On 12/06/2022 11:47, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 12/06/2022 11:12, Tweed wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2022 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t848md$sla$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:38:37 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t842fv$hpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:52:47 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ministers are to blame for airport chaos, says IAG chief Luis
>>>>>>>> Gallego
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8b435ea-e918-11ec-91b1-7bfb0a33d3d
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 9?shareToken=1b594517c3c4abb71569210015367d8c>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IAG, which also owns Aer Lingus in Ireland and Iberia and Vueling
>>>>>>>> in Spain,
>>>>>>>> can be seen as something of a litmus test for how various
>>>>>>>> governments have
>>>>>>>> enabled their airline industries to get back on their feet. The
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> does not reflect well on Boris Johnson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most recent monthly data — for April — at IAG’s operations
>>>>>>>> shows that  in Spain, Vueling had nearly 97 per cent of 2019
>>>>>>>> capacity up and running,  with punctuality at 89 per cent.
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Iberia was at 88 per cent  capacity and 90 per cent
>>>>>>>> punctuality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Ireland, Aer Lingus was operating at 84 per cent capacity, with
>>>>>>>> punctuality at nearly 80 per cent. In the UK, British Airways was
>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>> at 67 per cent capacity and 68 per cent punctuality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could, of course, be that BA is uniquely badly run within the
>>>>>>>> IAG group.
>>>>>>>> It does have a reputation for poor IT systems hobbled by
>>>>>>>> underinvestment.
>>>>>>>> But Gallego puts his UK operation’s poor performance down largely
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> unique way in which the British government dealt with the pandemic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spain has a much higher unemployment rate than the UK, especially in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> young. Probably much easier to get folk to return to low paid
>>>>>>> airport jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each day 10,000 Spaniards cross into Gibraltar (population
>>>>>>> 30,000) for
>>>>>>> work. This despite there being two large Spanish towns around the
>>>>>>> bay of
>>>>>>> Gibraltar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That particular effect is no doubt increased by the
>>>>>> unaffordability for
>>>>>> low-paid workers to be *residents* of Gibraltar. So it's more a
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>> them having to "pull" the workers, than the workers "pushing"
>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> across the border
>>>>>
>>>>> Gibraltar is very densely populated and does indeed need the daily
>>>>> migrant
>>>>> workforce. However that workforce is freely available and
>>>>> presumably at
>>>>> fairly low rates.
>>>>
>>>> They just have to pay a little more (and/or be a better place to work)
>>>> than Spain.
>>>
>>> Or, just have jobs available, unlike the nearby parts of Spain.
>>
>> Yep. La Línea de la Concepción, which is immediately across the border
>> fence from Gibraltar (and has twice the population) is reputed to have an
>> unemployment rate of 35%. Gibraltar’s is around 1%
>>
>> Nationally Spanish unemployment is currently running at around 13%. I
>> suspect this has a lot to do with why they have little problem
>> staffing the
>> more unpleasant airport jobs.
>>
>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the
>> staff,
>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>> service.
>
> It's a Spanish company, despite the name.

Isn't it a English-and-Welsh company owned by a Spanish holding company,
with control and profits going to Spain but subject to UK regulations?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> From
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>
>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>> Shapps
>>
>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>
>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of
>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>

I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.

> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
> applicable to not-strikes,

Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and action
short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
That is official industrial action.

Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their booked rest
days (within certain parameters, of course).

I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
encouraging others to do the same.

> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe)
> rest-day and Sunday working.
>

So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
during" clause) to work on my booked days off?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>service.

Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>> service.
>
> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.

Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?

In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>> service.
>>
>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>
>Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?

How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?

[1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>
>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>
> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>
> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.

That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps take as a
starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
plane, not Australians.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>
>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>
>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>
>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>
> That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps take as a
> starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
> purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
> end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
> plane, not Australians.
>
>

<https://murciatoday.com/british-airways-opens-base-in-spain-in-bid-to-fight-staff-shortages_1767133-a.html>

In message <t84tgr$9ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:34:03 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of
>>>>>>the staff,
>>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>>> service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>>
>>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>>
>>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>>
>>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>>
>> That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps
>>take as a
>> starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
>> purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
>> end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
>> plane, not Australians.
>
><https://murciatoday.com/british-airways-opens-base-in-spain-in-bid-to-f
>ight-staff-shortages_1767133-a.html>

Good for them; another way to (in this instance beneficially) "take back
control" - of where they hire their staff from, and pass the benefits on
to all those BA passengers who voted "leave", by way of cheaper and more
efficient flights.

Perhaps the "Remain" campaign should have painted "Be careful what you
wish for" on the side of a bus.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t84shn$2r6$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:27 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>
>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>
>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>
>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>
>That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps take as a
>starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
>purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
>end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
>plane, not Australians.

