BA...Here we go again

[CB Saint]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8465208.stm

 

Anyone got any holidays booked over easter?

[The Kraken]

As the article mentions, I don't think the vote will be anywhere near as unanimous as last time. The staff had no idea the strikes were going to be for so long, and would cause so much disruption over one of the busiest times of the year. Add to that the weight of public feeling about the whole spitefulness of it all.

 

Unfortunately though, I still think they'll vote to strike as Unite just seem intent on causing maximum chaos in order to make a point, rather than to look for the most productive solution. They are the worst example of a union flexing it's muscles, badly advising its members and closing its eyes to the actual the bottom line; the company made a £400M loss last year and are clearly in need of massive change across the board.

[dune]

Just sack them. They're only glorified waitresses at the end of the day.

[Arizona]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

Cabin crew "We want more money"

 

It's brilliant.

[bungle]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

Cabin crew "We want more money"

 

It's brilliant.

 

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

BA Executives, "But obviously we'll keep our massive wages and bonuses."

 

It's brilliant.

[Arizona]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

BA Executives, "But obviously we'll keep our massive wages and bonuses."

 

It's brilliant.

 

Obviously they don't deserve it, but this doesn't validate Unite striking.

[bungle]

The cabin crew aren't asking for more money, either.

[Arizona]

The cabin crew aren't asking for more money, either.

 

I believe one of the terms they are protesting against is a planned pay freeze, as well as reducing cabin crew on long haul flights.

 

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=3229737

 

"The airline, which lost over £400m in the year to 31 March 2009, wants a pay freeze in 2010 and 3,000 staff to switch to part-time working. Onboard crewing levels have also been cut from 15 to 14 on long-haul flights from Heathrow"

[Johnny Bognor]

I believe one of the terms they are protesting against is a planned pay freeze, as well as reducing cabin crew on long haul flights.

 

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=3229737

 

"The airline, which lost over £400m in the year to 31 March 2009, wants a pay freeze in 2010 and 3,000 staff to switch to part-time working. Onboard crewing levels have also been cut from 15 to 14 on long-haul flights from Heathrow"

 

What they don't tell you is that due to the recession, flights are not full and therefore the reduction of crew from 15 to 14 will have little impact on the workloads of the remaining 14 on long haul flights.

[The Kraken]

A big sticking point of the crew reduction from 15 to 14 is that the cabin service directors – the most senior crew – are being asked to no longer just oversee the on-board staff, but to serve meals and drinks as well. So they're complaining about having to actually do their job.

 

The last strike was a massive, massive over-reaction to what are clearly some sensible ideas by BA to actually begin to reign in their enormous running losses. Unite have just had their noses put out of joint as they weren't consulted on the changes in the first place and are only looking to demonstrate their power in being able to bring the company to its knees, rather than working with BA to find a practical and realistic solution.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

Cabin crew "We want more money"

 

It's brilliant.

 

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.

[Saint Keith]

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.

 

my wife is a stewardess for BA. she is on £47k a year, for a 27 hour week. she admits herself she is vastly overpaid, and is pretty scathing of glorified waiters being so ****ing precious

[Fitzhugh Fella]

A big sticking point of the crew reduction from 15 to 14 is that the cabin service directors – the most senior crew – are being asked to no longer just oversee the on-board staff, but to serve meals and drinks as well. So they're complaining about having to actually do their job.

 

The last strike was a massive, massive over-reaction to what are clearly some sensible ideas by BA to actually begin to reign in their enormous running losses. Unite have just had their noses put out of joint as they weren't consulted on the changes in the first place and are only looking to demonstrate their power in being able to bring the company to its knees, rather than working with BA to find a practical and realistic solution.

 

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.

[bridge too far]

FF I thought people couldn't be dismissed for going about Union duties. It certainly used to be the case.

 

Or has the law changed

[Arizona]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

Cabin crew "We want more money"

 

It's brilliant.

 

I'd like to retract this statement. I was under the impression from the media that the union was protesting against a planned pay freeze for 2010. FF assures me this is not the case and that the pay freeze has been accepted.

 

However I still think BA cabin crew get a better deal than most cabin crew in Britain, or even the world. In Ryanair pilot and cabin crew unions are not recognised and as such a strike would just get you sacked. This does not upset most employees however, who are by and large, just happy to have a job.

 

FF, I though the price fixing thing with Virgin happened about 5 years ago and was to the tune of about £350m. I could understand that having a big impact then, but can't see how it would account for a £300m loss last year and projected £600m loss this year.

[Saint Keith]

FF I thought people couldn't be dismissed for going about Union duties. It certainly used to be the case.

