BA Strike

[giggirl]

Yes it is rotten luck for anyone relying on BA this Christmas. The tills will be ringing at all the BA competitor airlines for sure. Richard Branson must think Christmas has come early.

I have actually flown on Christmas Day myself previously (Air Canada to Montreal). I had expected Heathrow to have tumbleweed whistling around it - but it was packed out.

[sweetgirl]

OMG! i totally understand why staff are threatening with strike action.... best way to show employers you mean business!

only problem is im flying with ba tomorrow morning, im off to israel! im hoping this stike action doesn't affect me on my return trip... which is in january! im sure they'll have a backlog to deal with!!!!! :(

[giggirl]

But Sweetgirl - what's the point of showing employers you mean business if you've put your business out of business? If you see what mean. If BA does not modernise then it is history. They are losing money - you know that right? You've seen the figures? If they don't do something they are going BUST. What sort of victory will that be for anyone?

That said, I do hope you manage to get home after Christmas.

[woofmarkthedog]

giggirl Wrote:

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

> 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.

___________________________________________________

First if you are effected by this then sorry, hope you can re-jig your plans.

OK, niceties out the way, I do agree with gigi girl & the Laker story is a good example of the mind set BA have adopted.

This company has acted throughout in the most despicable and underhanded way, corporate moral bankruptcy runs through it's veins, so it is a beast of it's own creation.

Someone take it over please, so we can move on from their ongoing & tiresome sagas. Here is company that suffers compassion fatigue at the mere mention of "talks"

It's days are numbered & people are fed up with it's "Brand" anyway. It also goes to show that even if you pay top end in the industry, that you can't buy loyalty. Staff smell a rat at any suggestion of change from within the company, real or imagined. Why, because they have fostered a trading model based on mistrust, from inside out & top to bottom.

So can they survive, well maybe. Look at the car industry & look at Jaguar. British then American then what, but still Jaguar...sort of

As for Richard Branson, I have done some work with the Virgin brand. They were up front, vibrant and had a can do attitude. The staff all knew Richard & he seemed to know them, they all loved working with the brand & it carries kudos. In the end we walked away from the deal, no hard feelings & nothing lost.

As Malcom Mc Claren said of Branson. "Never trust a hippy "

W**F

[Narnia]

The fact is the staff are going to have to bite the bullet and by striking they may just be shooting themselves in the foot. BA is losing money, has a huge pension deficit and if they don't cut costs they may fall over. The additional losses they might make due to the strike may push them over the edge unless the go to the government for help.

The proposed merger with Iberia won't happen if their problems aren't sorted out. That merger would save both companies hundreds of millions. There has to be casulties in terms of staff but such is the way of the world. I dosen't matter a hoot if the management are bas*tards or not. Economics dictate what needs to be done.

Having been made redundant recently by a loss making parent company from a profit making subsidery company I should know that sh*t happens. They are loss making.The staff at BA should realise that Santa isn't coming and their actions may result in more of them losing jobs than might have been anticipated.

[tog_in_sox]

I'd like to know if any of the Unite bosses flies BA.

Who IS David Carnell?

Re: the 75% my guess is that those on the lower rates will be less likely to be under threat as they are the cheapest labour to retain and maintain. Job losses will be targeted at the expensive staff on ?50k to not serve a drink. Even those on the lower salaries are still better off than their counterparts on other airlines because they have a better perks package.

A Single tube driver is responsible for a whole train that can easily be carrying more than any but the largest planes. (S)He may not have to suffer the ungrateful grunts of the passengers but he gets to spend a whole shift in the tunnels you get sooty nostrils from on a single trip! (S)He gets to see the idiots throwing themselves under the train and a whole lot more unenviable stuff that aircrew will never have to contend with on a daily basis. They get cheap travel to exotic locations (s)he gets a free TfL travelcard!

All said and done this strike is a suicidal act by a bunch of relatively over-compensated people who appear to have no real interest in remaining employed. I hope Walsh wins and can piece together a competitive airline whatever profile he is pursuing but if things go South then it better be allowed to go all the way because no other operator will want to inherit the crazy staffing costs and pension deficit. IF Brown jumps in to save the day under the deluded impression that is will save his political skin then you can all kiss a whole bunch more of your earnings goodbye.

[david_carnell]

tog_in_sox Wrote:

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

> Who IS David Carnell?

Think of me as a better looking version of Kier Hardie.

Now brothers and sisters....does anyone have a spare brazier?

[AllyCat]

Hurrah! The strike has been cancelled!

Great news for those us flying out with BA next Tuesday - I just hope I don't have cause to press my "call Attendant" button - I have a feeling they may not be too helpful!

[Keef]

Good stuff. The more I see and hear of these Unite reps, the more I shake my head in disbelief.

[Pickle]

Great news (although I was hoping the strike would save me from having to spend 4 days with my mother in law, so not such good news for me!)

[MrBen]

A common sense decision if only temporary respite.

My favourite quote from Unite secretary Derek Simpson: " a disgraceful day for democracy" - a man who if not intentionally has just been judged in a court of law to have run an illegal ballot. The man is an idiot!

