BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[TightSlot]

Use this thread for comments on the BA strike. Please try not to be hateful, immature or abusive. Please also remember that support for the BA strike is not 100% - Some crew, and many other workers within the airline will be brave enough to come into work (not easy to do) and therefore deserve your respect. Those going on strike deserve courtesy, simply as human beings: Raw abuse and rudeness simply lower the impact of the point you are trying to make.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks, TS. ;)

"Never in the field of IA have so many been misled and/or deceived by so few"? :cool:

Tragic, ill-founded, unnecessary, inappropriate, mishandled - that's what I gather from reading the CC thread on PPRuNe on a daily basis.

Support by CC for the strike is, of course, nowhere near 100%. Something like 50% of the BA CC aren't members of BASSA anyway, as I understand it. So in reality maybe 40% of the CC workforce actually voted for the strike ... without apparently understanding the issues [info from one side only], and it seems with the objective of "sending a message to BA".

I have massive sympathy for the great majority who are caught up in this Union-engineered power struggle.

[west lakes]

It is fair to say that, sitting on the sidelines, full extent of what is occuring, that we have seen publicly, is not the full story on any side of the dispute. (and there are not just two sides within BA).

[bandit2106]

I have a cancelled and rebooked flight to GVA on Sat morning. I'd be happy to sit on the floor or bring my own chair, as long as I (and my luggage) get there. It will be aboard a Jet2 wet lease if all goes to plan.
I have no idea about what scenes I will encounter at LHR, which I'm not looking forward to TBH.
I'm hoping make a return trip on the 27th :uhoh:

[jethrobee]

As you have just seen from my other post, I fear for premium pax like myself the damage to BA is already done.

What would it take for me to come back to BA? I honestly don't know, I am not seeing the reason why, the seats in club world and first are wonderful, but then so are they on Cathay/Virgin/Emirates/Qantas/Ethiad.

It's not all about the CC, if I cant get home to my family, it causes me grief and stress, if I cant get to meetings arranged with my customers it causes me money, grief and stress.

Yes I understand that the CC have been in a state of anguish, but can they honestly say strike action that drives away the customers who keep them employed like this is the way to solve the problems?

I don't want to desert the CC that are decent people and are coming to work to make it possible for me to get the 3 flights on the strike days that I have.

I cant just move the dates, I have client engagements that have been arranged for many months, if I don't come to the customer, the missed meetings cost a lot of money. This includes the cost of the flights/hotels plus about £12500 in terms of day rate. Why should my company suffer?

[dubh12000]

I think we laugh about strange industrial practises in the old legacy airlines like Alitalia (before the collapse), but some of the standard practises at BA that I have read through the main CC thread are unbelievable! 2 overnights on a diversion etc. I'm astounded that in 2010 big companies have crap like this to put up with.

On a personal note, since Christmas I have booked me and my team on 28 flights to Dubai and Newark with Swiss. We used to use BA. We will most likely never go back. I will only step back aboard to use up the 300K airmiles I have.

Its a great pity. I feel for the crew, they are on the whole a great bunch, but now simply cannon fodder in a Len McLuskey power play.

[jethrobee]

I am thinking of donating my 500,000 BA miles to charity, does anyone know if this is possible?

[call100]

Wow! So many Daily Mail readers in one thread........Amazing:ugh:

[Airclues]

jethrobee

Why waste your hard-earned miles? They can be redeemed on any of the One World partner airlines. They are not on strike!

[PAXboy]

jethrobee I know that VS do this. A quick look at BA EC only referred to their cash collections of small coin. There are charities that collect FFMs to use for children that are recovering from sever illness, or may have a terminal condition. They take them to places like Disneyworld. So consider search for the charities.

[Der absolute Hammer]

As an investor with many shares and stocks in many companys, I am very pleased that many company employees will not be flying BA in the future in business class.
I do deplore the habit of business class travel for company staff when I as a shareholder am paying part of their salary and travel expenses. In the rare occasion when a company pays a decent dividend, the staff memeber is well enough rewarded by having his pension share scheme increase in value. When the company does not perform so well or pay the dividend then why the heaven and the other place, should the staff member travel in business class. All it does is to clutter up useful shopping or toilet space at airports with 'Executive' lounges and delay flights while people for whose tickets I am forced to pay exercise their delusions of self importance by necessitating three late gate calls.

