Quote from WW. "Haven't stopped laughing!!!! At least we agree on something JT!!
Unfortunately it was your unions members who helped set up a low paid CC unit at LHR." But wasn't it BASSA that helped set up a low paid CC unit at LGW? :hmm:

Of course those pilots and cabin crew who may be shut out of the Holiday Pay settlement, are now trying to play the discrimination card. They want their cake and eat it. Sorry that doesn't wash.

There must be a benefit and even an advantage for those paying fees to a professional body, who negotiates with an employer on their behalf. This is where there is conflict in the psyche of pilots. Most are right wing Tories who do not believe in unions, and even denigrate achievement by calling organised labour, or institutions like BALPA a " self serving cartel".

8029848s

You may well be right when you suggest it would be wrong for the company to pay union members and non-union members differently going forwards. I'd be surprised if that applies to the back pay though. Union members had to have their names updated every three months throughout the legal process, in order to be legally entitled to back pay of more than three months. The unions' point with this letter, is that if they pay any more than the legal minimum, they'll be taking the Michael when they then come along cap in hand for further cost savings in the near future. I think it is all a bit hypocritical when you consider that they negotiated a non-legal minimum payout for the ex-BMI pilots within BA though, so I'm expecting the full back pay for all. I'm sure the company likes to consider itself a fair and law abiding company. It has been legally determined that the company should have been paying this money. Whether they are legally forced to provide back pay or not, a fair employer would, and that's why I think BA will. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, BA is a very fair employer.

BALPA save BA money!
 

The company has agreed a holiday payment for the former BMI pilots (as non-claimants). Are all of these pilots BALPA members? If not then queue 'unequal treatment' claim by non union BA pilots :)

Jockster:

Holiday pay "going forward": BA do have to treat them all equally from the settlement date, in a union or not.

"Back Holiday Pay": As GS-Alpha has said there is is no requirement in law to pay "back holiday pay" to non members covering the period from the start of the legal proceedings until the settlement, since those pilots were not involved in those proceedings - they were not named as claimants.

GS-Alpha

I'd agree that in some areas BA are more fair than many people give them credit for, but the board has a duty to shareholders and a bottom line to consider. They are now facing a very large bill (tens of millions STG) and if they can still legally avoid paying some of it......though tactically it might suit them to pay everybody and then plead broke when it comes to the annual pay round :rolleyes:

Jockster, the ex-BMI guys were claimants so you'll have to think of another cunning plan.

My post above, was simply about the amount of settlement for ex-BMI guys. The BALPA members among them were all claimants. The actual value of the backpay has been settled out of court so is not necessarily what would have been achieved through the courts. My point was that I suspect the BMI claimants would have got slightly less had it gone to court, but then so might the rest of the BA pilots. Such is the nature of an out of court settlement though. I do not believe BA are 'legally required' to backpay non-claimants, and a claim started right now, can only demand up to three months of back pay.

Wiggy

Yes indeed. This is precisely what the second thing to upset a lot of BA BALPA members this week, was all about.

Count:
Must be a bitter disappointment to you (and BALPA!) that the employer has decided to settle with ALL EMPLOYEES. Meaning all the cabin crew that left BASSA and supported BA during the failed IA will receive the payout too!

Happy days!

Well done to this company for deciding to apply the holiday pay ruling to ALL.

I think this is a good thing. Yes, I pay my 1% to a union, but in the spirit of tolerance and understanding, I have no problem whatsoever in wanting ALL of the workforce to benefit from an allowances system which has been proved to be unfair in a court.

BALPA, and other unions do a great deal of good for their members...

Legal Advice & Representation
Industrial Support
Employment issues advice
Free initial personal legal advice
Access to BALPA Financial Solutions
Access to BALPA website and forums
Bi-monthly Log Magazine!!

Lots of advice and support on offer. But some individuals have different circumstances and attitudes and don't feel that they need this support. Or maybe they have their own support networks and don't feel that they can justify the cost of this added 'insurance'. That's fine! There's no right or wrong answer.

As for negotiating Ts&Cs with an employer, if you go it alone it may be difficult or impossible to effect a change. The company may not negotiate with an individual. You'll just have to accept what's been given.

Whereas I know that I have a team of capable chaps who will fight the battles for me. Yes, they sometimes get it wrong, or misread the sentiments of their members, or are boxed into a 'poor' settlement by the company, but by and large I have the security of knowing that they are on my side, and personally speaking they remove a level of anxiety from my life.

So whilst I understand that the union's job is to look after its members, I certainly do not begrudge ANY of those who benefit from its collective bargaining power.

wessexdriver72 - (ps.. is that your age!!!)

I am a BA BALPA member too and initially was a bit disappointed that those who were not willing to contribute to the fight will still gain. However, I understand that the legal advice probably meant that BA had no choice and have therefore tried to 'dress it up' as a gift from a caring employer!!! They are an excellent employer, but not a favourite uncle!!!

However, I am very pleased that the back-pay will go to those people who had the courage of their convictions to leave bassa. It would have been VERY harsh if they had missed out.

Not to mention the brave ones who left BALPA!
A little birdie tells me 380 rejoined BASSA in the past few weeks. Wonder if they'll leave now :rolleyes:

Given BASSA's history with numbers that'll be about 7 in reality I would expect.

