Attention BA staff and shareholders
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on 1200 a month, my points above still stand. While it's certainly not a 'bad' salary, 1200 a month, after factoring in costs incurred downroute (no, I'm not talking about being on the razz everynight, but yes, I do like to eat a hot meal at the end and before the start of my working day)... with all that factored in, I feel that the base salary is a non-issue.
I'd be interested to see stats as to how many crew actually took home GBP400 each way for going one crew member down as you state. The figures posted by other BA crew members don't seem to tally with an extra GBP800 for a roundtrip with 1 crew member short.
And if you're going to benchmark, it seems to defeat the purpose of the excercise if you only choose to 'benchmark' with 'certain' carriers. After all, it is AA and UA as well as VS which BA is so hotly in competition with on those 'golden' LHR - US routes.
In any event, with UA employing more Cabin Crew at LHR than the UK's second largest scheduled carrier (Bmi), I don't feel it inappropriate to compare the T&C in any benchmaking excercise.
My understanding from abseenteeism was that it was a company wide issue, and not limited to Cabin Crew...?
I'd be interested to see stats as to how many crew actually took home GBP400 each way for going one crew member down as you state. The figures posted by other BA crew members don't seem to tally with an extra GBP800 for a roundtrip with 1 crew member short.
And if you're going to benchmark, it seems to defeat the purpose of the excercise if you only choose to 'benchmark' with 'certain' carriers. After all, it is AA and UA as well as VS which BA is so hotly in competition with on those 'golden' LHR - US routes.
In any event, with UA employing more Cabin Crew at LHR than the UK's second largest scheduled carrier (Bmi), I don't feel it inappropriate to compare the T&C in any benchmaking excercise.
My understanding from abseenteeism was that it was a company wide issue, and not limited to Cabin Crew...?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure about the UA figure, I was under the impression that the LHR UA CC base has been closed down due to costs. They are not located at Cranebank anymore though you will see signs and an office still in situ.
Heavy crew, you say
"I stated that pilots get 100% more horizontal rest, even if it was the minority of your trips that had a first seat, which it is not, as I never have bunks therefore pilots have 100% more horizontal rest than me."
If you mean that pilots get at least some horizontal rest and you get none, then the pilots get INFINITELY more H rest. Not 100%.
1/0 =!= 100%
"I stated that pilots get 100% more horizontal rest, even if it was the minority of your trips that had a first seat, which it is not, as I never have bunks therefore pilots have 100% more horizontal rest than me."
If you mean that pilots get at least some horizontal rest and you get none, then the pilots get INFINITELY more H rest. Not 100%.
1/0 =!= 100%
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC you can't benchmark against the US carriers because they are not sustainable businesses and some were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy prior to 9/11. Benchmarking against them is the road to bankruptcy. The pilots didn't benchmark against the US carriers or they'd be taking 50 to 100% salary increases, dropping their annual hours by a third and demanding three pilots on all flights across the atlantic. They benchmarked against similar business operating in the same market (didn't see United doing LHR to DUS lately, or American doing LHR to SIN).
If you want to know how many crew took home £400 each sector then I can tell you that at the last count I got 53 flights left LHR one down. That means 53 flights returned to LHR one down so minimum £800 round trip. Assuming an even split between 747s (14 crew) and 777s (11 crew) gives an average of 12.5 crew per trip, times by 53 trips equals 662 crew getting payments, or around £530,000.
Absenteeism is a company wide issue, but some are more equal than others. Company average is 16 days sick per year. Flight crew are on 11.8 days per year. LHR cabin crew are averaging 22 days per year, with 1250 reporting sick in the two weeks over the xmas and new year period, and 700 reporting in sick on a single day. I think the figures show where the problem lies.
If you want to know how many crew took home £400 each sector then I can tell you that at the last count I got 53 flights left LHR one down. That means 53 flights returned to LHR one down so minimum £800 round trip. Assuming an even split between 747s (14 crew) and 777s (11 crew) gives an average of 12.5 crew per trip, times by 53 trips equals 662 crew getting payments, or around £530,000.
Absenteeism is a company wide issue, but some are more equal than others. Company average is 16 days sick per year. Flight crew are on 11.8 days per year. LHR cabin crew are averaging 22 days per year, with 1250 reporting sick in the two weeks over the xmas and new year period, and 700 reporting in sick on a single day. I think the figures show where the problem lies.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC you can't benchmark against the US carriers because they are not sustainable businesses ...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ - UA does still have their LHR Crew base. The crew room is in T3. They also have (smaller) C/C bases in CDG and FRA.
Carnage Matey - Not to get into a 'tit of tat', but saying that all US Carriers are not sustainable business' is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. CO is quietly confident about it's future quarters being profitable, meanwhile UA (far from being on the brink of bankruptcy prior to 9/11) actually posted highest ever record profits in 2000. UA's business model however was far to dependant on full fare and premium business travellers, and it just took a slight shift (and evaporation) of this market for their cost's (including some of their huge labour costs, especially pilots) to quickly overtake their profits. Without getting off topic, it's pertinent to note that UA has cut wages and benefits of all employee groups and streamlined several areas of the business, so hopefully they are starting to get back on track. But we digress.
