British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
malcolmf
If it's negotiated properly and comes along with a bidding system. I have never heard of any other airline offering an MTP to their crew and I think it's easier for BA to change it once they start changing schedules. I don't trust management for a second about this system and that's because they are suggesting it should protect us from New Fleet which they are also introducing. An hourly pay is less variable but many crew are against it because it was brought up a few years ago by one of our previous managers who suggested it with some tax calculated rate.
If it's negotiated properly and comes along with a bidding system. I have never heard of any other airline offering an MTP to their crew and I think it's easier for BA to change it once they start changing schedules. I don't trust management for a second about this system and that's because they are suggesting it should protect us from New Fleet which they are also introducing. An hourly pay is less variable but many crew are against it because it was brought up a few years ago by one of our previous managers who suggested it with some tax calculated rate.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
hourly pay replaces allowances.
Pilot's hourly rate is taxed at a more beneficial rate than crew allowances,
so the manager may have had the benefit of amazing foresight.
(Tax! Another Bassa cock-up, but let's not go there)
MTP would replace:
destination payments
back to back payments
box payments
etc
To many it is a no-brainer! It could even facilitate that ever elusive bidding system.
It's the BASSA mindset that cannot accept change.
Crew have been conditioned to consider all innovation as a threat.
Repeat the mantra....................
change is bad, change is bad,
hourly pay replaces allowances.
Pilot's hourly rate is taxed at a more beneficial rate than crew allowances,
so the manager may have had the benefit of amazing foresight.
(Tax! Another Bassa cock-up, but let's not go there)
MTP would replace:
destination payments
back to back payments
box payments
etc
To many it is a no-brainer! It could even facilitate that ever elusive bidding system.
It's the BASSA mindset that cannot accept change.
Crew have been conditioned to consider all innovation as a threat.
Repeat the mantra....................
change is bad, change is bad,
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M,
So you throw all logical arguments out of the window and go back to the TRUST question once again. Comments like 'in a few years it will be reduced' hold no weight and do not provide a substantiated argument. It's just the rubbish you've hoovered up from BASSA.
I ask you two simple questions.
1. If you think payments will be reduced, what's to stop the Company reducing you current pay structure of box payments and ETP?
2. Please please please give me an example of where the Company has lied to you (so that we can all understand where you get this deep seated mistrust of our company from)?
Remember we have hundreds of examples where BASSA have blatently lied to the community they are supposed to represent.
So you throw all logical arguments out of the window and go back to the TRUST question once again. Comments like 'in a few years it will be reduced' hold no weight and do not provide a substantiated argument. It's just the rubbish you've hoovered up from BASSA.
I ask you two simple questions.
1. If you think payments will be reduced, what's to stop the Company reducing you current pay structure of box payments and ETP?
2. Please please please give me an example of where the Company has lied to you (so that we can all understand where you get this deep seated mistrust of our company from)?
Remember we have hundreds of examples where BASSA have blatently lied to the community they are supposed to represent.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Blu Riband
It was a high percentage IIRC and that's why many crew are against the hourly pay system. Getting same pay, per hour, for going to TLV as to HKG because many feel they should be rewarded for harder work on longer trips. This is also one of the explanations why we shouldn't accept MTP.
BentleyH
I haven't hoovered up anything from BASSA. It's logical thinking that they will come back for more.
1. Why should they reduce our box payments? The length of the trips are still the same. If we have an MTP system cover all of our trips they will say that we are operating fewer trips and that's why it should be reduced.
2. Pay deal a couple of years ago and we see how what happened. We see how it went. Same with temporary measurements taken after 9/11. As a whole we have been badly treated by the company.
It was a high percentage IIRC and that's why many crew are against the hourly pay system. Getting same pay, per hour, for going to TLV as to HKG because many feel they should be rewarded for harder work on longer trips. This is also one of the explanations why we shouldn't accept MTP.
BentleyH
I haven't hoovered up anything from BASSA. It's logical thinking that they will come back for more.
1. Why should they reduce our box payments? The length of the trips are still the same. If we have an MTP system cover all of our trips they will say that we are operating fewer trips and that's why it should be reduced.
2. Pay deal a couple of years ago and we see how what happened. We see how it went. Same with temporary measurements taken after 9/11. As a whole we have been badly treated by the company.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M,
Sorry, you've lost me there. What was wrong with the pay deal from a couple of years ago? How did the Company lie to you??