Spain and Australia are both equally foreign, now that we've "taken back
control".

I can't think of any reason why an airline like BA would only hire
pilots resident for tax purposes in the UK, that would be ridiculous.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 21:22:00 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:56:42 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:50:30 +0100, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:43:06 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>><usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:01:15 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7p7oq$q9v$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:22 on Wed, 8 Jun 2022,
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a8d61898-e67d-11ec-9b02-3f136f233710
>>>>>>> ?shareToken=5d5dbe35f17b9b5ab70c679c28f4493d>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And months (if not years) of resentment within the travelling public
>>>>>> against the RMT and those they represent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One wonders if this [alleged foot dragging by Shapps] is a cunning plan
>>>>>> to undermine the Labour Party, because the government can point at it
>>>>>> and say "this is what you'll get all the time if Starmer gets into
>>>>>> power, and starts nationalising even more industries".
>>>>>
>>>>> As if the tories have any more backbone dealing with these clowns. We need
>>>>> another thatcher but I don't see any on the horizon. They should be dealt
>>>>> with the same way reagan dealt with the air traffic controllers in the 80s:
>>>>> give them an ultimatum to go back to work and stay there or fire the fucking
>>>>> lot of them and deal with the few months of pain of training up non unionised
>>>>> replacements.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What replacements? There’s a labour shortage at the moment. It’s the lower
>>>>paid grades striking.
>>>>
>>>I suspect the public would be more likely to remember the
>>>politician/party who shut down the railways for months rather than a
>>>union that shut it for days.
>>
>>What makes you think it will be days?
>>
>Has a strike "until further notice" been announced?
No

>How long do they
>usually last without being prevented by negotiation?
Several weeks where RMT is involved.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t84tgr$9ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:34:03 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of
>>>>>>> the staff,
>>>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>>>
>>>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>>>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>>>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>>>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>>>
>>>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>>>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>>>
>>> That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps
>>> take as a
>>> starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
>>> purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
>>> end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
>>> plane, not Australians.
>>
>> <https://murciatoday.com/british-airways-opens-base-in-spain-in-bid-to-f
>> ight-staff-shortages_1767133-a.html>
>
> Good for them; another way to (in this instance beneficially) "take back
> control" - of where they hire their staff from, and pass the benefits on
> to all those BA passengers who voted "leave", by way of cheaper and more
> efficient flights.
>
> Perhaps the "Remain" campaign should have painted "Be careful what you
> wish for" on the side of a bus.

Recliner - thanks for link
Not sure how Brexit comes into this? BA could equally have well done this
regardless of our EU membership status.

On 12/06/2022 12:49, Certes wrote:
> On 12/06/2022 11:47, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 12/06/2022 11:12, Tweed wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2022 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t848md$sla$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:38:37 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t842fv$hpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:52:47 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ministers are to blame for airport chaos, says IAG chief Luis
>>>>>>>>> Gallego
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8b435ea-e918-11ec-91b1-7bfb0a33d3d
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 9?shareToken=1b594517c3c4abb71569210015367d8c>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IAG, which also owns Aer Lingus in Ireland and Iberia and Vueling
>>>>>>>>> in Spain,
>>>>>>>>> can be seen as something of a litmus test for how various
>>>>>>>>> governments have
>>>>>>>>> enabled their airline industries to get back on their feet. The
>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>> does not reflect well on Boris Johnson.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most recent monthly data — for April — at IAG’s operations
>>>>>>>>> shows that  in Spain, Vueling had nearly 97 per cent of 2019
>>>>>>>>> capacity up and running,  with punctuality at 89 per cent.
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Iberia was at 88 per cent  capacity and 90 per cent
>>>>>>>>> punctuality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Ireland, Aer Lingus was operating at 84 per cent capacity, with
>>>>>>>>> punctuality at nearly 80 per cent. In the UK, British Airways was
>>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>>> at 67 per cent capacity and 68 per cent punctuality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could, of course, be that BA is uniquely badly run within the
>>>>>>>>> IAG group.
>>>>>>>>> It does have a reputation for poor IT systems hobbled by
>>>>>>>>> underinvestment.
>>>>>>>>> But Gallego puts his UK operation’s poor performance down largely
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> unique way in which the British government dealt with the
>>>>>>>>> pandemic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spain has a much higher unemployment rate than the UK,
>>>>>>>> especially in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> young. Probably much easier to get folk to return to low paid
>>>>>>>> airport jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each day 10,000 Spaniards cross into Gibraltar (population
>>>>>>>> 30,000) for
>>>>>>>> work. This despite there being two large Spanish towns around the
>>>>>>>> bay of
>>>>>>>> Gibraltar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That particular effect is no doubt increased by the
>>>>>>> unaffordability for
>>>>>>> low-paid workers to be *residents* of Gibraltar. So it's more a
>>>>>>> case of
>>>>>>> them having to "pull" the workers, than the workers "pushing"
>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>> across the border
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibraltar is very densely populated and does indeed need the daily
>>>>>> migrant
>>>>>> workforce. However that workforce is freely available and
>>>>>> presumably at
>>>>>> fairly low rates.
>>>>>
>>>>> They just have to pay a little more (and/or be a better place to work)
>>>>> than Spain.
>>>>
>>>> Or, just have jobs available, unlike the nearby parts of Spain.
>>>
>>> Yep. La Línea de la Concepción, which is immediately across the border
>>> fence from Gibraltar (and has twice the population) is reputed to
>>> have an
>>> unemployment rate of 35%. Gibraltar’s is around 1%
>>>
>>> Nationally Spanish unemployment is currently running at around 13%. I
>>> suspect this has a lot to do with why they have little problem
>>> staffing the
>>> more unpleasant airport jobs.
>>>
>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the
>>> staff,
>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>> service.
>>
>> It's a Spanish company, despite the name.
>
> Isn't it a English-and-Welsh company owned by a Spanish holding company,
> with control and profits going to Spain but subject to UK regulations?

