BA Cabin Crew Strike Threat
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still amused by Tristar 500s post on page 44:
So...yes!... Result! Bookings down! Let's really bugger our jobs! And let's try and shake the share price by trying to remove confidence in WW and get shareholder to sell! Where did you 'hear' the 'City' are nervous? I think everyone, City included, want the BA staff to work properly and efficiently, something some groups are most certainly not doing, led by CC at the moment. I think the problem is being 'sorted'! He needs to do what he's doing so BA doesn't go the way of Pan Am, TWA and many others!
So...yes!... Result! Bookings down! Let's really bugger our jobs! And let's try and shake the share price by trying to remove confidence in WW and get shareholder to sell! Where did you 'hear' the 'City' are nervous? I think everyone, City included, want the BA staff to work properly and efficiently, something some groups are most certainly not doing, led by CC at the moment. I think the problem is being 'sorted'! He needs to do what he's doing so BA doesn't go the way of Pan Am, TWA and many others!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is the pilots negotiated from the basis of trying to reach a settlement, had a thorough benchmarking process carried out to compare the efficiency of BA pilots in relation to other UK carriers, and have always been willing to compromise and change their ways to become more efficient. Contrast that with CC who have been paid individually to accept the Sickness process and now want it torn up, and have changed none of their ways or become more efficient. So why is this discussion turning all the time to attack the pilots on industrial issues and Pensions for goodness sake. I know the best form of defence is attack, but it's a bit appalling all you can all find to attack is the pilots! Really!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the approach to EGLL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe,
I presume that the following comments are tongue in cheek
I think you will find that there are many restrictive ("spanish") practices buried within the BA bid line rules. e.g. Do you still remember the "heavy" captain on long range routes? 
Cast your mind back a few years to '97 and you will recall that BA's Cabin Crew employed since then are on substantially reduced salaries. The recent agreement at LGW betwen BA & the Cabin Crew TUs has ensured that the LGW crew have "market rates". Actually many are leaving within a short period of time because they can't make ends meet.
May I refer you to the BA accounts for the last year:
Wages went up from £1.518bn to £1.558bn (2.6% up)
Directors emoluments went up from £2.433m to £4.900m (101% up)
Says it all really.
I presume that the following comments are tongue in cheek
..pilots.....change their ways to become more efficient
Cast your mind back a few years to '97 and you will recall that BA's Cabin Crew employed since then are on substantially reduced salaries. The recent agreement at LGW betwen BA & the Cabin Crew TUs has ensured that the LGW crew have "market rates". Actually many are leaving within a short period of time because they can't make ends meet.
May I refer you to the BA accounts for the last year:
Wages went up from £1.518bn to £1.558bn (2.6% up)
Directors emoluments went up from £2.433m to £4.900m (101% up)
Says it all really.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. The heavy Captain was looked at in the last pay reform, and the associated expense of the heavy was costed into the solution. We could have got rid of the heavy and redistributed the budgetary savings into our individual paypackets but we decided it was better to keep the command positions. Of course the cabin crew could keep the fourth pursers if they were willing to pay for it during a pay restructure, but they want to keep the purser for nothing.
Quite, but prior to 97 they were on salaries that were grossly above market rate. Since 97 they are only significantly above market rate. Remember its not just about pay, it's about how many hours flying you contribute and on Eurofleet that is not very much at all.
And long may those market rates continue. Perhaps many are leaving because they can't make ends meet, or perhaps it's because many see the job the way BA want it to be seen - a short term job and not a career. Many more are staying at LGW and they can't all be living with their parents. I suspect the problem with most of the people who can't make ends meet is not the low pay but their inability to budget/live within their means. There is an interesting thread here on the CC forum. Perhaps they should read the postings of GalleyChick who seems to survive in London on £1100-£1200 per month plus some allowances. Well within the take home of pay of any BA cabin crew member.
I agree entirely. Snouts in the trough.
Cast your mind back a few years to '97 and you will recall that BA's Cabin Crew employed since then are on substantially reduced salaries.