If it's logical thinking they will come back for more (despite making assurances they have never reneged on before), why don't all other staff groups have the same fear. Why is it only BASSA pushing this line?
I think you've missed my point on the reduction of box payments. I am not talking about how many trips trigger them, just highlighting that because it's a payment you receive from the Company, there is no difference with saying they might reduce the MTP as there is saying they might do the same to a Box 2 for example.
I am using this an example to demonstrate that your logic is flawed. I do not expect the Company to unilaterally reduce your pay because they never have done previously and they have publicly stated until they are blue in the face that they have no intention of reducing pay in the current situation either.
My point however was that as you seem to believe the Company is hell bent on reducing payments to you, there is the same risk of reducing any payment you currently receive, whether it be basic pay, allowances, box payments, ETP, MTP or anything else.
Actually I think you'd be in an even stronger place with MTP because the Company would really look bad if they tried to reduce the value of something they had only just introduced as a protector of future earnings. If they did something like that, you'd have a bloody good argument to run a dispute at that point based on fact rather than mis-placed hysteria.
This is why your argument does not make sense.
It doesn't stack up looking at history
It doesn't stack up using logic
It doesn't stack up looking at the offer on the table
It seems to me that everyone else can absolutely see the logic in the Company's proposals and the only answers you and BASSA can come up with are based on the hysteria of what might happen, rather than what the proposals actually deliver.
Sorry, you've lost me there. What was wrong with the pay deal from a couple of years ago? How did the Company lie to you??
If it's logical thinking they will come back for more (despite making assurances they have never reneged on before), why don't all other staff groups have the same fear. Why is it only BASSA pushing this line?
I think you've missed my point on the reduction of box payments. I am not talking about how many trips trigger them, just highlighting that because it's a payment you receive from the Company, there is no difference with saying they might reduce the MTP as there is saying they might do the same to a Box 2 for example.
I am using this an example to demonstrate that your logic is flawed. I do not expect the Company to unilaterally reduce your pay because they never have done previously and they have publicly stated until they are blue in the face that they have no intention of reducing pay in the current situation either.
My point however was that as you seem to believe the Company is hell bent on reducing payments to you, there is the same risk of reducing any payment you currently receive, whether it be basic pay, allowances, box payments, ETP, MTP or anything else.
Actually I think you'd be in an even stronger place with MTP because the Company would really look bad if they tried to reduce the value of something they had only just introduced as a protector of future earnings. If they did something like that, you'd have a bloody good argument to run a dispute at that point based on fact rather than mis-placed hysteria.
This is why your argument does not make sense.
It doesn't stack up looking at history
It doesn't stack up using logic
It doesn't stack up looking at the offer on the table
It seems to me that everyone else can absolutely see the logic in the Company's proposals and the only answers you and BASSA can come up with are based on the hysteria of what might happen, rather than what the proposals actually deliver.
Last edited by BentleyH; 13th Apr 2010 at 16:41.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Blu Riband
It was a high percentage IIRC and that's why many crew are against the hourly pay system. Getting same pay, per hour, for going to TLV as to HKG because many feel they should be rewarded for harder work on longer trips. This is also one of the explanations why we shouldn't accept MTP.
BentleyH
I haven't hoovered up anything from BASSA. It's logical thinking that they will come back for more.
1. Why should they reduce our box payments? The length of the trips are still the same. If we have an MTP system cover all of our trips they will say that we are operating fewer trips and that's why it should be reduced.
2. Pay deal a couple of years ago and we see how what happened. We see how it went. Same with temporary measurements taken after 9/11. As a whole we have been badly treated by the company.
It was a high percentage IIRC and that's why many crew are against the hourly pay system. Getting same pay, per hour, for going to TLV as to HKG because many feel they should be rewarded for harder work on longer trips. This is also one of the explanations why we shouldn't accept MTP.
BentleyH
I haven't hoovered up anything from BASSA. It's logical thinking that they will come back for more.
1. Why should they reduce our box payments? The length of the trips are still the same. If we have an MTP system cover all of our trips they will say that we are operating fewer trips and that's why it should be reduced.
2. Pay deal a couple of years ago and we see how what happened. We see how it went. Same with temporary measurements taken after 9/11. As a whole we have been badly treated by the company.
I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment, but I would ask you to look at your post again, but this time as an outsider would, trying to follow the logic of your argument with BA. You would see how it doesn't make any sense at all, except from an outraged, disaffected standpoint.