No problem using non-British crew though, after all the UK is just
another country they fly to that they aren't citizens of.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ba17ahhf01cgamgpjaija7s1o44rj1kjak@4ax.com>, at 18:57:28 on
> Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:03:56 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t7v3ie$78s$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:30 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7upaq$h7$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:45:46 on Fri, 10 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09/06/2022 23:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/06/2022 20:51, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which mainline drivers are striking right now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ScotRail drivers are not on strike but are refusing to work rest days.
>>>>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think most main and branch lines in Scotland are affected.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61698822>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The railway shouldn't be run in a way such that it relies on
>>>>>>> overtime days being worked to run the basic service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problem is in some companies the drivers like the guaranteed overtime
>>>>>> that the old arrangement brings.
>>>>>
>>>>> While creating the opportunity to cause disruption, without all the
>>>>> bother of actually going on strike.
>>>
>> That is a consequence of companies relying too much on overtime. If
>> Sunday was "normal time" (albeit at enhanced rates) then there would
>> not be any overtime to ban.
>> <snip>
>
> You are conflating the two issues. Yes, they are both overtime (and it'd
> be interesting to know what enhanced rate is involved - Sunday could be
> 1.5 or 2x in some industries),

1.25x for me, which may vary by TOC (for example, when I worked for fNW,
Sundays were flat time and Rest Days time+2hours (or possibly the other way
around, I forget)).

There used to be a list on the ASLEF website.

> but one is overtime on rest days during
> the week, and the other is overtime on Sundays which for many rail
> companies the drivers refuse to work routinely.
>

There are, AFAIK, three distinct principles of Sunday working on the
railways. First let’s clarify some terminology; all crews will have 'booked
Sundays' in their roster (link) - my 40-week link has 20 booked Sundays.
There are also 'volunteer Sundays', ie working a Sunday additional to the
rostered Sundays, which I suppose you could see as the Sunday equivalent of
Rest Day Working.

The arrangement I currently have, the best for staff but the worst for
providing a service, is that if I don't want to work a Sunday, be it booked
or volunteer, I just give a week's notice, and that's it.

Those with Sunday in the working week need to use an Annual Leave day in
order to not work on a day when they have a booked Sunday.

In between those is a third way, with a big grey area. Sundays are not part
of the working week, so it's overtime. However you are 'committed' to work
your booked Sundays; the only way to not work a booked Sunday is to arrange
a colleague who's not working that day, to cover it for you. You can't use
a day of Leave to get the Sunday off. So for people working that
arrangement, Sunday is the most difficult day of the week to get the day
off! Oddly enough it's seen as the worst of both worlds, and is
particularly unpopular with crews who have to work under that arrangement.

> Therefore the former is just filling in for a few trains which would
> otherwise be cancelled, the second is all [fsvo] of them.
>
> The exact nature of the upcoming stoppage is still in flux, but being
> weekdays, to stop the trains requires an actual strike; whereas some
> companies (GTR was mentioned) are going to struggle on running as many
> trains as they can because there's just rest-day working being
> withdrawn. The drivers in the latter case can claim "we are not on
> strike", just like over the years drivers not working Sundays thus
> bringing EMT/EMR to a standstill can claim the same thing.
>
> The law only regulates strikes, not overtime bans.

I'm not sure your last statement is true; official overtime bans have to go
through proper union/company procedures (though not necessarily a ballot).

