Could be any number of reasons, the time that they have invested in the job, that they like travel, fits their life style. Enough of the members feel wronged by management to take legal action,right or wrong they have that choice.

Egerton wrote:

Thanks. So if a group of cabin crew go though the process 4 times, get a majority 4 times, they can strike 4 times? This seems odd to me. Why don't those that vote to strike get another job?

Well, there's a time limit on how long the ballot is valid for. If they walked out (after a valid ballot and due notice) and stayed out until they got what they wanted or gave up altogether, they wouldn't need to reballot. But this group of workers couldn't afford to do that (the original dispute was about pay being below industry norms) so they staged several one, two, or four day strikes, with gaps in between so they could save up enough to support themselves. Then they need to reballot.

But the current threatened strike is for a different reason. The pay dispute was eventually resolved, but BA penalised those who went on strike by withdrawing their off-duty staff travel. This strike is to get the staff travel reinstated, and so would always require a different ballot due to being for a different reason.

As to why they don't get another job, what job? If they actually like being airline cabin crew, there isn't another UK airline that can give the mix of domestic, shorthaul international and longhaul international work that BA Mixed Fleet does. They could apply to a foreign airline, but with Brexit looming, while employment within Europe requires no work permits now, that could well change rapidly, and to work anywhere else definitely requires work permits/visas.

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

bhdw787 wrote:

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

Welcome to a.net!

That was all very well said. It's incredibly easy for someone to say, "Just get a new job", but this isn't like working at Burger King. The prospect of a career change is very scary, even for people in their mid to late 20s. When you become vested and you've taken steps towards preparing for your retirement, you can't just move that easily. For many, the only option is to fight for what you can get. Companies owe it to their career employees to offer them liveable salaries and benefits -- certainly similar relative to the market, but liveable at the very least. For employees to expect that from their employer is not an outrageous expectation. It isn't like BA cabin crew are already paid drastically higher compared to their competitors; they're unfortunately in a similar situation as many work groups across Europe, with airlines wanting to continually cut and unions fighting for their livelihood. Something somewhere is going to have to give.

atcsundevil wrote:

bhdw787 wrote:

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

Welcome to a.net!

That was all very well said. It's incredibly easy for someone to say, "Just get a new job", but this isn't like working at Burger King. The prospect of a career change is very scary, even for people in their mid to late 20s. When you become vested and you've taken steps towards preparing for your retirement, you can't just move that easily. For many, the only option is to fight for what you can get. Companies owe it to their career employees to offer them liveable salaries and benefits -- certainly similar relative to the market, but liveable at the very least. For employees to expect that from their employer is not an outrageous expectation. It isn't like BA cabin crew are already paid drastically higher compared to their competitors; they're unfortunately in a similar situation as many work groups across Europe, with airlines wanting to continually cut and unions fighting for their livelihood. Something somewhere is going to have to give.

Thanks! I've only been lurking around under the radar for the last five years or so, nice to be able to contribute now.

Thanks to all. I wonder if anyone can answer another question from me? Is it part of the reason that these unhappy folk don't just leave and get another job, that in this case strike pay is received from their Trade Union? If yes, is this strike pay more than or less than their normal pay?

bhdw787 wrote:

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

Spot on mate.... well said.

Andy33 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

Which aircraft would these be filling in for? Is mixed fleet the Airbus fleet?

Mixed Fleet is the new hire crew members since 2011. The legacy crew fleets Eurofleet (shorthaul with A320 series and 763s) and Worldwide (longhaul with 747/777/787/A380) consist of people who joined before 2011, or who came with British Midland when it was acquired, and aren't involved in the dispute. Between them these two still cover about 60% of BA flights from LHR.
As the name suggests, Mixed Fleet spans both shorthaul and longhaul rotations (and what BA calls midhaul) so everyone is current on A320 series plus two of the longhaul aircraft families. UK regs don't permit crew to be current on more than 3 aircraft families.
And Mixed Fleet only operates out of LHR crew base. There is a separate crew fleet (not involved in the dispute) based at LGW covering A320 series and 777 flights from there, and the A318 flights from LCY. The Embraer BA flights from LCY are on a different AOC (BA Cityflyer) and union agreement again. Then there are International crew bases in various countries, not as many as there used to be, supplying language qualified crew members, they're not involved in the dispute either.
If QR does operate flights for BA, they'll be helping to cover the shorthaul or midhaul (A321 with lie flat J) components of Mixed Fleet work. Bear in mind that under UK employment law, people are not obliged to join a union or participate in strikes if they do join, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of Mixed Fleet have chosen not to join the union. Historically, within BA, if people who are union members vote against a strike, but the majority votes for, they're quite likely to turn up for work and ignore any picket lines - and picketing the crew report centre or the staff car parks would be illegal anyway. So by no means all Mixed Fleet flights will need to be replaced by other airlines or cancelled, somewhere around 50-60% will fly with non-striking Mixed Fleet crew.
Now we're down to maybe 20% of BA departures from LHR uncovered by regular BA cabin crew/flight attendants. There are staff in other departments who are crew-qualified and maintain currency, and may be asked to help fill in, and finally there are wetleases.