[Wannabe Flyer]

A strike anywhere in this day and age (in the western democratic world) is about an individual who is power hungry leading many like sheep along for the slaughter. In large open to public companies like BA it is hard to believe that anyone is being made to work over and above what the law has provided for. If you don't like the law vote your government out and get another in that will change the laws.

One needs to only browse through all the threads on this site to see how an overwhelming number of topics cover poor customer service on BA over the past years. Maybe some introspection is needed by all to see who has called the strike. It however is necessary as it will purge BA of some of these sheep and wolves that have done it a great dis service over the years and have led many loyalists to move elsewhere.

It will be sad to see many caught in the crossfire, but such is the nature of Unions these days. The Lawyers and the leaders will drive away in the Porsche's and Ferrari's to another industry to create havoc, the sheep will be slaughtered, and the collateral damage will last a while and trickle into the other airlines and cause a supply demand situation which will lead to lower wages.

If you don't like your job quit.... if there are no more jobs out there then thank your lucky stars you have one. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!!! :{

[jethrobee]

You deplore employees traveling in Business Class??? Try and fly 24 hours to Sydney and then get off the plane at 6.30am and be in the office for 9am to do a productive day's at work on site with a client that earns your company £1250 minimum!

Just because people fly business class it doesn't mean that they are wasting the companies money, am I paid for giving up weekends to sit on planes? No, and I paid weekends to be away from my family? No.

BTW I am looking at one of the childrens charities to see if they would be interested in my miles, 500k BA miles is a fair few kids/helpers to the USA.

-oh and no I dont read the daily mail!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Like others on the thread, I no longer fly BA on business, as the company is too unreliable and no longer fit for purpose.

Having said that, I have just booked my family on a long haul at Christmas, in WT+ which I regard as being a good vfm product.

For the sake of balance


A lot of BA people are decent hard working folks
The CC union has a lot to answer for, as do the members who voted for IA
The company managament over the past 10-15 years also have a lot to answer for


As a frequent traveller, it would be good for BA to be a strong player in the market, but I fear we may be past the tipping point.

The board has broken the trust of too many premium users (companies and individuals) by a combination of cynical cost cutting, ineffective IR and generally failing to provide differentiated service in times of disruption.

What is left is a second rate carrier.

[Pontius Navigator]

BTW I am looking at one of the childrens charities to see if they would be interested in my miles, 500k BA miles is a fair few kids/helpers to the USA.

Try "Wish Upon a Star". One of their events is to fly children with a life-threatening illness or serious handicap and carers to Laapland at Christmas. If there was a suitable flight, who knows, you migt be able to sponsor an entre flight for that.

When You Wish Upon A Star - Dream Making For Sick Children (http://www.whenyouwishuponastar.org.uk/)

[radeng]

I do not see that BA management have been particularly effective over the years. Look at the c*ck up a few years ago with EWS - Engineers Want Spares. Look at the cost cutting - no hot towels in Club Europe. A little thing, and I doubt it saved much money. OTOH, I have found BA CC and ground staff far better than any of the other airlines I've regularly flown, with the possible exception of Qantas, who were OK, and Baboo, who are up to BA standard. AA have gone downhill over the last few years: they'd be LOCOS if the fares were lower.

I'm not convinced that either side in this dispute come out with clean hands. Now we hear about CSD and the like on on £40 -50- 60 a year. I wonder how many managers there are at BA on more than £60k plus perks? And what they do to earn it.

Years ago, there was an article in the Engineer magazine with an accountant who went into failing companies to turn them round. He said that if you had to fire people, you should start at the top. Firstly, that's where you save the most money per head disposed off, and secondly, these were the people whose mismanagement got the company into a mess in the first place....

[lexxity]

There's also childflight, which is based at Manchester Airport.

Childflight (http://www.childflight.co.uk/contact.html) :ok:

[Curious Pax]

I strongly believe that managers get the staff attitudes they deserve. In a small way I've seen it close at hand, when a department had a manager who built his staff into a silo mentality, with the result that things took twice as long as necessary, and most dealings with them were a hassle. After a couple of years a new manager took over, and within weeks attitudes changed. As a result the department were miles easier to deal with, and the work they were delivering also increased in quality. All because the message from above changed.

A lot of similarities with the Gordon Bethune turnround of Continental - wonder if any BA managers have read his book? I'm sure it wasn't all milk and honey at CO, but it was certainly better than it used to be.

