Самолеты British Airways стали летать пустыми

22.03.2010 в 22:22

Доброе утро! :sarcastic:

Новости как минимум несколько дней.

22.03.2010 в 23:13

Eсли в августе-сентябре будут пустые рейсы в Ньюарк, то сообщите пожалуйста.

23.03.2010 в 05:15

Ниче се новость, если так далее пойдет то БАНКРОТ :sarcastic:

23.03.2010 в 09:35

Во всём виновато их голубоватое поведение.

23.03.2010 в 15:02

fabel (23 March 2010 — 14:55) писал:

Не читайте советских газет.Это я вам как сотрудник Бритишей говорю.
Единственный правильный пост в этой теме у комрада

Это правда.

На форуме British Airways Virtual люди, которые работают в реальной а/к, говорят примерно то же самое, только политкорректнее.

23.03.2010 в 15:10

nik-dem (23 March 2010 — 15:02) писал:

Это правда.

На форуме British Airways Virtual люди, которые работают в реальной а/к, говорят примерно то же самое, только политкорректнее.

Я мягко говоря в шоке от профессионализма нашей прессы.Они бы хоть посмотрели что ВВС и Скай пишут, прежде чем выкладывать высеры подобные напечатанным на ленте.ру

23.03.2010 в 15:11

fabel (23 March 2010 — 15:10) писал:

Я мягко говоря в шоке от профессионализма нашей прессы.Они бы хоть посмотрели что ВВС и Скай пишут, прежде чем выкладывать высеры подобные напечатанным на ленте.ру

Согласен.

23.03.2010 в 17:39

Я думаю, что лучше этих двух цитат сотрудника а/к «British Airways» Даниеля Эдвардса объяснить не сможет больше ничего:

Цитаты сохраняю полностью и на языке оригинала.

Daniel Edwards (09 Март 2010 — 01:12) писал:

I don’t think the union really know what they’re complaining about — if they did then they would have mentioned it on their ballot paper. It was telling that they didn’t give a reason on their ballot paper. They say it’s not what’s been changed, it’s that something has been «imposed» upon them. They say that BA haven’t negotiated with them properly. BA have been negotiating for over a year for cost-savings from each department. Flight ops (the pilots) agreed and implemented cost-savings months ago. BASSA point blank refused to meet BA’s cost-saving target in any way shape or form. For months on end various factions of Unite/BASSA wouldn’t even sit in the same room so it was impossible for BA to negotiate properly with them. After 8 months, and failing to meet a June deadline, BA imposed changes to Heathrow crewing levels to essentially bring them in to line with Gatwick crewing levels, which it has to be said, is done so with Unite/BASSA’s agreement. Therefore BASSA cannot argue safety/service issues. I don’t see what else BA could do. They had to save costs and if BASSA were unwilling to budge, they had to impose something. The changes BA have implemented do no affect the take-home pay of any crew member. They will still get exactly the same money. In fact, strictly speaking, apart from the CSD they will do exactly the same job — despite losing a crew member, the CSD becomes part of the service (you’d like to think for £56,000 per year that they would have been anyway…) so there are still the same number of crew members doing the service as before. In order to facilitate the crew compliment changes, about 1,000 cabin crew members who wanted voluntary redudancy were granted their wishes and many more that wanted to change to part time work also had their wishes fulfilled. It’s actually a very good deal for cabin crew considering pilots have taken effectively a 6% pay cut. A high-court judge has ruled that the changes BA have made are reasonable and non-contractual. BASSA really have no grounds for complaint, certainly not on a legal standpoint and I imagine most of the UK public would also argue they have no grounds for complaint on a moral basis either.