Thanks for the figures you have calculated about short crew. My point though is how many crew took home GBP800 for going 1 crew down, as this (high) figure doesn't match what most people (claim) they actually got (much much lower).
Ultimately, there will always be elements of different employee groups contracts that are cause of contention amoung others. Too often though (as I have seen on this thread with some of the blatant anti-Cabin Crew bashing which is neither related to the thread nor constructive in any way), people use a 'one off' or 'isolated' incident / clause in contract / situation, and use it as a base point from which to vent out their apparent anger and frustration against an entire employee group.
If hundreds of crew really did take home 800 pound per trip for going 1 crew short, well if that were the case, I'd probably quietly agree that the amount seems somewhat excessive for the situation. However, this thread seemed to have degenerated into a general 'slagging' match against Cabin Crew, and I certainly didn't (and still don't) agree that crew hired on the new contracts are vastly overpaid for their hours, effort and commitment.
I've worked for a number of carriers. While flying for bmi at LHR, I had the pleasure of working with some of the hardest working and fun crews around. My take home was not dissimilar to EF LHR. However, I had very little life outside of work, as this was on a 5 on 2 off pattern, working 4 sectors most days, 5 sectors others, starting on earlies at beginning of days off, and finishing later at end of 5 days on. So moving over to BA, like the other bmi crew mentioned earlier in the thread, I know that BA's T&C are not bad. Personally though, I think that what BA is offering new hires (certainly for LHR) far from being exorbitant, it is still a wage where one struggles to save, to get a mortgage, to pay the bills. I know I'm sounding like a stuck record here (sorry - the mortgage thing was a sore point personally), but I'm certainly not looking at taking home GBP2000+ a month.
Benchmarking T&C and pay to bmi? Why not? Then you'll face the same problem that bmi has: Huge crew turnover, crisis meetings with management over the out of control recruitment and training costs, crew shortages, and resorting to doing recruitment events in Italy and Spain and drafting in huge numbers of crew from overseas to stopgap the problem.
Or Ryanair, where crew are expected to literally work til they drop, and where the most basic considerations for employees are being eroded (charging crew for Water and Tea and Coffee on the aircraft etc).
While some of BA's most senior ranking Cabin Crew may have had the good fortune to join at a time whereby they now enjoy 'significantly above' the 'average going rate' for C/C, over time as they leave and the new hires increase, I feel BA has got the T&C and total compensation about right. For people like me starting out now, yes, it's slightly better than some of the competition - but this is what attracts the better candidates (hence why all the 'best' crew from bmi were recently cherry-picked by BA and selected out from the hundreds who applied and who were desperate to get out of bmi). It also ensures longer length of service (ultimately lowering the expense of constant recruitment and training).
I'm sorry that so many pilots, engineers and our own 'support , and leadership' people - our management, seem to despise us Cabin Crew, or at the very least resent us for our T&C and $$. All I can say is that I, like many of the crew I know at BA, am someone who (irrespective of who I am flying for) works hard, takes pride in delivering great service to the flying passenger, seldom complains, and seldom takes time off sick ( I think I've taken no more than 7 days of sick from flying in 5 years ). I can only hope that over time, the minority of C/C who 'milk' the system and abuse the sick policies etc finally 'see the light', and that the other employee groups in BA will understand that the actions (and pay) of some do not equate to the same situation and behaviour for us all.
Safe flying and happy landings to everyone!
Carnage Matey - Not to get into a 'tit of tat', but saying that all US Carriers are not sustainable business' is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. CO is quietly confident about it's future quarters being profitable, meanwhile UA (far from being on the brink of bankruptcy prior to 9/11) actually posted highest ever record profits in 2000. UA's business model however was far to dependant on full fare and premium business travellers, and it just took a slight shift (and evaporation) of this market for their cost's (including some of their huge labour costs, especially pilots) to quickly overtake their profits. Without getting off topic, it's pertinent to note that UA has cut wages and benefits of all employee groups and streamlined several areas of the business, so hopefully they are starting to get back on track. But we digress.
Thanks for the figures you have calculated about short crew. My point though is how many crew took home GBP800 for going 1 crew down, as this (high) figure doesn't match what most people (claim) they actually got (much much lower).
Ultimately, there will always be elements of different employee groups contracts that are cause of contention amoung others. Too often though (as I have seen on this thread with some of the blatant anti-Cabin Crew bashing which is neither related to the thread nor constructive in any way), people use a 'one off' or 'isolated' incident / clause in contract / situation, and use it as a base point from which to vent out their apparent anger and frustration against an entire employee group.
If hundreds of crew really did take home 800 pound per trip for going 1 crew short, well if that were the case, I'd probably quietly agree that the amount seems somewhat excessive for the situation. However, this thread seemed to have degenerated into a general 'slagging' match against Cabin Crew, and I certainly didn't (and still don't) agree that crew hired on the new contracts are vastly overpaid for their hours, effort and commitment.
