So another BA strike by cabin crew

[rocknrollman no2]

Well i may be wrong,but most of the people i know work in the public sector and all of them are paid a lot less than their equivalent private sector counterparts.

[dubai_phil]

The reason that Unite & Walsh are both utterly and totally wrong.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7811103/Emirates-places-record-11bn-order-for-Airbus-A380s.html

 

Walsh muddles around with a mixed product offering trying to get people back to his overcrowded Heathrow Hub to fly long haul and Emirates keeps opening up into regional airports and stealing the European's client base with crew earning 25,000 a year and happy to work for the airline without a Union.

 

90 x A380's 500 passengers per plane with a full service while BA bumble along with a lfeet of B777-200's with 180 in economy. Doesn't matter who wins the war, they ordered the wrong planes (A319's & A318's) and no long haul high volume capacity changes for another 5 years or so.

 

Oh, and no Emirates aren't Government backed (Remember Dubai is Bankrupt) and they posted almost a $1billion PROFIT while BA were posting almost a $700mil loss.....

 

And the guys who set up Emirates and really still run it even today?

 

Yep disgruntled ex BA employees

[Arizona]

Yep, BA's obsession with Heathrow and Gatwick is puzzling. Why they don't have any medium or long haul schedule from places like Manchester, Brum, Liverpool, Bristol, East Mids etc. I don't know.

 

Not sure you're point about the 777/A380 is entierly valid. If they can't fill the planes, bigger ones aren't going to help. It's a bit like Pompey's new 50,000 seater stadium. American Airlines is one of the biggest and oldest in the world and hasn't opperated anything bigger than a 777 for decades. United has a reasonable fleet of old 747s but can't fill them. Continental has a handful of 777s, Delta inherited a few 74s from Northwest. No North American airlines have ordered any A380s because they couldn't fill them.

[dubai_phil]

Yep, BA's obsession with Heathrow and Gatwick is puzzling. Why they don't have any medium or long haul schedule from places like Manchester, Brum, Liverpool, Bristol, East Mids etc. I don't know.

 

Not sure you're point about the 777/A380 is entierly valid. If they can't fill the planes, bigger ones aren't going to help. It's a bit like Pompey's new 50,000 seater stadium. American Airlines is one of the biggest and oldest in the world and hasn't opperated anything bigger than a 777 for decades. United has a reasonable fleet of old 747s but can't fill them. Continental has a handful of 777s, Delta inherited a few 74s from Northwest. No North American airlines have ordered any A380s because they couldn't fill them.

 

It's the balance and the mix. They could have filled the old 767 long hauls IF they had planned point to point services, but now they are trying to compete on long haul against airlines who can carry 500 vs 187 on the same route at not a huge cost increase. On the Asian routes and their premium ME routes they will take a pounding. The North Atlantic was their only view of long haul for many years (ask any BA rep in far flung countries) and that traffic is down. Thing is that Brits in general have discovered Asia & Aus and as in that article they still don't get it - 80% aro of Emirates traffic is in transit through Dubai to somewhere nice, hot and sunny. FFS the demand is so high they are putting an A380 on from Manchester in September.

 

Manchester Long Haul to Asia or Aus on BA - shuttle to Heathrow A320 or similar then creaking old stuffy 747-400 Heathrow to Bangkok for an hour or so on to Aus. Emirates - Manchester to Dubai A380, Dubai Sydney non stop A380 - and cheaper and better service and cheaper Duty Free - no brainer.

 

The model is the problem and is why EasyJet and all the others have exploded into the UK airspace.

 

Dinosaur airline run as a monopoly destroyed by Unions but also by Airlines listening to WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS.

 

And the idiocy of this strike is that the Union don't care that they are p!ssing off the customers.

