole that has been dug by BA that I told you about isn't actually a hole in the ground. It's more like the diggings from a hole that's been made into a platform from which BA can dictate the terms of a settlement. It's still a hole though. I told you to keep the faith. Well I've had a bit of a think about that and faith is very subjective. When I've decided what faith should now be, I'll let you know. Keep paying your subs.

.

In terms of the ten items in the dispute, BA will give on some of the relatively superficial issues (eg, pay for crew on sick during the strike) to give Len something to take to the membership, but will not give any ground on the fundamental issues (Mixed Fleet, save for some general promises to consult etc). Unite will not give BASSA the strike it is salivating for. BASSA will try and spin this as a massive "victory".

Unite know BA will challenge this strike on the basis it is unprotected. BA told Unite this over 9 months ago.

The members have been led up the garden path and tens of thousands of members' funds has been wasted on futile ballots.

Thought About the Numbers
 

Unite has over one million members. Bassa and CC89 have less than 10K members. Bassa and CC89 are less than 1% of Unites total membership. How far will Red Len go for 1%?

pcat
In the system that Mcgrumpy is in, it is very seldom about the numbers. It is more about his personal position in the UK's "Broad Left". If he can gain more credibility within the Broad left by having a strike, then he will do so.


The actual TU members are, and have always been, an irrelevance, once he has the ballot result. If the ballot result had been against the strike, Mc Grumpy would not involve himself at all.

The moment that DH says "Please be assured that there currently is no need for concern........" then any sensible person would realise immediately that there should be great cause for concern. You don't hear BA making any statements like that because they don't need to - any rational person knows that BA is in charge.

After all the financial cost and personal pain experienced by people involved with BA's operations, that have been caused by BASSA's behaviour over the past 2 years (and prior), I really can't see BA (KW) making it easy for BASSA by letting them off the hook and settling at this time. BA would just be allowing DH and others to remain in power, claim a glorious victory, and repeat the entire charade again and again upon any future whim.

It may be that KW leaves the current offer on the table thus keeping it on record how BA have continued to be reasonable and negotiate in good faith while realising that BASSA will never agree to the offer. Remember that the current offer already has partial ST concessions made by BA last time on the agreement it would be presented to the BASSA members upon which Unite then reneged. BA would be more than justified in taking back those ST and any other concessions made and starting the negotiation over again from where they were prior to the last round should it wish.

No, this is BA's and all its backers' moment of glory where, after a long road, while showing extreme and mature patience in the face of thuggish and childish behaviour, it now has a chance to make the BASSA/Unite leaders squirm and reveal to their loyal members the lies, deceit and falsehoods expressed by them right-up to the very end. The more that DH spills his 'everything is fine and we're in control' messages the harder he will fall when the disappointment following the truth that will emerge within the next 12 days is felt.

As LD12986 says, I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" when KW's best offer falls well short of DH's power hungry aspirations and LM explains to DH he can't have his strike particularly after DH has put it out to his faithful that "LEN HAS STATED THAT HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO ANNOUNCE STRIKE DATES, IF REQUIRED." The fact that he feels the need to capitalise the words says much for his real internal feelings of insecurity in this regard let alone the need to have to say it in the first place. Remember that D (I'll strike and strike and stike until I'm sick) H has been wanting his next strike since 10.10.10.10......... and even before then.

If BA were to capitulate by making yet further concessions and settle at this stage then they would be in a worse position regarding DH & BASSA than ever before. They would throw away a very large part of the potential gains they could have made and it makes no sense whatsoever after the patience shown and the efforts that everyone backing BA has expended in the face of the BASSA inspired adversity.

Indeed, having come so far, BA would be doing itself and its supporters a severe injustice if it were not to let this play out until the strike dates have to be announced thus allowing Unite/BASSA to decide the next move. If they don't announce a strike they will look like incompetent fools (yet again), if they do announce a strike then BA has a plethora of preplanned, both defensive and net-tightening, options with which it will be only too keen and ready to respond.

Thanks AV for the comparison with Violet Elisabeth. V. funny.

mrp - You're most welcome. Yes, a very memorable character indeed.

Perhaps I should have written - I'll stwike and stwike and stwike until I'm thick!

AV Flyer, you sum up the position perfectly.

KW knows exactly what he is dealing with. Unite has previously managed to squander every attempt by BA to settle/negotiate in good faith.

BA is not going to give ground easily and any movement on the truly substantive issues on Unite's shopping list (staff travel etc) is going to come with some pretty robust conditions.

One other point on strike action. Even though a full long haul schedule is planned, it is worth noting that since the last strike, BA has merged with Iberia and it has a joint-business with AA and Iberia for all transatlantic travel from Europe. Almost all (if not all) TATL services by AA carry a BA code and again almost all (if not all) Iberia long-haul services carry a BA code.