The recent agreement at LGW betwen BA & the Cabin Crew TUs has ensured that the LGW crew have "market rates". Actually many are leaving within a short period of time because they can't make ends meet.
May I refer you to the BA accounts for the last year:
Wages went up from £1.518bn to £1.558bn (2.6% up)
Directors emoluments went up from £2.433m to £4.900m (101% up)
Says it all really.
Wages went up from £1.518bn to £1.558bn (2.6% up)
Directors emoluments went up from £2.433m to £4.900m (101% up)
Says it all really.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: london
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
market rate my ar**
You think ba lgw pay market rates ,I picked up 950.21pds this mth with allowance . easy jet ,virgin crew payed more ,lhr crew payed more 10,500.
lgw 9,9042pa. something very wrong with this company it stinks
lgw 9,9042pa. something very wrong with this company it stinks
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: london
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
since i started in june ive only once taken home 1,100pds. my allowances, have never passed the 350 mark .i would gladly show my pay slips for all to see ,they lied at the inteveiw 500pds + per mth next time you fly out of lgw,
ask the new crew how they are finding lgw and you will get the same reply,
also ask what they where told at interveiw,the managment know all about this little problem
ask the new crew how they are finding lgw and you will get the same reply,
also ask what they where told at interveiw,the managment know all about this little problem
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Marlow UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since "sick days" are so prominent in this it seems to me that not much has changed since the '97 dispute. As I recall, about 300 people actually struck for a couple of days or so, but the airline effectively ground to a halt for the best part of 2 weeks because of the number who called in "sick". That gave an opportunity to get actual "normal" sickness numbers, and compare rates for pilots and cabin crew. At that time, I had a very low level semi-management position in BA and wrote to Sandra Mooney who was head of BAMS (med services), along the following lines.
Time off "sick" can be caused by 3 basic things.
1) - general health problems - ordinary stuff including illnesses and accidents - ALL crew (cabin and pilots) should be same as general population or better as general health is something of a selection requirement, and age profile is somewhat better than general population.
2) "Job induced" sickness - includes food poisoning / stomach upsets down route, effects of altitude, circadian rhythm (timechange and shifts) etc, humidity, physical accidents e.g due turbulence etc.. These are real and outside general population numbers. Also some general health issues e.g colds etc are more significant for crew due to the altitude/humidity factors, hence generfal advice not to fly with these conditions. Some of these are likely to be the same for pilots as for CC. others more severe for CC as their job is definitely more physical
3) "Social" sickness taking unscheduled time off and using health as as an excuse. In my experience this was virtually unknown in the pilot group but widely accepted as necessary among cabin crew.
My suggestion to Dr Mooney was that BA Med Svcs ought to get a grip on the whole issue of "crew sickness", and if they did this analysis objectively they could help the airline enormously, because in my opinion the key to it was putting some numbers to what I guessed would be a vastly different "social sickeness" rate between pilots and CC. You'd then have to ask why does this difference exist, and a bit of research would show that pilots actually HAD had a higher social sickness rate many years earlier, so why had it gone down?
That would lead to the root of BA's problem, which can be summarised as "who controls your life?". As a result of negotiations in the 70s BA's pilots have a great deal more say in their own lives both career wise and day to day than CC do.
BA's attitude to its cabin crew was "the contract means that WE own your entire life, we will give you bits of it back when and as we see fit". The inevitable result is that individuals take back what control they really do need on an ad-hoc basis, i.e. by going "sick", and by definition this is always at very short notice. This makes it impossible to plan crewing levels effectively as although you know you will have on average say 7% call in sick, you never know what specific flight and position will be affected. So you use your "ownership iof their lives" to have lots of standbys mixed in with "planned" work, although only a few will be used on any given day. But because you think you "own" all the individuals, you are at liberty to disrupt any personal plans they have by changing their subsequent work pattern at will when you DO use them. Never mind, you have lots of standbys to call on to cover that.... making the problem worse. Neither side respects the other's position, both sides know there are plenty of standbys and no-one believes flight schedules and individual lives can be compatible with one another so why try?