 

I was lucky enough to meet Tim Clark (CEO of Emirates) at a Corporate event in '98 over dinner and he and the others who left BA to start it up were totally driven by the vision of what Open Skies REALLY meant. They have operational hubs in Asia & Australia. They already flew Hamburg - New York and have given Qantas a bloody nose on the Tasman Sea traffic. Eventually you'll be able to fly Emirates from Auckland to LA or Buenos Aires.

 

BA's problem is that before the crash here Emirates were the ONLY airline who could have bought BA, (they ruled it out because of amongst other things the archaic work practices). Now there is no safety net. My favourite quote "Why do we need to join a global alliance? It is only the OTHER airlines that want us in so they can benefit from a relationship with US, we don't need THEM"

 

They research routes and make money from GROWING. BA keep cutting costs. When EK launched Dubai Osaka we all thought WTF? Turns out that the planes are full of transit passengers to Sao Paolo where there is a huge ex pat Japanese population.....

 

Why don't BA start waking up and expanding Manchester and the others...

 

TWO flights a day out of BIRMINGHAM with full up 777-300's to Asia & Africa with more flights to be added as planes arrive....

[Arizona]

Yep. BA is crap on many levels.

 

Looking a the fleets...

 

Emirates - 777s, A330/A340 and A380 - 3 different aircraft

Easyjet - 737s and A319/A320 - 2 different aircraft

Ryanair - 737-800s - 1 aircraft.

BA - A318/A319/A320/A321, a variety of 737 models, 767s, 757s, 777s and 747s - At least 6 different fleets all require seperate maintenance facilities, spares and training.

[Johnny Bognor]

Well i may be wrong,but most of the people i know work in the public sector and all of them are paid a lot less than their equivalent private sector counterparts.

 

The facts do not back up your assertion, the people you know are not truly representative or they are comparing themselves to the wrong people.

 

See:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_pps.pdf

 

Then download table 13.7a

 

The Public Sector are better paid in every percentile, excluding the top 20% of all earners. This has been the case since 1984. So the vast majority of public sector workers are paid more than their private sector equivalents (Not taking account of job security, pensions, holidays, paid sick and all the other benefits enjoyed by public sector workers).

 

What you find in the statistics is that there is more pay equality in the Public Sector. The lowest paid in the public sector are paid more than the lowest paid in the private sector. At the same time, the highest paid in the private sector are paid more than the highest paid in the public sector.

 

However, in table 13.9a, private sector workers work more hours in every percentile when compared to public sector workers, so we move on to table 13.5a which shows:

 

1. The bottom 10% of earners in the private sector earn £5.99 per hour (compared to £7.34 in the public sector)

 

2. If you are a middle earner in the private sector you get £11.84 compared to £14.95 in the public sector

 

3. In the top 10% of earners, the average private sector worker enjoys £24.29 per hour which is LESS than the top 10% in the public sector who get £24.77 per hour.

 

 

All of the stats show that private sector workers earn less and work more (Not taking account of public sector benefits such as job security, pensions, holidays, paid sick and all the other benefits)

 

Public Sector workers have no case to moan as they have it cushy according to the facts. In my opinion, BA cabin crew have it even easier than public sector workers (and every other British airline).

Edited 8 June, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Johnny I'd like to query bullet point 1. As I said earlier, the lowest wage earners in the public sector are generally now in the private sector.

 

I'm talking about cleaners, porters, catering staff all of whom now work for private providers ever since they were contracted out.

 

So removing the lowest paid from the public to private sector changes the dimensions.

 

I wonder how the figures are calculated for the 'average private sector top 10%' given that top directors of banks and multi-nationals earn millions a year (Terry Leahy - soon to be boss of Tesco - £5+m p.a.) and I'm not aware of any top public sector employee earning anything like £1m.

 

Unless of course dividends and bonuses aren't factored into these 'average earning' and / or they're paid offshore :smt102

[Johnny Bognor]

Johnny I'd like to query bullet point 1. As I said earlier, the lowest wage earners in the public sector are generally now in the private sector.

 

I'm talking about cleaners, porters, catering staff all of whom now work for private providers ever since they were contracted out.