I really appreciate you continuing to try to explain your views, not least because it allows those outside BA to see how difficult it is to reason with Bassa's thinking.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's negotiated properly and comes along with a bidding system
However if you had a simple equalisation of duty hours, then the loss of box payments for long range wouldn't matter, because lots would rather do long range in order to come to work less often.
Of course BA will come back for more in the future, that's what they have to do. Frankly I would be worried if they didn't. They should constantly be looking at costs all through the airline. The key is whether you want it to be a gentle chiselling away or a massive chainsaw.
Give away the things like long range disruption and SH base turnroundwhich really doesn't affect people very much but would save BA a lot and that could have helped you hang on to an extra crew member.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why the BASSA hierarchy has been unwilling (if indeed they have) to negotiate losing the box payments?
Take a guess which bracket the BASSA hierarchy are likely to be in.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because many feel they should be rewarded for harder work on longer trips. This is also one of the explanations why we shouldn't accept MTP.
It's logical thinking that they will come back for more
1. Why should they reduce our box payments? The length of the trips are still the same. If we have an MTP system cover all of our trips they will say that we are operating fewer trips and that's why it should be reduced.
BA have made frequent clear promises that they are not attacking personal t&c's.
Pay deal a couple of years ago and we see how what happened. We see how it went. Same with temporary measurements taken after 9/11. As a whole we have been badly treated by the company.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA verses Bassa
There are two distinct ideas on this forum.
Those people who are pro BA are continually trying to understand exactly why Bassa called for IA and continually being amazed by the Bassa nonsense being spouted.
Those who are pro Bassa continually trying to defend an indefensible decision who simply cannot justify their position.
I feel the pro BA lot are banging their heads against a wall, we will never understand these decsions as they go against all logic, and the pro Bassa are burying their heads in the sand if they think that Willie is going to curl up and give way.
Maybe time to just forget and let things take there natural and apparent direction and start looking forward to a better and hopefully more profitable future for those of us who will hopefully still be employed in a year from now.
Those people who are pro BA are continually trying to understand exactly why Bassa called for IA and continually being amazed by the Bassa nonsense being spouted.
Those who are pro Bassa continually trying to defend an indefensible decision who simply cannot justify their position.
I feel the pro BA lot are banging their heads against a wall, we will never understand these decsions as they go against all logic, and the pro Bassa are burying their heads in the sand if they think that Willie is going to curl up and give way.
Maybe time to just forget and let things take there natural and apparent direction and start looking forward to a better and hopefully more profitable future for those of us who will hopefully still be employed in a year from now.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi MissM,
First of all thank you for coming on this forum! It is good to have discussions with people 'from both camps' and although I might not agree with your POV.... I do appreciate it!!!
I am a Cabin Crew colleague and have been reading your posts over the last couple of days, and it seems to me that everything you say relates to your distrust of BA management. Basically, everything the company is doing to move the situation forward is dismissed by your fear of what might happen in the future. I think that it is very clear that the company needs to change and that we need to save money to stay/become competative. I know our top management have just received shares which are worth thousends, but isn't this common practise in a lot of 'blue chip' companies. It is simply part of their 'pay packages' just like our allowances, etc. and common practise with most other airlines as well.
Because of your (and many other BASSA followers) mistrust in the company, it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what the company proposes as you won't trust it anyhow. So how do we proceed from here? What does BA need to do now to get us all out of this mess with your support? Further......, striking over what might happen in the future (as said before) is a bit of a 'faux pas'.
I also like to 'shed some light' on the LGW situation. When the Gatwick Fleet was formed (October 2006) the crew at LGW did indeed get a vote. It is however very importnat to realise that the proposal was recommended by BASSA and the alternative (even according to BASSA) was base closure! LGW Worldwide crew were offered a transfer to their fleet of choice at LHR (never on offer for Euro Gatwick) and crew on shorthaul were getting an opportunity to increase their earnings by doing longhaul. As we were already on an hourly rate the prospect of being able to do longhaul wasn't a bad one as simple calculations will tell you that based on our hourly rate, a 3 day longhaul trip will roughly earn you about £120 where as 3 days of there and backs will roughly earn you about £60...... What would you have voted?
