Really? Apparently, a return to PHX for WW over MF has been "rumoured" since about September. But how much would this cost? It's a five day trip for WW - but a three day trip for MF. And the allowances for WW are much greater. ATL is a different kettle of fish - it's a 48 hour trip on both fleets - but the much prized terms and conditions for WW make it much harder to move PHX back to WW on a permanent basis - crew costs would more than double.

There are also rumours of KL moving to MF - and guess what? The box payments (?) which netted crew members £1000 for a trip wouldn't be there - it would be a 48 hour trip (£120) with onward flight to SYD codeshared to Qantas. There will be expansion eastwards in the next few years - and since new contracts will be MF, the crew costs will be low.

At the moment, large sections of MF are in furlough, due to 900 hours - and it costs BA about £1000 per month per crew member. The fact that most of the crew can't live on that salary is a matter of supreme indifference both to the company and to the union - who don't realise that part of the reason that MF aren't joining in droves is because they literally HAVE NO MONEY. The terms and conditions for WW I guess mean that they are unlikely to reach 900 hours. But any routes that the company can realistically change from long WW trips to short MF trips, without starting a strike, they will do so. Small tokens are being tossed to MF - day off after overnight back from Africa etc - but it's still going to be incredibly easy to get 900 hours flying out of them for around £16000.

There are plenty of people who are prepared to work - but it's in spite, rather than because of Ts and Cs - and a fair number in ignorance. A noticeable number leave after a few months to go back to previous jobs. There are few airlines, charter, loco or other, that would expect you to survive on £900 per month - especially based in London - because they have rostered all of your hours in 10 months. MF Ts and Cs are below market rate - "because they can". If bmi cabin crew are offered a choice between their existing Ts and Cs and becoming part of BA with MF Ts and Cs, I would think pretty carefully about what you want from their job ....

'There are a lot of willing candidates who are prepared to work on those Ts and Cs interviewing in droves at The Rivers: just remember how naff the charter / lo-co Ts and Cs are and even MF looks good.'
However 'naff' the charter and low cost t&c's are what people count on these days is how much they will take home at the end of the month....both low cost and charter are taking home MUCH more than MF.

tomkins,

I agree with you.

Fatehunter,

Charter crews are well paid and have considerably more time off than the rest. I know a few "junior" crew with a charter airline and some MF cabin crew too. The charter lot take home about £200 per month (minimum) more.

Just heard that BMI baby has been sold off.

Sorry if irrelevant or under the wrong topic.

Midland cabin crew current T&C are good, and pays fairly well. We are under no illusion that MF terms are better. Many of us would be unable to live on the current MF pay!!

Midland cabin crew current T&C are good, and pays fairly well. We are under no illusion that MF terms are better. Many of us would be unable to live on the current MF pay
'say again ,over'

Can we stick to the topic - as per the Header please? :ok:

HWB

Count,

Please read the post before yours...the one about sticking to the topic.

Thanks sweetie.

Point of order if I may: What is commonly known as 'Scope' applies ONLY to BA owned and operated aircraft (of 100 seats or more) flying to/from LHR/LGW. It most definitely does NOT apply to the 'brand' - see BA Cityflyer or Open Skies. Nor, crucially does it apply to 'slots'!!!

Much yet to play out here I fear!!!

PS: As we all know, IAG have chosen to totally ignore Iberia's more binding Scope clause regardless! I see no reason why they would behave differently in London, should they decide it was in their interests so to do!

Scope is dead. Safety in numbers is the only game here.

As for sticking to the point, the one that the Count is making is that he clearly has a hard on for BA pilots and BALPA. Nothing that he posts on here has content that evades his bilious excretions where BALPA is concerned.

Perhaps a recent legal judgement that allows an independent expert access to BASSA forum archives, the result of which may, or may not, prove embarassing, has generated another acid attack in the stomach of the count.

Either way BA pilots have voted in such a way as to encourage BMI pilots to have a more optimistic view of the future, bearing in mind that nothing is set in stone.


The statement, "Unlike BALPA, there is no conflict of interest within BASSA's membership." is clearly rubbish proved by the huge numbers of BASSA cabin crew who worked through the recent dispute, in addition, BASSA leadership regularly trumpeted the "more than 10,000 cabin crew in BASSA mantra" which, on the count's own admission seems to have dwindled to a mere
"7000 of which stuck together ".

Get the flea out of your backside, count, and try to do something positive!

So where will the BMI pilots be placed on the BA seniority list?

In seniority order I would guess? :p

Still to be agreed/decided. There's a 90 day consultation starting between BALPA and the BMI crew with the overriding TUPE regulations to be complied with.

As there are 3300 BA and around 300 BMI whatever is decided is unlikely to have a huge impact on things - although many will huff and puff regardless of which solution is proposed.

"There's a 90 day consultation starting between BALPA and the BMI crew"

No there isn't, that is a complete fabrication.

Yes there is, that's the law.

The law does not say that BALPA have to consult bmi crew, nor does it stipulate 90 days for TUPE consultations, nor are any such consultations starting now.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

90 days as per the law. I doubt IAG would circumvent the law?

Seriously, don't comment if you don't know what you are talking about.

There is no requirement for 90 days consultation under TUPE. Consultation yes, 90 days, no!

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

I'm curious to know what BA pilots think thay have actually voted for. I mean, they are mostly saying that bmi will be "integrated" but what do they think that actually means?

'I doubt IAG would circumvent the law?'

Probally not but whats happening at KLM/AF has probally got Walsh thinking a little.

KLM was never a good tie up with AF.I just hope he keeps IB well away from BA.