 

So removing the lowest paid from the public to private sector changes the dimensions.

 

I wonder how the figures are calculated for the 'average private sector top 10%' given that top directors of banks and multi-nationals earn millions a year (Terry Leahy - soon to be boss of Tesco - £5+m p.a.) and I'm not aware of any top public sector employee earning anything like £1m.

 

Unless of course dividends and bonuses aren't factored into these 'average earning' and / or they're paid offshore :smt102

 

You do have a point re contracting out and of course you could include the new high earners in the banks which would pull up the averages for the Public Sector, see:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038029/New-boss-Northern-Rock-highest-paid-worker-public-sector.html

 

(not mentioning that this would pull down the averages at the higher end of the private sector).

 

But the analysis also excludes many of the illegally paid private sector workers who earn less than the minimum wage which somewhat moves the goal posts back again.

 

The facts do show that on balance the public sector have it easier (paid more / work less + more benefits), which is why it gets my goat when they complain. You would expect lower paid private sector workers to moan as they have more right too. This makes the position of BA Cabin Crew more distasteful.

Edited 8 June, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[TopGun]

Yep. BA is crap on many levels.

 

Looking a the fleets...

 

Emirates - 777s, A330/A340 and A380 - 3 different aircraft

Easyjet - 737s and A319/A320 - 2 different aircraft

Ryanair - 737-800s - 1 aircraft.

BA - A318/A319/A320/A321, a variety of 737 models, 767s, 757s, 777s and 747s - At least 6 different fleets all require seperate maintenance facilities, spares and training.

 

Funnily enough Arizona and DP, I was writing an article for an aviation trade mag this weekend - although it was about Embraer E-jets so doesn't affect this thread.

 

Even so, there are different issues at work here, touched on by both Arizona and Phil but in different ways IMO.

 

Irrespective of BA's fleet it requires a UK hub that that is basically Heathrow and parts of Gatwick for its ops. These are both BAA owned at the moment and pricing elements occur there for BA obviously. Regional airports might be ok for medium and short haul but if you want to get customers to London (plus transits also) BA have to stick with these largely. Gatwick may be sold but we shall see. Arguably Manchester and Birmingham have bigger long haul London future particuarly if high speed rail ever occurs (2025 earliest). But they are not hubs so can't connect flights. Refusal of extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted by this coalition government offers opportunity to Manchester and Birmingham though.

 

Heathrow is up against Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and now Dubai for transit flights and will have to work hard. I see that more as BAA than BA though.

 

Rightsizing of fleets is also important but all airlines want to phase out older aircraft, for economic and enviro reasons. It's a question of investment and pay-off.

 

EU ETS is still up in the air though. Airlines like United are still threatening to drop EU airspace flights in favour of hub links to the East like Dubai. Not sure it is an issue myself.

Edited 8 June, 2010 by TopGun

[TopGun]

Yep. BA is crap on many levels.

 

Looking a the fleets...

 

Emirates - 777s, A330/A340 and A380 - 3 different aircraft

Easyjet - 737s and A319/A320 - 2 different aircraft

Ryanair - 737-800s - 1 aircraft.

BA - A318/A319/A320/A321, a variety of 737 models, 767s, 757s, 777s and 747s - At least 6 different fleets all require seperate maintenance facilities, spares and training.

 

But Arizona, you can't compare BA routewise with the others. BA flys shortish, medium and long. None of the above airlines apart from BA do that.

 

So BA needs a more versatile fleet (within age) for its stuff. And BA just has more routes full stop. Maybe they should be more core route like the others. MRO down like a shot.

 

BA actually has hived off CityFlyer for its most short haul... and dumped its old RJs for Embraers!

Edited 8 June, 2010 by TopGun

[Arizona]

I'd say for an airline like BA they need one fleet for short haul and a couple for medium and long range stuff. Take Ibera, who they have just merged with. They just have A320 family aircraft on short haul and A340s on long haul.

