British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[Glamgirl]

MissM,

So basically your only safety concern about reduced crewing levels is covering doors 5 during safety demo?

That means that crewing levels on the 777 is perfectly fine as it is now (same as LGW), right? The only thing that needs changing then is for someone to cover doors 5, or as I've said before, CAA are happy with the change during demo, so why fret so much?

Is there, currently, any crew member on board the 747 who doesn't have a demo position? They could easily be covering doors 5 if it was really necessary.

Gg

[SlideBustle]

New thread on the bassa forum which has pages full of freplies is are you prepared to strike until BA shuts if you have to. Loads of people saying yes, and rhetoric of ''if we're coming down they can come down with us'' ''bring hjimdown'' ''don't let him get away with it'' ''if ww allows this it will be the end of him in the aviation industry'' (ironic!) and various other nonsence ''we haven't anything to lose as if they go ahead it will be a job not worth working for anyway'' or statements to that effect!!! They are also encouraging ''talking'' to crew in briefings and handing out newsletters and emails for us crew who ''have our heads in the sand'' - haha ironic!!

It would be comical if it weren't so serious an so many people's jobs were at risk!!

[Tiramisu]

Miss M,
I frequently work on 767 aircrafts with 6 crew. One crew less for me since the 1st of December means not having a Purser to manage the Euro Traveller cabin. No big deal.

These are the changes implemented by BA, very reasonable changes that you and your union BASSA refer to as 'imposition.' We have been working with these changes without too much of a problem. Willie Walsh our CEO will never remove these small changes, as they are in place and they work and frankly, if it was my business, neither would I.
BASSA supporters of Strike action need to get their heads round this, they are wasting their time. It's almost as if they have nothing better to do. They are making a mockery of BA and BA Cabin Crew and it's beginning to get a little tiresome.

I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above are my views and not those of my employer's.

[Desertia]

HiFlyer said:

Desertia - your idea about an EGM is a good one - in an ideal world. But in this frightening world of bullyboy Unionism I'm afraid we wouldn't stand a chance. I really can't impress on people enough about how intimidating and frightening it is being in the middle of this. Don't forget there are 14000 cabin crew, 10000 belong to UNITE so it is not a drop in the ocean. It is a HUGE monster, and we are just a few who dare to speak out.

But HiFlyer, everyone knows BASSA is a democracy. They told us so!

[SlideBustle]

Tiramisu,

First off hope you enjoy a nice rest after what must have been a very tiring day!

I too have flown with 7 crew on a Band 4 on 767, and also 321 with high Club loads with 5 crew (where the Club load would previously have triggered a 6th) and there was no great hardship. OK, so may have had to work harder, and less time to read newspapers etc... but it is no big deal some crew are making out ''what if the Captain phones me on the interphone, I may have to return the galley'' etc etc YAWN!!

It can be harder if you are doing duty frees or whatever, however on short flights GVA it used to be anyway with faulty computer etc... just take trolley back to galley on 10 mins to landing and complete paperwork as before!!

Please don't strike over issues which can work if we work harder and that can save our airline and jobs.... customer service hasn't really been affected that much, obviously ratings etc have yet to be seen maybe I will be wrong but we shall see first! Let's see how we cope first please! Then again BASSA seems to seek any oppurtunity to strike so that it can retain it's power and defeat it's enemy ''Willie Walsh'' - I seriously wouldn't be surprised if BASSA balloted for strike action if BA put hot towels back on in Club Europe!!!

[MrBunker]

MissM,

Appreciate your coming on here and attempting to argue your corner but the doors 5 thing is simply not for you to call. The relevant department at the CAA have confirmed they consider it safe to conduct the operation as BA have now laid out and it's simply not in your, or my, remit to decide otherwise. Boeing say it's safe, the CAA say it's safe (as outlined in a recent ESS message with the quote from the CAA), and BA say it's safe. If you've misgivings, pass them back up the safety reporting chain but you don't get to decide ultimately, just as BASSA don't get to tell BA what products and services they should offer.

Just because BA did it in the past and now don't is simply a function of having had crew numbers in excess of the minimum legal safe complement and not a lack of safety.

You seem pretty erudite and happy to debate but, I fear, on this one, your concerns are misplaced and, contractually, not your decision.