I've worked for a number of carriers. While flying for bmi at LHR, I had the pleasure of working with some of the hardest working and fun crews around. My take home was not dissimilar to EF LHR. However, I had very little life outside of work, as this was on a 5 on 2 off pattern, working 4 sectors most days, 5 sectors others, starting on earlies at beginning of days off, and finishing later at end of 5 days on. So moving over to BA, like the other bmi crew mentioned earlier in the thread, I know that BA's T&C are not bad. Personally though, I think that what BA is offering new hires (certainly for LHR) far from being exorbitant, it is still a wage where one struggles to save, to get a mortgage, to pay the bills. I know I'm sounding like a stuck record here (sorry - the mortgage thing was a sore point personally), but I'm certainly not looking at taking home GBP2000+ a month.
Benchmarking T&C and pay to bmi? Why not? Then you'll face the same problem that bmi has: Huge crew turnover, crisis meetings with management over the out of control recruitment and training costs, crew shortages, and resorting to doing recruitment events in Italy and Spain and drafting in huge numbers of crew from overseas to stopgap the problem.
Or Ryanair, where crew are expected to literally work til they drop, and where the most basic considerations for employees are being eroded (charging crew for Water and Tea and Coffee on the aircraft etc).
While some of BA's most senior ranking Cabin Crew may have had the good fortune to join at a time whereby they now enjoy 'significantly above' the 'average going rate' for C/C, over time as they leave and the new hires increase, I feel BA has got the T&C and total compensation about right. For people like me starting out now, yes, it's slightly better than some of the competition - but this is what attracts the better candidates (hence why all the 'best' crew from bmi were recently cherry-picked by BA and selected out from the hundreds who applied and who were desperate to get out of bmi). It also ensures longer length of service (ultimately lowering the expense of constant recruitment and training).
I'm sorry that so many pilots, engineers and our own 'support , and leadership' people - our management, seem to despise us Cabin Crew, or at the very least resent us for our T&C and $$. All I can say is that I, like many of the crew I know at BA, am someone who (irrespective of who I am flying for) works hard, takes pride in delivering great service to the flying passenger, seldom complains, and seldom takes time off sick ( I think I've taken no more than 7 days of sick from flying in 5 years ). I can only hope that over time, the minority of C/C who 'milk' the system and abuse the sick policies etc finally 'see the light', and that the other employee groups in BA will understand that the actions (and pay) of some do not equate to the same situation and behaviour for us all.
Safe flying and happy landings to everyone!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes CO is doing well, but UA and AA were not the picture of financial health that you suggest. Prior to 9/11 the US airlines were engaged in an out of control price war with labour groups in different companies claiming large wage increases simply to leap frog the equivalent salary in another company. The speed at which Uniteds fortunes changed illustrates what a fragile business they had, and today United only exists because of vast subsidies from the ATSB and Capter 11 bankruptcy protection.
On the matter of crew going short, I read back to page one of this thread and re-visited the figures. It would appear I was mistaken and the actual sum for a junior per trip is around £400, not £800 as I previously wrote. I admit I got that wrong, but £400 is still not to be sniffed at it's still costing the company quarter of a million quid.
Nobody is realistically suggesting benchmarking cabin crew to Ryanair, Easy or even bmi. Different companies, different kind of business structure. But whats wrong with benchmarking against AF, LH and KL? The issue is not one of 'what we pay cabin crew' in isolation, its also about productivity. You may find that your pay is less than the benchmark, in which case you may have irrefutable evidence for a pay rise for certain grades. What I am certain is that the cost of crew per productive hour will be far higher. Do other airlines insist on a long break every time they do a turnaround at main base like BA crew? BA EF crew don't get two days off after they've done a short european there-and-back, so why should longhaul crew get one when a 747 gets subbed (thats a particularly important point as the 747 will be doing LIS during Euro 2004). Why should short haul crew have the right to walk off a service and go home if their turnaround time at LHR drops below 90 minutes, or insist on an 18 hr rest break down route if the duty day extends beyond about 13 hrs. How many hours of your duty day to you spend flying, and how many do you spend killing time in CAT or Compass? Its strange practices like these boost the cost of cabin crew beyond what is competitive, in no small part due to the fact that we employ +10% more crew than we need to cover for these unnecessary eventualities.
On the matter of crew going short, I read back to page one of this thread and re-visited the figures. It would appear I was mistaken and the actual sum for a junior per trip is around £400, not £800 as I previously wrote. I admit I got that wrong, but £400 is still not to be sniffed at it's still costing the company quarter of a million quid.