So even if one of BA's four weekly services to Mexico should be cancelled, most passengers could accommodated on Iberia's twice daily services.

Similarly if some of the CDG-LHR flights are cancelled, any transfer pax to North America could be accommodated on AA's direct flights to BOS, DFW, JFK, MIA and ORD which all carry a BA code.

LD12986
 

I suspect BASSA/DH hasn't noticed that, being too busy trying to find a slot at Bedfont for the next demonstration, and trying to get an access pass to Unite's HQ.

Nice point :ok:

A very good point LD12986 - yet another tool BA has to mitigate the effects of any IA.

I am sure that BA will prefer Unite to call IA so it can determine the true number of named CC who are still prepared to strike rather than the 5811 who anonymously just wanted "to send BA a message".

Once this true number is known BA can form a strategy to bring about resolution. The lower the number the easier it will be to force the issue e.g. derecognition, voluntary redundancy, etc. The larger the number the more likely it will have to engage in a Mexican stand-off and war of attrition while waiting for rank-and-file CC to become disillusioned and finally replace BASSA's leadership either in-situ or by forming another Branch e.g. PCCC, with a leadership who is prepared to work with BA in a mature manner.

Either way, the remaining minority militant 'legacy' CC will never "feel" anything other than hard-done by BA even though the majority are happy enough to move-on.

The whole sad and sorry mess was brought about by a succession of weak, ineffective and generous BA managements allowing the CC Unions/Branches to run IFCE on pretty much their own terms while encouraging CC to believe they were the elite thus making them feel their relative importance to BA's operation was higher than it really is. Indeed, BA's 'weak' generosity continues today when instead of taking the SOSR option, as has been validated by opposing Counsel even, it continues to honour legacy CC's Ts&Cs, including future pay rises, when others have received cuts - not that CC, in their deluded Union-led bubble, even remotely comprehend let alone appreciate any of this.

The epitome of the current madness to me is the compensation payment for a burned-out light-bulb in the crew rest area. Lights bulbs burn-out for Christ's sake. Crew have emergency torches or could be trained to replace light bulbs as they do at their own homes! I don't suppose that Flight Crew receive a compensation payment when a key flight instrument fails? Instead they are trained to keep everyone safe by continuing to fly using a limited panel. As for the significant drop in bulb "failures" during the strikes, well, I'll hold fire as it speaks volumes for why it's long overdue that BA management take-back control.

The complete fairy-tale dream was further supported by an entire UK nation who believed in its colonial heritage along with the romance and excitement of world travel around its empire as represented through its supreme Flag Carrier - the one and only BA!

Interesting how times change.......

Oh how true. Only a week ago I was listening to a CSD tell a manager that the reason gold card holders flew BA was the crew.

To be precise, the problem is not the lights going out but the lights staying on (their default fail-safe status). It's remarkable how many lighting control panels were affected once the payment became known!

Yellow Pen - Apologies for the misunderstanding, however, what you suggest is happening is far worse than what I thought was a simple service matter. What you describe would essentially amount to tampering with the installed equipment on an airliner.

I'm not familiar with Aviation Law but could imagine that such an offence would carry a considerable penalty if convicted. For the professional CC to engage in such an activity in the interests of increasing their pay sounds pretty bad to me. Who knows what other systems could be inadvertently disrupted in the process?

To your knowledge, how has BA management handled this matter when brought to its attention?

Yellow Pen
 

So you are alleging that a member of the cabin crew would interfere with an aircraft system and this would not be addressed by both engineering and cabin crew management?

You know, i think he is , LB.

I think it was addressed in 2 ways. Firstly the procedure was changed to have the Captain involved if a claim was made (any claim without their say so became invalid) and CC management took to inspecting the bunks before the crew boarded on some long range flights.

AlpineSkier
 

So a plane lands and something is reported as broken, to allow an extra payment. Now who looks at the broken thing? Do you not think that if a repetitive problem that was not there, but now is, then it would not be looked into?

No, I'm alleging that a member of the cabin crew would interfere with an aircraft system to get an extra payment. There is a reason why any claim for 'Bunk lights wouldn't go out' payments now require a corresponding entry in the aircraft tech log and an investigatory inspection by engineering.

Great move by KeefW this:

BA turns to psychologist to heal rift with union | Business | The Observer

completely discombobulating for dh I imagine.

Yellow Pen
 

So it would appear that what you are suggesting may have happened, but it has been correctly managed now?