Then there’s New Fleet, the name for the new cabin crew recruits at Heathrow when recruitment recommences. The people on the old contracts (rumour has it that pre-imposition, on the Australian routes BA’s cabin crew costs were 32% higher than those of QANTAS) feel that this is a threat to their terms and conditions. They believe the New Fleet guys, who will get a per-hour allowance as Time Away From Base pay like they do at Gatwick, will take all the lucrative routes (like Tokyo, currently worth £935 in allowances for 4 days work on top of basic salary, or £835 for a 5-day Hong Kong etc.) and leave them with the lesser-paid East Coast USA or Indian trips. So it is somewhat about pay. To alleviate this fear, BA have offered BASSA a deal whereby the average allowances that crew earned last year would be averaged out each month and paid as a flat allowance each month. It means that incomes are more predictable and you wouldn’t lose out if you never got the higher-paying trips. I believe BASSA have scoffed at that. More about that later. This is without their disruption agreement which sees cabin crew requiring 2 local nights following a diversion before they step foot on an aircraft again, meaning huge inconvenience for the customers. So when BASSA say that they are fighting this «imposition» for the benefit of customers, I find it hard to believe.

So far, over 70% of Gatwick cabin crew, who are paid more akin to market rate, are willing to work through a strike. For one, they don’t want to lose their staff travel, but also I think many of them feel badly let down by their own union and probably unwilling to support what they perceive to be unrealistic demands from their union. Afterall, the changes are Gatwick are minimal (just one purser on a 777 being replaced with a regular crew member, and that’s it). Now tying together the BASSA scoffing at the monthly flat allowances and also the staff travel issue, many of BASSA’s reps a) commute from abroad to get to work, so losing staff travel would be a huge inconvenience many of them are quite senior and end up doing more than their fair share of Tokyos, Hong Kongs, Shanghais etc. c) most of the BASSA reps being senior means that a lot of them are CSDs, they’re the ones that are now having to become part of the service whereas before they weren’t. They are the only ones that will see an increase in workload. It’s little wonder that they’d rather take a pay cut than work a service, purely for selfish means it seems. BASSA have made a big song and dance about how the figures for cabin crew pay that BA come out with are «propaganda» and that some of them are actually on income-support etc. (which I don’t believe for a second) then why would BASSA offer BA that each crew member will take a pay cut providing the crew levels are returned to how they were previously? Clearly the BASSA leadership is looking after themselves rather than their members, which is very sad. Finally d) I think BASSA know that they have little support at Gatwick and I think that they know that the threat of losing staff travel permanantly will sway a lot of crew to decide to work through a strike rendering their strike utterly futile and useless. That’s why I can’t see them calling a strike in this window unless they have a total meltdown of common sense, but then again, 12 days over Christmas proves that they don’t exactly have a great track record in that regard.

I have no idea what would happen if they strike, but there are over 1,000 trained volunteers ready to step in. At least 70%, possibly more, of the Gatwick cabin crews are willing to work through a strike. Many more will likely work from Heathrow but that figure hasn’t been released. A strike really would have a negligable impact and BASSA have backed themselves into a very weak position because they refused to negotiate from the outset back in February 2009. If they strike, I imagine that cabin crew that go on strike would have their contract cancelled in addition to losing staff travel. They would then be offered the New Fleet contract, which is for far less pay than the old Heathrow contracts (although it would still be market rate +10%). It’s difficult to argue that New Fleet T&Cs are unfair given that they will be market rate +10%. Most people in any industry would gladly take up a job that gave them market rate + 10%. They need to realise we live in 2010 with a depressed economy and a challenging revenue environment for aviation. The deal BA have offered them is ultimately excellent. I’d be surprised if they actually call a strike after this supposed Tuesday 5pm deadline, but they have insisted that unless the crew numbers were reinstated then they would call a strike. If they back down then they will look very, very weak. If BASSA spent more time negotiating with BA instead of slagging off BALPA members, they might not find themselves in such a sticky situation.

Daniel Edwards (20 Март 2010 — 17:33) писал:

Things are going better than planned for the airline. Crew at Gatwick are turning up as per normal, which was pretty much as expected as Gatwick crews do not hold Unite/BASSA in high esteem. At Heathrow, so many crew are turning up as per normal that volunteer cabin crew are being stood on a regular basis for many flights and a few 747 and 767 flights have been reinstated (LAX, MIA, TLV, JFK and a few others).

Unite/BASSA are still deluding themselves that they’re grounding the airline. The longer this dispute goes on, the worse the final settlement for the cabin crew is going to be. Willie still has stuff left up his sleeve, Unite have very little. There is only going to be one winner and it won’t be Unite.