As for the LGW/LHR leisure argument. CPT, MRU, LAS? How many crew hate the flights to these destinations because all the passengers want to do is drink? Could they be, perchance, leisure flights and, thus, "easier" to operate a la LGW?

MrB

[Lord Bracken]

Was interested to see that NW253 (with the attempted bomber), an A330-300 with 270 pax, had 8 cabin crew on board. How does that compare to a 3-class 772 of BA?

[HiFlyer14]

To your question with what should be done to meet the savings. Go back to original crewing levels, change the disruption agreement, remove telephone allowance and a two year pay freeze. Remove New Fleet and introduce a new contract on existing fleet, as originally suggested by UNITE, but there must be a clause that prevents new recruits from taking work from us and scheduling should be monitored to secure that. Seniority should remain and promotion should be based upon that on ALL contracts.

That should give them enough savings.

Miss M: We really are going round in circles here. Now you seem like a sensible, intelligent and reasonable person. Please enlighten me - in the above scenario WHERE ARE THE SAVINGS?

All the crew I talk to say, "I am willing to work harder but I don't want to lose money". I want to work harder, but keep my pay, don't you?

So where is the problem in working harder (crew complements) and saving money WITHOUT hitting our pay packets? Outsiders looking in would be jumping at the opportunity to keep their salaries intact. And that is what BA have done. Not one penny has come off our pay packets, nor will it unless the UNION spoil it all.

The one thing that the militant crew are worried about in all of this is NEW FLEET. But it doesn't have to be scary. The Union (or the new Council Representatives ) can NEGOTIATE a reasonable monthly travel payment. BA were offering up to £9000 per year for WW!!!! That means that when on leave, SEP, 24hr, and generally having a poor flying month we will still take home the same pay. It is based on last year's averages which was a good year!! All the Union (or Council Reps) need to do is verify the figures, and bingo! Then there is no fear of New Fleet taking the routes because we will be getting paid for doing them.

How can that NOT be a good thing?

My biggest fear in all of this, a fear that is far more real than New Fleet, is that in a year's time, after we have all been issued with new contracts due to BA's patience and time running out, we will be looking back at all of this and will only be able to dream about a Monthly Travel Payment and our current T&Cs.

Just as an aside - you say you will just do W2W - errr no you won't. Not if YOUR UNION have their way - you see they haven't agreed it, and they don't want you to do it. So, once again you have highlighted the fact that the Union are not representing US but their own power hungry needs.

If the militants don't see it now, then there really is no other option, other than as suggested by others, for BA to blast them out of the water. I sincerely hope that we don't all get caught in that net.

I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own view, and not that of BA.

[Tiramisu]

Highflyer,
Excellent post as always.
The problem is that no matter how many times you tell the BASSA supporters about the travel payment and what it's worth for those on worldwide, it will not sink in. The greed in some of them still feel they are being shortchanged. Until such time as and when new contracts are issued, only then perhaps will they realise what they've lost.
All very sad and sadder still that their new hero is George Galloway according to Crew Forum.
You'd think that they would at least have the intelligence to pick someone more credible.

[Nutjob]

Great post Highflyer. If only the militants would actually read it and genuinely consider what you've said. BASSA's action will see us ALL worse off. Is that really so hard to see?

[vanHorck]

Slide Bustle

I wouldn t worry too much about the thread on the Bassa forum. If it's 10 or 20 staff posting on there, just like the 5 or so here, these numbers faint into insignificance in comparison to the actual vote where thousands can give their opinion.

Perhaps more people read these forums than we think, in which case they at least get a fair idea of the different behavior of the pros and cons...
So far I ve read from only one decent Bassa supporter here (MissM) and she deserves our respect for her opinions even if we disagree, the others like VV are not worth our time, as it sounds more like old communist rhetoric of the Bresjnev years, perhaps VV is that old.......

In the end only the vote will matter as well as the subsequent checks as to it s legality and validity.

I have no doubt the vote FOR % will be lower after the sneaky 12 days and Xmas decisions taken by Bassa wihout consultation of it s members

[Stoic]

Hiflyer

My biggest fear in all of this, a fear that is far more real than New Fleet, is that in a year's time, after we have all been issued with new contracts due to BA's patience and time running out………

Hiflyer, with the greatest respect may I suggest that your greatest fear should be that in a year’s time BASSA’s actions may have seriously contributed to driving BA into insolvency. Is that what UNITE’s leadership want?

