Question for anyone
 

In the UK, is there a provision for a company to reorganize under bankruptcy protecion such as many airlines have done in the US? In all such cases that I am aware of the unions were handled pretty harshly as to their terms and conditions.

Could such a thing happen if BA really wanted to change their culture?

All this talk of the "inner workings" reminds me that many of us were taught to be cautious.

MCO Flyer
 

Simple answer - No.

Indeed the US airlines have used their bankruptcy protection in the past to effectively walk away from their debt and slash their costs. They they undercut the airlines that have not been so mismanaged as to end up insolvent and distort the market massively. The EU view this sort of behaviour as unair competition and do not allow it.

Those airlines in Europe that have gone bust and reappeared - like Swiss and the rump of Sabena are mere shadows of their former selves, they retain something of the livery and a few aircraft but have essentially been gutted.

The market has changed considerably over the past 15 years and the advent of low cost airlines has slashed margins on short haul flights.

BA undoubtedly needed to do something about the cost of crewing the cabin, but at the same time the company has taken a lot of cost out of the product, to the extent that business class shorthaul is not worth buying as a standalone product and longhaul is rather 'cheaper' than it was some years ago, although the seat is still up amongst the best.

In short, I believe that BA needs to improve the customer experience and this involves both the product and those delivering.

So, it is important to move on and find a solution that is acceptable to all, in or out of a union and at all the bases.

Only then will BA be able to start to polish up the brand, which is still strong, but tarnished - especially outside the UK.

Thanks Juan

That is a fundamental marketing issue, and the core of the commercial future viability of BA.

I have a boring collection of data on my 'puter. That tells me, inter alia, that my UK-East Coast TATLs actually cost me [random samples to make the point]...

• £612 VS PE 2003
• £595 MaxJet Club 2006
• £703 BA PE 2007
• £641 BA PE 2009
• £628 BA PE 2011

I think there's been a bit of inflation since 2003.
APD has grown to stupid levels.
Yet somehow the cost to me, the SLF, remains broadly constant. Part of that is obviously 'sale marketing', but there's no doubt that the core product has been pared to the bone to stay competitive.

If it wasn't for my ability to upgrade with BA Miles to Club, I could envisage a seriously sub-standard "Premium Economy" service. As has been noted here and in other places, the Club standard is nothing to get excited about either, apart from the nice seat. So something has to give somewhere ... either prices go up to cover costs, or service is degraded to match income, or BA's core costs have to come down.

The latter point is where we are ... BA has to be able to compete on cost and quality. Money spent on expensive CC is not being spent on the SLF. That simply has to stop.

Watersidewonker is back with a message to KTF
 

Here are a few messages from WtrsdWnkr for those interested:

*I have my flask ready for those cold picket line days bring the company to its knees they are treating the cabin crew like dirt i can't wait for the flight deck to start moaning on nightstops. We standby Bassa as you just can't trust this little i mean very little man and his foot soliders.
*I will be voting yes on my ballot paper as i have seen the way people are treated in BA and the imposition is just another example and i don't need to look anything up as my little cabin crew brain can still think for itself
*I can't help but tell you all the support has increased amongst crew for this dispute so your 5000 number mentioned will swell over the coming days of this dispute await the falling apart of the operation. The last few days I have updates from people on euf and ww telling me of loads of single figures on euf and figures below 30 on ww. Weakness is from the management side and strength from the union side little William your days are numbered.
*What a long game of chess this is turning out to be. I feel we are now stronger and prouder than before to be supporting our union against this dictatorship roll on Friday another great ballot result once again.
*Oh sometimes the truth hurts Bassa remains strong in the face of a broken regime.
*Message to BA cabin crew in dispute with this regime KTF


Keep the faith. Tee Hee. With what?

The thing about faith is that it is a belief in a thing that cannot be proven due to a lack of facts. It does not have to be based on any form of reality, just faith. The people that believe that the world was created in six days have no proof that this is so, just faith in a book. Faith is wonderful but it will not pay the mortgage or feed the kids. The BASSAmentalists (and I deliberately use that word to describe people like watersidewonker, not all BASSA supporters are BASSAmentalists) certainly have faith but little hope.

