BA Strike

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't think passengers want fewer cabin crew either, but this latest wave of strikes announced yesterday is hard to fathom. I'm not flying anywhere and am not affected but of all the bone-headed, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot decsions made by a workforce....

[????]

Unions in completley selfish, irresponsible, non-socialist self interest shocker.....no doubt they'll be preaching 'brother/sisterhood, altruism and fairness etc come the election

[MrBen]

You beat me to starting this thread. It's senseless and a PR disaster. My BA Christmas eve flights are too risky to lose so I've swapped to EasyJet before they sell out. It's not too disimilar to the Royal Mail - a long respected British brand that needs to modernise it's business model to survive, strangled by a short sighted union that can't understand that any business losing ?1.6 million a day might eventually mean no jobs at all. Unite know that no government will let the national carrier fail and are milking that as best they can.

[silverfox]

Good for the carbon footprint though

[SteveT]

I cannot speak of BA without curling my lip.

They are expensive,

have less leg room than Cathay Pacific,

the most miserable in flight staff,

and the strokes they pulled on Freddie Laker and Virgin suggests they are a poisonous and unhelpful outfit.

Perhaps if we get lucky, Cathay Pacific will buy them out and teach them how to do it professionally.

Other than that I am sure they run an excellent company.

[Mick Mac]

I'm with Mr Ben - its a British institution that needs to modernise. These public to private changes take an amazingly long time to switch from a public sector mentality to a private sector mentality. The unions ensure that change takes time and before you know it the entity is uncompetitive. I admit I don't know the particulars of the strikers case, but not sure you need to, its a scenario we know well, unions failing to see the bigger picture.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not particularly fussed about it being a British Institution - it's pretty clear that it is going to end up in the same place as Ryanair/Easyjet (if it even survives at all) by management design. It can be an institution OR cheap and cheerful but not both

If passengers who fly BA regularly (and I avoid them completely where possible) pay a premium for service and the management take steps to reduce that quality of service then they should be honest and say so. So the union's argument about THAT has merit - but in no way, absolutely no way, does it justify a strike such as this

Comparisons with Royal Mail are invalid I think tho. There is no business case for delivering mail to some of the more remote areas in the UK but there is a strong social case. Making it a business therefore and introducing "modern" practices to mail delivery doesn't quite work. I think Mail management are destroying that particular institution, not the workers and when it's gone therw ill be nothing to match it. If BA disappears... well, apart from employees, it won't make any difference

[vinceayre]

It was at the time a generally held belief that when BA sold Go it actually sold the wrong bit of the company and it was in fact Go that was valuable not BA.

[Keef]

I don't think the comparisons to royal mail have no merit. Machines that can make the sorting of post a lot quicker and more efficient, but will cost a few jobs... I think Mr Ben has it right there.

However, I have sympathy with the royal mail workers, I don't with the BA workers.

It also effects passengers of lots of other airways aswell if I am not mistaken, as BA Staff deal with baggage and stuff like that.

[candj]

Definitely irritating. Glad that they co share with Aer Lingus (well, not really) on the London-Dublin route.

I hear from a friend whose husband is a BA pilot that they are trying to impose an injunction to stop them from striking. I feel that the cabin staff are being greedy as the pilots already took a pay cut with little quibble while BA sorted the mess out. Hopefully, Willy will be able to get the company together, but doubt he'll be nice about it.

[giggirl]

Like Steve T, I also remember Freddie Laker. When he went bust and pointed the finger at BA he was accused of sour grapes, but when Richard Branson was able to prove BA?s dirty tricks campaign against Virgin many felt that this vindicated Laker.

Most people are too young to remember Freddie Laker but he was a real hero and was the first (I think) to roll out a no frills airline. He made it possible for ordinary people to fly to New York at a time when the BA fare was out of reach for most people.

These days for transatlantic I will only use Virgin and I also fly EasyJet a lot (I think they give a good service for the price). I won?t touch Ryanair and I?ll only use BA as a very last resort.

A plague on BA for ruining people?s Christmases.

[Chick]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cannot speak of BA without curling my lip.

>

> They are expensive,

> have less leg room than Cathay Pacific,

> the most miserable in flight staff,

> and the strokes they pulled on Freddie Laker and

> Virgin suggests they are a poisonous and unhelpful

> outfit.

