What some acronyms stand for
 

IFCE = In Flight Customer Experience
NSP = National Sectional Panel
BRG = Business Review Group
FRG = Fleet Review Group
EG901 is disciplinary procedure

However what is much more difficult is to explain the purpose and meaning of these five items._ NSP for example has been equated to BASSA - but BASSA is the past, and the settlement is a sketchy outline of the future.

This is the point where it would be useful for cabin crew to correct any errors I have made so far in today's postings.

Notlangley

I am hoping that the union will rename itself UNITE and not use the name BASSA.

Firstly people like me would feel unable to join if that name is retained and BA actually like all crew to be in a union because they want to be negotiating with the representatives of ALL crew and not just some crew.

Secondly it would be hard for CC89(AMICUS) members to accept having to rejoin BASSA.

Thirdly a new start with new input from the parent union would be good and look to the future for all. Fleet review probably discusses rostering and allowances etc. and Business probably discusses things like product and service.

IFCE is the name BA call the department that covers cabin crew and the products served to passengers in-flight.

EG901 is just the code BA gives to a disaplinary proceedure in there big book of proceedures and codes of practice, there are hundreds of EG... something or others to cover every different kind of situation.

The meeting names are just different groups that discuss different issues and if agreement does not happen it all gets passed up to the NSP meetings. These meetings are all being reduced and also the number of reps attending them, from what was there before, and the names are of no consequence really and are just name BA have deecided to call each meeting type.. ie Fleet probably discusse rostering and allowances, transfers etc. and Business probably discusses product and services on board etc.

As I understand it some of these focus group meetings have already started or are soon to start at LGW. Membership is not soley the right of union reps but members are being drawn from willing volunteers.
This is the way it should be, with union involvement only if changes need to be agreed

West lake,
Yes focus groups are taking place and this is new but not really to do with the strikes.

I am involved in the Product group and these groups have been set up to try and get problems on board resolved quicker and are totally different and separate to what the unions discuss with the company in their meetings.

They are good and BA is setting them up with regard to lots of different subjects ie. there are ones on product and safety and their are also groups in other departments, pilots now have these focus groups and Aircraft turnaround managers and ground staff etc. are having them too..

This is why I needed to compile a glossary
 

I am thinking about purse-strings._ Representatives receive money from two sources._ To quote from the SettlementThe wording is ambiguous but I interpret it as meaning that the non-basic pay comes from the purse of the parent Union._ If this speculative interpretation of mine is correct, it may well be that in the future the finances and accounts of the three NSPs (Heathrow-Heritage, Heathrow-MF, Gatwick) will be dealt with by a full-time employee of the parent Union (Unite the Union).

The difficulty that BASSA have is not that there is an elephant in the living room - but it is the cupboard door that cannot be closed because of this enormous skeleton (probably an elephant).

Len McCluskey said on 12th May 2011

Not langley.
I think previously reps might have been able to get their basic pay when not on BA work. ie attending union meetings that were not to do with BA and now this is not allowed.

I expect that the union pay a daily rate to the reps to compensate them for loss of flying pay. ie. allowances etc. that they would get if they were flying. BA does pay this to trainers and crew working in selection but obviously expect unite to pay this to the reps.

I think you are reading too much into everything.

Thank you for correcting me.
Wishful thinking on my part.

I would like to thank flapsforty and TightSlot for all their hard work in moderating this, and the other thread. It can't have been easy at times, and your patience and understanding are very much appreciated.

There are a lot of bridges to be built to restore the working relationships to the excellent level that I remember. There is nothing more to be gained from dragging up old arguments and resentments.

Might I suggest that we follow the example on the CC thread and introduce a voluntary posting ban for a while?

Dave

I'm quite happy to keep posting until the thing is settled and will continue to do so - there's a long way to go.

Mr pony- I quite agree. There is a lot to be sorted out yet. I would like it to stay open for a bit longer but as ever it's the Mods call

I too would like to add my thanks to the Mods for all the work they do, but especially on this thread. Can't have been easy with all the different personalities involved. Well done

I second the vote of thanks to the mods on both this and other thread(s) surrounding the BA dispute. However if they think that closing the thread will end the discussion, I am afraid they will have another think coming..

It is waaaaaaay from sorted yet, indeed I understand that there are a number of posters on the BASSA forum who intend to canvas for a refusal to accept the deal. Quite where that will leave union members is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain, the fat lady is still in the dressing room, not even warming up to sing yet.

In one forum or another, the debate still has some time to run.

From DirectGov -

If you are a shop steward, or equivalent trade union official, of a trade union that is recognised and independent, you are entitled to reasonable paid time off to:

• carry out your duties as an official
• receive training relevant to carrying out those duties

Recent experience
 

Changing the conversation a bit, I noted somewhere in the murky past of posts that there were numerous comments regarding whether inflight service was/is better under WW crews or the new MF crews. I also read that PHX was changing to MF but not when.

