British Airways uses redundancy threat to push all cabin crew into low-paid ‘Mixed Fleet’

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Kevin says:

  1 May1 May 07:03

  Not all MF crew are based around LHR. Met many who travel in from outside the area. As for EF. This is not always a 9-5 role. Many do 3-4 day Euro Tours so not necessarily any easier time wise a single LH trip. Don’t think anybody could ever argue that cabin crew offer family friendly working hours.

  • Shoestring says:

    1 May1 May 07:09

    Younger person’s game.

    • Mike says:

      1 May1 May 07:28

      Harry – you are alive, I haven’t seen you for ages – hope you are OK

      • dgsupersonic says:

        1 May1 May 08:07

        He was probably hiding from his so-called “pussycat virus”.

        • Paul Pogba says:

          1 May1 May 09:39

          And avoiding the petrol station that was too generous for its own good.

        • Hoax says:

          1 May1 May 12:12

          Hoarding rice for his 80yo father too. Keeping a distance of course even though the virus is a pussycat.

    • BJ says:

      1 May1 May 08:05

      Nah, take everything from hospitals to supermarkets these days, you go in and see workers every age from teenagers through great grandparents. Great to see and very positive for the working environment I think – professionally, emotionally and socially.

  • Mikeact says:

    1 May1 May 07:55

    But nobody’s asking them to work for BA, surely if it’s that bad you would leave….and with unemployment in the South East at it’s lowest level in years…or obviously was….then find another job. What is or was the problem with that ?

    • Spursdebs says:

      1 May1 May 08:23

      That was Harry’s point but it got lost when he started to wind up the guardian readers.

    • Bazza says:

      1 May1 May 10:51

      They are and that’s why you are getting the person who willing do the job for the least amount of money rather than the best person for the job!
      So, no crying about the service you receive in future!

      • Mikeact says:

        1 May1 May 12:50

        Over the years I have only ever asked to, please, just get me there, safely. I care little about the rest, whether that’s the food, IFE or whatever. And having survived some very serious incidents, including an emergency slide, then all I expect is the crew to be fully trained in any emergency.
        ps And it really annoys me that some people don’t take any notice whatsoever of the safety briefing. I nowadays always try to select to select seats that are near an exit, but of course, I accept that ultimately I’m in the hand of the Gods.

• James67 says:

  1 May1 May 07:22

  It was surely abundantly obvious from the moment this crisis began that this would be the end result. BA have been waiting for years to put the sword to the staff on the old contracts, and frankly, who as BA senior management would do any different.

  I’ve no idea why people thought the Mixed Fleet might be the one to go due to slightly cheaper redundancy payments, statutory minimums are tiny for all staff, and with no risk of strike there was no downside to them changing their policy.

  • BJ says:

    1 May1 May 08:08

    Hey, that’s my old name James67…but your welcome to it 🙂

    • CV3V says:

      1 May1 May 09:08

      yeah, whats going on there?!

      • Darren says:

        1 May1 May 09:35

        wild guess, someone called James who’s 52?

        • TGLoyalty says:

          1 May1 May 14:43

          Or 67

• Trent says:

  1 May1 May 07:28

  Supply and demand. Many want to be cabin crew, so they happily take the lower wages. BA Mixed Fleet crew are on similar money to other airlines. It is the market rate. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

• Derek Scott says:

  1 May1 May 07:39

  There’s a lot of anger and frustration in this thread, and most of that will be down to two things.. lockdown anxiety, and passion for seeing the airline come out the other side.

  I for one understand their need to relook and revise their structure and business model. Yes you could look at what’s been released and announced cynically or positively. Ultimately those decision makers know that they made decisions in the past that degraded the airline proposition and ratings. They put billions up to change that and slowly things were getting better (new aircrafts new Seats, etc, etc).

  I truly hope they and the Unions don’t turn this into another bloody and acrimonious battle of wills to get their own way. There is a way through both will find acceptable and I just hope they find that path fast… or customers just won’t return and the airline won’t survive

  • Lady London says:

    1 May1 May 10:38

    @Derek Scott it won’t be a long-drawn out battle of wills this time.
    Staff have absolutely no leverage.

