British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[romans44]

so you 're trying to suggest that
for example
a 289 seat to orlando is easier to crew (10/11 at lgw)
than a 215 seat to atlanta (11 / 12 at lhr) - which was at lgw until recently anyway.

Hi blu riband, I think you have answered the question yourself.. I am assuming that the majority of the 289 seats are WT and not premium cabins, are they?

[interlog]

The sad fact is that most of those suspended are not what you might class as a militant minority. These are dedicated crew who were completely at the end of their tether with multiple problems on a particular flight, compounding the crass way changes to work routines and complements were introduced, without any prior training or checks by BA that its senior crew were up to speed.

Isn't that what you get paid to do? You deal with problems as they arise and you surely shouldn't be taking it out on the customers whether that be through an apology or other. As an employee you tow the Company line (especially when dealing with the public) or else face the consequences.

The other alternative - of course - would be to resign if you really feel that you can't work in such an evironment.

[Ancient Observer]

Unite breaking TUC agreements?

I would warn the Bassa members posting on here about "pilots flocking to Unite" that they are providing written evidence for Balpa to complain to the TUC about bassa/Unite's behaviour.

Poaching members - even a single one - is a grievous sin in the world of TUs.
Inciting members of other Unions to change Unions is equally sinful.

Any Balpa rep., whether a lay rep or an fto can get the info, either from here or from CF/Bassa's site, and Bassa/Unite will be quickly defending itself in front of its brothers at the TUC - just another Court, but a very unforgiving one.

Pilots allegedly telling CC that they'll move to Unite are, to use the vernacular - taking the pi**.
Unite are not, and will never be, recognised by a pilot employer in UK Aviation.

No recognition = no power = waste of money.

[Glamgirl]

Fume,

It is unfortunate that some CSD's were so overwhelmed by the imposition of crew complement change, that they apologised to passengers and are no suspended for "bringing BA into disrepute". If there was ever a case of constructive dismissal, this is it. The sad fact is that most of those suspended are not what you might class as a militant minority. These are dedicated crew who were completely at the end of their tether with multiple problems on a particular flight, compounding the crass way changes to work routines and complements were introduced, without any prior training or checks by BA that its senior crew were up to speed.

It is no good IFS in BA now cracking down on a few martyrs being sacrificed on the altar of BA's imposition. It just smacks of desperation by a desperate bully boy thug management.

Unfortunate? Really? Excuse me for sounding harsh, but why on earth would a professional CSD make a pa about crewing levels before the service has even started? Actually, why would a professional CSD make such a pa even at the end of the flight?

It is unprofessional to make such announcements. It is "bringing BA into disrepute", due to washing BA's dirty laundry in public.

What are the crass changes for these CSDs? Is it really that traumatic to have to work on a trolley? Plenty of info has been issued regarding the changes, but then again, there are plenty of cc who refuse to read anything, as they "don't get paid for it".

I also believe that some of the suspensions are due to comments made to media/f-book/m-space/twits. It's never appropriate to slag off your employer on a networking site. We've had warnings about it before, including pictures posted in uniform. It's in our contract not to talk to the media without permission from the press office.

Gg

[romans44]

If you wish to tell others not to comment on cabin crew issues they know little about, I would suggest the same applies to you in talking about commercial matters of which you apparently know little if anything.

Hi Papillion, yes you are right. I don't know much about commercial matters but can you explain why BA has mainly holiday destinations out of LGW?
Can you also explain why airlines like, US Airways, Delta, Continetal and Northwest could not wait to move their operation to LHR?
Before anyone has a go at me, I am not saying that our colleagues at LGW deserve less that we do. I am merely pointing out the difference between the two markets.
By the way I guess you are not a BA employee, if you were you would know that it is BA who says that LGW is 'mainly' a leisure market and LHR 'mainly' a business market.
I guess you will probably say that the people in the BA marketing department don't really know what they are talking about either.

[Meal Chucker]

Originally Posted by romans44

dear blu riband, for your information. I have already done that.

Please provide a link, as I must have missed that post!!!

[anotherthing]

Can you also explain why airlines like, US Airways, Delta, Continetal and Northwest could not wait to move their operation to LHR?

Because Heathrow is a major Hub (one of the most major in the world), Gatwick is not considered so. Having your operation at a hub is preferable in order to pick up extra business.

