BA cabin crew threaten to poison pilots
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
difference is on the BALPA forum we don't hide behind an alias, yes there are threads from time to time on Cabin Crew, but by inlarge the debate is kept at an altogether more mature level than what I read on the BASSA forum, and threats of a physical nature are definitly not made.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Da Dog
difference is on the BALPA forum we don't hide behind an alias, yes there are threads from time to time on Cabin Crew, but by inlarge the debate is kept at an altogether more mature level than what I read on the BASSA forum, and threats of a physical nature are definitly not made.
I have to wonder half the time if the things that some people (BA pilots included) say on here behind the safety of anonymity and a screen name would be said in person on the aircraft, or downroute at the bar?
And, just out of curiousity, how do you read the BASSA forum? Under the terms of use of said forum:
"Upon registration you accept our terms and conditions and must provide a REAL NAME and VALID EMAIL ADDRESS"
and
"You MUST be a member of BASSA Worldwide or Eurofleet."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC.......please don't try and derail the debate, fact is a very specific threat was made against one of my collegues, a complaint has been made, it is irelevent if it was made in gest or not.
Está servira para distraerle.
No it is not!
Either will do, although the J word is the more common parlance since 1470.
What a joke!
In any event, is not this thread drifting away from matters Hemlockian?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da Dog - not trying to 'derail' the thread. As I've already said, the appropriateness of the joke is questionable, but nonetheless - if 'official' complaints are going to be made then the source of the comment and it's context will need to be examined, and so I feel it's therefore a relevant question as to how you accessed the private site on which the comment was posted.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even in jest, this fills me with horror.
Reading this thread, this may have grown bigger than it probably was intended, but eye drops, right hand yoghurts???
Why is there so much 'Them and us' between Flight Deck and Cabin Crew? and is this in all airlines?. Personal interest here, of who not to fly with.
Outragous
Reading this thread, this may have grown bigger than it probably was intended, but eye drops, right hand yoghurts???
Why is there so much 'Them and us' between Flight Deck and Cabin Crew? and is this in all airlines?. Personal interest here, of who not to fly with.
Outragous
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beril, for the purposes of your decision making in 'who not to fly with'...
Stories such as the 'right hand yoghurt' etc have circulated for donkeys years, and among all crew at all airlines. Most of them are probably urban myth, and as i've already stated, in 8 years of flying at 5 different carriers working with literally thousands of different crewmembers, I've only once had cause to question a colleagues integrity (and that was whilst working for a US carrier and not BA).
All airlines have their moments, remember the two seperate stories about Northwest Airlines F/A's putting Gravol or Brandy into a baby's juice?
I've heard more tales of 'putting things into customers food' whilst working in hotel and catering than I have in the airlines, and I've never been witness to any such thing happening at BA. 99% of the colleagues I work with aim to provide a great on board service. The other 1% aim to get through the day with as little work as possible. 0% in my experience would purposefully poison a pilot's (or passengers) food.
Stories such as the 'right hand yoghurt' etc have circulated for donkeys years, and among all crew at all airlines. Most of them are probably urban myth, and as i've already stated, in 8 years of flying at 5 different carriers working with literally thousands of different crewmembers, I've only once had cause to question a colleagues integrity (and that was whilst working for a US carrier and not BA).
All airlines have their moments, remember the two seperate stories about Northwest Airlines F/A's putting Gravol or Brandy into a baby's juice?
I've heard more tales of 'putting things into customers food' whilst working in hotel and catering than I have in the airlines, and I've never been witness to any such thing happening at BA. 99% of the colleagues I work with aim to provide a great on board service. The other 1% aim to get through the day with as little work as possible. 0% in my experience would purposefully poison a pilot's (or passengers) food.
Está servira para distraerle.
On May 15th, 1930, Ellen Church became the first woman to fly as an air hostess when she flew for Boeing Air Transport, later to become United Airlines.
Standards were high in those days. Perhaps they are not quite as demanding today?