That's how I read it and with other reports/story's previously posted on the subject, plus the not so veiled threats from DH (guerilla warfare etc) it doesn't seem so far fetched.

litebulbs - light bulbs
 

is this personal?

Interesting development re the appointment of a psychologist. Though, I suspect that attitudes in some are so hardened that nothing will change things.

Na, my bulbs are secure.

'Bunk lights wouldn't go out'
Then get a set of sleep shades from F. One set that I purchased years ago and have washed STILL keeps full daylight out. A bunk light would be no problem.

Sorry - but I just can't get concerned about such things. If I was a BA shareholder, I would have been asking questions.

PAXboy
 

No need to worry, it is being managed now, it appears.

In some of the posts above there does seem to be a suggestion that this blatant sabotage for financial gain was somehow caused by management's failure to manage.

I would suggest it is not about that at all.

While there are many hard working, diligent cabin crew there is also a small minority intent on harming BA in "weird and wondrous" ways.

It's good to see it's easy to frustrate their childish antics. But it shouldn't have to be that way.

BASSA et al must take responsibility for such "guerilla" activity, and BA must take a harsh line with the perpetrators to ensure they are performance managed out of the business.

BA Management has neutralised the threat to passengers, but the threat to other BA employees, shareholders and pensioners remains; it will remain until BASSA's present leadership is marginalised and voted out.

That can only come from within the ranks of current BA cabin crew.

VK

Very true. Most observers can now see that the strike is a busted flush, but just how are the company going to rehabilitate those strikers who arrive at work clearly still carrying a grudge against pilots/non - striking cabin crew/uncle Tom Cobbley and all? I've not seen evidence of sabotage and/or bullying, but I have seen instances crews certainly not, shall we say, "getting along".

I've taken many flights where you simply would not notice that an industrial dispute was ongoing. There have been others where crew seem disengaged or where interaction between crew members is distinctly frosty. But that has been the case long before the dispute started.

Meanwhile over on the CC thread
 

BASSAwitch's detective skills come to the fore again:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/429...-only-192.html

Someone's beginning to feel powerless and left out. Such a clever move by BA.

I bet the Editor's quaking in his boots. Unbebloominglievable.

I think BASSAWitch is on the money. The Guardian has published numerous stories that appear to be sourced directly from Unite, as well as comment pieces from supposedly anonymous pilots and managers (where it is always claimed WW is on the cusp of losing support at Waterside).

Through dogged determination The Guardian has been influential in getting News International to admit that phone hacking was far more widespread than it originally claimed. It is a pity that it doesn't deploy the same investigative skills when reporting on BASSA.

LDnumbers
 

If I haven't misunderstood, it is a certain Branch Sec who is unimpressed with the Guardian's reporter and reporting.

Q. Why?

A. Because the journalist didn't deride BA's initiative (in introducing a psychologist into the equation) depsite the fact that the leaked details were quite specifically meant to lead to its ridicule.

That's my guess.

Exactly. Stick 14 cabin crew together on an aircraft, for upto 9 days, not everyone is going to get on. Thats human nature and not just unique to BA. It happens in the cockpit too. Pilots don't always get on. (but SLF don't get to see that bit!!!;))

Surely, crew on aircraft should not let their customers see that they are not getting on?

It seems to me to be a basic customer facing competence.

No doubt we all work with people we can't stand, but we never criticise or show emotions about them in front of the punters.

Interesting development BA's engaging a psychologist.......

I can't quite place it, or the reason why BA should be playing it this way, but I have a hunch that BA's running of the entire matter from the start has been nothing short of professional and legal perfection.

It's almost as if BA is serially documenting its case ready for presentation to a judge who would be unable to do anything short of finding entirely in favour of BA's reasonable and overarchingly considerate behaviour in the face of Unite/BASSA's ill-disciplined thuggishness.

Hiring a psychologist just adds to BA's continuing impeccable record of bending-over backwards to try everything reasonably possible on this planet to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Is BA quietly preparing itself for a 90-day SOSR contract change after all?

Apparently an employer needs to show a breakdown in a relationship between two groups of employees (e.g. strikers and non-strikers) which is harming service delivery and has a negative impact such the two groups may no longer be able to work together (e.g. the frostiness towards each other and BA's customers).

If a psychologist were to determine the situation irremediable then an SOSR contract change could be deemed to be 'fair' under employment law.

But I'm not a lawyer!

AV
 

I think more likely an action against Unite for damages....and consequential loss....

How did BA manage to recruit so many Millitant Tendancy SWP activists to work in a business orientated customer service role? Was there a tick box on the application form?

Ok, this is a bit cynical of me, but surely the balance of pre 97 employees must be in a senior role, so is it some deep plant to bring down the Guv'nor?