Being a hub means more passengers disembarking one flight to join another = more business opportunity for the major carriers.

[romans44]

Please provide a link, as I must have missed that post!!!

the post was in the BASSA forum ages ago. Are you a BASSA member or just another individual who has illegal access to the forum and then reports it on here?

[Hotel Mode]

Hi Papillion, yes you are right. I don't know much about commercial matters but can you explain why BA has mainly holiday destinations out of LGW?
Can you also explain why airlines like, US Airways, Delta, Continetal and Northwest could not wait to move their operation to LHR?
Before anyone has a go at me, I am not saying that our colleagues at LGW deserve less that we do. I am merely pointing out the difference between the two markets.
By the way I guess you are not a BA employee, if you were you would know that it is BA who says that LGW is 'mainly' a leisure market and LHR 'mainly' a business market.
I guess you will probably say that the people in the BA marketing department don't really know what they are talking about either.

Again, utterly (deliberately??) missing the point that LHR required EXTRA crew for leisure routes over and above the extra they already had. That must make the leisure routes harder and therefore more deserving of higher crewing ratios than the comparitively straightforward business routes at LHR.

[Meal Chucker]

romans44

I'm a Bassa member.

It is relatively easy to search for your own past posts.

Please provide a link or even a screen shot, if such a post exists!

[Albert Salmon]

Romans44 #1242

just another individual who has illegal access to the forum

That's for the contributor to know and for you to worry about.

Why are you so sensitive to free access to this website, Romans44? What are you frightened of: that the truth about BASSA might just get out?

[romans44]

Because Heathrow is a Hub, Gatwick is not considered so. Having your operation at a hub is preferable in order to pick up extra business.

Being a hub means more passengers disembarking one flight to join another = more business opportunity for the major carriers

anotherthing, I rest my case. LGW is not considered a Hub because it is a leisure market, can we agree on that?

[Matt101]

so what if it is....? As I said in my last post why does LHR being more business orientated have anything to do with crewing levels when I would personally argue the leisure routes are harder work anyway?

[Hotel Mode]

Either way, whats it got to do with you/your union. Crewing levels are not for the staff to decide on. Pay and conditions sure, product, no.

If BA decided to stop flying to Singapore and Hong Kong would that be a matter for the union? Sure as eggs are eggs they'd try to pretend it was.

[wiggy]

"LGW is not considered a Hub because it is a leisure market." where's that definition come from then? Here's the FT's definition,

hub airport definition from Financial Times Lexicon

and there's no mention of lesiure traffic in any definition I can find..looks like LGW has as much as a claim to being a hub as LHR...all FWIW.

[Desertia]

Unfortunate? Really? Excuse me for sounding harsh, but why on earth would a professional CSD make a pa about crewing levels before the service has even started? Actually, why would a professional CSD make such a pa even at the end of the flight?

GG,

What makes it worse is that the sort of arrogant twerp that would do this is probably also doing their best to up the service to try and prove that imposition has a negative effect on customer service.

Suspend them? I hope it's the first stages of dismissal, because worthless guano like this should be out on their ear with a foot up their arse.

Cheers,
D

[Papillon]

Hi Papillion, yes you are right. I don't know much about commercial matters but can you explain why BA has mainly holiday destinations out of LGW?
Can you also explain why airlines like, US Airways, Delta, Continetal and Northwest could not wait to move their operation to LHR?
Before anyone has a go at me, I am not saying that our colleagues at LGW deserve less that we do. I am merely pointing out the difference between the two markets.
By the way I guess you are not a BA employee, if you were you would know that it is BA who says that LGW is 'mainly' a leisure market and LHR 'mainly' a business market.
I guess you will probably say that the people in the BA marketing department don't really know what they are talking about either.

I am a former BA employee. And actually, when it comes to matters like this, no marketing don't know either. The supposed lack of any corporate market at LGW has become a self-fulfilling prophecy for BA for a variety of reasons that I won't bore you with unless you desperately want to know. But these days, BA's insane decision to cede slots at LGW has meant they are head to head to Easyjet and on high density routes cannot compete - thus the reason they focus on leisure.

Airlines will move to LHR because they can make more money there because the market is larger. No great revelation there, and I specifically made that point. Doesn't mean there isn't one from LGW.