 

Or has the law changed

 

BA are taking a very hard line against all the higher paid cabin crew, mainly the CSD's. using anything they can to get them off the wage bill

 

my wifes friend got dismissed for saying willie walsh was a "little irish ****" on facebook

 

its a case of fire them, and argue about it later

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

FF I thought people couldn't be dismissed for going about Union duties. It certainly used to be the case.

 

Or has the law changed

 

The law has not changed. It is automatically unfair dismissal if you are dismissed for going about union business.

 

Unless of course the employer lies about the reasons and manufactures a bogus charge of gross misconduct.

[ericofarabia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8465208.stm

 

Anyone got any holidays booked over easter?

 

:mad:

 

Why do they have to strike over holiday periods when people are paying top rate for tickets and families in the main are going to be inconvenienced and holidays ruined.

 

Sheer bloody blackmail

 

Of course by 'they' I mean the Unions. I'm sure many Ba staff were horrified when the details of the last proposed strike were released.

[Weston Super Saint]

BA, "We're making massive losses. We need to cut cost and may even have to lay off staff.

BA Executives, "But obviously we'll keep our massive wages and bonuses."

 

It's brilliant.

 

To be fair Bungle you sound very.......

Edited 18 January, 2010 by St Landrew
Finding the same picture in a reasonable size

[The Kraken]

Any chance of making that picture any bigger?

[Weston Super Saint]

Any chance of making that picture any bigger?

 

Sadly, as a registered user I cannot edit my own posts, so can neither make it bigger or smaller for you

 

Perhaps you could ask Boj?

[St Landrew]

Any chance of making that picture any bigger?

 

No, he couldn't. But if he'd looked further than the image that came up first, he would have found a samller version.

 

Just a little thought is all that is required.

[pedg]

...

Edited 18 January, 2010 by pedg
being stupid

[BigShadow]

Where will it end......as someone who has flown BA (with my family) for our last five trips back to the UK - and having come so close to having Christmas ruined - I will be flying American Airlines in April and we will all be flying Virgin this summer.

 

Its a shame because I had grown to like the BA product after spending most of the late nineties preferring AA. However, I cannot afford to have my travel plans held to ransom in the way they were in the week leading up to Christmas.

 

Unlike the 'Anyone but BA' crusade, I really hope to fly BA again someday, but fear that they will be so heavily damaged by this dispute that whatever emerges will not be able to offer a competitive product.

 

Can there be any winner in this dispute? (except BA competitors)

[Johnny Bognor]

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.

 

I am not sure it is a basic human right, because if it is, why has no one taken the Police or Armed Forces to court under Human Rights legislation?

 

It may be a legal right, but not a basic human right.

 

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the main points are:

 

Everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of their person.

Everyone has a right to an education

Everyone has a right to get a job

Everyone has a right to take part in cultural life -to choose a way of life.

No person may be tortured, or treated in a cruel or unkind way.

Everyone has a right to have ideas or opinions, to decide what is right and what is wrong, and to choose a religion.

Everyone has a right to speak or write freely

 

I would add having a fair trial / innocent until proven guilty; peaceful protest and a basic standard of living (food & shelter).

 

I couldn't find anything relating to striking whilst you earn twice as much as your counterparts constituting a basic human right.

Edited 18 January, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Arizona]

Where will it end......as someone who has flown BA (with my family) for our last five trips back to the UK - and having come so close to having Christmas ruined - I will be flying American Airlines in April and we will all be flying Virgin this summer.

 

Its a shame because I had grown to like the BA product after spending most of the late nineties preferring AA. However, I cannot afford to have my travel plans held to ransom in the way they were in the week leading up to Christmas.

 

Unlike the 'Anyone but BA' crusade, I really hope to fly BA again someday, but fear that they will be so heavily damaged by this dispute that whatever emerges will not be able to offer a competitive product.

 

Can there be any winner in this dispute? (except BA competitors)

 

Out of the frying pan...

[Saint in Paradise]

This is an article from August 2008

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2517072/British-Airways-price-fixing-allegations--four-face-charges.html

[Hatch]

We should draft in the army to cover for them if they go on strike

[Greenridge]

I have the unfortunate 'pleasure' of taking more than 75 flights a year and have done for the last 8 or so years. I'm a long term member of the Exec Club but over the years everything about BA has deteriorated. I was due to fly out to Phoenix last Saturday but at 8pm on the Friday night they cancelled my flight. This was an operational issue from a knock-on effect of the snow which was understandable but did they call / text / email me? No, of course not. They have all my contact details on record, I get automated emails letting me know when my booking is in place, when the on-line check-in is open and of course all sorts of marketing correspondence. But does the same system notify passengers of something relatively significant like a flight cancellation? Nope.