[TopGun]

I'd say for an airline like BA they need one fleet for short haul and a couple for medium and long range stuff. Take Ibera, who they have just merged with. They just have A320 family aircraft on short haul and A340s on long haul.

 

I'm not sure it works for BA or the other few diverse routes large airlines to be beholden to one manufacturer in the long term. I think flying separate fleets on on designated runs doesn't cost that much more as you can still benefit from authorised service without having too many eggs in one basket.

 

If you want to be a more narrow (or local route) operator like Emirates I would agree with you.

Edited 9 June, 2010 by TopGun

[dubai_phil]

But Arizona, you can't compare BA routewise with the others. BA flys shortish, medium and long. None of the above airlines apart from BA do that.

 

So BA needs a more versatile fleet (within age) for its stuff. And BA just has more routes full stop. Maybe they should be more core route like the others. MRO down like a shot.

 

BA actually has hived off CityFlyer for its most short haul... and dumped its old RJs for Embraers!

 

Emirates fly short haul routes, 45 minutes to Muscat & Bahrain 35 to Doha, 55 to Kuwait or Damman, then upwards to around 1.5 hours with places like Riyadh, Tehran, Mumbai etc. Every long haul plane that lands then flies off on a short or medium haul leg. They fly the A380 to Riyadh and Jeddah.

 

The core issue is that Europeans have discovered travel in the past 10-15 years. BA's set up is to serve "Londoners" with direct long haul flights with all the associated costs of flying out of Heathrow/Gatwick for "Southerners" (Car Parking etc). the 30 odd million not living around the M25 have found it more convenient. Eventually, other non-Gulf based airlines will start to erode their business. Bristol already offers transatlantic flights, eventually airlines will add onward routes to Europe out of the hubs. BA chases an Open Skies policy but IF it happened they'd be hurt as it would allow competitors to attack them as well.

 

BA are a dinosaur in the way that the Union is, but, at the same time, so are Heathrow and Gatwick. They are limited by runway capacity and yet the number of planes in the air at any one time making money increases.

 

How many planes do Easyjet & Ryanair fly? How fast have they added equipment? and yet the BA route network is pretty much set in stone. Businesses are built on GROWTH, not simply cutting costs, how much do BA grow their capacity per year?

[hutch]

Phil,

 

Emirates (and the other growing Gulf carriers) have a huge geographical advantage for a lot of the Europe/Far East traffic, where a refuelling stop is required. That will be eroded as range increases. It won't be long before London/Sydney non-stop becomes a reality.

 

However, their regional focus is impressive and understandably popular. I am not a Heathrow-lover. I lived in Milton Keynes for a couple of years recently (hardly a million miles from London), but generally used Birmingham for long-haul (transit in Amsterdam or Paris), and Luton for short-haul European. That virtually ruled out BA as an option. BA's policy of ignoring the regions is costing them, and will continue to do so.

 

Emirates haven't quite got it right with the fleet. They operate both A340s and 777s. I've yet to travel on a comfortable A340, and I've been on a lot, including Emirates. BA's reluctance to jump in quickly with the A380 is in some ways understandable. History has shown that the launch version of any radically new airliner quickly becomes obsolete. BA is, and has been for a long time, the world's biggest 747-400 operator and it still has a lot of legs in that fleet. They're still living with the King/Marshall "BA will buy anything but Boeing over my dead body" philosophy. But the 757s are now pretty much gone, the 737s are on the way out quickly and the 767s will go soon when the new 787s arrive. They're still bringing in new 777s but they are very flexible and have a long future.

 

At the end of the day, however, it's the customer experience that prevails, at least for the frequent traveller, which is where the airlines make their money. On small example - while BA/Virgin and the others are still running up and down the aisle furiously making sure that you've turned your mobile phone or blackberry off, Emirates are telling you that you can leave it on, and feel free to use it at any time during the flight. It's little things like that which make the real difference.