Thank you so much for the detailed and informative answer!!

To be fair London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, and the pound has been devaluated a big deal lately so travelling overseas has become expensive. I don't know the details about the strike but I wouldn't dismiss their reason so quickly.

Egerton wrote:

Thanks to all. I wonder if anyone can answer another question from me? Is it part of the reason that these unhappy folk don't just leave and get another job, that in this case strike pay is received from their Trade Union? If yes, is this strike pay more than or less than their normal pay?

Let me answer this question in its entirety, these 'unhappy folk' don't just leave the job because Cabin Crew as a community are strong willed, tolerant and compassionate people who will not accept injustice in any form, They don't just mince up and down the aircraft snarling and making snarky comments, they're caring individuals despite what some would say and that care extends to each other. I believe the strike pay from the union more than covers the loss of earnings that they would suffer from finding themselves at the end of the line and having to take industrial action. When you add in that many of these crew members also have second or even third jobs along side being Cabin Crew; it's not out of the realms of possibility that additional work in these jobs over periods of industrial action would seriously bolster their overall earnings to something far in excess of what they would have been paid to fly.

First the LHR customer/cancel debacle and now this.

All arrows are pointing to BA management repeatedly dropping the ball. The board should clean house at the top and set things straight.

Any chance that the cabin crew union will ask airport handling unions in other European countries to boycot the QR aircraft which will operate BA flights?

Anyone having a go at the mixed fleet crew for trying to better their wages needs a reality check. These guys are managing to earn around 1000 GBP (around $1200USD) a month after tax... for a city like london doing the job they do its pretty despicable.

bhdw787 wrote:

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

Actualthus strike has nothing to do with pay, the union and BA have appareny have agreed on that. This is about perks being removed from those that went on strike earlier, something which has nithing to do wirh pay. The union should actually have to re ballot imho as this is now a different dispute than what was originally balloted on.

Do BA now see cabin crew as a career or a job that you do for a few years then move onto something else?

jomur wrote:

bhdw787 wrote:

I think there needs to be some enlightenment on this thread. The crew involved in this dispute are dealing with a company that will not negotiate, despite saying that they want to bring this dispute to close; they are not asking for something that is unreasonable, they are asking for a living wage; a wage which covers their costs. It's very easy for people to turn around and say 'find another job' but let's be honest here, this is the real world, many crew are leaving and walking into jobs which pay almost double; experienced crew members with years under their belt. Not all people are in a position to just switch and change jobs on a whim, they have commitments....rent to pay, mouths to feed and debts to pay; many of these crew aren't 18 and living at home rent free. In the United Kingdom we have laws which protect people who take industrial action from sanctions, you may or may not agree with it and that's your prerogative but that's the facts. Would you not stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace? again its very easy to say 'just leave' but that solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll solve your own personal situation but in no way help those who step into your shoes not knowing what they are getting themselves in to; yes you sign the contract but I think it should be pointed out that what you sign and the reality are worlds apart.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and remember that Cabin Crew are also human, they are people just like the rest of you. They need their wages to keep up with the cost of living in order to live and within the required 'two hours from Heathrow' and that hasn't been the case. Cabin Crew also need to eat, put a roof over their heads and support their families. They shouldn't have to turn up to work with holes in their shoes because they can't afford to replace them, they shouldn't be sleeping in the car park because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars to get home and they certainly shouldn't have to eat pot noodles or even worse not eating at all when they are away on trips because it's the week after pay day and their entire pay slip has already disappeared. I'm assuming that many posters on this forum are frequent flyers, does it not concern some of you that your crew aren't well rested, well nourished and should things go wrong not operating at their best? I'm more than aware that getting a double vodka and coke with ice while your Cabin Crew are performing CPR on a passenger (true story) is the priority for some of you, but surely you value your own safety even if you don't particularly mind that your Cabin Crew are barely getting by.