Certainly in the past, concerns have been raised that everyone
'coincidentally' not working rest days, or a certain Sunday, could
constitute unofficial industrial action, particularly if
ringleaders/organisers could be identified.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 11/06/2022 09:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that staff
>> are always availale for calls, quite common?
>>
>> Do newspapers still have lots of odd-seeming rules about who does what,
>> or has the internet killed them?
>
> I used to be on 24/7 call, like most companies we got a payment for
> being on standby so you accepted that you got the odd call.
>

Being unable to drink alcohol or go on holiday for several years must have
been quite inconvenient.

> I would think newspaper print workers no longer have the power because
> they have been bypassed and no longer needed. In the past they only had
> to call a union meeting and a whole print run could be lost, didn't ITV
> unions play the same game by calling a meeting at 17:30h so the regional
> stations lost their local programme at 18:00h?
>

That kind of thing wouldn't work on the railways, because it's quite
uncommon for sufficient number of crews to be at their home depot at once
for that to cause significant disruption (for IC TOCs, at least).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t81m40$4ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:09:20 on Sat, 11 Jun
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>> On 11/06/2022 07:04, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ba17ahhf01cgamgpjaija7s1o44rj1kjak@4ax.com>, at 18:57:28
>>> on Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:03:56 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t7v3ie$78s$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:30 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t7upaq$h7$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:45:46 on Fri, 10
>>>>>>> Jun 2022,
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09/06/2022 23:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/06/2022 20:51, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which mainline drivers are striking right now?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ScotRail drivers are not on strike but are refusing to work
>>>>>>>>>> rest days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think most main and branch lines in Scotland are affected.
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61698822>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The railway shouldn't be run in a way such that it relies on
>>>>>>>>> overtime days  being worked to run the basic service.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem is in some companies the drivers like the guaranteed overtime
>>>>>>>> that the old arrangement brings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While creating the opportunity to cause disruption, without all the
>>>>>>> bother of actually going on strike.
>>>>>
>>>> That is a consequence of companies relying too much on overtime. If
>>>> Sunday was "normal time" (albeit at enhanced rates) then there would
>>>> not be any overtime to ban.
>>>> <snip>
>>> You are conflating the two issues. Yes, they are both overtime (and
>>> it'd be interesting to know what enhanced rate is involved - Sunday
>>> could be 1.5 or 2x in some industries), but one is overtime on rest
>>> days during the week, and the other is overtime on Sundays which for
>>> many rail companies the drivers refuse to work routinely.
>>
>> Anna reported elsewhere that one TOC pays time and a quarter, at least
>> in some circumstances.
>
> I'm going to do some research on the average figures.
>

There used to be a list on the ASLEF website. If it's no longer there,
perhaps a search of your Usenet archive might find the URL, which may in
turn be archived by the Wayback Machine.

>> Others may get more, and I expect the night tube
>> drivers who only work Sat and Sun early mornings are on standard rates.
>
> I think they were recruited specially.
>

I've noted this in another reply which has so far attracted no replies.
Also that my TOC is now recruiting weekend-only catering crew at some
locations.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <O_adnRgSOdVjyjn_nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 09:53:18 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 11/06/2022 07:41, MB wrote:
>>
>>> The Daily Mail has today a long article on the restrictive practices
>>> in the railways, looks as if there is an organised campaign by the
>>> Left, Unions etc to discredit the article by posting comments though
>>> I suspect they are wasting their time.
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10905687/Train-services-cancell
>> ed-staff-wont-work-sunny-GUY-ADAMS-investigates.html
>>
>> "some railway staff benefit from a bizarre rule that allows them to
>> restart a scheduled break completely if they happen to bump into a
>> manager who says ‘Hello’."
>>
>> Would that actually be saying that people can't be made to work through
>> their breaks - eg managers can't say "I know you are having your lunch,
>> buts let's have a meeting while you are here"?
>
> Whatever the truth behind the "no chatting with managers in breaks"
> rule,

I know a very very few people who are stroppy enough to re-start their
break ("I'm entitled to 30 minutes unbroken rest") if the control centre
call them during the appropriate time period (call them in minute 31 and
they're fine), but as I say, they're few and far between.

> what in practice could a manager have a short 'meeting' with a
> train driver in the staff canteen about, that would significantly
> prejudice the break from sitting in the driving cab.
>

Oh hi, I did a download on you last week and there are a few things which
came up in that which I'd like to talk about...

>> "drivers can refuse to allow ScotRail to phone them at home to inform
>> them of changes to shifts."
>>
>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that staff
>> are always availale for calls, quite common?
>
> Yes and no. In many industries the reverse is true, with significant
> numbers of staff on virtually compulsory telephone standby.
>

Again this is something which varies by TOC and by individual.

Some drivers and guards have chosen not to give their home phone
number/personal mobile number to their employer, so they can't be contacted
when not at work. But they're in a minority.

