globalste

Sorry if this is posted elsewhere

British Airways (BA) cabin crew will appeal a High Court ruling that rejected their call for an injunction and found the airline could legally reduce the number of staff onboard flights

http://www.personneltoday.com/articl...f-changes.html

henkybaby

The only thing that came to mind was "oh no, here we go again..."

bealine

Yup - the only people getting fat out of this are the legal fat cats, damn their eyes!

A far better solution would be to work with the new changes, but for each crew member to file an "Accident or Dangerous Incident" report if undue stress or passenger rage is experienced as a result of the extra workload (wasn't this the entire raison d'etre behind the Trades Unions objecting to the manning reductions?) If enough reports were filed, the Health and Safety Executive would soon start investigating the cause.

globalste

[QUOTE=bealine;14131768A far better solution would be to work with the new changes[/QUOTE]

But thats just not 1970s British-Leyland-Communist-style Union convening is it? Got to keep up union tradition!

BOH

I would have thought a bigger concern should be whether the Inland Revenue starts to take an interest in the heavily discounted travel perks BA crew enjoy.

As I understand it, this was a long standing but (but crucially) "unoffical" perk that BA has withdrawn to those who went on strike. It was not part of their formal contract.

But now this has been so publicly debated therefore is widespread knowledge and the strikers / union want these perks to be "officially" reinstated. I would have thought there is a real danger of the Inland Revenue taking a keen interest in this as a benefit in kind? Particularly if it is formally reinstated as part of a strike settlement - surely that could be easily interpreted and then being "official"?

How ironic it would be if the strikers won some cocessions from BA, but all were considerably worse off if the IR decide to formally count these perks as taxable. Not just ironic, actually quite amusing

henkybaby

On the other hand your scenario would hurt the non-strikers so I would find it very unfair.

BOH

Yes I see that. Although it could be debated that in this economic climate, if it is a clear benefit-in-kind (and as someone who is personally taxed on quite a few - as many on here will be) then maybe it is long overdue?

It sounds to me like very heavily discounted fares that are only available to employees of an organisation are a clear benefit-in-kind? If my employer paid 90% of my train fare to work, to ensure I only paid 10% of the market price that other folks are, I would humbly suggest the IR would be after me in an instant? Whether this arrangement was officially in my employment contract or just an unofficial arrangement, ie claimed through the expense system on an informal understanding basis.

Quite a few of my customers worked for the old BR, pre the mid 1990's privatisation into Railtrack then Network Rail. They and their immediate familiy pretty much get free unlimited first class travel on the UK network - this is a legacy benefit and has never been offered to those joining the industry post privatisation. But they are certainly taxed on this as a one-off loading each year on their tax code as it is a very clear benefit-in-kind

henkybaby

You are probably right. I am however grateful to all those who did keep 'the flag' (and more importantly: me) flying. I would find it extremely unfair if the strikers get away with murder in this scenario or the non strikers are hurt as well.

Roger

When this cropped up before, the ID90s and similar fares weren't classed as taxable because they didn't guarantee a seat.

As somebody in the automotive industry who pays tax on the perceived value of the car I use in my duties - and the tax is based on the list price (who pays list for a car??) and I continue to pay tax on the car even when on other continents because the car is notionally 'available' to me - I wondered about the taxability of ST.

Following my example - tax being calculated on the full price - there would be logic in the suggestion that ST be taxed on the full market price, but I wouldn't be the one to suggest that around here.

BlackBerryAddict

I think that in some other countries some of these benefits are taxed. But the comparison with the rail example is not entirely fair. The rail people were probably never off loaded if the train was full (or rather the train runs overcrowded ). But airline staff travel on stand-by - ie if the aircraft is full you're not going. I thought these benefits were roughly priced at the marginal cost level - ie the airline gets the money for the additional cost of the staff passenger.

BOH

I understand your reasoning. But it seems quite a few crew members live quite far away from their home base and only by the use of very heavily discounted fares are able to do this. They would surely not be able to do this without some guarantee of a seat pretty much always being available - otherwise they would frequently not get to work on-time and be disciplined if they were flying on true stand-by terms? - as on some occasions surely their flights would be full and they would be bumped off?

So I would question whether they are true stand-by fares - and are they also available on the same basis to members of the public? I think not.

I sense a potential problem looming here for the strikers in so publicly trying to get this perk reinstated. WW may actually have been exceptionally clever in his withdrawal of this too....

The taxman may cometh......and with the prospect of tax rises for everyone the strikers may just have played straight into someones hands here @:-)

xxxxx

Commuting crew purchase exactly the same type of ticket any BA staff member can buy and are offloadable. The fact that a crew member is commuting to a duty has absolutely no bearing on the order in which they are onloaded.

If the crew member is late for duty due to not getting on a flight, that's their problem. In reality, most commuting crew are very careful which flights they fly standby on and will buy commercial tickets or travel with other airlines when appropriate.

You must remember that these fares are not that low. A LHR-MAN-LHR is around �22 plus tax, so not that much less than a commercial ticket if purchased far enough in advance.

JAXBA

ST is regarded by HM Inland Revenue as a taxable benefit.. and BA kindly covers the tax due on the employees behalf. The only taxes the employee has to pay are those of the route the ticket is used on - air passenger duty, airport user fees etc.,

biggy h

Also the CC on pprune are going on about thier Meal allowances and taking the spare money home. They should be lucky they're not treated like the rest of us and only get what they actually spend..

Dave Noble

A lot of people I know, including me, get paid per diems rather than actual expenses