I'm expecting a barrage of abuse but it needed to be said. Maybe put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

Actualthus strike has nothing to do with pay, the union and BA have appareny have agreed on that. This is about perks being removed from those that went on strike earlier, something which has nithing to do wirh pay. The union should actually have to re ballot imho as this is now a different dispute than what was originally balloted on.

Agree with you there Jomur. The union (and I assume its members!) have agreed on the pay rise negotiated with BA. This new strike action is about having BA return staff travel privileges to those that went on strike previously. BA informed these members that they would lose their privileges if they took strike action, to which BA have subsequently enforced. Whilst I'm no fan of BA and particularly its management, one asks why MF think it should be returned? Staff travel is not a contracted 'right' but a privilege that can be removed by the Company for certain reasons.

I guess Mixed Fleet crews have been influenced by previous BA management and their hollow threats. During the 2009 strike by BASSA, Willie Walsh and Co. threatened BASSA members with the same loss of staff travel privileges, which would never be returned I they took strike action. Indeed it was taken away during the protracted strike period, but then reinstated immediately afterwards. I guess Alex Cruz is sticking by his word that loss of staff travel means loss of staff travel.

migair54 wrote:

BA can also have some EK big birds flying if they need, few of them are parked because EK has reduced some flights, so if they need long haul machinery they can get some pretty fast. I guess QR has some planes that can do the job too.

I believe we have established on another thread that EK DO NOT have aircraft parked excessively.

Please leave your anti EK opinions out of this.

redroo wrote:

Do BA now see cabin crew as a career or a job that you do for a few years then move onto something else?

Why shouldn't this be seen as a career position?

People (in general, not you, redroo) who are critical of unions and struggles for higher wages like to pretend that lower paying jobs are meant to be temporary brdiges to some sort of higher value employment. In 2017, that is baloney. There has been a restructuring of the labor economy in the US, UK and beyond that continues to hollow out middle class employment. For many, many people there are not practical alternatives. You can (naively) accept this as some sort of "law of survival" in a global economy, or you can reflect on the political forces and interests that enable this process and put ordinary people and their needs -- housing, food, healthcare, education -- at the heart of your concerns.

This strike doesn't represent a cultural problem with labor. It represents a cultural problem with our elite-driven economy, which in the US today has the same distribution of wealth as Victorian Britain, and I'm utterly exhausted by amrchair CEOs and FF'ers on A.net demonizing labor at every turn. I've been reading these forums for a decade, and it's always been the worst part of the experience.


That said, welcome and thank you to bhdw787 for your thoughtful contribution!

jomur wrote:

Actualthus strike has nothing to do with pay, the union and BA have appareny have agreed on that. This is about perks being removed from those that went on strike earlier, something which has nithing to do wirh pay. The union should actually have to re ballot imho as this is now a different dispute than what was originally balloted on.

I am afraid you are wrong, it is about both pay and the perks, both issues are joined as BA removed the perks as a direct result of going on strike in relation to pay. I should clarify those who went on strike lost access to staff travel (ie standby travel), their discounted tickets (firm travel) and their bonus for last year 2016 and this year 2017. The union and BA came to an agreement about pay and the reinstatement of some of the perks immediately however some are only going to be reinstated after a set time period. The union recommended the deal, however the membership of the union - ie the rank and file cabin crew rejected the deal, - the whole deal, pay and perks reinstatement - I believe it was a simple do you accept this deal yes/no not broken down into do you accept the pay deal and do you accept the perks deal. The ballot was incredibly close. I believe that under union rules that if the membership reject the deal, the union have to go back to the table. BA are trying to get the union to ballot again just on the pay deal, however I don't think that will happen.

axiom wrote:

redroo wrote:

Do BA now see cabin crew as a career or a job that you do for a few years then move onto something else?

Why shouldn't this be seen as a career position?

People (in general, not you, redroo) who are critical of unions and struggles for higher wages like to pretend that lower paying jobs are meant to be temporary brdiges to some sort of higher value employment. In 2017, that is baloney. There has been a restructuring of the labor economy in the US, UK and beyond that continues to hollow out middle class employment. For many, many people there are not practical alternatives. You can (naively) accept this as some sort of "law of survival" in a global economy, or you can reflect on the political forces and interests that enable this process and put ordinary people and their needs -- housing, food, healthcare, education -- at the heart of your concerns.