    • Lady London says:

      1 May1 May 10:40

      I hope some newspaper does a cartoon of a wolf wearing a tattered red white and blue flag salivating over Little Red Riding Hood who’s only eating her porridge.

      • Kenny says:

        1 May1 May 14:02

        👏👏

• Nick says:

  1 May1 May 07:44

  Michael O’Leary due to be on BBC Breakfast at 08:20 this morning.

  • Spursdebs says:

    1 May1 May 07:50

    That will be a good time to done my disposable gloves and get to work then, thanks for heads up.

  • Oh! Matron! says:

    1 May1 May 08:40

    He, like Farage, is like a curry stain on your best shirt. Unwanted and impossible to get rid of.

    • Bazza says:

      1 May1 May 09:11

      Add Tony Blair to that list on my behalf!

      • Spaghetti Town says:

        1 May1 May 12:33

        tony blair is a curry stain. But he’s one that’s been semi removed. luckily he only pops up now and again

    • sayling says:

      1 May1 May 09:13

      I find him quite detestable – but his comments about cash refunds for all who want them, and the impact of increased demand for them affecting the time to process them seemed pleasantly honest and open.

      • KevMc says:

        1 May1 May 11:57

        Not to my ears. Refunds for cancelled flights should be an automated process in 2020. There is zero reason to force each one to be done manually other than to keep the cash in the business as long as possible.

      • TGLoyalty says:

        1 May1 May 16:07

        It’s not automated because the consumer has a choice to reschedule

        The website choice has been taken away to hold on to peoples cash as long possible.

• Mikeact says:

  1 May1 May 07:44

  @Rob What does this para mean….

  ‘These are predominantly older and more experienced members of crew, often BA ‘lifers’, who are paid substantially more money than ‘Mixed Fleet’ and have better contract terms (eg longer layovers during flights). Staff work exclusively on either long-haul or short-haul routes. Many long-haul crew members live outside London because they will only do a handful of flights per month.’

  What does substantially more money mean…?
  A handful of flights per month…? 3/4 ? Or is it a part time job ?

  • Rob says:

    1 May1 May 09:04

    Legally you can only do 900 hours per year, timed from when you sign in. This is 75 hours per month. A San Francisco return will be AT LEAST 35 hours of ‘logged in’ time, so the most you could do per month is 2 x return trips to the US West Coast or similar length.

    Out of 30 day month you would spend 20 days at home.

    • marcw says:

      1 May1 May 09:17

      No, that’s not true. It’s 900 flying hours (from push back to blocks on), nothing to do with duty hours.

      • Matt says:

        1 May1 May 09:53

        Correct. Sorry Rob, your numbers are way off.

        A San Francisco return clocks up around 21 hours towards the 900 annual limit. There is also a max of 100 hours in a rolling 28 day period.

        A typical longhaul roster would probably be 4 trips and 12-15 days off. Mixed fleet average fewer days off (around 10?) as they can squeeze in extra days of shorthaul work before a longhaul trip.

        Nobody is getting 20 days off a month unless they’re part time – which a large percentage of the legacy fleets are.

      • Rob says:

        1 May1 May 11:51

        Stand corrected, thanks.

    • Spaghetti Town says:

      1 May1 May 09:51

      I live around 150 miles from London and know someone who is worldwide for BA who only does 3 flights per month and drives in each time. His wife runs a cafe and that’s what he does with his off time. He also told me a lot of cabin crew are barristers or have other jobs in their off time.

      • Speedbird676 says:

        1 May1 May 10:06

        I assume you meant barista rather than barrister 🙂

        • Spaghetti Town says:

          1 May1 May 10:08

          No i got it right, that’s what he told me anyway! This is Worldwide crew i’m talking about now, not mixed fleet 😀

      • Michael C says:

        1 May1 May 10:19

        “Lots of flight crew are barristers”

        Can’t wait to test this out!
        “Would you like some Nescafé in a plastic cup?”
        “No thanks – but what’s your opinion on Mr Justice Arnold’s views of patent infringement?”!

        • Heathrow Flyer says:

          1 May1 May 10:28

          That gave me a lol

        • Jeff says:

          1 May1 May 10:39

          +1 🤣🤣

        • Spaghetti Town says:

          1 May1 May 12:34

          Haha well..I think I should of used the term other occupation….