Juan

I agree with the thrust of what you say.

However, a relatively small group of disaffected employees can be very troublesome.

When you have 5,000 voting for strike action, that is bound to have some effect on an organization.

I believe that this dispute needs to be ended, but that is not to say I believe that BA should give into the demands.

I have to say that Watersidewonker's posts quoted by MrPony above show an appalling lack of grammar, and make very little sense. Use of the search function reveals many more such examples from him/her, all along the same lines.

He/she sums up the BASSA mentality for me. Blind faith without any attempt at reasoned argument.

I hope I never fly with him/her, or any of his/her like-minded colleagues again. A further strike now would very possibly grant me that wish.

BASSA seem to me like a drowning man thrashing in the water screaming for help.

Everyone's standing there watching, and no-one is doing anything.

Meanwhile BASSA are convinced that someone or something is coming to the rescue.

I just don't see it. I just see BASSA dying a slow, painful death, with the recriminations coming later, too late to save it.

It's such as shame, because such a large group of employees needs a union, but it needs decent, intelligent and productive leadership, something that's been sadly lacking for a long time.

I've forgotten. When is the next ballot/ballot result?

The ballot result is due around 1 April.

Historically, each additional ballot has lost approximately 2,000 Yes votes so it will be interesting to see whether this continues, and what impact the arrival of KW has on the Yes vote.

I think the vote may go below 5,000 but not lower than 4,000.

5,000 is a critical figure for Unite. Less than that means under 50% support from the members and more crucially only about one third of the workforce. If you follow this with an estimate of how many might follow through with industrial action, the figure drops even further. Not much point in calling for action if you can only mobilize about 15% of the workforce.

The trouble is that the scattergun approach of putting up 10 reasons for striking may backfire. Rather than bring in more votes in favour it could have the opposite effect. The absence of a single issue that all members can get behind is the biggest problem the union faces.

Apathy will play a large role in the outcome. I reckon that Unite will do well if they can get an 80% response to this ballot, with 63% of those voting supporting industrial action.

I'd guess BASSA will still have a majority of yes votes amongst those who vote at all, but that the overall vote will be down again, and I would also guess that as the total number of yes votes go down, so the % of those voting to strike who actually would be prepared to strike will go up - as they are the diehards among BASSA.

Whether the union would call a strike if the yes vote is low compared to total union membership, as opposed to those who bother to vote, I rather doubt.

It would seem unfair of the union to ask their loyal members to lose their staff travel, possibly for good this time, and earnings, in a futile gesture, and it seems very likely any strike would be just that.

12 days of Easter
 

Presumably with the ballot closing on 28th, the 4 weeks legal deadline will give Duncan the opportunity to call strike action in time for Easter and then on into the Royal Wedding and May Day Bank Holidays

This of course will allow Duncan to deliver his members up to Bob Crow in support of the Crow's hoped for Wedding Day Tube strike / TUC call for nationwide co-ordinated industrial action (or 'general strike' in any other name).

Looks like BASSA's members have their uses!

I am also struck by the phrase that I have heard and read throughout this clamity and which is at the forefront of Unites communications at the moment. The call for members to 'support their Union' or, alternatively, 'support your reps.' is a telling inversion of what a relationship between a union and its members should be.

Ahhh.. but you forget that
a) Unite have said that it's not about striking, it's about 'sending a message'
b) Len has said that there would not be strikes over Easter or the Royal Wedding
c) BASSA can't call strike dates. Only Unite can. BASSA is a branch.
d) BASSA have said that they don't need to strike, that the threat of strike action is sufficient to undermine customer confidence in BA
e) BASSA have also said that their cunning plan will be to announce strike dates and then call them off at the last minute - teehee.
f) Len has said that they won't strike but use 'wierd and wonderful' alternatives

Now, I'll cheerfully concede that the BASSA branch secretary (for the moment) may wish to run amok with announcing strike dates, particularly as it would seem that he has lost his appeal at tribunal and is rumoured to also have been threatened with arrest by Surrey Police (see the other place for this) . I'm not so sure that the Unite leadership will want to play this game though. The policy of calling strike action may of itself leave them open to penalties under TULRC if the action is seen to be unprotected. Moreover, in the macho game that is trade union leadership, I can't see Len wanting to be seen as backing down on a strike call if he doesn't get a response from BA management.