Last but not least.... the fact that most of us at LGW are backing the company has do do with a lot of different reasons. Firstly, I think most of us appreciate the need to change. Also, our working practises have been very different to you guys at LHR (crew complements, days off, agreements, etc.). It has been very evident to a lot of us that BASSA isn't that interested in LGW. Proposing a pay cut (even if it is a small one) for the lowest paid fleet to get a crew member back at LHR is just insane. LGW has given so much over the last few years that if BASSA was a true Trade Union, they would have said.... 'Listen guys..., LGW has done their bit, lets not touch them... we at LHR will have to do our bit this time round! Also.... as we are already nearly working to Scheme, the scare tactics about the company coming back to us at LGW for more don't really work. We at LGW (and I mean everybody who works at LGW from loaders to management) have seen and heard it all before! But, the main reason at LGW to get on with it is that we don't want to 'punish' our customers, the very people who pay our salaries. We just want to get through this as a crew community in collaboration with a company we all love to build a brighter future and a stronger company!!!
Hope this all make sense!
First of all thank you for coming on this forum! It is good to have discussions with people 'from both camps' and although I might not agree with your POV.... I do appreciate it!!!
I am a Cabin Crew colleague and have been reading your posts over the last couple of days, and it seems to me that everything you say relates to your distrust of BA management. Basically, everything the company is doing to move the situation forward is dismissed by your fear of what might happen in the future. I think that it is very clear that the company needs to change and that we need to save money to stay/become competative. I know our top management have just received shares which are worth thousends, but isn't this common practise in a lot of 'blue chip' companies. It is simply part of their 'pay packages' just like our allowances, etc. and common practise with most other airlines as well.
Because of your (and many other BASSA followers) mistrust in the company, it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what the company proposes as you won't trust it anyhow. So how do we proceed from here? What does BA need to do now to get us all out of this mess with your support? Further......, striking over what might happen in the future (as said before) is a bit of a 'faux pas'.
I also like to 'shed some light' on the LGW situation. When the Gatwick Fleet was formed (October 2006) the crew at LGW did indeed get a vote. It is however very importnat to realise that the proposal was recommended by BASSA and the alternative (even according to BASSA) was base closure! LGW Worldwide crew were offered a transfer to their fleet of choice at LHR (never on offer for Euro Gatwick) and crew on shorthaul were getting an opportunity to increase their earnings by doing longhaul. As we were already on an hourly rate the prospect of being able to do longhaul wasn't a bad one as simple calculations will tell you that based on our hourly rate, a 3 day longhaul trip will roughly earn you about £120 where as 3 days of there and backs will roughly earn you about £60...... What would you have voted?
Last but not least.... the fact that most of us at LGW are backing the company has do do with a lot of different reasons. Firstly, I think most of us appreciate the need to change. Also, our working practises have been very different to you guys at LHR (crew complements, days off, agreements, etc.). It has been very evident to a lot of us that BASSA isn't that interested in LGW. Proposing a pay cut (even if it is a small one) for the lowest paid fleet to get a crew member back at LHR is just insane. LGW has given so much over the last few years that if BASSA was a true Trade Union, they would have said.... 'Listen guys..., LGW has done their bit, lets not touch them... we at LHR will have to do our bit this time round! Also.... as we are already nearly working to Scheme, the scare tactics about the company coming back to us at LGW for more don't really work. We at LGW (and I mean everybody who works at LGW from loaders to management) have seen and heard it all before! But, the main reason at LGW to get on with it is that we don't want to 'punish' our customers, the very people who pay our salaries. We just want to get through this as a crew community in collaboration with a company we all love to build a brighter future and a stronger company!!!
Hope this all make sense!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: bobard sous bois
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bababo
I also like to 'shed some light' on the LGW situation. When the Gatwick Fleet was formed (October 2006) the crew at LGW did indeed get a vote. It is however very importnat to realise that the proposal was recommended by BASSA
yet again another false representation BASSA recomended a no vote short haul crew were beeing short sighted get you fact right
AND short hall couldn t transfer because not in the NSP
yet again another false representation BASSA recomended a no vote short haul crew were beeing short sighted get you fact right AND short hall couldn t transfer because not in the NSP
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bababo
I also like to 'shed some light' on the LGW situation. When the Gatwick Fleet was formed (October 2006) the crew at LGW did indeed get a vote. It is however very importnat to realise that the proposal was recommended by BASSA
yet again another false representation BASSA recomended a no vote short haul crew were beeing short sighted get you fact right
AND short hall couldn t transfer because not in the NSP
I also like to 'shed some light' on the LGW situation. When the Gatwick Fleet was formed (October 2006) the crew at LGW did indeed get a vote. It is however very importnat to realise that the proposal was recommended by BASSA
yet again another false representation BASSA recomended a no vote short haul crew were beeing short sighted get you fact right AND short hall couldn t transfer because not in the NSP
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BentleyH
BA says MTP will protect us from New Fleet. Already there's something suspicious about these two suggestions. If management seems to care so much about our present terms and conditions and wants to avoid us from suffering financially from New Fleet, why are they so determined to go ahead with New Fleet? Seeing as they have been able to put their heads together before surely they would be able to come up with better alternatives.