Данные за 21-е марта:

Цитата

1,157 Cabin Crew ignored the 1st day of the strike.
97.2% of Gatwicks Cabin Crew turned up as normal
52.5% of Heathrows Cabin Crew also turned up.

Также попробуйте сходить по этой ссылке на форум нашей ВАК, может, повезет и вы сможете его прочесть как гость без регистрации. Если сможете или не сможете прочитать тему, то сообщите мне, выложу еще копипасты.
http://bavirtual.co…..php?f=7&t=5303

Сообщение отредактировал nik-dem: 23 March 2010 — 17:41

<div class="post entry-content">
Я думаю, что лучше этих двух цитат сотрудника а/к "British Airways" Даниеля Эдвардса объяснить не сможет больше ничего: <img alt=":)" class="bbc_emoticon" src="https://www.avsim.su/wp-content/themes/avia/img/smile.gif" /><br />
<br />
Цитаты сохраняю полностью и на языке оригинала.<br />
<br />
<p class="citation">Daniel Edwards (09 Март 2010 - 01:12) писал:</p><div class="blockquote"><div class="quote">
I don't think the union really know what they're complaining about - if they did then they would have mentioned it on their ballot paper. It was telling that they didn't give a reason on their ballot paper. They say it's not what's been changed, it's that something has been "imposed" upon them. They say that BA haven't negotiated with them properly. BA have been negotiating for over a year for cost-savings from each department. Flight ops (the pilots) agreed and implemented cost-savings months ago. BASSA point blank refused to meet BA's cost-saving target in any way shape or form. For months on end various factions of Unite/BASSA wouldn't even sit in the same room so it was impossible for BA to negotiate properly with them. After 8 months, and failing to meet a June deadline, BA imposed changes to Heathrow crewing levels to essentially bring them in to line with Gatwick crewing levels, which it has to be said, is done so with Unite/BASSA's agreement. Therefore BASSA cannot argue safety/service issues. I don't see what else BA could do. They had to save costs and if BASSA were unwilling to budge, they had to impose something. The changes BA have implemented do no affect the take-home pay of any crew member. They will still get exactly the same money. In fact, strictly speaking, apart from the CSD they will do exactly the same job - despite losing a crew member, the CSD becomes part of the service (you'd like to think for £56,000 per year that they would have been anyway...) so there are still the same number of crew members doing the service as before. In order to facilitate the crew compliment changes, about 1,000 cabin crew members who wanted voluntary redudancy were granted their wishes and many more that wanted to change to part time work also had their wishes fulfilled. It's actually a very good deal for cabin crew considering pilots have taken effectively a 6% pay cut. A high-court judge has ruled that the changes BA have made are reasonable and non-contractual. BASSA really have no grounds for complaint, certainly not on a legal standpoint and I imagine most of the UK public would also argue they have no grounds for complaint on a moral basis either.<br />
<br />
Then there's New Fleet, the name for the new cabin crew recruits at Heathrow when recruitment recommences. The people on the old contracts (rumour has it that pre-imposition, on the Australian routes BA's cabin crew costs were 32% higher than those of QANTAS) feel that this is a threat to their terms and conditions. They believe the New Fleet guys, who will get a per-hour allowance as Time Away From Base pay like they do at Gatwick, will take all the lucrative routes (like Tokyo, currently worth £935 in allowances for 4 days work on top of basic salary, or £835 for a 5-day Hong Kong etc.) and leave them with the lesser-paid East Coast USA or Indian trips. So it is somewhat about pay. To alleviate this fear, BA have offered BASSA a deal whereby the average allowances that crew earned last year would be averaged out each month and paid as a flat allowance each month. It means that incomes are more predictable and you wouldn't lose out if you never got the higher-paying trips. I believe BASSA have scoffed at that. More about that later. This is without their disruption agreement which sees cabin crew requiring 2 local nights following a diversion before they step foot on an aircraft again, meaning huge inconvenience for the customers. So when BASSA say that they are fighting this "imposition" for the benefit of customers, I find it hard to believe.<br />
<br />