I was quite surprised to learn recently that some TOCs still do rostering
and daily allocations the old way, with paper sheets in notice cases in the
booking on point; while my TOC now does all of that electronically and
online only. Having said that, we're still behind some other TOCs because
our daily diagrams and late notices are still paper (usually received by
remote printer, but in some circumstances still by fax (though it all
appears from the same device, which is also a photocopier)) rather than on
tablet.

Until recently, if we were off work (eg leave, or grouped rest days) when
the daily sheets for a particular day went up, the roster department had to
call us and tell us our amended turn of duty on that day; now it's our
responsibility to look it up online.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t7vjuc$irm$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:19:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7v3ie$78s$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:30 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7upaq$h7$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:45:46 on Fri, 10 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09/06/2022 23:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/06/2022 20:51, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which mainline drivers are striking right now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ScotRail drivers are not on strike but are refusing to work rest days.
>>>>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think most main and branch lines in Scotland are affected.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61698822>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The railway shouldn't be run in a way such that it relies on
>>>>>>> overtime days being worked to run the basic service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problem is in some companies the drivers like the guaranteed overtime
>>>>>> that the old arrangement brings.
>>>>>
>>>>> While creating the opportunity to cause disruption, without all the
>>>>> bother of actually going on strike.
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about working rest days here, not Sundays. Normal weekdays
>>>> where the TOC doesn't employ enough drivers to cover the entire roster plus
>>>> cover for holiday, sickness, training etc.
>>>>
>>>> Drivers have no control over that.
>>>
>>> Most of the disputes over the years have involved Sunday overtime bans
>>
>> But that's not what's being discussed in this particular sub-thread. As I
>> highlighted above.
>
> But if all Sunday working on Scotrail is rest-days (aka overtime,
> because no-one is rostered for basic hours on a Sunday), it's all the
> same phenomenon.
>

Sundays and RDW are two very different, though related, things. I'm trying
to keep discussion of them separate, though you and others keep trying to
conflate them.

> In the long term, weaponising Sundays has been more widespread than
> weekday overtime bans.
>
>>>> Neither individual drivers, nor the drivers as a whole via the unions,
>>>> can force the TOCs to employ more or less staff.
>>>
>>> Agreeing for all seven days to be part of the regular rosta, no overtime
>>> unless exceptional, would go a long way to TOCs being able to use the
>>> money saved to employ more drivers.
>>
>> Putting Sundays in the working week won't save money, I think; to get it
>> agreed you'll need either a pay rise or employ more staff.
>
> On the first point, new-driver jobs are vastly oversubscribed,
>

How many of those applicants subsequently pass the aptitude tests, medical
requirements and interviews?

> so
> there's no need to pay more.

There is if you want existing drivers on Sunday-outside contracts to change
over to Sundays-inside contracts.

New recruits is a different matter.

> Plenty of industries (and topically
> especially hospitality, let alone chain-retail) Sunday is a normal
> working day. Who do you think makes the beds and cleans the toilets in
> hotels on a Sunday?
>
> Yes, you've have to employ more staff, but I promised in an earlier
> posting/sub-thread to look at overtime rates for train drivers. It
> appears everyone is very cagey about this, but my estimate from numerous
> sketchy sources is that (while perhaps a combination of 15% uplift on
> basic pay, plus flat rate £50 bonus for a rest day) we are looking at
> approximately 35% in total. To be fair, that's less than the 1.5x I
> quoted earlier which is commonplace elsewhere for Weekend/Bank Holiday
> working, although I've seen some comments regarding 3x pay for train
> drivers on Bank Holidays.

Bank Holidays are normal working days for us, compensated by extra leave
days. The only time we get enhanced pay for BH is the occasional extra BH
(eg the recent Jubilee one, for which we got paid extra time, ie double
time if a booked shift, 2.25 time for rest day, or an extra leave day if
you weren't working) or when Christmas falls inconveniently.

> FWIW increasing numbers of other hospitality and associated jobs in the
> area are now five-day week with Monday and Tuesday off, which is a bit
> like back in the day when some shops or service industries open Saturday
> (but not Sunday) took Monday off (and perhaps Wednesday afternoon) in
> lieu.
>
>> For example, my roster has 26 booked Sundays per year (paid at time and a
>> quarter for hours worked);
>
> OK, so that's not far off my estimate above.
>
>> make those be 26 extra
>
> I'm not sure what "extra" means here. So I'll take it those Sundays are
> *not* rest-days being worked, but as go on to say "normal" ones.
>

What I mean is, my roster currently has 208 working days (4 day week
equivalent, x52 weeks), plus 26 booked Sundays. If you want to make that
234 working days, you need to increase my pay by the appropriate amount.

If on the other hand you want to remove 26 working weekdays from my roster
instead, you need to employ sufficient extra staff to cover the service.