The requirements for stewardesses in the 1930s were strict. In addition to being registered nurses, the women had to be single, younger than 25 years old; weigh less than 115 pounds; and stand less than 5 feet, 4 inches tall.
Would that this were so today!
Perhaps a knowledge of poison is the one remaining link between the high standards of past recruitment and those of the present.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC - We have to remain anonymous on here because we've seen how your community react when someone has the audacity to write something controversial in BA News - lots of threats of poisoning followed by "I was only joking" when it looks like they're going to get into the trouble. You're like the naughty boy caught with his hand in the biscuit jar who says he was going to put the biscuit back!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC - I suspect Da Dog is either c/crew or co-habits with one or more of them of any of the genders, and therefore can access the site. Any resulting inappropriate access is the responsibility of the site members and there is not much that can be done.
Da Dog - let's hope some of the folk you have abused on PPRune with your posts do not press charges?
I must admit, some BA flight crew do seem to relish putting themselves 'at risk' with their unique approach to working with c/crew. The temptation to 'adjust' their supplies must be intolerable in some cases. Perhaps all BA flight decks should carry a 'heavy' food taster.
Da Dog - let's hope some of the folk you have abused on PPRune with your posts do not press charges?
I must admit, some BA flight crew do seem to relish putting themselves 'at risk' with their unique approach to working with c/crew. The temptation to 'adjust' their supplies must be intolerable in some cases. Perhaps all BA flight decks should carry a 'heavy' food taster.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
YYC - We have to remain anonymous on here because we've seen how your community react when someone has the audacity to write something controversial in BA News - lots of threats of poisoning followed by "I was only joking" when it looks like they're going to get into the trouble. You're like the naughty boy caught with his hand in the biscuit jar who says he was going to put the biscuit back!
Many of us are able to debate the issue sensibly and without jokes or deragatory comments. Just as there are cabin crew quick to 'slam' flight crew who make remarks about them, so are there pilots (many on here!) who are quick to slam cabin crew who try and post a different point of view.
Ah, but presenting a balanced view isn't nearly as much fun as accusing all cabin crew of being reactionary and 'caught with their hand in the cookie jar'...
Back on topic, and to re-iterate, I do not support (whether in humour or otherwise) discussion such as putting eye drops into coffee etc. I think you'll find most of my (your!) cabin crew colleagues agree.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of us are able to debate the issue sensibly and without jokes or deragatory comments
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYC, Mitty might be right, put it this way I did'nt put a gun to anyones head
Mitty maybe you could post a link to a thread where I have threatened someone physically?
Ozzie O glad your still trying to score points on the spelling front, looking at the wealth of illiterate ramblings over on the BASSA forum it truly must keep you busy. How do you spell boeing again?
Mitty maybe you could post a link to a thread where I have threatened someone physically?
Ozzie O glad your still trying to score points on the spelling front, looking at the wealth of illiterate ramblings over on the BASSA forum it truly must keep you busy. How do you spell boeing again?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo - With regard to EF scheduling...
More and more of the trips are minimum rest, with links added to the beginning and the end of multi-day trips. BA uses Carmen which, supposedly, constructs the trips in the most economical way / maximum efficiency within the current Industrial Agreements.
The main 'gripe' from Flight Ops and other departments with regard to EF scheduling seems to revolve around the CAT and Compass turnarounds. Two things here:
First, we could go 'a la midland' and do multi-sector trips on the same aircraft with no break. I did my fair share of 4 and 5 sector DUB and BFS trips at BD. Fact is, they ARE tiring, and whilst BD might be more 'efficient' in their scheduling, ask anyone who is ex. Midland on their views about this... they'll say the same thing - great crew, but knackering - and that's one of the reasons why BA is able to swoop up so many ex. BD crew. Better T&C. Also, as you know, we did trial fixed links, but the whole thing fell apart over disagreements with other areas such as CSD on EF etc.