 

Last year I started migrating my custom elsewhere but to be honest they are all as bad as one another to varying degrees!

[Ash]

my wife is a stewardess for BA. she is on £47k a year, for a 27 hour week. she admits herself she is vastly overpaid, and is pretty scathing of glorified waiters being so ****ing precious

Long spells away from home? Earning way above the industry average? Are you sure she's a Stewardess?

[aintforever]

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.

 

If I attempted to withdraw my labour I would be laughed straight onto the dole, as I suspect would most other people who work for small companies trying to fight their way through the recession.

[BigShadow]

Out of the frying pan...

 

Yes, it may turn out that way but at least they didn't stoop to trying to destroy Christmas. The timing and length of the strike is what rankles most - 12 days of Christmas - did they think they were being funny?

[benjii]

BA are taking a very hard line against all the higher paid cabin crew, mainly the CSD's. using anything they can to get them off the wage bill

 

my wifes friend got dismissed for saying willie walsh was a "little irish ****" on facebook

 

its a case of fire them, and argue about it later

 

They were quite right to dismiss her then.

[CB Saint]

FF, From your post there seems to be two reasons for the strike

 

firstly that BA want to impose changes on staff with out the staff agreement and secondly the changes themselves.

 

I don't agree with the first reason. It smacks of indignant outrage in a "how dare they tell me what to do" manner. This is what happens in business, times move on.

h

I am interested the second reason. As I understand it, they want to reduce cabin crew from 15 to 14 for some flights. What do other airlines have in terms of staff numbers on a comparable flight? This would certainly give some perspective to what BA are actually asking for.

[saintbletch]

Some context for these discussions. Japan Airlines has just filed for bankruptcy protection from its creditors. I recognise that this could be all about how badly run JAL was and little to do with the health of the premium airlines. But it would make me think whichever side of the debate I was on.

 

It's a shame the FF has gone off line because I would love to know how these young stewardesses and stewards on low starting pay struggling to live in London feel about having to work alongside older, longer-standing employees whose terms and conditions are far superior.

 

Does it ever occur to the young stewards and stewardesses that they HAVE to start on such a low wage BECAUSE the older crew is paid on Ts&Cs that were drawn up when the travelling population was discerning and prepared to pay a premium?

 

If so does this not create friction?

 

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[Mmm Donuts]

I am not sure it is a basic human right, because if it is, why has no one taken the Police or Armed Forces to court under Human Rights legislation?

 

It may be a legal right, but not a basic human right.

 

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the main points are:

 

Everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of their person.

Everyone has a right to an education

Everyone has a right to get a job

Everyone has a right to take part in cultural life -to choose a way of life.

No person may be tortured, or treated in a cruel or unkind way.

Everyone has a right to have ideas or opinions, to decide what is right and what is wrong, and to choose a religion.

Everyone has a right to speak or write freely

 

I would add having a fair trial / innocent until proven guilty; peaceful protest and a basic standard of living (food & shelter).

 

I couldn't find anything relating to striking whilst you earn twice as much as your counterparts constituting a basic human right.

 

I think it is one of the tenets of democracy rather than a basic human right. Going to the states for Easter, but flying with Virgin so from a selfish point of view, I hope not much happens at all. Not sure that striking actually resolves much though, may buy them a bit of time to delay any changes, but don't big companies often get their way in the end?

[alpine_saint]

What a lame duck BA is, and how stupid are the cabin crew, with this news coming out at the same time as the slow, lingering death of the airline industry is confirmed by the bankruptcy filing of Japan Airlines.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

What a lame duck BA is, and how stupid are the cabin crew, with this news coming out at the same time as the slow, lingering death of the airline industry is confirmed by the bankruptcy filing of Japan Airlines.

 

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.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Some context for these discussions. Japan Airlines has just filed for bankruptcy protection from its creditors. I recognise that this could be all about how badly run JAL was and little to do with the health of the premium airlines. But it would make me think whichever side of the debate I was on.

 

It's a shame the FF has gone off line because I would love to know how these young stewardesses and stewards on low starting pay struggling to live in London feel about having to work alongside older, longer-standing employees whose terms and conditions are far superior.

 

Does it ever occur to the young stewards and stewardesses that they HAVE to start on such a low wage BECAUSE the older crew is paid on Ts&Cs that were drawn up when the travelling population was discerning and prepared to pay a premium?