>> normal salaried working days, and I'm gonna want extra pay equivalent
>> to what I'm currently paid if I work those days.
>
> The theme of the thread is whether or not colleagues in
> Sunday-never-rostered TOCs

There are always Sundays rostered. All that differs is the arrangements for
being paid for them, and the arrangements for not working any particular
day.

> would be prepared to forego those 26 days at
> 1.25x *in addition* to being paid their average 4day week Mon-Sat.
>
> Taking 6wks annual leave as an estimate, and 4-day standard working
> (35hrs a week is I believe the industry norm, so typically a mixture of
> 8-11hr days, where all short-days isn't enough, and all long-days is far
> too much) gives 184 days. Which in your case is 158 weekdays and 26
> Sundays, total basic pay therefore 158 + (26*1.25)/184 = annually 3.5%
> extra for that shift pattern.
>
> Maybe the industry could afford that kind of one-off basic pay rise to
> fix this problem, given the regular 10% pay claims being put in anyway.
>

Let's try that again, without the confusion of trying to account for leave,
which is irrelevant because I still get paid.

26 Sundays x1.25 pay = 32.5 days normal pay. 208 normal working days per
year makes that around 15% if you simply want to give me 26 extra working
days per year (plus 15% increase in leave allowance, of course!).

>> If you remove 26 of my current working weekdays instead, you're gonna
>> need extra drivers to cover that (on a ratio of around 1:14 of existing
>> drivers, I guess).
>
> No, because a 7-day week isn't the norm. You'd actually need rather more
> because in those TOCs where Sundays is Rest Days, it means they are
> averaging 5 days not 4 days, so you'd need 25% more drivers. Or actually
> a few less, because most TOCs have a reduced service on Sundays.
>
>> There is an interesting alternative, though: one example is Night Tube,
>> where drivers were recruited who only worked Friday and Saturday nights;
>> another is gWr currently recruiting weekend-only Customer Hosts (ie
>> on-train catering staff) at some depots.
>
> I suppose the latter beats what happens on many other InterCity[tm]
> TOCs, which is a vastly diluted weekend on-train service. They brag
> about "At seat service in First Class" for example, and forget to
> mention that at weekends it'll be a stale sandwich and a bag of crisps.
>
>> Either way, I don't see where your saving is going to come from.
>
> The saving comes from drivers only working 4 day weeks, and therefore
> not being paid any overtime (at typically 1.35 remember). So you have
> all that "fifth day" overtime money, plus 35% for extra per-driver
> overheads, to pay the additional 4-day-but-Sunday-is-1.0x drivers with.
>

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2022 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t848md$sla$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:38:37 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t842fv$hpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:52:47 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ministers are to blame for airport chaos, says IAG chief Luis Gallego
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8b435ea-e918-11ec-91b1-7bfb0a33d3d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9?shareToken=1b594517c3c4abb71569210015367d8c>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IAG, which also owns Aer Lingus in Ireland and Iberia and Vueling
>>>>>>> in Spain,
>>>>>>> can be seen as something of a litmus test for how various
>>>>>>> governments have
>>>>>>> enabled their airline industries to get back on their feet. The
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> does not reflect well on Boris Johnson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most recent monthly data — for April — at IAG’s operations
>>>>>>> shows that  in Spain, Vueling had nearly 97 per cent of 2019
>>>>>>> capacity up and running,  with punctuality at 89 per cent.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Iberia was at 88 per cent  capacity and 90 per cent
>>>>>>> punctuality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Ireland, Aer Lingus was operating at 84 per cent capacity, with
>>>>>>> punctuality at nearly 80 per cent. In the UK, British Airways was
>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>> at 67 per cent capacity and 68 per cent punctuality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could, of course, be that BA is uniquely badly run within the
>>>>>>> IAG group.
>>>>>>> It does have a reputation for poor IT systems hobbled by
>>>>>>> underinvestment.
>>>>>>> But Gallego puts his UK operation’s poor performance down largely
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> unique way in which the British government dealt with the pandemic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spain has a much higher unemployment rate than the UK, especially in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> young. Probably much easier to get folk to return to low paid
>>>>>> airport jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each day 10,000 Spaniards cross into Gibraltar (population 30,000) for
>>>>>> work. This despite there being two large Spanish towns around the
>>>>>> bay of
>>>>>> Gibraltar.
>>>>>
>>>>> That particular effect is no doubt increased by the unaffordability for
>>>>> low-paid workers to be *residents* of Gibraltar. So it's more a case of
>>>>> them having to "pull" the workers, than the workers "pushing" themselves
>>>>> across the border
>>>>
>>>> Gibraltar is very densely populated and does indeed need the daily
>>>> migrant
>>>> workforce. However that workforce is freely available and presumably at
>>>> fairly low rates.
>>>
>>> They just have to pay a little more (and/or be a better place to work)
>>> than Spain.
>>
>> Or, just have jobs available, unlike the nearby parts of Spain.
>>
>
> Yep. La Línea de la Concepción, which is immediately across the border
> fence from Gibraltar (and has twice the population) is reputed to have an
> unemployment rate of 35%. Gibraltar’s is around 1%
>
> Nationally Spanish unemployment is currently running at around 13%. I
> suspect this has a lot to do with why they have little problem staffing the
> more unpleasant airport jobs.
>
> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
> service.
>
>

We have several Spanish people working at my TOC. And Polish, French, and
plenty of other nationalities.