Point is that the company seems unable to agree closed and sealed agreements. We balloted for a strike in 2007 but it was called off because they managed to get a settled agreement with BASSA. They failed to honor this and was one of the reasons why we had another issue a year later.
I can't say why other departments don't seem to be worried about what the company might do. Maybe those who volunteered to train as cabin crew should think about their own positions as there seemed to be enough time for their duties to be left unattended.
midman
I have my opinion of this and you have yours. Maybe we should agree to disagree.
The Blu Riband
Compare TLV to HKG. The latter is more demanding and longer. Some crew don't like the idea of getting the same amount of money every month and doing different demanding trips. Why get paid the same as someone doing HKG and someone else doing TLV? It shouldn't be a problem as trip allocation is supposed to be fair share and I don't necessary agree with this argument.
BA has made frequent clear promises that they won't attack personal terms and conditions. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in those promises.
BABOBO
I see your point about LGW.
Union support has always been low at LGW and I think two years ago there were only around 150 members there. Why should they be interested in a base which has very few members? I don't necessary agree that you should have to pay for crew members to be put back at LHR but the dispute is about imposition and this pay cut could have protected your transfer rights to LHR and keep you in NSP.
BA says MTP will protect us from New Fleet. Already there's something suspicious about these two suggestions. If management seems to care so much about our present terms and conditions and wants to avoid us from suffering financially from New Fleet, why are they so determined to go ahead with New Fleet? Seeing as they have been able to put their heads together before surely they would be able to come up with better alternatives.
Point is that the company seems unable to agree closed and sealed agreements. We balloted for a strike in 2007 but it was called off because they managed to get a settled agreement with BASSA. They failed to honor this and was one of the reasons why we had another issue a year later.
I can't say why other departments don't seem to be worried about what the company might do. Maybe those who volunteered to train as cabin crew should think about their own positions as there seemed to be enough time for their duties to be left unattended.
midman
I have my opinion of this and you have yours. Maybe we should agree to disagree.
The Blu Riband
Compare TLV to HKG. The latter is more demanding and longer. Some crew don't like the idea of getting the same amount of money every month and doing different demanding trips. Why get paid the same as someone doing HKG and someone else doing TLV? It shouldn't be a problem as trip allocation is supposed to be fair share and I don't necessary agree with this argument.
BA has made frequent clear promises that they won't attack personal terms and conditions. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in those promises.
BABOBO
I see your point about LGW.
Union support has always been low at LGW and I think two years ago there were only around 150 members there. Why should they be interested in a base which has very few members? I don't necessary agree that you should have to pay for crew members to be put back at LHR but the dispute is about imposition and this pay cut could have protected your transfer rights to LHR and keep you in NSP.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from Bill Francis
My emphasis:
Ouch!
13 April 2010
Further information for crew who have lost staff travel concessions from 14 April 2010.
Q I have a trip booked for travel on British Airways, but I don’t return until 15 April, will I still be able to use the ticket to come home?
A No, the loss of staff travel concessions applies from 14 April 2010, therefore all travel must be completed before then. If you choose to travel out on a rebated ticket before that day, you will be responsible for arranging alternative means of getting home after 14 April 2010. Any unused tickets for yourself or nominees will no longer be valid and the reservations will be cancelled, please apply for a refund on these tickets in the normal way.
Q I am travelling on my partner's concessions and we are booked on their 100% rebate ticket to travel in May. Will I still be able to go?
No, you are unable to travel as a nominee of another serving or former British Airways employee from 14 April 2010.
Q I am a commuter, how will I get to work?
Staff travel is a non contractual, discretionary concession, there is no contractual entitlement. It is your responsibility regardless of where you work to ensure you are able to report for duty. Prior to the ballot for industrial action and again before the strike, it was clearly communicated that any individuals choosing to take strike action would lose staff travel eligibility.