So far, over 70% of Gatwick cabin crew, who are paid more akin to market rate, are willing to work through a strike. For one, they don't want to lose their staff travel, but also I think many of them feel badly let down by their own union and probably unwilling to support what they perceive to be unrealistic demands from their union. Afterall, the changes are Gatwick are minimal (just one purser on a 777 being replaced with a regular crew member, and that's it). Now tying together the BASSA scoffing at the monthly flat allowances and also the staff travel issue, many of BASSA's reps a) commute from abroad to get to work, so losing staff travel would be a huge inconvenience <img alt="B)" class="bbc_emoticon" src="https://www.avsim.su/wp-content/themes/avia/img/coolio.gif" /> many of them are quite senior and end up doing more than their fair share of Tokyos, Hong Kongs, Shanghais etc. c) most of the BASSA reps being senior means that a lot of them are CSDs, they're the ones that are now having to become part of the service whereas before they weren't. They are the only ones that will see an increase in workload. It's little wonder that they'd rather take a pay cut than work a service, purely for selfish means it seems. BASSA have made a big song and dance about how the figures for cabin crew pay that BA come out with are "propaganda" and that some of them are actually on income-support etc. (which I don't believe for a second) then why would BASSA offer BA that each crew member will take a pay cut providing the crew levels are returned to how they were previously? Clearly the BASSA leadership is looking after themselves rather than their members, which is very sad. Finally d) I think BASSA know that they have little support at Gatwick and I think that they know that the threat of losing staff travel permanantly will sway a lot of crew to decide to work through a strike rendering their strike utterly futile and useless. That's why I can't see them calling a strike in this window unless they have a total meltdown of common sense, but then again, 12 days over Christmas proves that they don't exactly have a great track record in that regard.<br />
<br />
I have no idea what would happen if they strike, but there are over 1,000 trained volunteers ready to step in. At least 70%, possibly more, of the Gatwick cabin crews are willing to work through a strike. Many more will likely work from Heathrow but that figure hasn't been released. A strike really would have a negligable impact and BASSA have backed themselves into a very weak position because they refused to negotiate from the outset back in February 2009. If they strike, I imagine that cabin crew that go on strike would have their contract cancelled in addition to losing staff travel. They would then be offered the New Fleet contract, which is for far less pay than the old Heathrow contracts (although it would still be market rate +10%). It's difficult to argue that New Fleet T&amp;Cs are unfair given that they will be market rate +10%. Most people in any industry would gladly take up a job that gave them market rate + 10%. They need to realise we live in 2010 with a depressed economy and a challenging revenue environment for aviation. The deal BA have offered them is ultimately excellent. I'd be surprised if they actually call a strike after this supposed Tuesday 5pm deadline, but they have insisted that unless the crew numbers were reinstated then they would call a strike. If they back down then they will look very, very weak. If BASSA spent more time negotiating with BA instead of slagging off BALPA members, they might not find themselves in such a sticky situation.</div></div><br />
<br />
<p class="citation">Daniel Edwards (20 Март 2010 - 17:33) писал:</p><div class="blockquote"><div class="quote">
Things are going better than planned for the airline. Crew at Gatwick are turning up as per normal, which was pretty much as expected as Gatwick crews do not hold Unite/BASSA in high esteem. At Heathrow, so many crew are turning up as per normal that volunteer cabin crew are being stood on a regular basis for many flights and a few 747 and 767 flights have been reinstated (LAX, MIA, TLV, JFK and a few others).<br />
<br />
Unite/BASSA are still deluding themselves that they're grounding the airline. The longer this dispute goes on, the worse the final settlement for the cabin crew is going to be. Willie still has stuff left up his sleeve, Unite have very little. There is only going to be one winner and it won't be Unite.<br /></div></div><br />
<br />
Данные за 21-е марта:<br />
<br />
<p class="citation">Цитата</p><div class="blockquote"><div class="quote">
1,157 Cabin Crew ignored the 1st day of the strike.<br />
97.2% of Gatwicks Cabin Crew turned up as normal<br />
52.5% of Heathrows Cabin Crew also turned up.<br /></div></div><br />
<br />
Также попробуйте сходить по этой ссылке на форум нашей ВАК, может, повезет и вы сможете его прочесть как гость без регистрации. <img alt=":)" class="bbc_emoticon" src="https://www.avsim.su/wp-content/themes/avia/img/smile.gif" /> Если сможете или не сможете прочитать тему, то сообщите мне, выложу еще копипасты. <img alt=":)" class="bbc_emoticon" src="https://www.avsim.su/wp-content/themes/avia/img/smile.gif" /> <br />
<a class="bbc_url" href="https://www.avsim.su/jump.phtml?http://bavirtual.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&amp;t=5303" title="Ссылка" rel="nofollow external ugc">http://bavirtual.co.....php?f=7&amp;t=5303</a>
<br />
<p class="edit">
								Сообщение отредактировал nik-dem: 23 March 2010 - 17:41
								