Perhaps your pilot was already living and working in the UK before Brexit,
and has Settled Status? And presumably that particular set of crew don't
only work the flights to Gibraltar, but work to many destinations in turn,
just like other air crew?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>
>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>
> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
> flights?

KLM crew and aircraft overnight in Bristol but they don't have "a base"
there.

I don't know the arrangements for long-haul flights, but surely there's no
reason that crews couldn't spend the night (or two nights, or whatever) in
a hotel, working the return flight the next day (/day after etc.), without
the airline establishing "a base" there (ie employing local pilots and
crews).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>>> service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>>
>>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>>
>>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>>
>>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>>
>> That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps take as a
>> starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
>> purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
>> end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
>> plane, not Australians.
>>
>>
>
> <https://murciatoday.com/british-airways-opens-base-in-spain-in-bid-to-fight-staff-shortages_1767133-a.html>
>
>

Checking BA's Gibraltar arrivals today on Flightradar24 shows that the
aircraft fly straight back to Heathrow and BA don't have flights to
anywhere else; so unless they taxi crews from Madrid to Gibraltar, that
seems to be rather a red herring.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 06:58:37 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2022 05:45, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:48:46 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2022 09:14, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61767847>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Though there seem doubts about how effective taxes are for controlling
>>>> behaviour. I was listening earlier in the week to a report that the
>>>> SNP's minimum pricing of alcohol has had no effect on the amount of
>>>> drinking in Scotland.
>>>>
>>> That wasn't what was reported which was that the more diehard drinkers
>>> were drinking just as much and spending less on food. The study was
>>> focused on problem drinkers not on the full range of consumers.
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/07/minimum-alcohol-pricing-causes-poorest-cut-back-food-scotland
>>
>> But it was problem drinkers the measures were supposed to target.
>>
>
The "problem drinkers" in the report are not the full range. It
doesn't seem to deal with e.g. youngsters getting ratted on cheap
supermarket drinks. Minimum pricing has only been in force for 4 years
so it could still be too soon to fully assess the effects.

The survey on teenage drinking was based on a sample of only 50 13-17
year olds who are possibly not the most reliable survey base.
https://www.scotsman.com/health/nhs-scotland-study-reveals-no-impact-teen-drinking-minimum-pricing-1396337

>The price hike isn’t enough though. You probably need Scandinavian price
>levels to change behaviour. That’s not going to happen whilst the English
>border is around 60 miles from the central belt.

In message <t854f9$qvl$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:41 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t84tgr$9ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:34:03 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t84olq$6u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:22 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t84e5t$1ll$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:13 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of
>>>>>>>> the staff,
>>>>>>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flying into the UK and out again is not construed as 'immigration'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends where the staff are based. Do BA have overseas bases?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think they fly to places like Australia, if they don't have
>>>>> something like a "base" there for the staff to chill out at between
>>>>> flights? And why couldn't an Australian pilot end his shift in
>>>>> Australia, and start a new one a week later[1] from Australia?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Flying hours restrictions and the length of the sectors mean he'd be
>>>>> unlikely to fly more than out-and-back once a week.
>>>>
>>>> That’s not what is normally meant by crews’ base. Let’s perhaps
>>>> take as a
>>>> starting point where a few member is considered to be resident for tax
>>>> purposes. Most short haul crew end up at the place they started from at the
>>>> end of their working period. I was commenting on Spanish crew on a BA
>>>> plane, not Australians.
>>>
>>> <https://murciatoday.com/british-airways-opens-base-in-spain-in-bid-to-f
>>> ight-staff-shortages_1767133-a.html>
>>
>> Good for them; another way to (in this instance beneficially) "take back
>> control" - of where they hire their staff from, and pass the benefits on
>> to all those BA passengers who voted "leave", by way of cheaper and more
>> efficient flights.
>>
>> Perhaps the "Remain" campaign should have painted

Leave voters:

>>"Be careful what you wish for" on the side of a bus.
>
>Recliner - thanks for link
>Not sure how Brexit comes into this? BA could equally have well done this
>regardless of our EU membership status.

Apparently that's true of a very large number of the so-called
benefits of leaving the EU.