BA would rather fly business routes from LHR than LGW if they can, because the yields are higher. Equally, even the various LGW operations I detailed would be quite keen to go from LHR too, because they also could make more money there. That still doesn't mean there isn't a market for business passengers out of LGW, as I've demonstrated with my examples. Easyjet would laugh at you if you told them LGW was a leisure only market, they really would.

[midman]

Romans44,
The Gatwick flights are predominantly leisure flights, with some notable execeptions. We agree on that.

We might also agree that the leisure flights, (MRU, MIA etc) are the ones which demand more work from the cabin crew. (Hence the extra cabin crew member required by Bassa on the LHR leisure routes).

Yet LGW cope with the reduced crew on these and other leisure routes. LHR WW claim they cannot cope. Why?

(Clue, they aren't used to the workload involved. They don't like it, so bringing Willie down is the obvious solution)



Crazy isn't it?

[Albert Salmon]

Romans44 #1230

Romans44 - ever solicitous of BA customers' welfare - wrote:

Dear Mr Albert Salmon, I've read with interest all your posts on here.
I would like to say that as a BA CC I am sorry to see you go, however I am baffled by the fact that you keep coming back on this forum.
Why the obsession with us?
I wish you luck and hope you will find perfect happiness.

He then wrote:

No Mr Albert Salmom, I don't find your presence on this website unpalatable, we live in a democracy and you have the right to say what you want to say.

but then he followed that by telling me

I wish you would just move on without insulting people

I see.

So it's perfectly in order for the Wonker to tell me:

Salmon: It seems a bit fishy that you spend so much time on here your so called company must be suffering having your so so called talents dedicated to this site. I suspect you are part of the BA team setup to feed the media I have seen it so many times.I can't understand anyone being so interested in an airline you swear not to use although that's just part of your cover story. BASSA are my union along with the 92.49% who voted with me have no trust in our management that's a simple fact so off you go and compile another drum beating post.

or (again from the Wonker):

not a load of saddo's who claim to have a £250,000 travel budget and live in a tax haven who cares about you. So wake up and smell the sewage.

That really added to the sum total of the debate!

I would remind you, Romans44, what the blessed St Lizanne HoMalone advised you:

I'm not quite sure why a tiny number of posters are regurgitating the same old negative spin. Dropping the odd phrase of militants & the miners & Arthur Scargill, is a bit below the belt. All crew are working class mothers, fathers, partners, single, dedicated to doing a fine job, & wanting to fight to retain their jobs.

Oh yes! I was at a meeting at the Institute of Directors this afternoon. For those who don't know, that's the trade union for winners. In answer to a question from the floor, no less than eleven delegates said they had withdrawn all corporate travel from BA until further notice.

You, BASSA members, are killing the goose that lays your golden eggs. Think hard before you vote to go on strike; you may not have jobs to come back to.

[GearUp CheerUp]

Fume Event,

I don't think is a future for you Gg running your union that only solicits ideas to cut pay and conditions for its members.....unless you are in BALPA of course!

well, if you mean that BALPA negotiated (if you're not sure of the meaning of the word, there are many good onm line dictionaries around) how they wished to make the savings in the business plan, as opposed to BASSA's refusal to look facts in the face and subsequently having savings imposed upon it, then, I guess you're right.

New pilot recruits to UNITE have a BA F/O as a contact. Most are leaving as they know BALPA are a spent force and just require the legal cover. That is the reason a Captain gave to me.

He was pulling your leg, how gullible can you get? Why would pilots leave an excellent union for one run by people who dont even know how to organise a legal ballot which had no recognition at their place of work?

I thought BALPA were going to hold off introducing their pay cut on members until other groups had settled? Why have they gone on and unilaterally foisted what is basically an 8% pay cut on their members?

well, you have settled really, haven't you? Youre working one down and New fleet is on the horizon. In February a court will rule that the changes to your work practices were not contractual and then BA will make an application for the costs and damages incurred as a result of your industrial and legal action - trust me! Oh and the BALPA pay cut comes to less that 4% - trust me on this too.

It is unfortunate that some CSD's were so overwhelblah blah blah...blah blah blah ,,,a desperate bully boy thug management.

Yeah right whatever, you say.

ever heard the maxim, "Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool rather than open your mouth and remove any doubt"?

Applies perfectly to you