Second, we're back to the allowances thing again. Midland (and Easy, and the Charters) all have a higher basic than BA new contract crew. Remember that 'new contract' guys now represent 65%+ of main crew on EF now. Whilst the basic pay is what it is, the union will fight to protect the allowance system which is the only way that the pay is able to come out decent. If we look at getting rid of CAT's and Compass turnarounds, thereby reducing potential allowance earnings, then the basic pay will have to be relooked at. It's not something the company is particularly keen to do. Much cheaper to have pensionable pay set at £10k a year and exclude all those allowaces!
I support efficiencies with scheduling, but the issue is more complex (allowances etc.) than just slashing turnaround times.
The North American system of block hours where one works 75 block hours a month gives crew the option to bid for 'light days' with extended turnarounds and long layovers and good $$ for per diem, but you need to work more days to meet your monthly quota. Alternatively, you can work more 'efficient' days such as 8hour hard time 'there and backs', less $$ for per diem, but you max out quicker and get more days off. Crew have more control over lifestyle, and the company wins too...
It's a totally different system from the BA Cabin Crew agreement, but maybe something like that is what we need? However, I doubt it would ever happen as the company and the union just wouldn't see eye to eye over losses to allowances etc, and quite frankly, for new contract crew, we can't afford to lose the allowances.
Final note - with the 767 longhaul flying coming to EF, there is a real possibility that many crew will start to edge close to the 900 hours, thereby working the same number of hours as the Flight Crew community.
More and more of the trips are minimum rest, with links added to the beginning and the end of multi-day trips. BA uses Carmen which, supposedly, constructs the trips in the most economical way / maximum efficiency within the current Industrial Agreements.
The main 'gripe' from Flight Ops and other departments with regard to EF scheduling seems to revolve around the CAT and Compass turnarounds. Two things here:
First, we could go 'a la midland' and do multi-sector trips on the same aircraft with no break. I did my fair share of 4 and 5 sector DUB and BFS trips at BD. Fact is, they ARE tiring, and whilst BD might be more 'efficient' in their scheduling, ask anyone who is ex. Midland on their views about this... they'll say the same thing - great crew, but knackering - and that's one of the reasons why BA is able to swoop up so many ex. BD crew. Better T&C. Also, as you know, we did trial fixed links, but the whole thing fell apart over disagreements with other areas such as CSD on EF etc.
Second, we're back to the allowances thing again. Midland (and Easy, and the Charters) all have a higher basic than BA new contract crew. Remember that 'new contract' guys now represent 65%+ of main crew on EF now. Whilst the basic pay is what it is, the union will fight to protect the allowance system which is the only way that the pay is able to come out decent. If we look at getting rid of CAT's and Compass turnarounds, thereby reducing potential allowance earnings, then the basic pay will have to be relooked at. It's not something the company is particularly keen to do. Much cheaper to have pensionable pay set at £10k a year and exclude all those allowaces!
I support efficiencies with scheduling, but the issue is more complex (allowances etc.) than just slashing turnaround times.
The North American system of block hours where one works 75 block hours a month gives crew the option to bid for 'light days' with extended turnarounds and long layovers and good $$ for per diem, but you need to work more days to meet your monthly quota. Alternatively, you can work more 'efficient' days such as 8hour hard time 'there and backs', less $$ for per diem, but you max out quicker and get more days off. Crew have more control over lifestyle, and the company wins too...
It's a totally different system from the BA Cabin Crew agreement, but maybe something like that is what we need? However, I doubt it would ever happen as the company and the union just wouldn't see eye to eye over losses to allowances etc, and quite frankly, for new contract crew, we can't afford to lose the allowances.
Final note - with the 767 longhaul flying coming to EF, there is a real possibility that many crew will start to edge close to the 900 hours, thereby working the same number of hours as the Flight Crew community.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This letter in the BA news has accomplished everything the management wanted to....a bit of BA news propaganda. It has raised an issue that management obviously wanted raised, BA wide. Its not just the pilots and EF crew that are talking about it. WW crew are talking about it. Engineers, baggage handlers and check in staff are no doubt talking about it. And obviously about the issue at hand.....the amount of flying that EF crew do.