In this instance I'm suggesting that there's possibly something in EU
employment law which would have made it more difficult for BA to recruit
EU-based staff and pay them less than their UK-based workers. The irony
being that if that's the case (and I'm happy to be told it isn't) UK
workers voting leave, have shot themselves in the foot.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t857dq$e4r$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:23:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

[BA]

>>> It's a Spanish company, despite the name.

>> Isn't it a English-and-Welsh company owned by a Spanish holding
>>company, with control and profits going to Spain but subject to UK
>>regulations?
>
>No problem using non-British crew though, after all the UK is just
>another country they fly to that they aren't citizens of.

And what I'm alluding to in another subthread is that formerly the EU
crew (from Spain) were flying to another EU country, which they were in
a sense citizens of.

Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but the UK becoming "just another
random third country" has all kinds of not very widely recognised
ramifications.
--
Roland Perry

In message <nlecahlt81il73396q7rltg8tvhgok8qop@4ax.com>, at 20:26:19 on
Sun, 12 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>>>>> Though there seem doubts about how effective taxes are for controlling
>>>>> behaviour. I was listening earlier in the week to a report that the
>>>>> SNP's minimum pricing of alcohol has had no effect on the amount of
>>>>> drinking in Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>> That wasn't what was reported which was that the more diehard drinkers
>>>> were drinking just as much and spending less on food. The study was
>>>> focused on problem drinkers not on the full range of consumers.
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/07/minimum-alcohol-pricing-causes-poorest-cut-back-food-scotland
>>>
>>> But it was problem drinkers the measures were supposed to target.
>>
>The "problem drinkers" in the report are not the full range. It
>doesn't seem to deal with e.g. youngsters getting ratted on cheap
>supermarket drinks. Minimum pricing has only been in force for 4 years
>so it could still be too soon to fully assess the effects.
>
>The survey on teenage drinking was based on a sample of only 50 13-17
>year olds who are possibly not the most reliable survey base.
>https://www.scotsman.com/health/nhs-scotland-study-reveals-no-impact-teen-drinking-minimum-pricing-1396337

There's numerous references in that second report to teenage drinking,
and a golden rule of public relations is not to go to press with
'studies' which can be instantly debunked for poor methodology. It
doesn't do the reputation of any of the organisations involved any good.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ebSdnQm7p73Rjzj_nZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
23:08:02 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 11/06/2022 12:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <O_adnRgSOdVjyjn_nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>09:53:18 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>remarked:
>>> On 11/06/2022 07:41, MB wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Daily Mail has today a long article on the restrictive
>>>>practices in  the railways, looks as if there is an organised
>>>>campaign by the Left,  Unions etc to discredit the article by
>>>>posting comments though I suspect  they are wasting their time.
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10905687/Train-services-cancell
>>> ed-staff-wont-work-sunny-GUY-ADAMS-investigates.html
>>>
>>> "some railway staff benefit from a bizarre rule that allows them to
>>>restart a scheduled break completely if they happen to bump into a
>>>manager who says ‘Hello’."
>>>
>>> Would that actually be saying that people can't be made to work
>>>through their breaks - eg managers can't say "I know you are having
>>>your lunch, buts let's have a meeting while you are here"?

>> Whatever the truth behind the "no chatting with managers in breaks"
>>rule, what in practice could a manager have a short 'meeting' with a
>>train driver in the staff canteen about, that would significantly
>>prejudice the break from sitting in the driving cab.
>
>I've no idea in the specific case of train driving, but "you are
>physically here so may as well work" is a thing.
>
>>> "drivers can refuse to allow ScotRail to phone them at home to
>>>inform them of changes to shifts."
>>>
>>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that
>>>staff are always availale for calls, quite common?

>> Yes and no. In many industries the reverse is true, with significant
>>numbers of staff on virtually compulsory telephone standby. What would
>>happen if there was a big train wreck, and a hospital needed to invoke
>>its major incident procedure. "Sorry, we aren't allowed to phone any
>>extra nurses up, to see if they are free to come in".
>
>Are there not agreed procedures, rather than a reliance on bugging
>people who are on holiday or whatever to cover run of the mill issues?

What appears to be missing is an "agreed procedure" for Scotrail to be
able to call their drivers on a non-work day [nobody mentioned "when on
holiday in the South of France"] to convey short and helpful messages
like "we've changed your shift on Tuesday to start an hour later, and
thought you'd like to know about that, before you come into work on
Monday and find a note about it in your pigeon hole".

Of course, we are repeatedly told that only goat-herders don't have
mobile phones, and in my part time job if such a shift-change were to
occur they'd simply send me an Outlook calendar update [to the MS-Office
on my work phone], and it would be up to me when I looked at it and
responded.
--
Roland Perry