Unfortunately; the impression I had then was that CC management would NEVER accept any restriction on their right to micro-manage all CC time at whim, while the CC reps would NEVER admit that in fact, the social sickness DID occur on a massive scale, or that they could actually trust their own members to act responsibly.
Med services clearly thought it was way too hot a topic and wouldn't go near it. So here we are 10 years later, and still no-one seemes to want to face up to what's really going on. They've cut the sickness down from 22 to 12 days by draconian methods which ostensibly assume that all sickness is related to health issues, when much of it isn't about health at all, though neither side can actually admit it because of the impact it would have on their proclaimed "policy"!
Reps can't admit that their members DO fake it, management can't admit that it's their scheduling systems that causes it. End result - poor bloody passengers get screwed around and the airline goes down the tubes.
Has anything much changed? I'm out of the loop but it doesn't look like it from here. Sadly, I'll be on EZ instead of BA tomorrow.
End of rant.
Time off "sick" can be caused by 3 basic things.
1) - general health problems - ordinary stuff including illnesses and accidents - ALL crew (cabin and pilots) should be same as general population or better as general health is something of a selection requirement, and age profile is somewhat better than general population.
2) "Job induced" sickness - includes food poisoning / stomach upsets down route, effects of altitude, circadian rhythm (timechange and shifts) etc, humidity, physical accidents e.g due turbulence etc.. These are real and outside general population numbers. Also some general health issues e.g colds etc are more significant for crew due to the altitude/humidity factors, hence generfal advice not to fly with these conditions. Some of these are likely to be the same for pilots as for CC. others more severe for CC as their job is definitely more physical
3) "Social" sickness taking unscheduled time off and using health as as an excuse. In my experience this was virtually unknown in the pilot group but widely accepted as necessary among cabin crew.
My suggestion to Dr Mooney was that BA Med Svcs ought to get a grip on the whole issue of "crew sickness", and if they did this analysis objectively they could help the airline enormously, because in my opinion the key to it was putting some numbers to what I guessed would be a vastly different "social sickeness" rate between pilots and CC. You'd then have to ask why does this difference exist, and a bit of research would show that pilots actually HAD had a higher social sickness rate many years earlier, so why had it gone down?
That would lead to the root of BA's problem, which can be summarised as "who controls your life?". As a result of negotiations in the 70s BA's pilots have a great deal more say in their own lives both career wise and day to day than CC do.
BA's attitude to its cabin crew was "the contract means that WE own your entire life, we will give you bits of it back when and as we see fit". The inevitable result is that individuals take back what control they really do need on an ad-hoc basis, i.e. by going "sick", and by definition this is always at very short notice. This makes it impossible to plan crewing levels effectively as although you know you will have on average say 7% call in sick, you never know what specific flight and position will be affected. So you use your "ownership iof their lives" to have lots of standbys mixed in with "planned" work, although only a few will be used on any given day. But because you think you "own" all the individuals, you are at liberty to disrupt any personal plans they have by changing their subsequent work pattern at will when you DO use them. Never mind, you have lots of standbys to call on to cover that.... making the problem worse. Neither side respects the other's position, both sides know there are plenty of standbys and no-one believes flight schedules and individual lives can be compatible with one another so why try?
Unfortunately; the impression I had then was that CC management would NEVER accept any restriction on their right to micro-manage all CC time at whim, while the CC reps would NEVER admit that in fact, the social sickness DID occur on a massive scale, or that they could actually trust their own members to act responsibly.
Med services clearly thought it was way too hot a topic and wouldn't go near it. So here we are 10 years later, and still no-one seemes to want to face up to what's really going on. They've cut the sickness down from 22 to 12 days by draconian methods which ostensibly assume that all sickness is related to health issues, when much of it isn't about health at all, though neither side can actually admit it because of the impact it would have on their proclaimed "policy"!
Reps can't admit that their members DO fake it, management can't admit that it's their scheduling systems that causes it. End result - poor bloody passengers get screwed around and the airline goes down the tubes.