							</p>
</div>

23.03.2010 в 14:55

Не читайте советских газет.Это я вам как сотрудник Бритишей говорю.
Единственный правильный пост в этой теме у комрада

Сообщение отредактировал fabel: 23 March 2010 — 14:56

23.03.2010 в 18:22

а откуда у вас Никита такая любовь к BAW?

23.03.2010 в 18:40

fabel (23 March 2010 — 18:22) писал:

а откуда у вас Никита такая любовь к BAW?

Всегда нравилась эта авиакомпания. Не знаю почему, наверное, ее статусностью, величавостью, если можно так выразиться.

23.03.2010 в 18:48

Sar-Avia (23 March 2010 — 18:47) писал:

да уж.

Ты о чем вообще?

Сообщение отредактировал nik-dem: 23 March 2010 — 18:48

23.03.2010 в 19:38

шимон (23 March 2010 — 17:28) писал:

Ну хорошо, поцеловались, а теперь расскажите, что там да как.

Рассказываем: многие (но не все, разумеется) пассажиры сдают билеты на рейсы British Airways, переоформляют на «Аэрофлот», «Трансаэро», реже на BMI. Слава богу, мест в самолётах пока всем хватает. А больше ничего и не происходит.

Сообщение отредактировал Uran: 23 March 2010 — 19:42

23.03.2010 в 17:28

Ну хорошо, поцеловались, а теперь расскажите, что там да как.

23.03.2010 в 20:40

nik-dem (23 March 2010 — 18:40) писал:

Всегда нравилась эта авиакомпания. Не знаю почему, наверное, ее статусностью, величавостью, если можно так выразиться.

Вполне понимаю.

BA — очень хорошая компания. Они разумны, доступны и вполне удобны. Я ими несколько раз в год летаю и всегда доволен.

Ряды 777 и 747 вдоль 5-го терминала — тоже далеко не скучное зрелище. А величественнее Конкорда ничто быть не может

Прикрепленные изображения

23.03.2010 в 21:04

Uran (23 March 2010 — 19:38) писал:

Рассказываем: многие (но не все, разумеется) пассажиры сдают билеты на рейсы British Airways, переоформляют на «Аэрофлот», «Трансаэро», реже на BMI. Слава богу, мест в самолётах пока всем хватает. А больше ничего и не происходит.

:rofl: Многие — это сколько?

23.03.2010 в 18:47

да уж.

23.03.2010 в 21:52

fabel (23 March 2010 — 21:04) писал:

Многие — это сколько?

Наверное 99% пассажиров с рейсов в Нью-Йорк, Сидней и Рио :sarcastic:

23.03.2010 в 22:03

fabel (23 March 2010 — 21:04) писал:

Многие — это сколько?

Согласно предварительному подсчету — в пределах 40%. Шум-гам был в прошлые выходные, сейчас понимающее сопение и тишина, некоторые даже с сожалением сдают или меняют билеты, потому что многим BA действительно нравится (лась). Но вот зачем обменивать билеты, купленные для полета в конце апреля, в мае и июне, ума не приложу. Видимо, срабатывает четкий принцип авиапассажира «на всякий случай».

Ответов: 19

Прикрепленные изображения