Nobody is realistically suggesting benchmarking cabin crew to Ryanair, Easy or even bmi. Different companies, different kind of business structure. But whats wrong with benchmarking against AF, LH and KL? The issue is not one of 'what we pay cabin crew' in isolation, its also about productivity. You may find that your pay is less than the benchmark, in which case you may have irrefutable evidence for a pay rise for certain grades. What I am certain is that the cost of crew per productive hour will be far higher. Do other airlines insist on a long break every time they do a turnaround at main base like BA crew? BA EF crew don't get two days off after they've done a short european there-and-back, so why should longhaul crew get one when a 747 gets subbed (thats a particularly important point as the 747 will be doing LIS during Euro 2004). Why should short haul crew have the right to walk off a service and go home if their turnaround time at LHR drops below 90 minutes, or insist on an 18 hr rest break down route if the duty day extends beyond about 13 hrs. How many hours of your duty day to you spend flying, and how many do you spend killing time in CAT or Compass? Its strange practices like these boost the cost of cabin crew beyond what is competitive, in no small part due to the fact that we employ +10% more crew than we need to cover for these unnecessary eventualities.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courage I think you will find that when the PAYMENTS were being made Cabin crew sickness was ay very low levels.
May I also say that I don't agree with your 22 days as that would mean that every crew member would be on sickness monitoring which clearly they are not.
The way to improve Cabin crew attendance is quite simple, give them a transparant, equitable rostering system like the pilots and the attendance will improve dramatically.
Top and bottom if Cabin crew have a poor attendance record the blame for this lies fairly at the doors of mismanagement and unfair inflexible rostering.
the whole system is endemic to low morale and that is one of the many reasons why we are losing crew by the bucket load and that is why we had to have these payments.
OR PERHAPS YOU FEEL THAT CLOSED FIRST CABINS WAS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO?
Lets be honest perhaps instead of bribing the cabin crew close the first cabins on 58 flights, whadda ya think?
If you guys wish to benchmark us against Virgin feel free.
Firstly Virgin pay a higher salary than BA.
Secondly they do slightly less hours that even LGW WW.
Thirdly if we took a BA jet and a Virgin jet to JFK both 747 400 the BA jet would have 15 cabin crew the Virgin jet type 1 is 17 cabin crew and 1 beautician.
Now then if you were to say that the majority of BA cabin crew earn even a little more that Virgin, which I would contest, and we discount the beautician, you will still see the difference.
First lets take into account the fact that due to config I would say that at BA if we had Virgins config, we wouldn't need the galley person as no first.
So I am saying that as BA have 14/17ths of the cabin crew on that flight yet still delivers a product that is comparible.
All that for pay that is comparably the same head for head.
LGW WW cabin crew take home about 1200 per month 1400 per month is achieveable at Virgin.
Now no insult intended but compared to our low cost collegues we deliver a far more sophisticated cabin service , do comparable hours I achieved 991 flying hours last year, yet earn dramatically less than they do.
And you think we would suffer in a benchmarking exercise dream on.
Courage the restrictions you talk about are to protect the cabin crew from flying too many hours.
If the company wants the same flexibility as pilots I am all for that and would welcome it.
There does therefore have to be a restriction on annual maximum working hours your as a pilot is 900 therefore it is considered unsafe for a pilot to work more hours that that.
Fair play.
I WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO WORK TO EXACTLY THE SAME HOURS AND FLEXIBILITY AS OUR FLIGHT CREW COLLEGUES.
Now with the restrictive practices you claim in place I worked as a BA long haul crew member and achieved 991 FLYING hours not duty hours.
I have a freind who's partner works for Virgin and they work pretty hard but last month he worked 90.15 duty hours I did 107.
These are true facts not dreams.
Now to be honest when you are doing more hours than me then I will accept critisism from you.
May I also say that I don't agree with your 22 days as that would mean that every crew member would be on sickness monitoring which clearly they are not.
The way to improve Cabin crew attendance is quite simple, give them a transparant, equitable rostering system like the pilots and the attendance will improve dramatically.
Top and bottom if Cabin crew have a poor attendance record the blame for this lies fairly at the doors of mismanagement and unfair inflexible rostering.
the whole system is endemic to low morale and that is one of the many reasons why we are losing crew by the bucket load and that is why we had to have these payments.
OR PERHAPS YOU FEEL THAT CLOSED FIRST CABINS WAS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO?
Lets be honest perhaps instead of bribing the cabin crew close the first cabins on 58 flights, whadda ya think?
If you guys wish to benchmark us against Virgin feel free.
Firstly Virgin pay a higher salary than BA.
Secondly they do slightly less hours that even LGW WW.
Thirdly if we took a BA jet and a Virgin jet to JFK both 747 400 the BA jet would have 15 cabin crew the Virgin jet type 1 is 17 cabin crew and 1 beautician.
Now then if you were to say that the majority of BA cabin crew earn even a little more that Virgin, which I would contest, and we discount the beautician, you will still see the difference.
First lets take into account the fact that due to config I would say that at BA if we had Virgins config, we wouldn't need the galley person as no first.
So I am saying that as BA have 14/17ths of the cabin crew on that flight yet still delivers a product that is comparible.
All that for pay that is comparably the same head for head.
LGW WW cabin crew take home about 1200 per month 1400 per month is achieveable at Virgin.