I would expect Unite to look very carefully at the numbers coming out of the ballot. If they think they stand a chance of bringing BA to a halt, they may go for strike action, but they would need 100% support in the ballot on 100% turnout and be able to convert that into real strikers. The trouble is that they are faced with a workforce that is predominantly female. Now whilst many may like the idea of watching a royal wedding, they will certainly not want to be associated, or seen to be the people who wanted to rain on that event. So any suggestion of a strike on April 29th or the run up to it may well backfire very badly. The public backlash would make the reaction to the '12 days of Christmas' announcement seem like a mild rebuke.

Bob Crowe may get away with it on the Tube, but then tube drivers are mainly male and probably don't care a toss for any Royal Wedding. There's not exactly an alternative for getting around a lot of London. BA is in a very different place.

What goes around, comes around.
 

Following statements attributed to union leaders, they are back to "sending a message". Isn't that what started all this mess?

I suppose they are saying this because they know they cannot rely on the troops to obey the Colonels' orders and actually go on strike.

End Game
 

During the recent break in the action I have given some thought to the eventual resolution of this battle. There have been statements and opinions that there “has to be” an agreement so things can move forward and the various factions can “come together”. I am not so sure this is the case.

Let’s look at BA first. What would motivate BA to make additional concessions in order to reach an agreement with Unite/Bassa? In the past any agreement
BA have theoretically had with Unite has been vetoed by Bassa. GIven the current list grievances put forward by Bassa there is no way BA can address Unit/Bassa in meaningful negotiation. Currently the “facilities agreement” has been rejected by Bassa and apparently means Bassa and BA have no official recognition of one another. BA can therefor ignore Bassa. Only things that are “contractual” in CC’s employment agreement need to be addressed by BA. Based on personal experience as well as what I have read on this and other forums BA’s customer service on board has remained the same for the last couple years; OK but inconsistent. Mixed Fleet is here and will continue to grow. Mixed Fleet can not grow overnight so BA needs Legacy Fleet for now. It is generally acknowledged that any strike will be of little consequence but will cause strikers to suffer various consequences; permanent loss of staff travel, loss of bonuses, possible termination. Why should BA do anything to alter the status quo? With the passage of time the problem will go away. In fact with each passing month Legacy Fleet becomes less relevant and Mixed Fleet becomes the norm. During this period of transition those 2000 plus who have signed the new employment contracts have their situation established at least for the next several years. BA’s management is not there to provide some kind of feel good environment between every member of the staff. While this would be a worthy goal it is not the primary objective. I think BA should be very content to have a toothless adversary while making the transition to Mixed Fleet. Why should BA management do anything to accommodate Unite\Bassa?

I think the motivation for Bassa’s hierarchy to move forward have been well discussed on this and other forums. Basically there are none. Duncan and crew are history with any resolution of this dispute. I think it is safe to say there will be no resolution that envolves the current Bassa hierarchy.

With the current players in place it is my opinion that there will be no resolution of this dispute. What are the chances of Unite being decertified or Bassa undergoing a complete change of leadership? BA can proceed with their transition to Mixed Fleet and the onboard service will remain the same, inconsistent.

MF crew are significantly cheaper, ergo one can surmise that as their numbers increase, BA can consider adding CC back to the mix, thus improving service.

Of course, this spits in the face of BASSA diehards, but as it's pretty clear that most of them don't give a fig about the airline, can anyone give me a compelling reason why the airline should give a fig about them?

pcat160

If BA does what you are suggesting, the company exposes its brand to a slow burn over a period of time.