Can I urge all BA BASSA members to visit the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) website at
Pension Protection Fund

Have a look at what compensation is on offer if your employer were to become insolvent. Remember that NAPS is a huge scheme and could give rise to the “extreme circumstance” which results in even further reduced levels of compensation. The last paragraph in the Compensation section reads:

“The Pension Protection Fund has the ability to alter the levy to meet its liabilities. However, in extreme circumstances compensation could be reduced.

• Revaluation and indexation could be reduced by the Pension Protection Fund if circumstances required it.
• Levels of compensation could be reduced by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Pension Protection Fund.”

Regards
Stoic

Compensation

If you are already receiving compensation from the Pension Protection Fund and want information on your entitlements, this and relevant FAQs can be found on our members' site.
Broadly speaking the Pension Protection Fund will provide two levels of compensation which are outlined below.
1. For individuals that have reached their scheme’s normal pension age or, irrespective of age, are either already in receipt of survivors’ pension or a pension on the grounds of ill health, the Pension Protection Fund will generally pay 100% level of compensation.
In broad terms and in normal circumstances, this means a starting level of compensation that equates to 100% of the pension in payment immediately before the assessment date (subject to a review of the rules of the scheme by the Pension Protection Fund).
The part of this compensation that is derived from pensionable service on or after 6 April 1997 will be increased each year in line with the Retail Prices Index capped at 2.5%. This could, potentially, result in a lower rate of increase than the scheme would have provided.

2. For the majority of people below their scheme’s normal pension age the Pension Protection Fund will generally pay 90% level of compensation.
In broad terms and in normal circumstances, this means 90% of the pension an individual had accrued (including revaluation) immediately before the assessment date (subject to a review of the rules of the scheme by the Pension Protection Fund) and revaluation in line with the increase in the Retail Prices Index between the assessment date and the commencement of compensation payments, this revaluation being subject to a cap of 5% in respect of service from April 1997 to April 2009, and 2.5% in respect of service thereafter. These caps apply in deferment.
This compensation is subject to an overall annual cap, which, as at April 2009, equates to £28,742.69 at age 65 after the 90% has been applied. (the cap will be adjusted according to the age at which compensation comes into payment. Please refer to the current compensation cap factors).
Once compensation is in payment, the part that derives from pensionable service on or after 6 April 1997 will be increased each year in line with the Retail Prices Index, capped at 2.5%. Again, this could result in a lower rate of increase than the scheme would have provided.
In addition there will also be compensation for certain survivors.
The Pension Protection Fund has the ability to alter the levy to meet its liabilities. However, in extreme circumstances compensation could be reduced.

• Revaluation and indexation could be reduced by the Pension Protection Fund if circumstances required it.
• Levels of compensation could be reduced by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Pension Protection Fund.

[Tiramisu]

It was even mentioned at my SEP 6 months ago that doors must never be left unattended. Other airlines could have different procedures, what do I know? Maybe BA should do what

Miss M,
Please allow me to correct you, 26 years of doing SEP and it's never changed. It's always been the case that a crew member should be in the vicinity of a pair of doors. It's not necessary to have a crew menber at each door.

[wobble2plank]

I agree with Tiramisu, the procedures state quite clearly 1 crew member for each pair of doors and 1 crew member per 50 pax on the aeroplane.

Thus the minimum number of crew is realistically dictated by the number of door pairs on the aircraft.

Hence on SH it is 3 for the 319/320 and 4 for the 321. (The 4 over wing emergency exits on the 320 are considered to be 1 door pair).

Absolute minimum crewing levels are set by the aircraft manufacturer and the local Aviation Authority.

So, if other operators don't have a 'health and safety' problem with crewing with less numbers then how can it be one for BA?

As with all things in the modern world it is adapt or fail. BA MUST adapt to survive in the current and coming environments. Aviation is seen by the masses and the Government as a soft taxation target. Forget the fact that heavy shipping creates far more emissions than aviation, it is your 'luxury holiday abroad' that the Government wants to tax.

Along with the coal burning aircraft of yesteryear militant, non progressive and obstinate Unions don't belong in the current climate. Unions which are prepared to accept change and negotiate acceptable terms with the companies do. Sadly, and not entirely unpredictably, BASSA ran off screaming down the IA route after failing to enter useful negotiation. When they realised it wasn't going to wash with Willie Walsh they embarked on a 'it's not fair, it wasn't us, he's the bully' campaign.