[Evanelpus]

You deplore employees traveling in Business Class??? Try and fly 24 hours to Sydney and then get off the plane at 6.30am and be in the office for 9am to do a productive day's at work on site with a client that earns your company £1250 minimum!

Then go a day earlier. Even a nights hotel won't bust the bank comparing the difference between business and economy fares. When my old company went through the cost cutting regime, we did this and it wasn't unpleasant at all.

[Andy_S]

I do not see that BA management have been particularly effective over the years.....

They've certainly not been effective at reforming some of the 'spanish practices' that still exist within BA's cabin crew. Previously, they refused to stand up to BASSA. Now they've got a CEO who's prepared to take them on.


I have found BA CC and ground staff far better than any of the other airlines I've regularly flown, with the possible exception of Qantas, who were OK, and Baboo, who are up to BA standard.

It's a subjective thing, of course, but I reckon most of the major Far East carriers, and several Mid East beat BA hands down. But perhaps that's missing the point. BA's cabin crew costs are twice as high as their nearest UK competitor. Are BA CC so outstanding that the company can afford this?

[PAXboy]

EvanelpusThen go a day earlier. Even a nights hotel won't bust the bank comparing the difference between business and economy fares. When my old company went through the cost cutting regime, we did this and it wasn't unpleasant at all.It's the old, old, old equation of time or money. If your time is cheap, you can take an early and sleep nice-nice in the hotel. If your time is expensive, you sleep as best you can on the plane.

(I've recounted this before) Working for a client in HKG in the 90s. LHR-SFO two days biz for them. SFO-HKG arrive 18:00 and straight to bed. Arrived office Thursday morning knowing that the Friday was the BIG day with the three finalists in the Tender doing their presentations on a critical communications project. I was the lead consultant. So I had a day to catch up.

No. I was told the presentations had been brought forward to save a day. They had made me do both long hauls in Y as they would not pay more (PE did not exist). Result? I fell asleep during the presentations.

Please do not assume that the solution that is good for you is good for us. Most frequents that I know do also (as was said) leave on Sunday evening or only get back on a Saturday and miss family events. I'm glad I don't do it any more.

Besides, if the shareholders knew how much money their companies were pi$$ing down the drain on REALLY unimportant stuff - you would have the CEO sacked on the spot.
:*

[radeng]

You have a meeting on Friday morning that you can't miss, so youi can't stay overnight. On Thursday, you're somewhere in Europe. The last flight is around 1930: your meeting finishes late, so you have no time at the airport. You're diabetic so you MUST have a meal. Not much alternative to Business Class is there?

Since company profits don't affect my pension, and don't affect my pay rise (as I haven't had one for five years), and I do 40% more than my contracted hours, many of them in the air, then why shouldn't I get that bit of luxury - and the meal.

The other problem with going a day early and coming back a day later is that strange as it may seem, I do like to see my wife on occasion. For those with children, that's even more pressing. With the amount of travelling on business my wife does,it's not often we get even a full weekend together

[old,not bold]

Bad industrial relations starts at the top, not at the bottom, with the proviso that unions with a political agenda, such as Unite, can and do deliberately make a deteriorating situation 1,000 times worse.

The real blame lies fairly and squarely with BA's dreadful, lazy, overpaid, over-manned and incompetent middle and senior management. Time-serving wasters, most of them, up to and including the Executive and non-Executive Directors.

But those staff who have voted for a strike have to share the blame for allowing themselves to be led by the nose into doing that. I cannot think of any high-profile, large-scale strike since 1970 that has achieved a long-term sustained improvement in the strikers' pay and conditions.

The notion that you can improve your lot by pushing an employer to the brink of bankruptcy, which in BA's case the threat of strike rather than a actual withdrawal of labour has achieved already, is one of the enduring fantasies of the union movement. It might work in the public sector, because there is no financial imperative, and unions know that sooner or later the employer will agree to spend more tax-payers' funds to satisfy their demands. But private sector employers can and do fail, putting the entire workforce on the dole. BA is not too big or important for that to happen.

The words "turkeys" and "Christmas" come to mind whenever I see scenes of jubilation after a strike vote.

I feel immensely sympathetic with those staff whose livelihoods are threatened by the hard core who, knowingly or not, are striking for a political objective set by Mr Harriet Harman and his cronies. God knows what that is, but I don't.