That would be very foolish, in my opinion.

Getting the cost end of a business right is only one part of the equation, the product has to be marketed, too.

pcat160
 

Ensuring the last strike have little consequence would have cost tens of millions of pounds, which is not of little financial consequence.

Litebulbs is right, BA must be spending millions to ensure that a strike has minimal impact upon the operation. This one fact alone should be giving UNITE pause for thought. The issues here are more than just settling a dispute, after all BA could easily solve this dispute by giving in to UNITE, so if BA are prepared to pay millions to defy the blackmail of IA, you have to ask why.

This is about BA being able to manage it's affairs without the constant interference from a troublesome and out of touch union. It is not about union busting but about resetting the relationship between union and company, putting it on the same footing that the other branches of UNITE are on. BA have no problems with dealing with unions nor with UNITE branches other than BASSA.

BASSA are not management and have no right to be management, something that seems to be difficult for some of them to grasp.

Pride and the Greater Good
 

JT, agreed 100% with your last post.

Do you think that BA should allow discussions about integrating MF with legacy now? The offer was there before and as many have said, BA made its required savings with the crew numbers adjustment.

I could swear....
 

...there was a post on here about five minutes ago on page 3 that described DH having received some sort of warning about what I'm guessing was a 'lack of judgement' on the internet, and that perhaps martyrdom was his goal since he has now decided to revisit the self-same subject.

Caught in the crossfire of:

1. Being an enfeebled power with absolutely no hope of continuing in post for much longer.
2. Having no strategy for achieving anything for BASSA's members and having achieved nothing but grief thus far.
3. Knowing that sooner or later the way the branch has been run will be put into the spotlight.

...martyrdom in the form of a prosecution by 'right wing henchman' or 'Willie's Bobby boot boys' in the course of fighting for the faithful might indeed be preferable to an embarrassing climb down and public humiliation.

THE POST REFERRED TO IS ON THE OTHER THREAD - MY ERROR

How does this end?
 

Like others, I do wonder how this dispute will end.
In the past I've been in many heavy duty Employee Relations disputes, (in the old days, we called them Industrial Relations disputes), but none quite like this.
From my perspective, the differences are perhaps small, but they do add up.
1. In any dispute the "sides" go through a period of hating each other. That is very true in this dispute. However, in most other disputes the key participants accept that in the end they have a vested interest in the Company surviving and prospering. In bassa's case, no-one appears to accept this. Rather, many would prefer to see BA go to the wall rather than compromise on anything.
2. The "best we can achieve by negotiation" settlement is normally either the end of a dispute, or the beginning of the end. In bassa's case it appears that "the best we can achieve by negotiation" was simply an excuse to put to-gether a longer list of demands. The Untie FTOs were made to look stupid by the bassa junta.
3. Most disputes where strike action is taken do not set back the members quite as much as bassa's actions have done. All that bassa members have done is to lose stuff, mainly due to bassa incompetence.
4. In most disputes, Managers take responsibility for getting out there and talking to staff. In widely dispersed maintenance operations across the UK, for instance, it was the managers job to be talking around the engineers and their colleagues. In BA, it would appear that managers either sit in their office, or they might turn up to the crew briefing zone. The managers don't appear to accept the responsibility for the behaviour of their staff, and don't get out and about enough. Why, then, are they managers?
These are only some of the things that look in my opinion to be different.
If much of this is the case, this dispute will not end until the bassa top junta are all removed, and until BA hold their managers accountable..

AO,

perhaps their managers aren't yet sufficiently confident that things have now changed, and they have the opportunity to manage without a threatened walk-out.

Also, in most businesses, anybody with "Director" in their title would be regarded as a manager, but it seems in IFCE that is not necessarily so. It's a strange topsy-turvy world thay live in !

H
Good point. Some of the "CSD"s are, in effect, strike leaders. Some, however, appear to want to earn their money and do provide pro-BA leadership.

