Fitzhugh Fella

And I suppose you think the slaves were lucky to be fed. What is it with this "people are lucky to have jobs" philosophy we have in this country?

Your post makes sense, and thanks for debating it properly. The 12 days of Xmas was a high risk strategy but we reckoned the public were never going to support us anyway and it would take something "jaw-dropping" to capture WW's attention. In the days before Justice Cox's somewhat bizarre decision he had started to yield a bit which was all we were after. Anything less than the 12 days of Xmas just would not have got him to the table. It was a case of needs must I am afraid. We actually accept there must be a reduction in BA's cost base but cuts must be proportionally fair - for instance the managerial grades have been completely unaffected about from voluntary redundacies. Believe me we have made an offer far in excess of anything a cabin crew union has offered before. At one stage we even found more money than BA were demanding. But St Bletch this is now very ideological (hence the appointment of Tony McCarthy from the Royal Mail) and Walsh is only in this to neutralise the unions. Incidentally - you heard it here first we will not be going on strike at Easter. We made our point, we got Walsh's attention so there is no need to unneccesarily hurt the general public unduly. One last point re us balloting members who subsequently left. On the day notification was given to BA over how many crew we were balloting those leavers had no confirmation that they would be alowed to leave - and legal advice taken was that if there was any chance they would be asked to participate in industrial action then they must be sent a ballot paper. Chances are had we not balloted them we would still have been injuncted. A lot of those people who did leave are contemporaries of mine and I can assure you virtually all of them that didn't vote would, had they remained flying have voted to go on strike. The 92% would therefore have been a lot higher. Most of BA staff absolutely despise Walsh's style of management. BA, like I said, has made a profit in 18 out of the 20 or so years since it became a privately owned company - so it aint in need of that much surgery.

So all these threads and we finally get to find out what really happened to Saganowski

Its a fair point. I started flying in 1976 and it was a different world then. My salary is reasonable to good I suppose but I have been climbing the scale for 34 years and I have reached the top of the promotional file. Nevertheless if I retired this year my pension would be about 15 grand per annum. In 1997 BA imposed new starter rates which means anyone who became BA crew after that were on much lower payscales - they now probably make up 80% of crew, so to use pre 97 crew as the example is disingenious. Within 5 to 10 years the whole airline will be post 97 joiners and very cost effective. Other areas within BA have been asked to give up hardly anything despite what the press say. Pilots who earn massive wages have been asked to make very small changes complete out of proportion to what we have been asked. I have no problem with high wages for pilots, after all they keep the damn things in the air but they should proportionally be expected to give up the same as us. BA are simply being oportunistic. We knew all about these proposed changes to our terms and conditions well before the recession, Walsh is now using it to decimate what is, trust me a hard-working non-militant work force. And it is not all about serving tea. Personally I was involved in a full scale evacuation of a jumbo at Heathrow when we got 376 passengers out of an a/c that caught fire on take off and my wife saved the life of a young girl who had a severe asthma attack on a flight between Bermuda and London which ended up diverting to St Mawgans in Cornwall. I don't want pity just a little more understanding, we are trained and paid to do this after all, but what I do want if f I am going to be made to give up standards pertaining to my terms and conditions that they are negotiated, as they always have been in the past, and not part of a smash and grab raid by a man who wants to turn a once proud national airline into an imitation poor mans Ryanair.

Like I said Alpine - we are very aware of the precarious state of aviation at present but Walsh is using it as an opportunity to rip everything up and start again. To accept that without protest would be suicide for us anyway so we might as well protest. Trust me, we have made very generous concessions which would be enough to solve his financial difficulties but he wants the whole lot. And in an anwer to us being paid twice as much as our counterparts it depends who you define as our counterparts. Yes we earn more than Easyjet crew but if you compare our salaries with other national airlines in Europe like KLM, IBERIA etc we are very much on a par. Comparing a BA crew member's salary of 30 years service to someone who has been on Easyjet for 3 years is bound to throw up a substantial difference. It's a bit like comparing an Echo journalist with a Newsnight presenter.

Sorry mate you are talking codswallop. We had been in talks with BA for 6 months so we were consulted but then they imposed. Also I am a CSD (cabin service director) and I have been for 20 years and every flight I have served drinks and meals. BA has made a decent profit for 18 out of the last 20 years. A significant part of recent losses can be attributed to BA incurring big fines for price fixing. Last week at talks chairedby Brendan Barber at the TUC we offered BA a "practical and realistic solution" which they rejected.