This strike doesn't represent a cultural problem with labor. It represents a cultural problem with our elite-driven economy, which in the US today has the same distribution of wealth as Victorian Britain, and I'm utterly exhausted by amrchair CEOs and FF'ers on A.net demonizing labor at every turn. I've been reading these forums for a decade, and it's always been the worst part of the experience.


That said, welcome and thank you to bhdw787 for your thoughtful contribution!

Unfortunately for BA the status of whether being cabin crew is a career or a temporary job was taken out of their hands, at the point where the competition decided it was a short term job with travel attached. Its just not sustainable to pay far in excess of your competitors whilst having to compete on price. If passengers were prepared to pay extra to a company that rewarded its staff well, did not sub contract out check in, handling, maintenance etc, the legacy carriers would not be suffering at the hands of the LCC's

The particular problem with cabin crew is that their is a "glamour" factor that results in lots of applicants even if the renumeration is rubbish. I can recall a work colleagues daughter applying to VS many years ago and their wages were poor then. When the day comes that airlines struggle to get cabin crew, wages will rise, but until then there is little hope even if working on a supermarket checkout pays just as well. Thats the brutal truth working at BA sounds better than working at Tesco.

I'm jumping into this discussion just to say that I am sick and tired of unions holding innocent people HOSTAGE! If I have a issue with my employer do I go to your house and block you from leaving or stop your kids form going to school or buying products from your favorite establishment, NO so why do unions feel they have a right to hold people hostage to leverage their negotiations. If I need to travel and booked a flight with an airline for work or vacation why should unions have the right to stop me? I fully support BA in trying to continue offering flights and trying to run a airline!

@acatroyal

What other options employees have? Management shouldn't get offended when employees ask for a livable salary.

Staff travel is not going to cost much to an airline, mostly those are unsold seats, do management need to stick it to their employees.

After few months fake review this request will get approved by regulators, that means system failed to protect labor rights.

So then, with the first phase of this BA strike action starting this weekend, any news of QR aircraft deployment to LHR ? Presume most will arrive Thurs / Fri in time for operations starting Sat.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

axiom wrote:

redroo wrote:

Do BA now see cabin crew as a career or a job that you do for a few years then move onto something else?

Why shouldn't this be seen as a career position?

People (in general, not you, redroo) who are critical of unions and struggles for higher wages like to pretend that lower paying jobs are meant to be temporary brdiges to some sort of higher value employment. In 2017, that is baloney. There has been a restructuring of the labor economy in the US, UK and beyond that continues to hollow out middle class employment. For many, many people there are not practical alternatives. You can (naively) accept this as some sort of "law of survival" in a global economy, or you can reflect on the political forces and interests that enable this process and put ordinary people and their needs -- housing, food, healthcare, education -- at the heart of your concerns.

This strike doesn't represent a cultural problem with labor. It represents a cultural problem with our elite-driven economy, which in the US today has the same distribution of wealth as Victorian Britain, and I'm utterly exhausted by amrchair CEOs and FF'ers on A.net demonizing labor at every turn. I've been reading these forums for a decade, and it's always been the worst part of the experience.


That said, welcome and thank you to bhdw787 for your thoughtful contribution!

Unfortunately for BA the status of whether being cabin crew is a career or a temporary job was taken out of their hands, at the point where the competition decided it was a short term job with travel attached. Its just not sustainable to pay far in excess of your competitors whilst having to compete on price. If passengers were prepared to pay extra to a company that rewarded its staff well, did not sub contract out check in, handling, maintenance etc, the legacy carriers would not be suffering at the hands of the LCC's

The particular problem with cabin crew is that their is a "glamour" factor that results in lots of applicants even if the renumeration is rubbish. I can recall a work colleagues daughter applying to VS many years ago and their wages were poor then. When the day comes that airlines struggle to get cabin crew, wages will rise, but until then there is little hope even if working on a supermarket checkout pays just as well. Thats the brutal truth working at BA sounds better than working at Tesco.

As long as there are 100 applicants for every flight attendant position (made up figures) the company in question can operate a policy of low tenure and high attrition in the role - as long as the cost of attrition is less than the cost of training. Hire them young, fly them hard, then hope they move on for a better job before they get old or fat. BA are not the only airline to do this. SQ are famous for it.