[GenevaSaint]

Heard Simpson on Radio4 today, personally he sounded like a beaten man. 80% of long haul and 60% of short haul flights out of Heathrow went yesterday. Not sure exactly how BA are getting these numbers, but I wonder what the take up is within the unions for the actual strike. 4 * 5 days strikes must be hitting the workers hard in the pocket.

[StuRomseySaint]

I assume that going on strike means they will not get paid?

[bridge too far]

I assume that going on strike means they will not get paid?

 

For once, your assumption is correct.

 

Unless of course they are taking annual leave to strike.

[Saint Keith]

For once, your assumption is correct.

 

Unless of course they are taking annual leave to strike.

 

or going on long term sick, of which i know many

[derry]

Phil,

 

Emirates (and the other growing Gulf carriers) have a huge geographical advantage for a lot of the Europe/Far East traffic, where a refuelling stop is required. That will be eroded as range increases. It won't be long before London/Sydney non-stop becomes a reality.

 

However, their regional focus is impressive and understandably popular. I am not a Heathrow-lover. I lived in Milton Keynes for a couple of years recently (hardly a million miles from London), but generally used Birmingham for long-haul (transit in Amsterdam or Paris), and Luton for short-haul European. That virtually ruled out BA as an option. BA's policy of ignoring the regions is costing them, and will continue to do so.

 

Emirates haven't quite got it right with the fleet. They operate both A340s and 777s. I've yet to travel on a comfortable A340, and I've been on a lot, including Emirates. BA's reluctance to jump in quickly with the A380 is in some ways understandable. History has shown that the launch version of any radically new airliner quickly becomes obsolete. BA is, and has been for a long time, the world's biggest 747-400 operator and it still has a lot of legs in that fleet. They're still living with the King/Marshall "BA will buy anything but Boeing over my dead body" philosophy. But the 757s are now pretty much gone, the 737s are on the way out quickly and the 767s will go soon when the new 787s arrive. They're still bringing in new 777s but they are very flexible and have a long future.

 

At the end of the day, however, it's the customer experience that prevails, at least for the frequent traveller, which is where the airlines make their money. On small example - while BA/Virgin and the others are still running up and down the aisle furiously making sure that you've turned your mobile phone or blackberry off, Emirates are telling you that you can leave it on, and feel free to use it at any time during the flight. It's little things like that which make the real difference.

 

I've flown thousands of hour with three mobiles in my flight bag never switched off and never had a problem. A mate used to sit in the flight deck working on his lap top for hours on long haul flights.

 

A much more dangerous issue is putting more and more bags in the overhead bins which will turn the aircraft into a death trap in a crash which is partly survivable eg B737-400 Kegworth/DC8 Athens. At Kegworth every seat not over the wing or in the upside down tail section ripped off the floor and were covered by every bin which came down on top of the passengers. Only the forward right bin connected to the front bulkhead remained in place. It was a nightmare to get the surviving passengers out of the wreckage. It was the V shaped skull injuries that alerted the enquiry as did the lower limb injuries for the seats. The emergency services pretty much demolished the interior in getting the survivors/bodies out, but the injuries led to revisiting the interior. Now more and more airlines are trying to get passengers to travel with only cabin baggage.

[StuRomseySaint]

For once, your assumption is correct.

 

Unless of course they are taking annual leave to strike.

 

 

That makes the strike even more retarded.

 

LOL

 

What a bunch of chumps.

 

[buctootim]

The core issue is that Europeans have discovered travel in the past 10-15 years. BA's set up is to serve "Londoners" with direct long haul flights with all the associated costs of flying out of Heathrow/Gatwick for "Southerners" (Car Parking etc). the 30 odd million not living around the M25 have found it more convenient.

 

How many planes do Easyjet & Ryanair fly? How fast have they added equipment? and yet the BA route network is pretty much set in stone. Businesses are built on GROWTH, not simply cutting costs, how much do BA grow their capacity per year?