>

> Perhaps if we get lucky, Cathay Pacific will buy

> them out and teach them how to do it

> professionally.

>

> Other than that I am sure they run an excellent

> company.

So thats how their management behave, doesnt that make you wonder how they treat their workers? People dont strike for a laugh.

[david_carnell]

My thoughts exactly Chick.

People seem to view those striking as shirkers who fancy a few days off work over Xmas. You don't actually get paid whilst taking part in industrial action.....

The ballot was 9 to 1 in favour of strike action. This tells you a lot about the deep rooted resentment amongst BA cabin staff about the way they have and are being treated by BA management.

It's not fun and no one enjoys it. But sometimes there is little option left. And whilst Unite have offered to return to the negotiating table, Willie Walsh has rejected the possibility of reconsidering redundancies and reducing cabin staff levels.

If there is a villain in this piece I think it is unfair to point the blame at those workers fighting for their jobs.

[DaveR]

d_c, I think the problem with this analysis is that the workers are actually fighting to retain more favourable employment terms than anyone else working in the industry (by some distance). At least in part because of the cost of those terms, their employer is on course to make a loss of ?600 - 750 million this year. BA cabin crew are like tube drivers with lipstick (in labour market terms) - their cause is about as just.

[Brendan]

Commie!

[MrBen]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If BA disappears... well, apart from employees, it won't

> make any difference

Not sure I'd agree with that Sean. BA are not the best carrier, nor are they the cheapest but they have a strong brand identity and trusted history that still means a lot to a lot of people. Particularly in a metal tube at 35,000ft. The failure of a national carrier is often intrinsically linked to the overall health of that nation and it's perception globally. Can you imagine the Aussies without Quantas? or the French not caring about Air France? And whilst the grumpy service and high prices on Air Canada are legend amongst Canadians, the red maple leaf at 35,000 ft is still a welcome sight to most.

I'd like to see BA recover, reform and take a few tips from premium carriers like Singapore and Emirates when it comes to quality customer service. So would Willie Walsh - but it's like wading through treacle when your quarterly profit can be wiped out in 3 days by a blinkered union with no long term thinking. Whilst the industry as a whole is in turmoil as it adjusts to the new economic models there will always be customers prepared to pay a premium for service and comfort and this is where BA can compete best - on long haul.

The wider preaction to Unites actions today has been poor - they have very little public support so it will be interesting to see whether Walsh will call their bluff.

[david_carnell]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> d_c, I think the problem with this analysis is

> that the workers are actually fighting to retain

> more favourable employment terms than anyone else

> working in the industry (by some distance).

Except that 75% of their cabin staff only earn ?20k before allowances. Pretty much industry standard. The media furore surrounding the figures is misleading.

> BA cabin crew are like

> tube drivers with lipstick (in labour market

> terms) - their cause is about as just.

I think that's a pretty harsh comment. Without dragging tube drivers into this, cabin crew work in demanding, high pressure environments where their skills and training can save lives. The work is physically demanding and pretty thankless. Customers are often obnoxious and whilst a few get the long-haul glamour of an over-night stay in Miami most have 6am flights to Bern or Frankfurt.

If anything, I would be concerned that the removal of crew from flights would not only impact on customer service but also safety.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not agreeing with the strike at all, but if people are going to cherish BA for what it WAS (ie "strong brand identity", "trusted history") and the rest of it then what the cabin crew are saying (not what they are doing) is the way to maintain that

But if people just want a modern, everyday airline with bog standard? everything then that's what BAs management are doing, and when it happens it will be interchangeable from any other airline so I would repeat my earlier statement that jobs apart, it's no loss to anyone really

Do countries still measure some part of national worth by the health of their "national" airline? How is it national anymore? And even when it was, air travel was sufficently "wow" to see the point, but these days?

anyway my point:

a) If everyone is happy for BA to be just another meh carrier then everyone (the union, the workers, the media and the punters) should hush up and get on with it

b) If people want some semblance of a meaningful trusted brand then what the union are saying has some merit (which doesn't give them any right to strike but it does mean their point should so easily be dismissed)

But I haven't heard anything about what is been taken away from the staff themselves which justifies this action. And safety wise? Other airlines manage with a lot fewer crew so is that really an issue?