This dispute is nothing whatsoever to do with money. As a Union we have offered massive savings and have accepted a 2-year pay freeze. We know BA need to modernise and cut costs and we are prepared to make concessions a plenty. However BA want to make these changes virtually overnight meaning existing crew with morgages, family committments etc will be literally unable to continue to financially survive. We have suggested methods where BA can get their savings albeit over a longer period of time. They will not compromise. Their industrial team is lead by a chap called Tony McCarthy, who moved from Royal Mail less than 2 years ago. His job is to turn BA into RyanAir and neutralise the Unions. How do I know this? Well I am the secretary of the Union and I go to all the talks. Incidentally BA have charged me with gross misconduct (punishment is dismissal) and stopped my pay (without any hearing) from December 21st. My crime - going about my Union duties. I will, in all probablility, lose my job (one I've had for 34 years). But I am prepared to continue representing a workforce against company that try to bully its staff into submission (ask anyone who works for BA - not just cabin crew). Young stewards and stewardesses' starting pay is just over £11,000 and although you can probably add £6,000 in allowances, you try surviving living in London. So it is a fallacy that we are overpaid. This strike is solely about imposition. BA have imposed changes. We want to negotiate those changes properly. They refuse so we propose to withdraw our labour. Oh and by the way as an aside the way the law works and is interpreted these days it is almost impossible to withdraw your labour. Some of you may think that is a good thing but believe me it is actually a basic human right and may be one day a step you need to take but won't be allowed to. Much as I would like to reply to further debate, please accept my apologies now because I just won't be able to. One final piece of advice if I could be so bold and patronising. When commenting on things like others' industrial disputes before you take any decisions or sweeping statements on the rights and the wrongs do not believe what you see or read in the popular press. People do not take industrial action these days unless there is a bloody good reason and sometimes it's best to delve deep and find out the true facts. Most crew are very fearful of the consequences taking action but 92.9% of them were prepared to put a cross in a box last time and that must tell you something.

Spot on post, very accurate assessment. I will be very surprised if we even get close to the play-offs. We just aren't playing well enough.

I know where you are coming from with this post but I would argue WGS did have his blind spots with certain players - Kevin Davies, for instance. I still maintain had Kevin been "managed" better then he could have been a real asset to us in the post Strachan era.

what a bizarre thread - are you related

That made me larf. I wonder what Jacko is doing these days?

God I shudder at the thought of some of the people who were interested in us. We certainly seem to have got very lucky with ML but his motives and reasons for getting involved still intrigue me.

There is a rumour circulating the dark corners of this forum that he has been smuggled across the Channel and is now back in his native Poland and that the whole thing is a massive secret.

Putting results aside, we simply have not been playing well for 3 months. Don't know why - something just isn't right. Picking up ugly wins is great but it sort of obscures an underlying problem which by the season's conclusion will find us out. A draw at the New Den is creditable but it seems the manner of our performance is cause for concern. Personally I would look at midfield where I think we are weak. Schneiderlein, James, Wotton and even Hammond, to a degree just don't cut the mustard. Lallana after an impressive start has gone off the boil and that effects the whole shape of the team. We are deffo at a bit of a crossroads and if the MK Dons hammer us on Wednesday - our season will be over.

The Jury is still out for me but obviously any decision would depend on the price. £200,000 YES, £1m NO

If that is true it would be nice to be told. And it does leave us short of cover in the forward dept.......

I used to collect all sorts of memorabilia but I sold it apart from my photo archive. The guy who bought this badge and I are thinking about bringing out some sort of book on Saints memorabilia and like I said he has quite a few going back to the beginning of the last century. Cheers

Sorry, forgot to add the badge was made to commemorate with us reaching the 1908 FA Cup semi-final when Wolves beat us 2-0 at Stamford Bridge. Afer that our 10 years of being one of the top clubs in the country went into decline.

Absolutely. I am surprised they devoted 2 pages tonight on who will be dropped to accomodate Fonte inc Jaidi.

I know who bought it and he's a saints fan and has got a bargain. This is incredibly rare - in fact the first I ever seen. Definately genuine. I have seen a similar one produced for the 1902 FA Cup Final. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Tonight's Echo still have him in the team. Perhaps NC has blocked the Echo's access to the website. Lazy reporting. Without taking sides in this - the Echo's lack of up-to-date info is now starting to become embarrassing. It needs sorting but I don't think Cortese is the sort of man to back down.

Got to be a forward, Connolly is struggling with fitness and lambert cannot shoulder everything!

From what I hear mess with NC at your peril.

Although I can't remember him perse in the Boxing Day match I was mighty impressed at how Exeter reacted to going down to 10 men and for the last hour they were a better team than us. He must have played a significant part in that. Just as it is silly to go over the top, when we sign someone it is just as foolhardy to express disappointment. Marsden's arrival a perfect example of why it's best to wait at least 6 months. Pardew must know what he is doing and now he has signed 3 centre-halves in Martin (who he rates highly) and now Fonte and Seaborne. Build from the back is sensible planning but if he is never going to play Saga (despite saying good things in the Echo about him, recently in the Echo) I would like to see the arrival of a forward. Lambert and Connolly just don't have the stamina for a long run-in.

Hope they made a mistake on the length of his contract which they say is until 2011.