Nice to see BASSA, once again, tugging on the coat tails of BALPA's proactive stance. Bit like the pensions deal and the HMRC deal, oops, forgot, BASSA said you couldn't negotiate with the tax man and went it alone. Losing their members money.
:ugh:

Like it or not Wirby boy - we're moving closer together. Your union's trying to find a spine for the final showdown that's about to hit us.:p

Presumably if BALPA is trying to find a spine, BASSA must be trying to find a brain?

There will be an exodus of BA pilots out of BALPA as soon as the Holiday Pay is coughed up. That is all many are waiting for.

Hardly much "spine" there for when Willie comes knocking on your door.

Perhaps Wirblesturm can inform us how the alleged superior intellect of BA's pilots, through elegant and intelligent negotiations with BA, have ended up on an hourly rate paid in Sterling? Against a range of currencies throughout the world, the UK Pound has collapsed, but BASSA has retained allowances locally and uplifted whenever the Pound drops. :D

I very much doubt it. Would you care to put a number (even a rough guess) on the size of that "exodus", or are you going to be deliberately vague?

Perhaps you could explain why the CC who have a lean month or a leave month or a month with lots of unused airport standbys (because their colleagues don't have a problem pulling a sickie or doing a 'Duncan') complain and worry so much as their variable pay makes up such a large proportion of their non pensionable pay? The look of shock when a disruption affects their next trip and that wonderful 'non sterling' linked box payment disappears into another 'available'. The annoyance of a 'lean' month when the pay packet won't cover the lifestyle. Or the inability to get specific destinations unless they are a request trip as the seniors always do them for the box payments.

Obviously the long term financial benefits of an increased, more stable, accountable basic pay and a reduced variable pay removing the 'cherry trips' and basing your roster on lifestyle choices was such a stupid move against the vagaries of the financial money markets, how could we have entertained it. Sterling only ever drops doesn't it Count, it never climbs does it, imagine a bizarre world where the £ buys $2.20, unimaginable. The increase in basic makes paying the bills easier and more reliable, it benefits the BARP members and allows free choice of destination not just the 'big payers' for the senior crew. You know like the ones that the BASSA council members were buying off the allocator who was dismissed? Surely you remember, you used him to deliver your strike mandate? Oh the 'fairness' of it all, BA Senior Stewards Association at it's best.

I am afraid Wibblestime that the B of E will be rolling those QE printing presses for a long time to come, and the chances of U$2.20 to the Pound may not occur for a decade or more. Parity with the Dollar is more likely. How does that fit in with your budget?

You conveniently forget your own departments problems with regard to favoured trips when the hourly rate was introduced. I remember a BALPA rep having to promise the company the problem of sickness on the NRT route was being addressed. All of a sudden that became a very junior trip. So no lectures please about cabin crew attendance.

As for Mixed Fleet reducing IFCE costs, the fleet has just had a pay rise and they can potentially earn more than Gatwick based cabin crew. I suppose the turnover was just too high to sustain? Over 1,000 MF crew now belong to UNITE and with the Legacy Purser name change, it cannot be long before there is a full merger.

You know it makes sense.

That was always the plan with Mixed Fleet. The contract was written to be flexible and adapt as needs arose. Flexibility? BASSA didn't even know what that word meant hence their demise.

Irrespective of how many CC join BASSA/Unite the BASSA of old is no more, they have no teeth anymore and most of the members would be vary wary of following the drivel from the head seat/ Branch Secretary again before leaping into ludicrous, destructive IA. The CC need representation, I have always believed that, they just didn't need the old BASSA. In fact no one did.

It doesn't need to, that's the point. :ugh:

As for QE, I think we will see that change when the prime aim of the B of E becomes growth not inflation capping. The gains of having allowances paid in local currency pale into insignificance as soon as a trip is dropped or lost. What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. I would rather have the increase in pensionable basic thank you.

and...

The new Canadian chap is not a fan of QE and opposed it fully in Canada. I don't think we'll see parity with the $ Count. Not in our lifetime. $1.50 - $1.65 is a good export figure.

For every small decrease in the pound versus overseas currency the cost to BA of WW and EF operating it becomes greater eroding that route's profitability. Put another way it makes MF more desirable in that route. There are an additional 1000 MF coming on line this year - why and where will they fly to?

BASSA has never thought beyond the immediate, their "thinkers" are purely tactical not strategic. Enjoy the currency changes while they work in your favour.

On a separate point. What will happen to box payments and other variable pay for cabin crew when the legal ramifications of HP are worked through. A fixed payment each month perhaps?

Count

FWIW I was on the fleet involved at the time, and yes there were lots of scare stories about work coverage.... Did this Rep tell you how he/she/BALPA intended to carry through on this "promise"?

FWIW I did plenty of NRTs after the allowances change and I certainly don't recall any tweaks being offered, e.g. a Destination Payment :ok:, in order to make NRT more attractive. Whilst the trip did indeed "go junior" the names that turned up at briefing at LHR were normally those that had been "in the frame" at roster publication several weeks before report. I certainly didn't see any evidence of an attendance problem.