 

If so does this not create friction?

 

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

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.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

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.

 

All fair points Duncan, but I don't think the Tories or more radical right wingers on here are listening (or want to). You see, it doesn't affect their living standard, only their business or pleasure flights (if a strike occurs). If their job gets threatened or changed in a smash and grab action will they roll over and sigh 'that's life' and go find another job? They don't realise that the likes of you, with long service etc maybe could not find another job as good or well paid? To me it's a NIMBY attitude.

 

What happens with BA now will open the door for all sorts of similar action whenever an employer sees fit. And all this with a 'Labour' government in power. God help us (apart from the well to do) if (when) Deadly Dave and his crones get into power. It's not improbable to see a few 'Winter's of discontent' looming.

[saintbletch]

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.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm sure your comments about just serving tea and needing pity weren't aimed at me. As I've said before on here I'm a BA fan and have always been treated well by BA crew. I'm also a great supporter of unionised workforce but not Kanute-like attempts to turn back the tide of 'progress'.

 

I guess one of the benefits of not being directly involved in a situation is that I can see both sides. I can certainly see that BA management has tried to capitalise on this situation but I can also see that changes need to be made to BA's cost base - and urgently. And to suggest earlier in this thread that the dispute is nothing to do with money is surely disingenuous?

 

I can see that the dispute is obviously very important to a large number of BA staff - hence the high degree of support for the strike ballot (leaving aside the alleged support from staff that were no longer employed by BA!). But from the outside and looking at some of the language you've used on here to describe it, it looks like the dispute is now more about distrust of your employer and specifically Willie Walsh. And when things turn personal like they appear to have done, a lot of logic follows the desire to give-and-take out of the window.

 

I think the most potentially damaging thing is this idea of using Ryanair as a pejorative term. Ryanair is an airline that has pitched its product perfectly for the times we live in. By contrast BA and other premium airlines have got it badly wrong. And as you've said, you'd have to lay a lot of the blame for that at the door of BA management but you'd also be blind to not see that their cost base stops them from being able to react as perhaps they would like to.

 

Don't get me wrong I loath Ryanair, its management and its petty and misleading policies. But when the 12 days of Xmas strike was called, all of a sudden I can see little difference between Ryanair's fleecing of their customers and BA staff's apparent desire to alienate theirs. Except of course that with Ryaniar you always knew what you were going to get.

 

I think industrial action in times of recession that hit the man in the street is incredibly ill-advised. Ask the Posties. And ruining someone's Easter holiday that they've saved for all year will only further serve to alienate you from the people that ultimately pay your wages. It takes years to build up an image like BA has/had, and apparently only 12 days to wreck it.

 

I can see why becoming Ryanair might be anathema to BA staff who are rightly proud of the company's history and its differences. But I'm sorry to say it but for these economically uncertain times, Ryanair has the frills/no frills balance right. So competing with them and their like has, to some degree, be part of BA's future. Surely?

 

I'd love to think that when the world-wide economy picks up, there will be a discerning customer out there that wants to pay for the difference BA clearly can provide. But with BA's cost base and a £3Bn+ pension deficit they may not be in the best of health to provide that service if and when it's needed.

[HK_Phoey]

Some context for these discussions. Japan Airlines has just filed for bankruptcy protection from its creditors. I recognise that this could be all about how badly run JAL was and little to do with the health of the premium airlines. But it would make me think whichever side of the debate I was on.

 

It's a shame the FF has gone off line because I would love to know how these young stewardesses and stewards on low starting pay struggling to live in London feel about having to work alongside older, longer-standing employees whose terms and conditions are far superior.

 

Does it ever occur to the young stewards and stewardesses that they HAVE to start on such a low wage BECAUSE the older crew is paid on Ts&Cs that were drawn up when the travelling population was discerning and prepared to pay a premium?

 

If so does this not create friction?

 

 

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

 

JAL is the largest airline in Aisa, and would certainly consider itself a "premium airline" Not saying that that means it is well run, but being someone that takes upwards of 75 flights a year I would certainly rate it better than BA.

 

Personally I think people at BA should just be thank full they have jobs at the moment there are a lot of people out htere that would gratefully take their place.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm sure your comments about just serving tea and needing pity weren't aimed at me. As I've said before on here I'm a BA fan and have always been treated well by BA crew. I'm also a great supporter of unionised workforce but not Kanute-like attempts to turn back the tide of 'progress'.

 

I guess one of the benefits of not being directly involved in a situation is that I can see both sides. I can certainly see that BA management has tried to capitalise on this situation but I can also see that changes need to be made to BA's cost base - and urgently. And to suggest earlier in this thread that the dispute is nothing to do with money is surely disingenuous?