When I've commented on their role in the past, some CSDs have posted on here, pointing out that they do see themselves as managers.

Whilst BA needs to do this from the moral high ground, I would find a way to fire those strike-leading "CSD"s.

On the basis of comments by Keith Williams (to the effect that the major legacy issues have been addressed) and recent and current recruitment (Frank Van Der Post for example) it seems that there is to be a renewed investment in the product and service (catering improvements are coming in May) and a focus on growing the business. Cabin crew are obviously a big part of this and I suspect one reason why BA has allowed this to drag on for so long instead of forcing an end is because it knows it needs to pick up the pieces afterwards.

BA will have monitored forward booking trends as well as tracking perceptions of the brand amongst different groups and seems comfortable with the current situation and this seems to be borne out by the traffic statistics.

I take the point about managers getting out and talking to staff but if CC has been allowed over decades to become a separate empire within BA and BASSA (to give it some credit) has positioned itself as the sole source of the truth, this is not going to be reversed overnight. One of the major differences on Mixed Fleet is that the CSM is an actual BA manager grade, thus they are "management".

mrpony:

There is a post on the Cabin Crew thread regarding Mr. Holley being warned by authorities regarding harrassment. I'm not sure what the source is or what the harrassment was specifically regarding.

Joao "nazi moedrating"???? A bit overwrought.

LD12986: Interesting comment regarding the management status at Mixed Fleet.

I've always been under the impression that if you are able to strike then you aren't true management.

Litebulbs
 

I think the offer that was on the table many moons ago was that the concept of MF would be dropped (as BF had listened to what the crew wanted when a feedback exercise was undertaken and crew wanted to avoid another fleet,) but this offer was rejected by BASSA negotiators before the first strike ballot. Given the additional cost that the dispute has caused to BA, and the fact that this cost was always going to be recouped from the IFCE budget, I think it will be a cold day in Hell before BA start to talk about integration of the two fleets.

BASSA does not have negotiating rights over MF and I think BA would rather that they never do. BA are only just starting to get a handle on the cost savings and flexibility in disruption that MF can deliver. MF work to Scheme and again it will be a cold day in Hell before BA allow MF to work to the same industrial limits that legacy crew have - the extra cost and loss of flexibility would be enormous.

I am sure that BASSA would love to have talks regarding the integration of the two fleets but that would defeat the whole point of MF; I doubt that BA would even entertain the concept - certainly not at the moment. I said that this dispute was "about resetting the relationship between union and company," until that is done, I think BA will only talk about settling this dispute on their terms. There may be a few very small concessions but nothing major. If, and only if, the disfunctional relationship between BA and BASSA is changed to BA's satisfaction then talks about integration of the fleets may take place. However, I do not foresee that happening for a long time.

In reality it is hard to assess what it would take for the rank and file membership of BASSA to end the dispute and return to work. The dispute has been handled in such a way as to concentrate all decision making into a few, dogma driven, individuals. The rank and file have had little say over whether to accept any of the BA proposals. If you believe the rhetoric that has come from BASSA it is hard to see how this dispute can be resolved. It would be instructive if an opinion taking exercise were to be done and see what people actually wanted, sadly, I suspect the BASSA leadership are happier telling their members what they want than listening to them. So the dispute will rumble on a little longer. I predict another No vote with a smaller turnout and a smaller majority - I stand by to be proven wrong!

JT
 

If you had to choose, would you go for adjusting current working arrangements to allow integration of MF, or maintain for as long as possible your current terms as MF grows.

Both will save and therefore allow for negotiation going forward, even though it was a missed chance before.

That's a tough one. The longer term thinker would try to get everyone into the same negotiating group as then they would have a long term future but I suspect that the cost would be too high for many to stomach. This is though somewhat academic as BA will not, in my opinion, countenance BASSA having rights to negotiate for MF. Their track record is too troublesome and therefore the cost of gaining such rights would be prohibitive. So perhaps I would stick with the higher salary and hope it lasted for another few years. I would also start looking for a new job!

