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?