[Narnia]

How the hell did BA know people who weren't entitled to, voted? Given the number in favour of a strike (so we are told) the others wouldn't have affected the outcome.I understood it was a secret ballot.

[Keef]

Accident or not, this strike would have been huge, and the union should have made bloody sure things were water tight. They look foolish, and I would be looking for alternative representation if I had cast a valid vote to strike. They come across as dimwits spouting a load of old cliches from times that no longer exist.

[Narnia]

In football parlance it's the equivalent of leading 9-1 only to have the result made void as you had an unregistered player on the bench. I wonder if they are more clever than they appear to be as they have got their point across, they are not striking but everyone knows they will if necessary.

I'm only suggesting this as it's hard to believe they are so stupid.Maybe they are.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Let me describe one possible scenario.

The membership system at Unite is, shall we say, not exactly up to date. So to identify those members that are eligible to vote would have taken some time. The BA Unite activists had a bigger anti-management agenda, clearly knew that they had the momentum of their members opinions behind them and they had the opportunity to hit BA at Christmas. They knew that to wait for an accurate membership list would have taken a month or so. So, they took a flyer, so to speak.

However, many Unite members have got cold feet because of the public reaction ("we knew we were voting for a strike, but not for the 12 days of Christmas"), they are, bless them, somewhat naive about the broader political agenda of their local representatives. Unite leadership will have known that they were facing a PR disaster but couldnt pull out because of the vote and 92% backing. In addition the Unite leadership is Brown-ite in its alignment and our PM had made it clear he was not happy with the strike action.

Some-how ..... BA management found out that there was a problem with the vote, took it to court and got it turned over. Unite leaders can publically gnash their teeth but are no longer faced with a massively unpopular strike, the members will have time to settle down and there will be time for calmer heads to negotiate with BA management, side lining the hot headed BA union activists.

Another day in the murky world in Trades Union internal politics.

[david_carnell]

Anyone would think you've worked in government Michael.... ;-)

[Marmora Man]

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

Statistically air travel is one of the safest way to travel. The measure "fatalities per 1,000,000 hours of travel" has fallen from over 40, 20 years ago to below 20 today. The most likely cause of an air crash is pilot error or engine failure - reducing cabin crew numbers is not going to affect either of these.

For a reduction in cabin crew numbers to have an effect on passenger safety the plane would first of all have to crash (most unlikely), for that statistically improbable crash to be at least partially surviveable (not usually the case) and then for the cabin crew, and passengers, to have remembered their drills but be hampered by having one less person to guide, lead and offer first aid. The actual impact on safety in the air of reducing cabin crew numbers by 1 would be so small as to be immeasurable - a poor argument.

[david_carnell]

Not all "safety" has to refer to a plane ditching in the Hudson River, MamoraMan.

Safety on-board aircraft can have many facets: first aid and restraining aggressive customers being the first to examples that spring to mind.

Less cabin crew on flights may lead to situations where these types of incidents are handled with less skill and efficiency than they currently are.

If redundancies are affecting those on higher salaries more then the problem will be exacerbated - the higher wages often reflect further skills (such as first aid or security) gained during a career.

I think my point remains valid.

[MrBen]

BA again.....I'm watching this strike play out with interest. Willie Walsh is taking a much harder line than last time and I think rightly so (although a panel of industrial relations experts disagrees). We're not living in an era of state run airline anymore, fuel prices are jumpy and the short haul sector has changed the industry in the past decade beyond recognition.

And today we have the UK's highest paid cabin crew complaining that their non contractual perks are being removed because they've striked. What did they expect?

Something will have to give though....and it won't be pretty.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I started this thread and I called the union bone-headed and I stand by that - tactically they chose the worst possible time

But I was never four-square behind the management either - Willie Walsh is a shit who has left Aer Lingus a shadow of it's former self and is doing more than trying to force through some cost cutting measures here.

If a business is on course to lose 700 odd million in a year, and a chief is being paid about... 700 million a year I think I see a way out of this problem!!

Telling people on about 18k a year that their rivals are on 14k (whilst he earns 700k ish ) a year so they have to lump it is just a race to the bottom and if it doesn't affect you now it will do so sometime soon

[Narnia]

I was listening to the radio last night where there was a phone in on the subject. For whatever reason an 8 year old boy was on air way past his bedtime. However he did amuse me by referring twice to Willie Walsh as Louis.

[matthew123]

Rightly or wrongly it seems to me the Union have been out maneuvered by BA.

Willie Walsh may have an ego problem but besides that why do BA staff deserve more money than their counterparts at rival airlines (assuming you mean national carriers rather than low budget) as shareholders will always demand bang for the buck.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Another way of asking it is why can't other staff be paid as much (oooh 18k - don't go spend it all in one year now) as BA staff

why go lower - why not raise standards?

[matthew123]

I agree - maybe it's the other airline staff who should be striking. Would the BA staff have striked if they knew they would lose their travel perks?

[SeanMacGabhann]

They almost certainly knew those perks would be withdrawn - the 2 airline staff I know seem to be aware anyway.

But the reason the lower paid airline staff don't strike?? Oh come on... those airlines exist because they don't recognise unions

Those staff don't have the same rights as BA staff - and whatever salary they exist on now will be driven lower