Are you talking about Bassa as a negotiating group, or the membership as a whole?

Litebulbs
 

Oops I see what you mean.

In the long term legacy crew are a dying breed. This may take many years but the writing is on the wall for the fleet (not individuals), natural wastage will see to this. As MF grows and legacy crew numbers decline, they will be forced onto a more and more limited number of routes. So as the legacy crew do decline, albeit slowly, BASSA will become less and less relevant UNLESS they can in some way arrange to become the negotiating body for MF. So, at the moment, the two are the same - or could, for the immediate future, be used as a shorthand for the same thing.

If legacy fleet dies so does BASSA. I think the only way BASSA will get these negotiating rights will be by forced recognition, by getting the numbers in MF to the required percentage, and I cannot see BA being at all helpful here. For MF they would probably give voluntary recognition to the PCCC if for no other reason than to run interference. BASSA has to change or it will ultimately be sidelined and die. BA will be doing all they can to achieve this.

JT
 

And yet another question:)

Do you see legacy as pre 97 or pre MF?

Pre MF - the rest are in the same negotiating group and operate the same routes to the same industrial agreements.

Litebulbs,

Good point.

I think there are 2 sets of legacy crew:
- pre-97 are on the old contract and have a much higher basic salary.
- post-97 are on smaller basic salaries, but everything else is similar.
The only difference between these legacy crews is the change in basic salaries, evrything else in their contracts is the same and they still operate to some very out-of-date industrial agreements.

The new MF crews are on TOTALLY different remuneration packages. I think that there is NO chance of integrating MF crews with Legacy crews because they are two totally different entities. The legacy crews operate to some very restrictive industrial agreements, whereas the MF crew work much closer to the CAA scheme rules. BA are now able to open routes that were deemed to be 'marginal' because of the increased flexibilty that the MF crews offer.

I believe there have already been issues regarding MF crews and the length of flying duties - crew that have just operated S/H and different crew that have operated L/H trip and could be either aclimitised or not acclimitised. Add the additional complexity of industrial agreements and it would negate the benefits of MF being in place.

bassa could have had an influence in the use of MF and the manner it which routes were transferred. However, their unwillingness to enter into meaningful dialogue has left them as unwanted outsiders looking in!

Sporran
 

And those agreements are where future negotiation could happen. If I was a Bassa member, I would be looking at two choices now, either wither on the vine or mitigate loss. Both will add further savings to BA, but obviously one more than another over the next 50 years.

Litebulbs
 

That last post of yours has conjured up an image of a few very expensive 'legacy routes' being operated by silver-haired and rather doddery CC in 2025.
There is a pub somewhere near Southampton called 'The Yellow Pen'.

Litebulbs,

Totally agree.

However, I do not think that kind of negotiation is remotely possible with the present militant 'leadership' who only seem to want confrontation at every turn. In my time in BA bassa have always had a very bad reputation for their seeming inability to negotiate. In the past it has worked, which is why BA cabin crew enjoy the T&Cs that they do. I would suggest that was not down to negotiating skills, but rather to weak management who inevitably gave in the moment bassa used their normal negotiating tactic of - 'strike unless we get what we want'!

Times have changed massively. All other unions / branches have recognised this - and negotiated accordingly. Alas, bassa have not moved with the times! They did not understand or appreciate the financial climate, they had made a deliberate and conscious decision NOT to look at the independant financial figures available, they felt they could offer a 2 year loan rather than proper savings and they seemed to feel it was acceptable for every other department in BA to make savings - except them!

The bassa leadership have been shown on many occasions to be extremely short on truth, but very long on rhetoric and blatant untruths. Their financial calculations have been shown to be childlike in there accuracy - £173M savings which turned out to be only about £52M. They have shown themselves to be complete amateurs dealing with professionals. Surely it is time for the cabin crew community to be represented by professionals as well. I appreciate that Untie officials are professionals, but that is of no consequence while bassa continue to veto any progress by the parent union!