Now no insult intended but compared to our low cost collegues we deliver a far more sophisticated cabin service , do comparable hours I achieved 991 flying hours last year, yet earn dramatically less than they do.
And you think we would suffer in a benchmarking exercise dream on.
Courage the restrictions you talk about are to protect the cabin crew from flying too many hours.
If the company wants the same flexibility as pilots I am all for that and would welcome it.
There does therefore have to be a restriction on annual maximum working hours your as a pilot is 900 therefore it is considered unsafe for a pilot to work more hours that that.
Fair play.
I WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO WORK TO EXACTLY THE SAME HOURS AND FLEXIBILITY AS OUR FLIGHT CREW COLLEGUES.
Now with the restrictive practices you claim in place I worked as a BA long haul crew member and achieved 991 FLYING hours not duty hours.
I have a freind who's partner works for Virgin and they work pretty hard but last month he worked 90.15 duty hours I did 107.
These are true facts not dreams.
Now to be honest when you are doing more hours than me then I will accept critisism from you.
Last edited by heavy crew; 20th Apr 2004 at 16:04.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: About 3000 below Midhurst SID I reckon
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres alot of statements being made regarding salaries and flying/duty hours for crew in different airlines. Are these actually consistent figures, and the same every month for each individual? Surely we cant gain a true picture of comparison on who is better off by looking at the earnings of only a handful of crew out of the thousands who are operating.
If you dont like the basic, don't join the airline.
I would love to be earning more than £10k a year basic, after all I have just dropped £15k in salary to join BA. I could have gone to another carrier where my friend is earning around £20k per annum including additional payments, or to one where I was hardly ever on duty. But I chose BA as its an airline I have always been proud of, warts and all.
Comparing old to new contract wageslips is unfair, after all, in any company, aviation or otherwise, you'd expect staff to be paid more if they have been there longer.
Also, to survive in an unstable time for the industry, airlines cannot afford to pay out the same salaries they used to. Naturally this will cause rifts between the different contracts, but you cant cut someones pay after years of service! Airfares are staying low but operating costs are increasing, competition is getting tougher. They have to cut overheads. Look at lo-cost carriers, they cut overheads and most are doing brilliantly.
249 posts in less than 4 weeks?
Swiss_Tonni, you have indeed opened a can of worms, therefore I have no option to put you over my knee.......
lol
If you dont like the basic, don't join the airline.
I would love to be earning more than £10k a year basic, after all I have just dropped £15k in salary to join BA. I could have gone to another carrier where my friend is earning around £20k per annum including additional payments, or to one where I was hardly ever on duty. But I chose BA as its an airline I have always been proud of, warts and all.
Comparing old to new contract wageslips is unfair, after all, in any company, aviation or otherwise, you'd expect staff to be paid more if they have been there longer.
Also, to survive in an unstable time for the industry, airlines cannot afford to pay out the same salaries they used to. Naturally this will cause rifts between the different contracts, but you cant cut someones pay after years of service! Airfares are staying low but operating costs are increasing, competition is getting tougher. They have to cut overheads. Look at lo-cost carriers, they cut overheads and most are doing brilliantly.
249 posts in less than 4 weeks?
Swiss_Tonni, you have indeed opened a can of worms, therefore I have no option to put you over my knee.......
lol
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the rhetoric level is down and some posts giving a far clearer picture of what is being discussed. Actualy Swiss_Tonni has probably created the possibilty for people to start appreciating problems and conditions faced by others rather than the generalisations that fly around so freely and create more discord than they clear up misunderstanding.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unpopular Destination Payments
Can someone from CC please justify to Ppruners why 'unpopular' destination payments are given. Across the 744 and 777 network there are good and bad, I've been to many 'unpopular' destinations, but it's surely take the rough with the smooth??
Its well known that CC Manpower teams ramp up standby levels during Henley, Wimbledon, Easter, Half Terms and Christmas. Social Sickness is sadly all too common.
Like many other's I've been working for all these events at one time or another, but it's swings and roundabouts ..isn't??
Its well known that CC Manpower teams ramp up standby levels during Henley, Wimbledon, Easter, Half Terms and Christmas. Social Sickness is sadly all too common.
Like many other's I've been working for all these events at one time or another, but it's swings and roundabouts ..isn't??
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dark I have answered this question before on this thread but as you missed it I will again.
The problem with destination payments is that people like yourself over the years have called them unpopular destination payments and assume that they are a bribe or extra payment made so that the cabin crew will turn up to work.
This is not the case.
Both back to back and destination payments came about with the advent of BEP around 1997 when the new contract was imposed by BA.
To make a long story short Cabin crew overtime upto 12 Hrs 30, MT payments and a whole raft of other benefits were swept up to make the new contact deal.
There was however some money left over in the long haul pot and obviously that could not be put into basic salary because shorthaul would get it too.
So in an effort by the management to improve attendance for unpopular things they thought up the two payments.
Back to back and destination payments.
The back to back payment was actually the one for unpopular things as back to backs were/are not very popular, the destination payment was really meant to subsidise the very poor allowance trips like HRE.