I am cabin crew @ LHR WW (post '97 contract). I have been suprised the amount of conversation that has been going on in 747 and 777 galleys about the letter and conditions on EF. I am ex EF and many on WW are quite shocked when I tell them about the turn around times, CAT payments etc.
Point is, the management would love to have the fleets, and indeed different departments, calling for each others T&C's to be reduced.
But fact is, BA being BA and with it's history, most departments operate to working practices that would seldom be seen at other carriers. It isn't just the CC. It's the baggage handlers, check-in staff, dispatchers....and oh yes who could forget the BUS DRIVERS.
I read the F/O's letter and I think it is everyones right to raise an issue they feel passionate about, or express an opinion they feel strongly about.
BUT...the guy has to work with the people he is complaining about on a day-to-day basis!! WHY THE HELL ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LETTER WHEN YOU COULD HAVE PUT 'NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED'???
Eh ho.
And on the 'POISONING' subject. The original post in this thread starter from the Bassa website has been edited. Following the eye drop statement, the posted continued....'and before anyone jumps down my throat I am only joking'.....
Keeps ;-)
I am cabin crew @ LHR WW (post '97 contract). I have been suprised the amount of conversation that has been going on in 747 and 777 galleys about the letter and conditions on EF. I am ex EF and many on WW are quite shocked when I tell them about the turn around times, CAT payments etc.
Point is, the management would love to have the fleets, and indeed different departments, calling for each others T&C's to be reduced.
But fact is, BA being BA and with it's history, most departments operate to working practices that would seldom be seen at other carriers. It isn't just the CC. It's the baggage handlers, check-in staff, dispatchers....and oh yes who could forget the BUS DRIVERS.
I read the F/O's letter and I think it is everyones right to raise an issue they feel passionate about, or express an opinion they feel strongly about.
BUT...the guy has to work with the people he is complaining about on a day-to-day basis!! WHY THE HELL ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LETTER WHEN YOU COULD HAVE PUT 'NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED'???
Eh ho.
And on the 'POISONING' subject. The original post in this thread starter from the Bassa website has been edited. Following the eye drop statement, the posted continued....'and before anyone jumps down my throat I am only joking'.....
Keeps ;-)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get your facts straight..
Originally Posted by The Moo
Firstly the pilots did have the same agreements but gave them up for a pay restructure which most did very nicely out of or indeed one day will ( and I take the point a very small % lost out ) A large no. of pilots resent the cabin crew working practises as they feel there union sold them down the river
Secondly they are called agreements ie. all parties company,unions, employees agreed to these working practises.
Thirdly if they think these agreements are so good I hear they are still recruiting crew at the rivers www.britishairwaysjobs.com.
Secondly they are called agreements ie. all parties company,unions, employees agreed to these working practises.
Thirdly if they think these agreements are so good I hear they are still recruiting crew at the rivers www.britishairwaysjobs.com.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by keeperboy
WHY THE HELL ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LETTER WHEN YOU COULD HAVE PUT 'NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED'???
I'm sure you'll remember the letter of about a year-and-a-half ago from a LGW CSD, Yode O(somthing). Yode's a lovely guy but many took great offence from his letter and it kicked up mass anger in the crew community. Again, this was another letter that most people would look to withold their identity from, but Yode had his name, rank and base published.
It's either bravery (i.e. not giving a sh1t about what people think as a result of thier opinions) or simply an effort to make a name for themselves; be it good or bad.
To the writer of the letter in the BA News, while I haven't actually read the letter as I haven't been in work for two weeks, I have to applaud his candor and congratulate him for sharing his opinion without hiding behind anonymity. Regardless of one's take on the subject of the correspondence, that's truly admirable.