Q My friend is travelling on my concessions and is due to fly back on 21 April, will she be able to fly?
No, the loss of staff travel concessions applies to your nominees from 14 April 2010. If your friend decides to travel, they will need to arrange alternative means of travelling home.
Q I have a staff travel ticket booked with another carrier for travel after 14 April, am I allowed to use it?
No, all travel must be completed by 14 April 2010. Any unused tickets for yourself or nominees will no longer be valid and you will need to cancel the reservation and apply for a refund on these tickets in the normal way. Any travel that takes place on any another carrier (including Oneworld, franchises and subsidiaries), after 14 April 2010, or contacting other airlines directly to request rebate travel will be considered misuse of staff travel and will be managed using the appropriate disciplinary procedures.
Q If I change jobs, will I get my staff travel concessions back?
No, the loss of staff travel is permanent and applies to any future jobs you may move to.
Q I have completed over 15 years of continuous service with British Airways. When I leave, will I be eligible for staff travel concessions?
No, the loss of staff travel is permanent, therefore you will no longer be eligible for former staff concessions.
Q I took strike action on the first dates, but came to work during the second strike dates, do I still lose my staff travel concessions?
Yes, the loss of staff travel concessions applies to all crew who took strike action.
Further information for crew who have lost staff travel concessions from 14 April 2010.
Q I have a trip booked for travel on British Airways, but I don’t return until 15 April, will I still be able to use the ticket to come home?
A No, the loss of staff travel concessions applies from 14 April 2010, therefore all travel must be completed before then. If you choose to travel out on a rebated ticket before that day, you will be responsible for arranging alternative means of getting home after 14 April 2010. Any unused tickets for yourself or nominees will no longer be valid and the reservations will be cancelled, please apply for a refund on these tickets in the normal way.
Q I am travelling on my partner's concessions and we are booked on their 100% rebate ticket to travel in May. Will I still be able to go?
No, you are unable to travel as a nominee of another serving or former British Airways employee from 14 April 2010.
Q I am a commuter, how will I get to work?
Staff travel is a non contractual, discretionary concession, there is no contractual entitlement. It is your responsibility regardless of where you work to ensure you are able to report for duty. Prior to the ballot for industrial action and again before the strike, it was clearly communicated that any individuals choosing to take strike action would lose staff travel eligibility.
Q My friend is travelling on my concessions and is due to fly back on 21 April, will she be able to fly?
No, the loss of staff travel concessions applies to your nominees from 14 April 2010. If your friend decides to travel, they will need to arrange alternative means of travelling home.
Q I have a staff travel ticket booked with another carrier for travel after 14 April, am I allowed to use it?
No, all travel must be completed by 14 April 2010. Any unused tickets for yourself or nominees will no longer be valid and you will need to cancel the reservation and apply for a refund on these tickets in the normal way. Any travel that takes place on any another carrier (including Oneworld, franchises and subsidiaries), after 14 April 2010, or contacting other airlines directly to request rebate travel will be considered misuse of staff travel and will be managed using the appropriate disciplinary procedures.
Q If I change jobs, will I get my staff travel concessions back?
No, the loss of staff travel is permanent and applies to any future jobs you may move to.
Q I have completed over 15 years of continuous service with British Airways. When I leave, will I be eligible for staff travel concessions?
No, the loss of staff travel is permanent, therefore you will no longer be eligible for former staff concessions.
Q I took strike action on the first dates, but came to work during the second strike dates, do I still lose my staff travel concessions?
Yes, the loss of staff travel concessions applies to all crew who took strike action.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
I don't know the exact membership numbers to be honest, but I know for sure that there are about 1000 out of 1300 crew at LGW in either BASSA or Amicus.
Regarding the transfer rights.... in BA's last proposal they did propose a 'limited number of transfers' onto current LHR fleets on current T&C's. I personally see why the company doesn't want to transfer any LGW crew onto 'expensive' fleets. It wouldn't make business sense! Fair.....??? Maybe not, but that is unfortunately the reality of 2010 and a small price to pay in light of the current climate.
I don't know the exact membership numbers to be honest, but I know for sure that there are about 1000 out of 1300 crew at LGW in either BASSA or Amicus.