The truth of this however is that BOTH PAYMENTS are redirected money that has always been long haul cabin crews.
Now seriously, that it the total truth and as this money has always been WW cabin crew money.
why does it matter how it is paid?
Or for that matter what it is called?
The problem with destination payments is that people like yourself over the years have called them unpopular destination payments and assume that they are a bribe or extra payment made so that the cabin crew will turn up to work.
This is not the case.
Both back to back and destination payments came about with the advent of BEP around 1997 when the new contract was imposed by BA.
To make a long story short Cabin crew overtime upto 12 Hrs 30, MT payments and a whole raft of other benefits were swept up to make the new contact deal.
There was however some money left over in the long haul pot and obviously that could not be put into basic salary because shorthaul would get it too.
So in an effort by the management to improve attendance for unpopular things they thought up the two payments.
Back to back and destination payments.
The back to back payment was actually the one for unpopular things as back to backs were/are not very popular, the destination payment was really meant to subsidise the very poor allowance trips like HRE.
The truth of this however is that BOTH PAYMENTS are redirected money that has always been long haul cabin crews.
Now seriously, that it the total truth and as this money has always been WW cabin crew money.
why does it matter how it is paid?
Or for that matter what it is called?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Darkstar is stirring it again from the safety and security of a chair in the Compass centre. Our crews work very hard as I see them all at Cranebank on a daily basis. They are fully committed and very professional and you must not always believe idle gossip nor rumours that are unfounded. Perhaps its time people like you took your undoubted skills elsewhere and see how you get on.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123 - Apparently the 'average' BA employee has over 20 days sick a year. When BA was asked to highlight the average within CC they refused....why? Perhaps as a Manager in Cranebank you could enlighten us all.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to seom of the points raised by heavy crew:
Re Sickness: The 22 days sickness per year are an average figure, and the figure IFS are willing to put their hand up and admit to. Sickness monitoring is based on three instances of sickness in a defined period, not the number of days of sickness.
Re Closed Cabins: That wouldn't be necessary if yoy didn't require £400 to work one down.
Re benchmarking against Virgin: Yes, they pay a fractionally higher salary. BA crew earning a little more than Virgin crew? Give me a call when you return to planet earth. Even though I know the response to that laughable claim, I made sure I checked it at the pub tonight with a mate who's just joined BA us from Virgin. She reports earning comfortable more on BA short-haul than she did with Virgin, and we all know BA long haul earn plentymore than the short-haulers. So were left with 15 BA crew earning wads (remember a Virgin IFS earns 18K-ish, BA CSD on 40K ish), versus 17 Virgin crew on peanuts. Which is cost effective? Nonetheless, benchmarking is not just about money in pockets but efficiency as well. Even placing gross income aside, BA cabin crew are extremely inflexible, working to rule almost all the time, resulting in excessive numbers of staff and gross inefficiency which all drags your benchmark down. Perhaps if you started working efficiently you could have a salry rise with the money you save.
As for your 991 hours, I'm pretty impressed you achieved that as my friends on LGW WW are doing 3 on 4 off at the moment with an occasional back to back. Frankly I'm rather reluctant to believe your figures as elsewhere you've previously posted 'your roster' which wasn't actually your roster at all but a padded out attempt to show the maximum possible monthly working hours. Is 991 hours what you've actually done, or what you think you could legally do?
Oh and if you think you earn dramatically less than your colleagues at the low cost airlines then you really have been drinking too much crew purchase. Just flew with a skipper whos wife is a LGW WW CSD (as you are). She ain't gonna get that sort of cash at Easyjet.
Re Sickness: The 22 days sickness per year are an average figure, and the figure IFS are willing to put their hand up and admit to. Sickness monitoring is based on three instances of sickness in a defined period, not the number of days of sickness.
Re Closed Cabins: That wouldn't be necessary if yoy didn't require £400 to work one down.
Re benchmarking against Virgin: Yes, they pay a fractionally higher salary. BA crew earning a little more than Virgin crew? Give me a call when you return to planet earth. Even though I know the response to that laughable claim, I made sure I checked it at the pub tonight with a mate who's just joined BA us from Virgin. She reports earning comfortable more on BA short-haul than she did with Virgin, and we all know BA long haul earn plentymore than the short-haulers. So were left with 15 BA crew earning wads (remember a Virgin IFS earns 18K-ish, BA CSD on 40K ish), versus 17 Virgin crew on peanuts. Which is cost effective? Nonetheless, benchmarking is not just about money in pockets but efficiency as well. Even placing gross income aside, BA cabin crew are extremely inflexible, working to rule almost all the time, resulting in excessive numbers of staff and gross inefficiency which all drags your benchmark down. Perhaps if you started working efficiently you could have a salry rise with the money you save.
As for your 991 hours, I'm pretty impressed you achieved that as my friends on LGW WW are doing 3 on 4 off at the moment with an occasional back to back. Frankly I'm rather reluctant to believe your figures as elsewhere you've previously posted 'your roster' which wasn't actually your roster at all but a padded out attempt to show the maximum possible monthly working hours. Is 991 hours what you've actually done, or what you think you could legally do?