Is it right? If the company says upfront, "this is a young person game. we fly you hard, you see the world, the wages aren't great, and we expect you to move on after 5 years" then I don't have a problem with it. If people are taking these roles thinking its going to be a lifetime career flying and the company has an internal policy of high attrition, then thats not right.

With this just 2 days away has this plan firmed up? If so any word on what sorts of arrival
schedules might be for these planes at LHR? All at once with required crews in place for July 1st?
Some of the airliners.net photographers will have an interesting few days! Look forward to seeing what they capture.

That's what I want to know. Perhaps those of you with more time on your hands than me can keep an eye on flight tracking sites and see if there is an influx of positioning QR aircraft out of DOH towards LHR and let us know here.
Thanks.

According to Skyliner Aviation, 9 Qatar A320s was ferried DOH-LHR yesterday

Airbus A320 -232 1566 A7-ADA Qatar Airways ferried 29jun17 DOH-LHR on wet-lease to British Airways (+ 1648 A7-ADB, + 1773 A7-ADC, + 1895 A7-ADD, + 1957 A7-ADE) ex F-WWBG
Airbus A320 -232 2097 A7-ADF Qatar Airways ferried 29jun17 DOH-LHR on wet-lease to British Airways (+ 2121 A7-ADG. + 2161 A6-ADI, + 6347 A7-LAA) ex F-WWIP)

They are due to arrive today

The first one A7-ADA is due to leave Doha in the next few minutes. I wonder if they will all travel in convoy, one after the other.

They are due to start arriving at 1445 today (A7-ADI is planned to be the first to arrive), the main group (5 a/c) arriving between 2000 and 2140 this evening.

uta999 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

A7-ADA is due to leave Doha in the next few minutes as QR3451. I wonder if they will all travel in convoy, one after the other.

QR8255 en route

uta999 wrote:

The first one A7-ADA is due to leave Doha in the next few minutes. I wonder if they will all travel in convoy, one after the other.

A7-ADI is the first, it is already approaching Bulgaria as QR3251.

Many years ago, a school teacher that had yet to gain my respect (because of course all school teachers should have to do that) gained my eternal respect with a simple statement. The statement was made during a teachers strike, when many others were absent. He said "I knew the pay was poor when I took the job. Yes I have the right to strike, but I made the decision to accept poor remuneration at the point I accepted the contract".

32 years ago and the first thing that enters my mind when I hear the work "strike".

Do we know what routes these QR airplanes are going to be running? I will be flying LHR-CDG on July 20th and back CDG-LHR on Aug 3rd. I'd love to have a chance to ride on one of the QR A320s.

uta999 wrote:

The first one A7-ADA is due to leave Doha in the next few minutes. I wonder if they will all travel in convoy, one after the other.

First 3 planes are now on their way to LHR:


https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 5478360064

There's 8 QR a320's.... ADA-ADI , excluding H and one Al Maha ..A7-LAA

How low can BA go? Pretty freaking low. This is deliciously ridiculous.

Won't this large lease arrangement cause a problem for BA, perhaps even leading to retaliation in the Gulf? It does look like a political point is being made by the UK.

uta999 wrote:

Won't this large lease arrangement cause a problem for BA, perhaps even leading to retaliation in the Gulf? It does look like a political point is being made by the UK.

Oh come on, you can't be serious?

It's an airline leasing capacity from an airline that currently has aircraft to spare. No more, no less.

Since everyone who is in the Gulf and remotely interested knows that Qatar Airways owns 20% of BA's parent company IAG, they'll see it as good business sense, not a political statement. They also know that IAG is legally a Spanish company. Would you say it was a political point on the part of Spain?
The UK government has had no way to direct the affairs of BA (other than in aviation safety terms) for 30 years.

ClassicLover wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Won't this large lease arrangement cause a problem for BA, perhaps even leading to retaliation in the Gulf? It does look like a political point is being made by the UK.

Oh come on, you can't be serious?

It's an airline leasing capacity from an airline that currently has aircraft to spare. No more, no less.

Whereby one is part owner of the other!

The first aircraft, A7-ADI, is on final approach to LHR now (1425 Local)

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

How low can BA go? Pretty freaking low. This is deliciously ridiculous.