Regarding the transfer rights.... in BA's last proposal they did propose a 'limited number of transfers' onto current LHR fleets on current T&C's. I personally see why the company doesn't want to transfer any LGW crew onto 'expensive' fleets. It wouldn't make business sense! Fair.....??? Maybe not, but that is unfortunately the reality of 2010 and a small price to pay in light of the current climate.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM, re post 1733.
You clearly don't understand what is being proposed by BA with the MTP.
The amount of MTP is calculated ONCE from (originally 08/09, now sadly due to BASSA striking, 09/10) totals for non meal (and on EF non DOA) variable pay for all of cabin crew.
What you haven't grasped, is that once that level is set, the proposal is that it will only change UP (or stay the same, whenever there is, as now, a pay freeze), with each annual pay rise (or freeze) EXACTLY THE SAME as the allowances they replace are now. THE ROUTES ACTUALLY FLOWN AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Because it's to do with pay, it's CONTRACTUAL, (unlike crewing levels) , so protected against BA sculduggary BY LAW. Why do you think evil BA management haven't cut our current allowances? BECAUSE IT JUST AIN'T THAT EASY if it's in black and white on a properly worded agreement (something surely not beyond the abilities of BASSA to pin down, if they were so inclined, which they are not). As someone has already pointed out, it's no more vulnerable than any other payment.
As regards Eurofleet, yes non meal allowances are a much smaller part of variable pay, so that's why we need the A,B,C trip transfer formula. Again, not beyond BASSA to pin down adequately should they so desire, which they don't.
That's the trouble throughout all this. A large number of people don't know the detail of what BA is proposing, because a lot of people don't read what information is out there carefully enough, often because BASSA told them not to.
You clearly don't understand what is being proposed by BA with the MTP.
The amount of MTP is calculated ONCE from (originally 08/09, now sadly due to BASSA striking, 09/10) totals for non meal (and on EF non DOA) variable pay for all of cabin crew.
What you haven't grasped, is that once that level is set, the proposal is that it will only change UP (or stay the same, whenever there is, as now, a pay freeze), with each annual pay rise (or freeze) EXACTLY THE SAME as the allowances they replace are now. THE ROUTES ACTUALLY FLOWN AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Because it's to do with pay, it's CONTRACTUAL, (unlike crewing levels) , so protected against BA sculduggary BY LAW. Why do you think evil BA management haven't cut our current allowances? BECAUSE IT JUST AIN'T THAT EASY if it's in black and white on a properly worded agreement (something surely not beyond the abilities of BASSA to pin down, if they were so inclined, which they are not). As someone has already pointed out, it's no more vulnerable than any other payment.
As regards Eurofleet, yes non meal allowances are a much smaller part of variable pay, so that's why we need the A,B,C trip transfer formula. Again, not beyond BASSA to pin down adequately should they so desire, which they don't.
That's the trouble throughout all this. A large number of people don't know the detail of what BA is proposing, because a lot of people don't read what information is out there carefully enough, often because BASSA told them not to.
Last edited by Beagle9; 13th Apr 2010 at 18:53.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who care - in the newsletter you quote, BASSA say:
That sounds like a BASSA endorsement of the deal to me.
Have we achieved every thing we wanted? Sadly no. This set of negotiations was awkward in the extreme - trying to satisfy all the different parties was always going to be difficult. However, we are in a position to give tacit approval for this to go to a postal ballot of our LGW membership and it is they who will make the final decision.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Miss M,
As others have said, your viewpoint is appreciated and I am wary of adding to the number of posters questioning you, but I would very much appreciate if you could answer the following:
a. BASSA's (and subsequently your) mistrust of BA is clear and I don't think any of us on here will change that. What would make you trust BA?
b. Due to BASSA's mistrust of BA, what was the purpose of offering a paycut last year? Surely BA would just come back for more (in your/BASSA's opinion) so a paycut would just add fuel to the fire?
I would genuinely like to know what fuels this mistrust, and what, if anything, can be done to resolve it.
As others have said, your viewpoint is appreciated and I am wary of adding to the number of posters questioning you, but I would very much appreciate if you could answer the following:
a. BASSA's (and subsequently your) mistrust of BA is clear and I don't think any of us on here will change that. What would make you trust BA?
b. Due to BASSA's mistrust of BA, what was the purpose of offering a paycut last year? Surely BA would just come back for more (in your/BASSA's opinion) so a paycut would just add fuel to the fire?
I would genuinely like to know what fuels this mistrust, and what, if anything, can be done to resolve it.