Oh and if you think you earn dramatically less than your colleagues at the low cost airlines then you really have been drinking too much crew purchase. Just flew with a skipper whos wife is a LGW WW CSD (as you are). She ain't gonna get that sort of cash at Easyjet.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sick or fed-up.
For BA staff across the board uncert sick is 16.7 days per annum and the areas that contribute in the main to this figure are LHR operations, which covers the ramp, Customer services and Motor Transport. The other area is CC. In fairness to the staff both areas are shift roles and in the case of the ramp the staff are out in all weathers and are permitted to do 'overtime' at will, thus they can go sick at will. CC employ 12500 staff which as one of the largest groups is no suprise that they have a high sickness level. However, if 22 (Fig from CCHR) is the figure then that is disgraceful and I can only hope that ground staff do not balance up the figure.
During the 2 week period of the £150 bonus naturally there was a significant fall in sick reporting in the LHR ops areas.
During the 2 week period of the £150 bonus naturally there was a significant fall in sick reporting in the LHR ops areas.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: About 3000 below Midhurst SID I reckon
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sickness related bonuses:
Yes they encourage people not to call in sick when they cant be bothered to work, but they also encourage unfit crew to fly when sick.
Management may come down on them like a ton of bricks when they go sick, so to prevent getting a dressing down they fly when unfit.
So they are spreading it about amoungst colleagues who all end up sick too, whilst making their own condition worse.
If they get a cold and cannot clear their ears they need to take say, 2 days off to clear them, then back to work.
If they fly with the blocked ears, they risk getting infections in the ears and sinuses then end up off work for two or three weeks.
Surely its better to allow a crew member 2 days sick leave than have 10 crew taking about a week off??
Yes they encourage people not to call in sick when they cant be bothered to work, but they also encourage unfit crew to fly when sick.
Management may come down on them like a ton of bricks when they go sick, so to prevent getting a dressing down they fly when unfit.
So they are spreading it about amoungst colleagues who all end up sick too, whilst making their own condition worse.
If they get a cold and cannot clear their ears they need to take say, 2 days off to clear them, then back to work.
If they fly with the blocked ears, they risk getting infections in the ears and sinuses then end up off work for two or three weeks.
Surely its better to allow a crew member 2 days sick leave than have 10 crew taking about a week off??
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot wings OH PURLEEEASE.
If any crew managed two hours in the bunks on a CAI flight there couldn't have been any pax.
PS if a crew member had two hours in the bunk that means that the crew had a minimum of 4 hours to give to organise rest.
Get real its not possible on a CAI.
Courage yet again incorrect.
The sickness monitoring is three occasions or 20 days, not just 3 occasions, some crew have had operations and found themselves in the programme on their first occasion.
Infact some crew get upset as many who normally have good records find themselves in the programme due to road trafic accidents ect.
Any issues of sickness within cabin crew as I have said before can be improved by bringing in a fair and equitable system of rostering.
Sickness is a symptom of malcontentmant, as such by your own admission all is not well within Cabin Services.
All cabin crew within BA suffer six of the seven major work related stresses, see below the article came from ''Edge'', the magazine of The Institute of Leadership and Management, March 2004. and thanx to AB.
The seven Major Work Related Stresses.
Culture (eg. long hours culture)
Demands (exposure to physical hazards and workload. Shift work)
Control (employee control over how they do their work, control v. demand)
Relationships (eg harassment / bullying)
Change (it's management and communication to staff)
Role ( employee understands role, jobs clearly defined, eg conflicting roles avoided)
Support, training and factors unique to the individual ( support from peers and line managers, training for core functions)
The most damaging effects of organisational stress are:
high absenteeism
poor job performance
low morale
low commitment
increased incidence of accidents
difficult industrial relations
poor relationships with customers and possible litigation
Not suprising that we are losing so many crew then is it really?
Now lets be candid here.
You accuse me of padding out my roster to get the maximum amount of hours, well lets look at how rediculous that statement is!!
LGW only has 9 routes all apart for BDA they are of similar length, You get 1 back to back per month and thirty six days leave.
Yes I am mainly doing nightstops with 3 MBTR.
It still will work out at around 1000 hours per year.
You can't argue the truth we only have 9 routes how hard can it be, I also state that LGW WW is considered easy within BA which it is.
I accept that I am paid OK but the Main crew I work with are not and main crew are the majority of Cabin crew followed by Purser's and in the smallest minority are CSD's, infact there are a hell of a lot less CSD's than Captains.
After all all flights have Captains not all flights have CSD's.
Now the main crew at LGW are taking home between 850 and 1300 per month and out of that they have to find money to pay their diners bill.
Don't dream that that is better than Virgin or ryan or easy because it isn't.
Genuinely if the rule to make you take your leave and also take it in fortnight blocks come in, many main crew would struggle to pay their bills.