Why is low on BA's part? All they are doing is making sure their paying passengers get to where they want to go when they want to go. Just like any other business/airline would do. These are the same paying passengers that pay the striking cabin crews wages....

This is business, not politics, if Titan had enough spare aircraft IAG would have got them from them, you buy what the market has to offer.

Depending oon the quality of the QR product, this could lead to passengers chosing QR rather than BA in the future.

Don't know if these aircraft will serve what FR24 says they will. I had a similar incident involving TK where FR24 claimed a 77W was gonna do a certain route but an A333 popped up instead... anyway back to topic, some updates:
NOTE: The estimated arrival is true as of when I am typing this!
A7-ADA has arrived at LHR 15 minutes ago and is scheduled to serve BA388/391 to Brussels and back tomorrow.
A7-ADB is estimated to arrive in Heathrow at 8:36pm local. It is scheduled to do the BA948/949 to Munich and back and a hop down to Nice (BA356/7) after that tomorrow. scheduled
A7-ADC is to arrive at EGLL at 7:26pm local. It is expected to fly up to Oslo and back as BA762/3 tomorrow followed by a journey down to Krakow and back (BA872/3)
A7-ADD should arrive at LHR at 8:59pm. Tomorrow then, it should go to Sofia and back (BA890/1) and then a trip to Madrid (BA464/5)
A7-ADE is to arrive at Heathrow at 7:30pm.
A7-ADF arrived at Heathrow at 5:20pm. It should do BA882/3 to Kiev and back tomorrow.
A7-ADG is estimated to arrive at LHR at 10:09pm.
A7-ADI arrived at LHR at 2:29pm as mentioned.
A7-LAA is estimated to arrive at Heathrow at 9:26pm. Then tomorrow it is scheduled to do the BA710/11 to Zurich and BA876/7 to Tallinn afterwards.
So 9 A320s in total are expected to operate for BA... thought they were gonna throw in an A321 or two but obviously not. Just for the extra aviation geeks, 8 will have wingtip fences and 1 (A7-LAA) is equipped with sharklets.

Wow this is pretty crazy. So from my understanding, 8 Qatar aircrafts will be based in Heathrow during the strike. I have some questions regarding this:

- is this a wet lease, or semi wet lease? (Ba pilots, Qatar crew)
- why not use ba planes? (Picketing is not allowed in the Uk as far as I understand)
- assuming this is a complete wet lease, how many pilots and crews are being brought over? Any facts/ideas/assumptions?
- will the Qatar crews being rotated, or will they all stay in a hotel during the duration of the strike?
- is there enough space at Heathrow for 8 Parked Ba planes + 8 Qatar planes

And another question: what would be considered a fair wage? Given the cost of living and the skill required, would 25k/year as a good guaranteed minimum be acceptable.

Thanks

JulietteBravo wrote:

Cunard wrote:

JulietteBravo wrote:

Quite irritating to me - is BA really in such a bad condition that they have to engage strike breakers from Quatar instead of finding a solution with the unions?

It is QATAR not QUATAR.

It's like putting QUANTAS rather than QANTAS.

With QR being a major shareholder of BA I can see this as an ideal move although in all honesty it won't happen as the demands will met by both sides in one way or another and the strike will inevitably be called off but not until the very last moment so it makes sense for BA to have a contingency plan in case the strike does go ahead.

I apologize for that. Im terribly sorry: QATAR. Of course not Quatar.

No quarter given here.

British Airways planned the Qatar Airways Airbus A320 for tomorrow already!

http://www.luchtzak.be/airlines/iag/bri ... nd-zurich/

Kiev, Brussels, Oslo, Munich, Sofia and Zurich

Egerton wrote:

Thanks Andy33. I assume that in principle UK law or regulation permits dismissals of folk who offend against their contracts of employment? I assume that there are procedures or processes which the employer has to deal with to avoid unfair dismissals?

Whet I do not understand is if an employee of BA goes on strike or threatens to do so (as in the case of some mixed feet BA people), why have they not been dismissed?

You can't dismiss someone from their position if they are planning or on strike providing it is legally done! And to just be dismissed from a contract in the U.K. Is actually pretty hard, employers have to follow certain steps to address the problems with the employee through disciplinary procedures before they as a company can legally dismiss someone, the only way to dismiss someone immediately is through negligence or gross misconduct which again has its own set of laws covering what that can and can't include. UK employment law very much protects employees more than employers for the most part!