Although airline staff, I pay full J class fares as published on BA.com so that when things go wrong, I can have a say in things (or so you would think). Having travelled outbound in early April, the lounge was packed with nowhere to sit and as usual, the crap served up as food was Chilli, Tikka Marsala or the poor salad bar. As someone who cannot tolerate spices, this is a problem for me. On board, the service was excellent but the food even worse including Tika Marsala again and Coronation Chicken sandwich for tea. Is BA not proud of its British Heritage and food? I therefore went to the Club Kitchen only to find nothing there as WT+ had raided it being unsupervised by the crew.

On the inbound flight this weekend, the food was excellent including salmon starter and Beef rib. The crew however were the worst I have ever come across. Sullen, lazy, rude and refused to have any eye contact at all. The second the trays were cleared, they were gone to be seen again at breakfast time. As we got to the train from B pier to the terminal, (and we were quick off the plane) at least two crew were on the same transit.

If the return crew were MF then BA has a problem with it's direction if this is any indication. If they were WW crew, then the sooner the route changes the better.

Having been stranded in the USA last June by BA when the PHX-LHR flight was canx due CC strike and given no assistance - just offered a flight 8 days later, this trip was a final try of BA. Unfortunately, BA failed due to inconsistency so they will lose four Gold/silver card holders as we have another UK airline that flies to that area of the USA who will benefit and hopefully appreciate our business.

PHX does not move to Mixed Fleet until August. Crew visibility between meal services has been a long standing issue in all cabins on BA long haul and seems to be something BA cannot get a grip of and shows a lack of effective leadership/management by onboard CSDs and Pursers. Some crew seem to think their work is done once the first meal is out of the way.

At least food shows signs of improving,

From the settlement document
 

But no relationship that involves a branch/lodge/chapel/NSP?

I imagine the relationship are just words at the moment. A recognition agreement will have to be drawn up and agreed, but I was under the impression that either party can serve notice on the existing agreements, but the parties are Unite and BA.

Tightslot
 

Thanks for keeping this thread open. However I suspect unless something dramatic emerges from the small print, nothing much will happen other than clarification of certain points of the agreement until it is put to the vote. Perhaps we should start a new thread either here or in it's proper place the CC forum, with the title "The agreement" to examine the minutiae of said document.

Thank you Litebulbs for pointing out that the parties are Unite and BA._There is another document which is the 11 May 2011 "Briefing notes" issued jointly by Unite and BA._ And this contains the words that I was failing to find in the Settlement document

The document that is called "Agreed Briefing" or "Unite briefing note" can be found at:-__ link

The full deal is here:

http://library.constantcontact.com/d...ace+110511.pdf

Judging by the URL the Unite "bruthers" had a nice few days at this luxury hotel to seal the deal:

http://www.stokeplace.co.uk/

Surely this dispute is not over until a ballot that accepts the deal?

What are the dates involved?

Glossary continued
 

MBTR = Minimum Base Turnaround

And???:rolleyes:

This is the latest from DH pleading with the brothers to sign the deal. AS near as damn it, the same deal he wouldn't even put to the Bassa members last October to vote on!


I want to make a few things very clear to all those who intend to vote no - based on some of the things I have read on the forum over the last few days.

A "No" vote does not mean we immediately reopen negotiations - it means we go back onto a war footing with a strike ballot.

There will be no more tweaking to the deal, this is a take it or leave offer which your reps believe is worth accepting.

So if you still want to vote No, you of course have every right but please don't say in 6 months time you were not warned of the dire consequences.

A no vote will also put you at odds with the people who represent you. A lot of you have expressed fear that BASSA will wither on the vine in time. If it is a No vote it won't wither on the vine, because the vine will die before any withering takes place.

Am I scaremongering? No I am just being bloody upfront and honest with my opinion based on many years at the industrial coal face.

Doesn't effect me one iota but I would hate to see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Especially after 7000 of you put up such a good fight to get us within touching distance of that victory.

Rgds to all.

It will be very interesting to see how this pans out in the long run. I have seen and spoken to quite a number of crew in the last few days and a lot of us who have 'supported' BA in all of this feel a bit let down. For me personally I understand that politics have dominated the proceedings totally this week, and IMO *KW has got Unite and LM/DH out of a dirty big hole. How LM can state to SKY last Thursday that by 'agreeing with BA' it stopped the threat of IA is laughable. I would have loved BA to have waited 3 more days and saw what Unite/Bassa would have done. The fact that the spin that DH, *(now known as Baaaaaabera to his herd) puts on things means that most of the mob think they have won.

I truly believe BA would have put Bassa to the sword had one thing happened that I and many others still cant believe happened. The irony is that the people most at fault throughout this dispute were not DH or LM, nor even the 5700 who all kept screaming for IA. No the people that ruined it were the 4500 who stayed in Bassa throughout, even after DH telling them to go forth and multiply, yet came into work over the strikes, and had NO intention of ever striking. If they had left, Bassa would have been left with less than 40%and possibly been derecognised.

