[capetonianm]

Roa1 : When I responded to your detailed post, I realised it was no longer there, meaning that my reply didn’t make much sense to anyone except you, as nobody would have seen it.

There seems to be a problem in this forum with disappearing posts, incorrect post counts, and posts just not appearing. It’s happened to me several times and I’ve emailed the BT team but had no response. I’m not saying this as a criticism, I am sure they are working under difficult conditions and others have pointed out that the forum software probably needs a few tweaks.

Did you edit your post after submitting it, because in my case that seems to be when the problems occur?

Hopefully one of our moderators will see this and have it looked into.

Changing tack slightly and again addressing the publishers of the forum, I read somewhere that the funding is very limited. May I suggest that they look at some form of subscription to use this excellent forum? I for one would be very glad to put my hand into my pocket, although I already subscribe to the magazine.

I realise that this might put off casual posters (which might not be a bad thing sometimes!) but maybe a new poster could be allowed a limited number of posts free.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[Roa1]

capetonianm

Thanks for the feedback. Despite having 5 degrees, my IT skills are very basic, and no, I didn’t edit. I’m now having another go at re-writing the earlier (expunged) piece about the British Airways “Flight Attendants Restructuring” at LHR. The new structure being discussed will create a more streamlined, fair and equitable T & C, except for the pay cuts. It does away with multiple contracts of cabin crews based at LHR/LGW, performing identical roles but treated differently;

Worldwide Fleets – higher paid crews operating long haul flights
Euro Fleets – higher paid crews operating short haul flights
Mixed Fleets – lower paid crews, operating both short haul and long haul flights. These crews are paid less, has a high turnover due to their T & C,
pay and structure.

Flight crews on other airlines work under a SINGLE contract, can be roosted to work on any flight/routing, and the pay SCALE is the same for all, but that does not seem to be the case at British Airways.

At BA, a flight is either crewed completely with Mixed Fleet, Euro Fleet, or Worldwide Fleet and the contracts don’t allow for crews to mix. If this is the
case, then I am surprised the Trade Unions were party to it, and had allowed this type of treatment amongst the cabin crews. Frankly, no one would like to be treated less favourably in a job, when others doing the same job are treated better. Rather bizarre, in my opinion!

Under the new proposal, there would be a single contract, and no longer a mixed fleet crew. All LHR based crews would work long haul and short haul flights and to all destinations. Crews would be trained and certified to work on A320, A350, A380, 747, 777 and 787.

There would be THREE roles on every flight. A Manager (replacing the old CSD role) in charge of the whole plane. Customer Service Leaders (in charge of specific cabins), and Cabin Crews (everyone else). The basic pay for cabin crews would be £24K per year. The pay for Manager would be £32K. The pay could be on some kind of incremental rate between a Cabin Crew/Cabin Crew (Customer Service Leader). The other “benefits in cash and in kind” are expected to be transferred under the “continuity of employment protection rights”.

More sad news, that another 1,000 BA people in Wales are losing their jobs. There seems to be no end to this nightmare.

[rferguson]

@ roa:

‘Flight crews on other airlines work under a SINGLE contract, can be roosted to work on any flight/routing, and the pay SCALE is the same for all, but that does not seem to be the case at British Airways.’

Not correct. Most ‘legacy’ carriers actually work pretty much the same as BA with ‘old’ and ‘new’ contract crew. Examples, Air France, Iberia, Qantas, Air NZ.
The same applies to ‘any flight/routing’. Using the aforementioned carriers ALL of them ‘fleet’ their crews. None operate a mix of long and short haul. Air NZ actually takes it to the extreme – their crew (both old and new contract) are licensed on ONE aircraft type.

‘Crews would be trained and certified to work on A320, A350, A380, 747, 777 and 787.’

No. Under EASA regulations you can only work on three aircraft types. BA did get an exception from the CAA to include the 787 & 777 under the same license. So it is envisaged all crew will be trained on the 320, 777/787, and then some will be 350, some 380, some 747.

‘There would be THREE roles on every flight. A Manager (replacing the old CSD role) in charge of the whole plane. Customer Service Leaders (in charge of specific cabins), and Cabin Crews (everyone else).’

There will be only two roles. Manager and rest of crew. The Customer Service Leader role will go. Non-manager crew will also be in charge on some short haul services.

‘ The basic pay for cabin crews would be £24K per year.’

If only. If this was the case the proposal may be more palpable. This is the figure including hourly flight/trip pay and meal per diems. The basic is likely to be more in the region of £15k. Try get a mortgage anywhere in the UK with that on your payslip.

10 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, capetonianm, K1ngston, mkcol74, esselle, Johnnyg, ASK1945, FaroFlyer, PhilipHart, Montysaurus

[Roa1]

rferguson

Thanks for the added clarity.