        • Genghis says:

          1 May1 May 20:04

          +2 😁

• J says:

  1 May1 May 07:44

  Staff turnover in Mixed Fleet is extremely high – a lot of MF live with their parents and will just do it for a couple of years max. For anyone independent in MF, it’s poverty pay and the government is subsidising this through working tax credits and housing benefit in many cases. In normal times BA are profitable – they have access to loans or what ever government aid they need. They’re instead choosing to use this crisis to attack long standing and loyal staff with years of service.

  Also not that age is relevant but as it is being mentioned – Eurofleet/Worldwide have plenty of people in their 30s, basically anyone who joined 10+ years ago and that also includes BMI crew.

  • William says:

    1 May1 May 08:51

    “the government is subsidising this through working tax credits and housing benefit”. Not the government, it’s taxpayers that subsidise companies that behave like this. It’s shocking given the profits BA have made in recent years and the very substantial senior management remuneration.

  • mr_jetlag says:

    1 May1 May 08:58

    Serious question, what would you do in BA management’s shoes?

    • Lady London says:

      1 May1 May 09:38

      What would I do ?
      I’d treat staff decently.
      I wouldn’t insult them by opening with this nastiest of all offer.
      Even if I’m dying I’ll share my bottle of water with someone who has been dependent on me.

      British Airways can do so, so much better.
      Staff know the business has to get smaller.
      They know, not everything can be on the table, as was in previous rounds.

      However as an American working in the UK once said to me,
      “In the UK, you lose your job and the company kicks you on the way out.
      In America we just say we’re sorry it didn’t work out and we pay you.
      But we don’t kick you on the way out when we know we already made life bad enough for you”.
      My colleague simply didn’t understand the meannesss of British employers.

      I think it’s time we removed British Airways’s privileges.
      – Flag carrier for the UK?forget it, it’s embarrassing to be British when you are treating long-serving staff like that. Whatever the circumstances.
      – Finance from the UK government? not if you treat staff like this.
      – Slots at Heathrow? UK government needs to do what they did with mobile bandwidths and auction these off for the UK Treasury. Give BA 36 months notice that they are invited to bid for a (less than now) number of slots at Heathrow at no less than current slots, slots to be awarded for 10-15 years provided used 80% and no issues.

      BA understands its commercial position very well in the current circumstances. So do we.

      • Mr(s) Entitled says:

        1 May1 May 09:51

        I would second the American’s comment having worked there for a decade. But in the interest of balance, nor do they typically have to deal with Unions to the same extent.

        BA’s language is partly as a result of who they are messaging who in return respond with “we will fight to the death for every last position”. I am not sure either side approaches this constructively and both carry equal blame. It’s a shame for the employees who are stuck in the middle and be the ones to suffer.

        • Mr(s) Entitled says:

          1 May1 May 09:53

          Correction. It is not a shame for the employees. That is a poor choice of words. It is devastating.

        • J says:

          1 May1 May 10:02

          Unions in America in some industries are just as strong – I believe AA and United are heavily unionised but Delta is not. The unions at BA are not that strong – MF the unions are very weak, and the strikes by MF were pretty ineffective. A 19 year old living with their parents is easily persuaded/scared by management against taking industrial action. The “legacy” fleets are more experienced and have learnt that their benefits were hard won through a strong union.

      • Alex M says:

        1 May1 May 10:46

        “Limit your emotional affect, please.” Am watching too much Westworld lately…

        • Rhys says:

          1 May1 May 11:12

          These violent delights have violent ends……

      • Nick_C says:

        1 May1 May 12:35

        I’m sorry LL, but if you were running BA I think they would be bust before the year is out. I am sorry for the BA staff who will lose their jobs, I really am. I am also sorry for all the people who normally work in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, cinemas, and theatres (both on stage and front of house) who will lose theirs. And for the small business owners who will see their businesses fail through no fault of their own. We are heading for another serious and lengthy recession.

        Employers have to adapt to survive. BA still has a large number of staff who are paid on T&Cs that were affordable in the 80s, when you would pay today’s equivalent of £2k to fly to the US in economy. Cheap fares and high wages do not work. BA is struggling to survive. If they don’t survive, then the whole workforce will lose their jobs.

        Employees also have to adapt to survive. Jobs for life are a thing of the past.