 

It all goes back to the same issue - you cant compete on exisiting routes or expand to new ones if your costs are too high. BA used to have an extensive regional based network, flying out of Southampton, Manchester, Glasgow and others but they have slowly closed. BA now carry fewer passengers than 15 years ago whilst the number of people flying from the UK has more than doubled.

[bridge too far]

 

That makes the strike even more retarded.

 

LOL

 

What a bunch of chumps.

 

 

Some people have such strong feelings about issues that things like annual leave become insignificant to them. A bit like the Plane Crazy people you slated last year.

 

Some people have principles - that doesn't make them 'retarded'.

 

It's probably more retarded to have no principles.

[Calvin]

I love the fact that the BA staff (on strike) are killing their own airline company.. It's priceless!.

 

Bye bye British airways.. more job cuts

[Gingeletiss]

Some people have such strong feelings about issues that things like annual leave become insignificant to them. A bit like the Plane Crazy people you slated last year.

 

Some people have principles - that doesn't make them 'retarded'.

 

It's probably more retarded to have no principles.

 

You can keep bleating on, but at the end of the day, the reasons they are on strike, suck, and apart from a few lefties like you, the general public are against the strikers.

[bridge too far]

You can keep bleating on, but at the end of the day, the reasons they are on strike, suck, and apart from a few lefties like you, the general public are against the strikers.

 

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the strike ATM. I'm challenging Stu's assertion that they're 'retarded' to use their annual leave up by striking (if they are - it's an assumption on my part that some of them are).

 

Calling me a leftie doesn't insult me BTW - I'm proud to be seen in that way

[Thedelldays]

lol

 

all for PERKS and a few freebees

[bridge too far]

lol

 

all for PERKS and a few freebees

 

or perhaps to stand up to a bullying management.

[Thedelldays]

or perhaps to stand up to a bullying management.

yeah, bullying, but asking them (or telling them) to do more in a time of crisis..

 

lol, they are tipping their very own company over the edge..

 

ok, if walsh and co promised to be nice to them but insisted they could not have the perks and freebees like they had..would this strike be over..?

 

hmmmmm

[buctootim]

Calling me a leftie doesn't insult me BTW - I'm proud to be seen in that way

 

Yes but always taking the pro 'workers' and 'more public spending' line on every issue regardless of the circumstances devalues your arguments. Im on the centre or left more often than not - but its plain to see this is ludicrous strike with BA cabin crew throwing their toys out because the golden piggy bank is empty.

[Calvin]

haha these air attendants earn more than a soldier, Plus the lovely extras

STIKE STRIKE STRIKEEEE

[bridge too far]

Yes but always taking the pro 'workers' and 'more public spending' line on every issue regardless of the circumstances devalues your arguments. Im on the centre or left more often than not - but its plain to see this is ludicrous strike with BA cabin crew throwing their toys out because the golden piggy bank is empty.

 

I hope it helps to redress the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of some on here.

 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute (and there are both on BOTH sides), I defend to the hilt their right to withdraw their labour if THEY think it's justified and they go about it in a proper and legal way.

[Thedelldays]

I feel sorry for the gatwick lot...they could well end up losing their jobs thanks largly to their "mates" down the road..

 

if BA cabin crew are bullied so much, why arent staff based at other airports striking.??

 

well, remind me NOT to buy a "big issue" from an ex BA cabin crew member

[buctootim]

I hope it helps to redress the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of some on here.

 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute (and there are both on BOTH sides), I defend to the hilt their right to withdraw their labour if THEY think it's justified and they go about it in a proper and legal way.

 

No-one that I can see is saying they shouldnt have the right to strike - simply that they are incredibly stupid to do so given the state of the company and that the timing of the strikes is calculated to inflict maximum inconvenience to passengers thereby guarenteeing a loss of public support - you know - those people they will need to pay their wages in the years to come.