 

I can see that the dispute is obviously very important to a large number of BA staff - hence the high degree of support for the strike ballot (leaving aside the alleged support from staff that were no longer employed by BA!). But from the outside and looking at some of the language you've used on here to describe it, it looks like the dispute is now more about distrust of your employer and specifically Willie Walsh. And when things turn personal like they appear to have done, a lot of logic follows the desire to give-and-take out of the window.

 

I think the most potentially damaging thing is this idea of using Ryanair as a pejorative term. Ryanair is an airline that has pitched its product perfectly for the times we live in. By contrast BA and other premium airlines have got it badly wrong. And as you've said, you'd have to lay a lot of the blame for that at the door of BA management but you'd also be blind to not see that their cost base stops them from being able to react as perhaps they would like to.

 

Don't get me wrong I loath Ryanair, its management and its petty and misleading policies. But when the 12 days of Xmas strike was called, all of a sudden I can see little difference between Ryanair's fleecing of their customers and BA staff's apparent desire to alienate theirs. Except of course that with Ryaniar you always knew what you were going to get.

 

I think industrial action in times of recession that hit the man in the street is incredibly ill-advised. Ask the Posties. And ruining someone's Easter holiday that they've saved for all year will only further serve to alienate you from the people that ultimately pay your wages. It takes years to build up an image like BA has/had, and apparently only 12 days to wreck it.

 

I can see why becoming Ryanair might be anathema to BA staff who are rightly proud of the company's history and its differences. But I'm sorry to say it but for these economically uncertain times, Ryanair has the frills/no frills balance right. So competing with them and their like has, to some degree, be part of BA's future. Surely?

 

I'd love to think that when the world-wide economy picks up, there will be a discerning customer out there that wants to pay for the difference BA clearly can provide. But with BA's cost base and a £3Bn+ pension deficit they may not be in the best of health to provide that service if and when it's needed.

 

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.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

JAL is the largest airline in Aisa, and would certainly consider itself a "premium airline" Not saying that that means it is well run, but being someone that takes upwards of 75 flights a year I would certainly rate it better than BA.

 

Personally I think people at BA should just be thank full they have jobs at the moment there are a lot of people out htere that would gratefully take their place.

 

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?

[Ponty]

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?

You can't compare slavery to the goings on at BA, that's just retarded.

[CB Saint]

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?

 

I think he means given the current economic climate. When I look at the 3m or so unemployed, damn right I'm thankful I still have a job.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

You can't compare slavery to the goings on at BA, that's just retarded.

 

Err - don't think you quite get it - perhaps you better go and look irony up in your dictionary before you start throwing insults like retard around.

 

****in hell and you are a mod

[dune]

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.

 

Firms don't charge employees with gross misconduct for no reason. This is especially the case with shop stewards who are the sort to go to a tribunal. I expect there is more to this than Duncan simply going about his union duties.

 

That said the over the top call for an extended strike is the act of a grossly incompetent/greedy union.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Firms don't charge employees with gross misconduct for no reason. This is especially the case with shop stewards who are the sort to go to a tribunal. I expect there is more to this than Duncan simply going about his union duties.

 

That said the over the top call for an extended strike is the act of a grossly incompetent/greedy union.

 

You don't know BA.

 

There are 8 reps on our main committee and 7 of us on are on gross misconduct charges. Think that probably says it all about the way BA intend to "burn" the reps (their word not mine).

 

Sure we hope to have a chance in a tribunal and BA will take that on the chin, but we will lose our jobs. BA will have done what they want - neutralise the Union.

 

In my particular case I merely acted the way I have done in my 12 years as a secretary, BA declined to take me off my flying duties to do vital union work (update the database as instructed by Justice Cox). I carried out my union duties instead of flying and have got charged with gross misconduct and had my salary stopped, without even a preliminary investigation.

 

There is a good chance I will lose my job - I have 2 youngish kids, but I believe it is right to stand up to a bully regardless of the consequence. I would not do that (after 34 years) unless I sincerely believed that what BA are currently doing to be 100% wrong.

[do i not like fizzy pop]

Firms don't charge employees with gross misconduct for no reason. This is especially the case with shop stewards who are the sort to go to a tribunal. I expect there is more to this than Duncan simply going about his union duties.

 

That said the over the top call for an extended strike is the act of a grossly incompetent/greedy union.

 

You're right

 

In BA's case however cynical, false, nasty, vindictive, etc, etc - there is always a reason.

 

Good Luck FF!