Too late. Put the rabid BASSA animal down. Form a meaningful Union for the CC and negotiate a way into the future. To continue down this route will kill the company. Never shoot your cash cow.

[midman]

I agree with the posting above, that MissM is trying to get her point across in a coherent and mature manner, and it is worth thinking about what she posts and responding accordingly.

VV, however, is in my opinion not even BA cabin crew. He shows little knowledge of detail and seems to jump on the sloganeering bandwagon of the Socialist Worker anti-corporate rabble-rousers at every opportunity.

MissM, your reply earlier mentioned the problems with operating one down. You said several times that it was 'hard work', but not much else to convince us that the 'imposed' changes don't work. I think most of us are prepared to work harder in the current climate, especially with the prospect of keeping our current pay deal. (Pilots don't have that luxury).

The safety aspect of door 5 is, to be honest, a bit of straw clutching. The CAA mandate safety levels and BA more than fulfil those requirements.

Then you change tack and say that the problem is getting the service done in the Club cabin quickly enough for the businessmen to get their heads down and get useful rest. So now it's the time it takes to get the job done that is the issue? The company has decided that the extra time it takes is worth the cost savings achieved. That is the company's prerogative, not yours.

The points you raise about the imposed changes seem to be a collection of inconveniences, all taken from different posts on CF (that then naturally receive immediate validation from others on there), that cabin crew don't like to have to deal with. There's nothing at all which would be convincing to an outside, disinterested party, (the passengers who visit this forum?)

The argument, as stated by Unite, is merely that BA IMPOSED the changes. Unite believe the company should have merely walked away and taken the 2.61% paycut, (to be returned in 14 months), the telephone allowance, and created some Middle East back to backs (more complexity). The cost base for IFCE would have been largely untouched.

That is never going to happen.

This will go to a strike, and MissM, you have to be prepared to take the company down with you. But don't do it because you can't cover door 5, or you have to work hard for an extra half hour per sector.

Give us a compelling reason why this company should have to fail.

[midman]

MissM,

You said that the company are forcing you to work more than the 75% contract you are paid for.

Am I right in thinking 75% is six weeks on and 2 weeks off? Are they not giving you two weeks off in every eight?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ Midman ... thank you for that nice summary at Post #800.

Give us a compelling reason why this company should have to fail.

Because it surely will, especially if there is a strike, as more and more pax decide to fly with other carriers to ensure that they can reliably reach their destinations.

It does all seem so tragically pointless ...

[cym]

JAL's financial position

For those of you that say that BA wont go bust have a look at

BBC News - Japan Airlines shares fall 24% to hit a new record low

Wake up and smell the coffee before you are in a similar situation yourselves. If you vote yes and the strike goes ahead you deserve what you get - a p45 and a visit to the job centre.

[MissM]

Miss M,
Please allow me to correct you, 26 years of doing SEP and it's never changed. It's always been the case that a crew member should be in the vicinity of a pair of doors. It's not necessary to have a crew menber at each door.

Correct me? I stated out that doors must never be left unattended and that it was mentioned as late as in SEP half a year ago in response to Glamgirl's post. Where did I say that EACH door needs to be covered? Was it because I wrote door in plural? I happen to know my SEP mind you.

[MissM]

midman,

Let the safety aspect of doors 5 be a bit straw clutching. I will repeat myself again which I'm sorry for BUT the fact remains that we have been taught year after year that we must never leave doors unattended. That's the issue with doors 5.

It's easy for the management to decide what needs to be done to achieve the savings because I really doubt that they know what an aircraft looks like on the inside. It's not them, or YOU, who needs to deal with it onboard. A collection of inconveniences all taken from different posts on CF? Let me laugh. This happens to the problems many of us deal with every time when we come to work these days. I don't need to check any other forum to get "ideas" regarding my opinions.

This will go to a strike, and MissM, you have to be prepared to take the company down with you.

All prepared.

You said that the company are forcing you to work more than the 75% contract you are paid for.

Am I right in thinking 75% is six weeks on and 2 weeks off? Are they not giving you two weeks off in every eight?

No idea what you're on about. 75% is 21 days on followed by 7 days off excluding mbts.