[bridge too far]

No-one that I can see is saying they shouldnt have the right to strike - simply that they are incredibly stupid to do so given the state of the company and that the timing of the strikes is calculated to inflict maximum inconvenience to passengers thereby guarenteeing a loss of public support - you know - those people they will need to pay their wages in the years to come.

 

Of course they won't get much sympathy from those affected by the strike (although, according to WW, not many people are affected. WW the AA of the airline industry )

 

Anyone who wants to make a point does so when most people listen. In the case of strikers, it's at a time that causes disruption because it impacts on the 'other side'. They would argue that if WW was not so aggressive and bullying, the strike would have been over weeks ago. So, they would argue, he is doing as much to cause the disruption to passengers as they are.

 

It takes two to make a dispute you know.

[Arizona]

or perhaps to stand up to a bullying management.

 

In no possible way shape or form are BA cabin crew being bullied by their management.

[bridge too far]

In no possible way shape or form are BA cabin crew being bullied by their management.

 

I think the bullying is being done by WW. Jeez, he even overrode his own negotiating team when they'd reached a concensus with the union.

[Gingeletiss]

I hope it helps to redress the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of some on here.

 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute (and there are both on BOTH sides), I defend to the hilt their right to withdraw their labour if THEY think it's justified and they go about it in a proper and legal way.

 

Well, for a start, they tried to fiddle the figures, and that is not uncommon for the unions. Secondly, who do you think is suffering financialy in this, the Union bosses?, no way, the union is paying them regardless. The fools who are following their 'recomendation', are the ones who are losing out. Look beyond your hatred of anyone in authority, and see the real reasons a 'few' BA aircrew managers are leading this dispute. Rights and wrongs, the only wrongs, are from the strikers, and that bully union, I was a member of until the last few days.

[Gingeletiss]

I think the bullying is being done by WW. Jeez, he even overrode his own negotiating team when they'd reached a concensus with the union.

 

You really are wearing blinkers, arn't you, I mean, you actually wear blinkers, either that or you have tunnel vision.

[bridge too far]

I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of these things, Ginge.

 

I've completely changed my mind. I will now only ever believe what is reported in the Daily Mail etc. and I will completely disregard the other side of the story.

 

How stupid of me to even begin to think there might be two sides to this dispute when there's patently only one side.

 

I'm suitably chastened and cleaning my blinkers as I type.

 

Thank you for saving my soul

[Whitey Grandad]

It takes two to make a dispute you know.

Oh no it doesn't!

[Arizona]

I think the bullying is being done by WW. Jeez, he even overrode his own negotiating team when they'd reached a concensus with the union.

 

Because he didn't think the deal was right for BA. They are in all sorts of sh*t. If I was pushing a trolley for BA right now, I'd be prepared to abandon all perks and freebies until the airline is healthy again.

 

Why can't you grasp the concept that BA isn't doing this to spite its staff or out of greed for their shareholders. They NEED to cut costs massively to survive.

[bridge too far]

Because he didn't think the deal was right for BA. They are in all sorts of sh*t. If I was pushing a trolley for BA right now, I'd be prepared to abandon all perks and freebies until the airline is healthy again.

 

Why can't you grasp the concept that BA isn't doing this to spite its staff or out of greed for their shareholders. They NEED to cut costs massively to survive.

 

Hey I've been converted on the road to Damascus!

 

I now realise that in fact both sides have agreed on cost cutting measures. It's just the silly old union hanging on for reinstatement of reduced travel for staff that's buggering the whole thing up.

 

Idiots - fancy wanting those back. I mean, they cost BA a flippin' fortune!

 

Jeez!

[buctootim]

Hey I've been converted on the road to Damascus!

 

I now realise that in fact both sides have agreed on cost cutting measures. It's just the silly old union hanging on for reinstatement of reduced travel for staff that's buggering the whole thing up.

 

Idiots - fancy wanting those back. I mean, they cost BA a flippin' fortune!

 

Jeez!

 

BTF - I know your heart is in the right place - but sadly you have become one of those posters where you know exactly what they are going to say on any political / economic issue. What happened to free thought and open mindededness. Take everything on a case by case basis?