However, on the question of a “Single Contract, I said that flight crews on “OTHER airlines” work on single contracts, you disagreed, and say “NOT CORRECT”and give examples of the legacy airlines. What about the “non-legacy airlines”? My understanding is they have single generic contracts(but for some tweaking), their T & C, pay scales, etc are all the same. That could be the reason why BA is considering a single generic contract for all flight attendants. Or bring equity and fairness to the lower paid Euro Fleets flight attendants.

I was expecting some serious comments or discussions on pay and other differentials of flight attendants working on (Worldwide Mixed, the Euro Fleets), performing similar roles and being treated differently, some more favourably and others less. And if these changes were not to happen then the Euro Fleets crews would continue to be at the bottom end of the ladder, and UNITE beating the drums about their poverty pay!

On that, I can’t figure out your £15K. Let me suggest where that figure might have come from (my own guestimate): London Living Wage £10 X 8 hour day – £80 X 6 days = £480 X 52 weeks equal a gross figure of £24,960 pa. I guess this is where the nominal £24K has its origin. That was the base figure I had suggested to ASK1945 in my earlier response to him.

Meanwhile, nothing is clear cut, and the saving of jobs are more important.

1 user thanked author for this post.

speedbird1969

[DerekVH]

The following letter from WW to the Prime Minister was published on FT yesterday. As much as I detest this man I find it difficult to challenge the points he makes. I cannot help but feel BA are simply going to impose these changes on every member of staff and I feel desperately worried for the cabin crew (and other HQ staff) given their Unions appear to be refusing to negotiate and are living in the hope they can find some loophole to stop the changes. There is no doubt that COVID-19 is giving WW an opportunity that he has wanted to implement for years but this time I cannot see that he is going to fail.

Quote:
Dear Prime Minister,

I have received several letters and emails from MPs and wanted to follow up on the statements I recently made to the Transport Select Committee. The aviation industry is facing the worst downturn ever seen in its history. The Covid-19 pandemic has seen worldwide government restrictions on travel and a collapse in demand. As a result, airlines have effectively grounded the worldwide fleet. Data from Eurocontrol (https://www.eurocontrol.int/Economic…ation-AOs.html) show that in April 2020 British Airways operated a total of 1,784 flights compared to 28,486 in April 2019, a reduction of almost 94%. We’ve seen a similar pattern in May. With only 6% of flights operating and with few people travelling on those flights, BA is not generating any revenue. At a Group level we are burning through almost €30m in cash each day. Our entire focus is to ensure that the company has the liquidity to survive the immediate crisis. We must act now to secure the maximum number of jobs possible.

The Prime Minister’s decision to quarantine people arriving in the UK by air, the Health Secretary’s comments that it was unlikely that “big, lavish international holidays” were going to be possible this summer and the Transport Secretary’s comments that people would be taking a big risk if they book a summer holiday, have all seriously set back recovery plans for our industry.

We do not see BA’s business, which is almost exclusively international flying, returning to 2019 levels until 2023/4. That means we must restructure our businesses and take all necessary measures to ensure the company survives and is ready for the future business environment which will inevitably be different.

We welcome the Chancellor’s decision to extend the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and we applaud Mr Sunak’s swift action in dealing with this crisis. However, while this brings some welcome relief, it is not a permanent financial solution. It merely buys us a few extra days to address the restructuring that our business requires to survive. You can see from the published accounts of BA that employee costs in 2019 were £2,529 million, or approximately £211 million per month. The total amount received by BA under the CJRS for April was almost £35 million and while we very much appreciate the support, it amounts to 17% of the average monthly wage bill and less than two days of cash, at the current rate of cash burn.

The suggestion that BA can ignore the crisis on the back of this support does not stand up to any level of scrutiny. We have availed of all support facilities provided by the UK Government, including £300 million under the Bank of England Covid Corporate Financing Facility, the maximum available to us under the scheme. We continue to explore all other avenues to support our liquidity.

Under the Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, we began consultations on April 30. We are open to any ideas on how to limit and mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on our business and our employees. We are now 28 days into the consultations and to date, regrettably, Unite and GMB have decided not to represent their members, preferring to engage in what Unite calls “crisis leverage” in an effort to intimidate BA and delay any consultation taking place at this critical time. This has not and most definitely, will not work. Time is not on our side so, we will not pause or defer our consultations.

Since the creation of IAG, BA has been consistently profitable with a cumulative operating profit of £10.8 billion. Most of the money made by the business has been invested back into the business with total capital expenditure over the period of £10.5 billion, of which £9.2 billion was spent on new aircraft and related equipment. Almost £4.5 billion of cash has gone to the company’s defined benefit pension schemes, while £2.2 billion has been paid in dividends and at the end of 2019, the company held £2.6 billion in cash.