[Michael Palaeologus]

The history of BA is that it was publically owned and had terms and conditions that were akin to the civil service. Thus their people get more time off and better pay than their competitors. Many of these historic T&Cs remain.

Not surprisingly working for BA is the aspiration for many staff in the other airlines, especially those that work for the tourist airlines.

However, this means that BA is saddled with excessive overheads that its competitors dont have. You cant argue the toss, BA flights cost more to get off the ground.

Easyjet, Ryanair, etc are in a different business than BA and other full service, long haul airlines.

There is a market for the long haul, full service carriers but they have to be efficient and BAs history means that its isnt. Virgin is dynamic, has a younger fleet and cheaper staff - it makes a profit.

It is not surprising that the BA staff want to protect their favoured position, who wouldnt? But BA cannot afford it. The airline management may have to decide that if they stay as they are they will go out of business, if they take on Unite they might go out of business but they might not. The latter seems to be the lesser of two evils. So a Thatcher era industrial battle for survival commences. Even if BA "wins" it could be a phyric victory with its name so badly damaged that passengers stay away.

Given this scenario, will a competitor attempt to buy BA? I would say no, if they did they would inherit the staffing problems. Better to let BA go the wall and then buy the valuable assets (mostly the routes, T5 and property portfolio) from the Receivers. Staff would be redundant. Some would be re-employed by the new organisation but on different T&Cs.

The end of another historic Dinosaur that will have gone the way of Sabena, Swissair, etc.

[DaveR]

It's also fair to say that if BA did not have a huge historical advantage in terms of routes and slots they would have gone bust years ago

[vinceayre]

By doing what they are doing the Union has effectively signed its members own P45. If this strike happens who in their right mind would book a BA flight in the future, it is also just plain nasty messing up peoples Christmas.

On a purely selfish note I hope they do go bust as it would open up a lot of slots that they block other customer focused airlines from getting. I haven't flown BA for years as they are overpriced cr*p, I would rather fly Ryanair and that's saying something.

[Applespider]

BA are fairly competitive on short-haul flights - fly into 'central' airports, baggage allowance better, drink on board etc - and if you book ahead of time, pretty much the same price as Easyjet etc if you need to fly at peak times. I usually fly with them or BMI when I go to Scotland or Europe. Longhaul - they don't stand out - unless presumably you are flying First. Cattle-class longhaul isn't great - and the cabin crew on those flights seem far less pleasant than their peers on Virgin, United, Lufthansa, Emirates. The regional flights that they've cut mean that it's almost more hassle to switch at Heathrow than it would be to fly to Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Madrid and take a cheaper flight (fewer taxes etc) if you're not leaving from London.

This strike is nuts - their industry has moved on, their pay and conditions far outweigh the current market rate and unlike the Tube where commuters are held over a barrel, there are other options for flyers. Yes, I imagine if I was in their position, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep the more cushy deal but there has to be a note of realism which the unions seem to lack. And while I understand their wish to have maximum impact by striking over Christmas, it's not a good long-term strategy for the future. Personally, I stopped booking BA flights in the winter months from Heathrow years ago since they have so many slot issues in bad weather, that it can be hit and miss whether you get to your destination - particularly short haul.

[giggirl]

Haven't flown BA for at least ten years and I won't be bothered one bit if they go bust. How can cabin crew possibly think this strike threat is going to work in their favour? Hope management tough it out and don't give in.*

* I never ever thought I would write something like that.

[jimmy two times]

Maybe management can do the pointing at the nearest exits thing when sacking the stewardesses.

[katie1997]

Oh dear..I agree with Sean x2, Michael, Mr Ben, David, Applespider (and maybe more...) all at once. I don't know the right answer unfortunately. I used to frequently fly with BA longhaul and although their service wasn't as good as Virgin, I used them because they had the most direct route to my destination (and I hate flying..so the quicker the better) I do think the country will be judged without a 'national' airline...but they do need to stop having the public sector mentality towards running a commercial business..I am just SO relieved I don't have to use them at Christmas but I feel so sorry for the others that do. For those of us who hate flying, it is actually reassuring to fly with a known and trusted brand of which BA definitely is.

I don't think this is the same situation as that of the 'management' at Royal Mail though..