[bridge too far]

BTF - I know your heart is in the right place - but sadly you have become one of those posters where you know exactly what they are going to say on any political / economic issue. What happened to free thought and open mindededness. Take everything on a case by case basis?

 

But the same can be applied to my 'opposition', surely?

 

My freedom of thought allows me the option of not going with the herd. Would you deny me that?

[Gemmel]

Hey I've been converted on the road to Damascus!

 

I now realise that in fact both sides have agreed on cost cutting measures. It's just the silly old union hanging on for reinstatement of reduced travel for staff that's buggering the whole thing up.

 

Idiots - fancy wanting those back. I mean, they cost BA a flippin' fortune!

 

Jeez!

 

You just dont get it, do you..... THEY CANT AFFORD THE FREAKING FREEBIES ANYMORE.

 

It's like going to the cash machine when you have nothing left in your account and asking for fifty quid and when it refuses .....calling the banks idiots.

 

The unions have caused this, the losses are huge and probably have already killed the company.

 

They were told what the financial effects of striking would be and now moan - after causing hundreds of millions of pounds more of losses, they STILL think it is their god given right.

 

Many many thousands of people have had to give up more than just perks because of the economic situation, but the industries highest paid members just couldn't get their heads round it.

 

As I have said before they are ****ing on the graves of all those people who fought so hard for the working rights we have today. Unite is not upholding those rights, they are abusing them.

 

There is no public support for these strikes, there is minimal support within unite and even less support within the company.

 

With such a high percentage of flights running, the strike is nearly broken.

 

This has set the unions back years and could ultimately kill them off and you know what ..... if that is is how they behave, then may be that's a good thing.

Edited 9 June, 2010 by Gemmel

[TopGun]

Because he didn't think the deal was right for BA. They are in all sorts of sh*t. If I was pushing a trolley for BA right now, I'd be prepared to abandon all perks and freebies until the airline is healthy again.

 

Why can't you grasp the concept that BA isn't doing this to spite its staff or out of greed for their shareholders. They NEED to cut costs massively to survive.

 

Spot on.

[bridge too far]

You just dont get it, do you..... THEY CANT AFFORD THE FREAKING FREEBIES ANYMORE.

 

That's what I said in my post you quoted.

 

Although, and I'm happy to be corrected on this, I understood that crew only got 'freebies' (although in fact they have to pay a percentage) if the seat was going to be empty.

 

They didn't get 'free' seats at the expense of fare paying passengers.

 

That was certainly the case when my friends were crew for BA.

 

But giving empty seats to crew must cost a fortune - you're quite right.

[TopGun]

Hey I've been converted on the road to Damascus!

 

I now realise that in fact both sides have agreed on cost cutting measures. It's just the silly old union hanging on for reinstatement of reduced travel for staff that's buggering the whole thing up.

 

Idiots - fancy wanting those back. I mean, they cost BA a flippin' fortune!

 

Jeez!

 

Not sure if you are being facile there BTF. A good percentage of the cabin crew don't even live in the UK. They commute to work via BA. Good to see Unite standing up for non-doms etc.

[bridge too far]

Not sure if you are being facile there BTF. A good percentage of the cabin crew don't even live in the UK. They commute to work via BA. Good to see Unite standing up for non-doms etc.

 

Yeah this was discussed on the previous thread. I can't be arsed to go back and look but I think it was around 11% IIRC.

 

I don't think the 'non-dom' issue is relevant actually. I bet a good number of British crew work for overseas airlines too.

 

Since BA flies to foreign countries, it's probably a good thing to have a multi-national workforce since it's not the norm for we Brits to speak in tongues.

[buctootim]

But the same can be applied to my 'opposition', surely?

 

My freedom of thought allows me the option of not going with the herd. Would you deny me that?

 

But that is the point - you ARE going with the blind herd - just the left herd rather than the right.