Anyway it's onwards and upwards now. However the reason there is perceived negativity on here ( its actually being realistic IMO) seems to come from those who REALLY know Bassa from old ( eg. VCtenderness ) I agree with you.

What should simply happen now is for the leaders of Bassa to start being proactive and start leading their members professionally.
Sadly it's just not in their DNA. Ive lost count over the years , the times I've been to see them, as well as written letters about upcoming problems. They have done nothing, nada, zip. The leaders have been as autocratic as anyone I've ever met. This has been seen SO many times during this dispute.

What should be happening RIGHT NOW, in the spirit of moving forward is IMO the following. ( in no particular order)

1) Take WW photo down from the uniteba.com website. Chances of this happening before July 1st - >50%
2) Tell the strikers to throw away the yellow and red pens as well as the XXXX bag tags. Also turn your ID' s around the right way. ( only those of us at work as crew in the last 2 years will fully understand this bit) chances <5%
3) Get the Bassa forum PROPERLY moderated, and thus stopping malicious childlike nasty unrealistic comments. Chances <2%.
4) Tell the strikers to move on from the backbiting in that we must all move forward together for the good of the airline. Chances 0%
5) Ensuring that the accounts are transparent and open for all members to see without asking. (why not) chances - <0%.

I can think of several more but I feel that would be a great start. But will eg. DH endorse any of the above. What do you think?

TorC came out with some interesting things regarding the behaviour and how this will pan out for the return of ST. Be interesting to see how BA deal with this.


Finally Bill Francis ( BA head of cabin services is doing a webchat on Friday. One crew member has put a question to him that they have read some disgusting stuff written by BA employees on public websites including Pprune ( how very dare they), and want a company wide email sent out to tell them to stop it. Perhaps they could send the same message to Bassa no?


PS A message to the Mods. Please don't shut this thread down just yet. There are IMO some very interesting things going to happen in the next few weeks. thanks again

Would anyone like to speculate on the reason for Duncan’s sudden conversion?

So basically Duncan is telling members they have to accept the offer because they've nowhere to turn in terms of further strike action (ie it would be futile at best and unprotected at worst) which is what we knew nearly 12 months ago.

It may well be that DH would prefer the members to vote to end the conflict._ The power is with Unite._ Unite may have explained things to DH - things that DH never wished to hear._ Unite may have the ultimate weapon, but would prefer not to publicly reveal what they will certainly do if the membership turns down this last chance to quietly fold up the tents of war.

"Would anyone like to speculate on the reason for Duncan’s sudden conversion?"


...........a job offer with Unite?

conditional job offer - that's what i meant - it was a long night!

A conditional job offer with Unite.

I'm confused by the communique to BASSA members above.

It addresses the fears of some members that a "yes" vote means BASSA withers on the vine. The author contends that a "no" vote means the vine dies before BASSA withers. Hm.

The Agreement says ONE Unite branch at Heathrow will represent all cabin crew members. Doesn't this mean good bye BASSA and goodbye CC89 with a "yes" vote?

And I'm lost as to what the dying vine means, upon which BASSA will not be allowed to linger like the final scene from "Camille." Don't know what he means about the vine dying before...etc. What does this mean exactly?

The agreement seems to indicate that upon the implementation of the agreement BASSA and CC89 cease to exist.

So a "no" vote actually would keep BASSA and CC89 alive, wouldn't it?
Because another strike ballot would have to be mailed? No dying vine there.

Would BASSA/CC89 stay very much alive for a IA vote to be taken yet again? (Unless there is some BA consequence to a "no" vote that The Leader isn't telling the membership.)

On the other hand, "Yes" and it's bye bye BASSA/CC89?

His inference seems to be that if you are worried about BASSA withering on the vine, vote "yes." When their "yes" vote will produce the end of BASSA/CC89 immediately, n'est ce pas?

As I said, I'm confused....:ooh:

It was crunch time the moment the deal between Unite and BA was done. No ifs or buts its over its fair and reasonable. There will be no more discussions. No more suggestions and certainly no chance of 'withering on the vine' - the vine was chopped down when KW and Unite finished their meeting.

This thread is now all used up. There is nothing further to add. Whatever you say it is not worth a can 'o beans.

Your union and BA are asking you to accept a deal that is in your BEST interest. DH is doing the same, whatever you think of him.

A vote YES is recommended a NO is not. Your choice. You have no others, not now not tomorrow - none. Good luck, but you won't need it if you vote YES.

OK - The thread is going nowhere, and not even doing so fast.

I'm going to close it down. I think a short break will enable us all to step back and do something else for a while - I have no doubt that BASSA will throw up something new and exciting in the future but until then...

Thanks all for your contributions - now you can all get back to your careers and families.


:D