      • Derek Scott says:

        1 May1 May 13:38

        I don’t think you can compare UK to US when it comes to Employee/Employer relations. It’s well documented that Workplace rights generally favour the employee in the UK and the employer in the US as they have far fewer rights and protections in comparison.

        Moreover, every employee going through a consultation when deemed or feel “At Risk” is more likely to feel aggrieved and give a less than glowing report on their Employer, regardless as to how well they are treated up to that point.

        Using Glassdoor as a guide, BA has a reasonable review rating as an employer at 3.4. Other industry leaders are not dissimilar: Lloyd’s Banking Group 3.5, BT plc 3.6.., but you wouldn’t say these Co’s stand out as not treating their employees fairly, and both have gone through significant restructures in the past few years.

        Everyone will have a view and a story to tell, but ultimately it’s no-one’s business except BA’s and their people. Market forces will determine if they make wrong moves.

  • Spaghetti Town says:

    1 May1 May 09:28

    You are correct. my partners sister is MF cabin crew living just outside London. Lives with parents, not an attractive salary and has to do extra jobs outside of flying to make up extra cash

  • JohnG says:

    1 May1 May 10:47

    @J – I think that’s a good summary. It’s a pretty common issue for a lot of established companies with staff on legacy terms that are more favourable than they could employ people on from scratch. The free market attitude is that this is inefficient and causes issues like the failure of legacy firms when fresh competitors aren’t similarly burdened so it is good to remove those inefficiencies.

    I tend toward that view myself, but it seems pretty galling that a company benefiting considerably from government assistance to get through the crisis is at the same time using the same crisis to push through changes in a particularly brutal way. I think it also raises the broader issue of why things are getting worse for workers not better as was historically normal. To risk a slightly “ok boomer” comment it’s notable that throughout the last decade pensioners, already a wealthier demographic than working age people, have seen increasing income directly from government while the people who are working are seeing pay freezes, redundancies, and restrictions to eligibility money from government; it’s tempting to draw a comparison with the kind of ponzi scheme that would get you locked up if you tried it.

    • Kruggs says:

      1 May1 May 11:22

      but the government assistance is meaningless to companies if the new norm for their industry is much smaller than today. It just delays the inevitable

      • JohnG says:

        1 May1 May 13:29

        @Kruggs – I don’t know if I’d say meaningless but I accept and agree with your point. That point can be true, and it can still seem galling for a company to be receiving huge amounts of money from the government to pay its wage bill for it while it arranges to make thousands of taxpayers redundant or force much worse employment terms on them. I hope they don’t cry foul next time business is booming, recruitment is hard, and employees decide to show them what it feels like when the boot is on the other foot.

    • Nick_C says:

      1 May1 May 12:41

      I think the Government (taxpayer) assistance is as much about protecting employees as it is about protecting companies.

      But we do need to protect companies that are likely to return to profitability in the foreseeable future. We need companies and citizens to pay for the huge increase in public sector borrowing. We need jobs for people, and taxes from profitable companies.

• Alex W says:

  1 May1 May 08:05

  Our MD wisely said that people have long memories, and they remember how you behaved in a crisis.

  • Dubious says:

    1 May1 May 09:16

    I’m not sure I believe that. People seem to have rather short memories and revert back to their usual decision-making behaviours fairly promptly I find.

    As an example, there are plenty of people who encounter service failures and say “I would never fly xyz airline again”…and yet they do. It requires a brand to become toxic before behavours really change.

    • luckyjim says:

      1 May1 May 09:31

      I will never buy a hoover.

      • Lady London says:

        1 May1 May 09:41

        That’s because a hoover never sucked anything up.

        • Heathrow Flyer says:

          1 May1 May 10:33

          #Dyson for the win

        • Nick_C says:

          1 May1 May 12:47

          But it beats as it sweeps as it cleans.

          (And the caissons go rolling along.)

        • Alex W says:

          1 May1 May 14:04

          Well, I for one will never buy anything Dyson, nor set foot in a Wetherspoons.

    • Kruggs says:

      1 May1 May 11:24

      i agree – Ryanair are probably the best example of this.

      “I’ll NEVER FLY RYANAIR AGAIN”

      “oooooh london to milan for £14.99”

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.