If BA benchmarked them against other European carriers they would be shocked at the result.
All the European carriers work part time comparatively, and for better money.
The truth is that for some reason you feel that Cabin crew have is too easy, may I ask where your department is and if you work for BA courage?
If any crew managed two hours in the bunks on a CAI flight there couldn't have been any pax.
PS if a crew member had two hours in the bunk that means that the crew had a minimum of 4 hours to give to organise rest.
Get real its not possible on a CAI.
Courage yet again incorrect.
The sickness monitoring is three occasions or 20 days, not just 3 occasions, some crew have had operations and found themselves in the programme on their first occasion.
Infact some crew get upset as many who normally have good records find themselves in the programme due to road trafic accidents ect.
Any issues of sickness within cabin crew as I have said before can be improved by bringing in a fair and equitable system of rostering.
Sickness is a symptom of malcontentmant, as such by your own admission all is not well within Cabin Services.
All cabin crew within BA suffer six of the seven major work related stresses, see below the article came from ''Edge'', the magazine of The Institute of Leadership and Management, March 2004. and thanx to AB.
The seven Major Work Related Stresses.
Culture (eg. long hours culture)
Demands (exposure to physical hazards and workload. Shift work)
Control (employee control over how they do their work, control v. demand)
Relationships (eg harassment / bullying)
Change (it's management and communication to staff)
Role ( employee understands role, jobs clearly defined, eg conflicting roles avoided)
Support, training and factors unique to the individual ( support from peers and line managers, training for core functions)
The most damaging effects of organisational stress are:
high absenteeism
poor job performance
low morale
low commitment
increased incidence of accidents
difficult industrial relations
poor relationships with customers and possible litigation
Not suprising that we are losing so many crew then is it really?
Now lets be candid here.
You accuse me of padding out my roster to get the maximum amount of hours, well lets look at how rediculous that statement is!!
LGW only has 9 routes all apart for BDA they are of similar length, You get 1 back to back per month and thirty six days leave.
Yes I am mainly doing nightstops with 3 MBTR.
It still will work out at around 1000 hours per year.
You can't argue the truth we only have 9 routes how hard can it be, I also state that LGW WW is considered easy within BA which it is.
I accept that I am paid OK but the Main crew I work with are not and main crew are the majority of Cabin crew followed by Purser's and in the smallest minority are CSD's, infact there are a hell of a lot less CSD's than Captains.
After all all flights have Captains not all flights have CSD's.
Now the main crew at LGW are taking home between 850 and 1300 per month and out of that they have to find money to pay their diners bill.
Don't dream that that is better than Virgin or ryan or easy because it isn't.
Genuinely if the rule to make you take your leave and also take it in fortnight blocks come in, many main crew would struggle to pay their bills.
If BA benchmarked them against other European carriers they would be shocked at the result.
All the European carriers work part time comparatively, and for better money.
The truth is that for some reason you feel that Cabin crew have is too easy, may I ask where your department is and if you work for BA courage?
Last edited by heavy crew; 23rd Apr 2004 at 19:46.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh what joy these postings bring! Everyone at BA seems to hate each other...........
As an ex- BA employee I feel I can truly look at the company from a different , more rounded perspective than most on here, especially when it comes to pay etc. I worked as longhaul CC at LHR for only 4 years and was on the pre-97 contract. To be brutally frank, which other company pays its employees thousands for doing what is a basically an unskilled job? None. BA was the perfect answer for me after finishing Uni and I owe the company a lot for providing me with a very sound financial basis on which to build ...and all for throwing out chicken and beef meals 3 or 4 times a month! I left BA in 1999 and look back at the 'easy money' with a little smirk - the trip allowances on top of my basic meant generally about £2,500 - £3,000 a month after tax.
A few BA engineers and managers (admin staff!) on here seem to genuinely hate BA CC and maybe they have every reason to, but who are the real silly ones? A 6 week training course compared to an engineer's/manager's X years of training and yet I earnt more than most......hhmmmm...... Maybe I did only serve chicken or beef, but who's got the bigger house (+1 in France!) and car??
As an ex- BA employee I feel I can truly look at the company from a different , more rounded perspective than most on here, especially when it comes to pay etc. I worked as longhaul CC at LHR for only 4 years and was on the pre-97 contract. To be brutally frank, which other company pays its employees thousands for doing what is a basically an unskilled job? None. BA was the perfect answer for me after finishing Uni and I owe the company a lot for providing me with a very sound financial basis on which to build ...and all for throwing out chicken and beef meals 3 or 4 times a month! I left BA in 1999 and look back at the 'easy money' with a little smirk - the trip allowances on top of my basic meant generally about £2,500 - £3,000 a month after tax.
A few BA engineers and managers (admin staff!) on here seem to genuinely hate BA CC and maybe they have every reason to, but who are the real silly ones? A 6 week training course compared to an engineer's/manager's X years of training and yet I earnt more than most......hhmmmm...... Maybe I did only serve chicken or beef, but who's got the bigger house (+1 in France!) and car??