It is also worth noting that since 2011, British Airways has paid a total of £8.1 billion in taxes and APD to the Exchequer.

You can see from the above that the company has been well run, financially prudent and has balanced the need to invest in the business, to support jobs and growth in BA and in the significant supply chain that supports the company, while fulfilling obligations to employees, shareholders and the Exchequer.

We find ourselves in the deepest crisis we have ever faced. A crisis not of our making but one which we must address. We will do everything in our power to ensure that BA can survive and sustain the maximum number of jobs consistent with the new reality of a changed airline industry in a severely weakened global economy. British Airways has served the country for 100 years. We want to ensure that we play our part in reconnecting Britain to the World and helping to drive the economic recovery the country so desperately requires.

Your sincerely,

Willie Walsh

Chief Executive Officer, IAG

5 users thanked author for this post.

SimonS1, ImissConcorde, ASK1945, Roa1, GivingupBA

[Roa1]

DerekVH

Thanks for the post, otherwise I’d have missed it. Also, I agree with your views.

Having said that I am surprised the trade unions (UNITE and GMB) are still refusing to participate in the restructuring. The pilots union BALPA are in talks with BA whilst the other two are boycotting those meetings and failing to represent their members interests. Doesn’t make sense. Meanwhile, ‘000’s of hard working, loyal employees up and down the country are all in the same boat – facing an uncertain future, and can’t understand why the two unions are so stubborn.
Rather sad to be reading that “industrial relations” at BA had deteriorated to this level, and the two unions and management can’t sit together and talk things out.

Meanwhile, gleaming from those facts; having a staff payroll of £2,529 million, £4.5 billion going into pensions, £2.2 billion paid in dividends and having a cash reserve of £2.6 billion in the current economic climate says a lot of about BA’s foreseeable future, compared to other struggling airlines.

2 users thanked author for this post.

ImissConcorde, SimonS1

[SimonS1]

Yes, hard to disagree with Walsh, O’Leary or any of the others who have spoken up on this.

The Government really has the cards to play here – either carry on funding people directly (whether that is through the furlough model or just unemployment benefit) or trying to get things moving so businesses can pay their own way.

Once that is resolved, individuals can make their own choice to re-engage with the outside world or isolate indefinitely.

[MartynSinclair]

[quote quote=999696]We find ourselves in the deepest crisis we have ever faced. A crisis not of our making but one which we must address. We will do everything in our power to ensure that BA can survive and sustain the maximum number of jobs consistent with the new reality of a changed airline industry in a severely weakened global economy. British Airways has served the country for 100 years. We want to ensure that we play our part in reconnecting Britain to the World and helping to drive the economic recovery the country so desperately requires.[/quote]

The final paragraph of WW’s letter could easily represent most firms in the UK. BA’s numbers are huge, but to some smaller firms, where their numbers appear insignificant in comparison, the impact of that final paragraph has equal meaning.

1 user thanked author for this post.

ImissConcorde

[rferguson]

For Willie Walsh there are many options he can look at that would be a fair compromise.

Let’s be real here. If he is able to slash the pay of almost ten thousand of his staff by around 50%, what are the cost savings to the company over one month, two years, five years? Hundreds of millions.

So – why not offer some DECENT voluntary redundancy package instead of the statutory minimum? Yes, they will have to stick their hands in their pockets but the ONE OFF cost to do this will be dwarfed in comparison to what they will save over a couple years.

Why not offer those legacy staff that want to (or need to) stay a one off payment to ‘buy out’ their contracts before they go on to what is being termed as ‘Corona Fleet’?

By simply adopting these two practices Willie Walsh could avoid having the company dragged through the mud again.

Do you know how demoralising it is to see how much money BA has shelled out on fines or loss of revenue due to their own stupid management decisions (ie outsourcing IT) yet out of the c£8b the company has in the bank the company cannot bring itself to even treat it’s long serving staff with one ounce of respect? To account for almost 70% of IAG’s profit yet to have the harshest penalties to staff? Iberia will have no forced job losses and no forced permanent changes to T&C’s and Aer Lingus is offering a very reasonable VR scheme.

Has anyone noticed how other airlines with legacy staff are not involved in the same public spats as BA are? KLM are offering enhanced Voluntary redundancy. As are the US carriers.

No one is saying staff numbers don’t need to be cut. No one is saying that legacy pay, T&C’s need to be looked at. But reducing pay by over 50% and offering the bare legal minimum to those they get rid of just stinks for a company in BA’s financial position.

Perhaps one of Willie Walsh’s most famous quotes (youtube it) is ‘A fair man gets nowhere in negotiations’. Second only to the ‘show me the f*cking money’ slide at the IAG Capital Markets day a few years ago.