Has anything much changed? I'm out of the loop but it doesn't look like it from here. Sadly, I'll be on EZ instead of BA tomorrow.
End of rant.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lgw wages
Seems to me a lot of new crew don't want to listen to us "old and wise" crew. I use the old and wise in the loosest form of course
Fair enough, if whoever called you and offered you the job at LGW said you would get 500 pounds allowance every month. What you and everyone else I've told have to keep in mind, is that we're a little bit over crewed at the moment, and because we have so many new crew, rostas are not of the norm at the moment. We are working mainly 3 crew at the moment on the 73, which doesn't help either. As soon as the last 3 routes are with us, you should start seeing an improvement. If it's any consolation, pursers are working their behind off at the moment, and for all the money in the world, I'd rather have some rest. The thing is, you can't please everyone all of the time. What I'd recommend you do, especially if you have lots of standbys, is to phone scheduling after 6pm the day before your home standby. That's when next day's gaps get allocated. Ask them if there are any gaps and tell them you're willing to do anything. Some crew already do this, but say no to doubles and other flights they don't like. There's a limit on how many doubles you can do anyway (read your MOA), so say yes to anything.
Also, learn all you can about the bidding system. Ask if you like, most people are happy to help. Actually, if you need some help with bidding, pm me and I'll do my best to explain it.
If you want to leave, fine. But if you want to work with fun crew who look after each other, stay with us for a while and see if things get better for you. Yes, it's unfair we don't get paid the same as Lhr, but we'll just have to deal with it. I can recommend some saving money tips as well if you like.
Fair enough, if whoever called you and offered you the job at LGW said you would get 500 pounds allowance every month. What you and everyone else I've told have to keep in mind, is that we're a little bit over crewed at the moment, and because we have so many new crew, rostas are not of the norm at the moment. We are working mainly 3 crew at the moment on the 73, which doesn't help either. As soon as the last 3 routes are with us, you should start seeing an improvement. If it's any consolation, pursers are working their behind off at the moment, and for all the money in the world, I'd rather have some rest. The thing is, you can't please everyone all of the time. What I'd recommend you do, especially if you have lots of standbys, is to phone scheduling after 6pm the day before your home standby. That's when next day's gaps get allocated. Ask them if there are any gaps and tell them you're willing to do anything. Some crew already do this, but say no to doubles and other flights they don't like. There's a limit on how many doubles you can do anyway (read your MOA), so say yes to anything.
Also, learn all you can about the bidding system. Ask if you like, most people are happy to help. Actually, if you need some help with bidding, pm me and I'll do my best to explain it.
If you want to leave, fine. But if you want to work with fun crew who look after each other, stay with us for a while and see if things get better for you. Yes, it's unfair we don't get paid the same as Lhr, but we'll just have to deal with it. I can recommend some saving money tips as well if you like.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BA CREW - want the most amount of money for the least amount of work
VS CREW - get the least amount of money for a huge amount of work
Just have to look at the happy smiling faces on a BA flight that can't be arsed to lift a finger to help and all they seemed to be interested in is how much money they can screw out of the company - just have to look at some of the stupid union agreements that contributed to BA Connects eventual downfall!
VS CREW - get the least amount of money for a huge amount of work
Just have to look at the happy smiling faces on a BA flight that can't be arsed to lift a finger to help and all they seemed to be interested in is how much money they can screw out of the company - just have to look at some of the stupid union agreements that contributed to BA Connects eventual downfall!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My other half used to work for BA but now works for BMI, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they would always used to get called out on standby for all the crap routes like Entebbe (sorry if spelt wrong) because the operating crew always had "mystery illnesses". My view is BA management should monitor sickness and if over so many days sickness a year, get doctors notes, on the side of starting pay, keep it as is, but introduce a profit share based on sickness levels and company profit levels - ie multiple sickness - lose your profit share and for colleagues that bail you out take the larger slice of the pie, thats fair!