Many MP’s are asking questions like where exactly are the decisions being made for BA ‘the flag carrier’. By an Irishman in Spain? In fact some MP’s are asking Bojo to consider looking at BA’s ‘grandfather rights’ to its slot portfolio at LHR if it essentially plans to make its entire workforce redundant and start again the next day with new contracts.

6 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, Johnnyg, Jacob, Montysaurus, openfly, PhilipHart

[speedbird1969]

As a BA employee with over 30 years service, what is going on at the minute is truly soul destroying considering everything else we have been through since Mr Cruz took the helm.
There are so many disaffected people that have simply had enough. We were “pension prisoners” effectively but since the final salary scheme was taken from us some years ago the only bright light we had was staff travel and the hope you might get a “nice” seat.
With the ongoing densification program and the removal of first and shrinking of club that is now a distant memory. And short haul flights are so full it’s not even worth trying to go standby on those.
If Mr Cruz offered a modest VR to staff he would probably find it oversubscribed and would achieve the required headcount reduction without the need for redundancies, such is the mood in the workforce.
The company is sitting on a bank balance of billions and a very small %age of that could have been used to achieve what they want without destroying what remaining goodwill there was. Sad times.

4 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, Montysaurus, capetonianm, PhilipHart

[rferguson]

I just don’t think BA has a real understanding of the impact this ruthlessness has on peoples lives.

2 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, DerekVH

[capetonianm]

I doubt if Cruz even knows the meaning of the word ‘goodwill’.

[openfly]

@rferguson….as ever, a very good post. Whatever BA does to you, I’m sure that every one of us wishes you well. Let’s hope BA comes to its senses, but I doubt it.

15 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, ImissConcorde, PhilipHart, fatbear, PatJordan, K1ngston, DavidGrodentz, Johnnyg, ASK1945, Jacob, DerekVH, GivingupBA, Montysaurus, esselle, MartynSinclair

[Roa1]

Entitlement to “Enhanced Redundancy Payments”

The “Enhanced Redundancy Payments” is a notoriously difficult area of the Employment Law. The burden is always on the employee to prove whether s/he is entitled to receive that payment, and this is how it works. During the better days, many businesses were offering generous employment termination packages, because they wanted to help their employees financially from being made redundant. Today, the economic situation is completely different and there are all kinds of state interventions to protect mass unemployment, and uncertain future. British Airways is no different to other businesses in restructuring and struggling to survive. But there has been a history acrimonious industrial relations at BA and between TU/employees, which may have soured the relationship, and could be the reason why they are less generous in considering enhanced payment packages, under the restructuring and redundancy procedures.

In brief; under enhanced redundancy payments, it works something like this: “Express Term” – these can be either contractual or discretionary, and understood by all parties to be part of their Terms and Conditions of Employment Contract from beginning. If it’s contractual than it will revolve around their interpretation in a particular set of circumstances, such as the current situation of mass redundancies, compared to previous small scale job losses, when the business could afford to pay. Where the contractual terms were discretionary, again the onus lies on the employee to prove to the courts (if it were to go that far) the nature of what was agreed between the employer and employee when the contract of employment was signed.

“Implied Term” – meaning the contract is so obvious that they have been part of the contract, as a result of custom and practice of the company, and that the enhanced redundancy payments were given as a matter of routine. It was part of a recognised exit “package” during a restructure. Then the employee has an arguable case before the courts.

The final one is called the “Collective Agreements” – whether the Trade Unions had entered into a “collective agreement” on behalf of it’s members as part of their conditions of employment. I can’t imagine this being the case at BA, because Unite and GMB has been fighting with WW ever since he joined the company. And even today, they are at loggerheads with BA and Unite and GMB beating the drums on Youtube and promoting anti-BA propaganda.

Sadly, those are the hurdles faced by British Airways employees.

[rferguson]

I am not referring to a legal obligation at all in terms of BA offering enhanced Voluntary Redundancy. I am simply mentioning a system that most airlines that are undertaking redundancy are offering so it saves them undertaking forced/involuntary redundancy.

BA is probably the best financially placed airline among these carriers offering enhanced VR deals (KLM, AA, DL, AZ, even IAG’s own EI) yet they choose not to.

BA could likely avoid having to make one single employee involuntarily redundant by offer of an enhanced voluntary means. Yes, of course it will cost it more.
But it would be a one off payment that they would recoup in what they will save in higher wage costs in no time. And I doubt it will be much more than one of their numerous f*ck ups they have had to fork out for recently – pilot IA, hacking compensation, IT meltdowns.

4 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, DerekVH, Montysaurus, K1ngston

[Author]

Posts