We have even known former colleagues take long term sickness to spend 6 months in Australia to be with their boyfriend!!!
We have even known former colleagues take long term sickness to spend 6 months in Australia to be with their boyfriend!!!
Last edited by brighton_rocks; 28th Jan 2007 at 22:39. Reason: Spelling mistake
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueprint
Recently I note Rainboe had some pithy views on the reasons and future outcome of the dispute.
With the breakdown of talks and 1 day left before the strike starts, I fear BA is about to go over the abyss.
Once people are sacked for breach of contract then reinstatement is added to the list of grievances. With an Official dispute, under current UK Trade Union law, 90 days have to elapse before BA can recruit a new workforce and ignore those who have been on strike.
As they are likely to lose approx £25M pd, then we are talking of £2B of debt to be added to the £2B of pension debt. The company will not survive this burden.
It is odd that the share price went up last week, (I assumed inside knowledge of a successful outcome). Now I feel it must be a hidden bidder.
With the breakdown of talks and 1 day left before the strike starts, I fear BA is about to go over the abyss.
Once people are sacked for breach of contract then reinstatement is added to the list of grievances. With an Official dispute, under current UK Trade Union law, 90 days have to elapse before BA can recruit a new workforce and ignore those who have been on strike.
As they are likely to lose approx £25M pd, then we are talking of £2B of debt to be added to the £2B of pension debt. The company will not survive this burden.
It is odd that the share price went up last week, (I assumed inside knowledge of a successful outcome). Now I feel it must be a hidden bidder.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BA share price has gone up for two reasons.
1. The city, and large investors, are in agreement with the situation that Willie Walsh has arrived at. This a chance to bring the cabin-crew to heal, at last, after many years.
2. A hostile bid is about to be made for BA. When that happens new contracts of employment will be offered. The optimum share price for BA is £8 per share. So at £5.35 the shares are extremely cheap. The cabin crew strike will only help keep the price depressed and a buy-out more likely.
IMHO ... hang on to your shares!
1. The city, and large investors, are in agreement with the situation that Willie Walsh has arrived at. This a chance to bring the cabin-crew to heal, at last, after many years.
2. A hostile bid is about to be made for BA. When that happens new contracts of employment will be offered. The optimum share price for BA is £8 per share. So at £5.35 the shares are extremely cheap. The cabin crew strike will only help keep the price depressed and a buy-out more likely.
IMHO ... hang on to your shares!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With an Official dispute, under current UK Trade Union law, 90 days have to elapse before BA can recruit a new workforce and ignore those who have been on strike.
Last edited by Human Factor; 29th Jan 2007 at 09:44.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A loophole in the law allows them to recruit long before this limit if the job description is changed. This does not mean that the job itself is changing. It is also not unknown for strikers to be told that their job is ending and unless they accept a new job (read new job description), they will have to leave. In law, that is deemed to be a resignation, ergo no compensation. Don't put it past them....
God knows I'm getting it quoted at me by CC all the time. I'm very surprised that a union would make a statement like that to be honest. No doubt that page will vanish if BA do start taking action.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to pick a fight at all. I'm surprised BASSA hasn't furnished people with the information as striking involves taking a few risks. I remember a lot of us badgered BALPA when a pilot's strike looked likely and they provided us with all the information we needed. We were never told that you couldn't be sacked for striking because it's incorrect.
Granted, it's not necessarily either a good or easy decision for a company to sack strikers as compensation has to be paid if the strike is legal, as this one appears to be. However, the compensation is limited to a maximum of £58000 (under some circumstances, it may even be a cheaper option to pay that than retain staff) and there is no requirement to reinstate.
I posted a reference a few posts back to the DTI website which has a lot of this information.
Granted, it's not necessarily either a good or easy decision for a company to sack strikers as compensation has to be paid if the strike is legal, as this one appears to be. However, the compensation is limited to a maximum of £58000 (under some circumstances, it may even be a cheaper option to pay that than retain staff) and there is no requirement to reinstate.
I posted a reference a few posts back to the DTI website which has a lot of this information.