[jethrobee]

The problem with traveling the night before is that invariably I will be somewhere else or its the weekend.... If it is somewhere else the customers who are paying large money for my time get upset when I walk offsite at 3pm to catch a plane!

I work exceptionally long hours, get rewarded well for it, however, I personally wont fly down the back of the plane for anything more than 6 hours if I am expected to get off the flight and go straight to work.

My time vs money equation is fairly simple, I fly economy to Oz, its going to cost about 800 pounds vs a 2500-3100 business class fare.

A day of my time makes the company about 1250 so technically I fly economy I need 2 days to recover, this ends up costing the company money. Plus goodwill.

[6chimes]

I actually do support the cabin crew. I fully understand the frustration any passenger affected by this strike feels, however the notion that having a career in customer service prevents you from withdrawing your labour if you genuinely believe that your livelihood is under threat doesn't work. The company can always approach negotiations without any real intention or desire to negotiate if they can stand back and milk the public outcry.

Although the cabin crew should have made every effort over the last few years to be the best and not milk the job and lower standards. If you're the best then you have an argument that the public will understand. If your average or not as good as your competitors then you suffer.

I believe that the union has been tactically out maneuvered on almost every front. Why this has happened I can't comment upon. I do know that the many many many of the CC genuinely fear that they will eventually have to leave the industry as the airlines replace crew with cheaper replacements. These newer crew will nearly all be younger than 25 quite happy to earn around the minimum wage and be compulsory made to work 20 hours a week more than any ground based job of 37.5 hours. Remember that labour laws don't apply for aircrew. Instead they can be made to operate to CAP 371. Have a look at the CAA web site and find it in publications. You won't find any requirement for a rest break in a 14 hour day anywhere.

Increasingly this is how airlines are operating their crew. Many BA CC have migrated there from other UK carriers. I would even go so far as to say it's the majority. They left airlines where a long term career felt unattainable and BA offered a career that allowed them to fly and have a house, family etc. Not all crew can or want to progress through the ranks of a smaller carrier where a life that most aspire (anyone, not just crew) is achievable.

I fear that the battle is already lost.

6

[Scumbag O'Riley]

Of course labour law applies to aircrew (though I will concede that the high court didn't choose to think that way last time around).

Employees should be allowed to strike, and there was an overwhelming vote to do so, which means the employees should have protection.

What is different about BA is they have an effective monopoly on a very important airport for UK PLC. This monopoly was granted back in the days when airlines were regulated and is basically a gift from the taxpayers and all they have done is waste it.

So let them strike, but they should lose any LHR slots they don't use, permanently. Let them fly out of Gatwick or anywhere else who wants them. Plenty of decent airlines around will fill their place and that has to be good for the passenger.

[gsky]

I disagree strongly with your rather nasty, and frankly silly final comments

"plenty of decent airlines...."


but particularly..
Employees of BA

What about the thousands of decent , hard working employees at BA, who appreciate they have a decent job , and in very difficult times, accept that we all have to make sacrifices.
I certainly have had to, and so have many other people.
and who are these "plenty of decent airlines ...."??

Who?
Virgin?
Ryanair ?

Both of whom pay their own cabin crew around half what BA pay.
Right...BA goes and CC they will have plenty of opportunities for jobs then , at half what they earn now!

As for the customer..me/us!

Sorry BA is may be a half decent airline, but they knock spots off
Virgin and most other carriers

Your views seem somewhat unrealistic
Some carriers may be better but they are not UK based.

and there is nobody better than BA waiting in the wings.. except perhaps for BA mark II

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I hardly think my comments were 'nasty', a very strong word, have more respect for your paying customers.

They would be missed by very few outside of the airline industry.

[button44]

Fear about something that MAY happen, is no valid reason to go on strike. Cheaper crew may have been brought in through VR and retirement, I don't know and I imagine they didn't either, but of course that may have changed now in the light of a strike. Also it wasn't Mr Walsh who talked about a pay cut, that was BASSA, WW said a pay freeze....very different! As the strike is now due to start, I hope the people rostering the longhaul flights tonight are only using non-union and volunteer crew, otherwise come midnight it could get rather nasty!:ugh:

[gsky]

Scumbag
Nasty,. "well "let them strike "!! is non too pleasant
esp for the thousands of paying customers ( including possibly me) who may suffer as a result.


as for your further comment.

"have more respect for your paying customers"

I AM A PAYING CUSTOMER..

I dont work for BA, never have.
But, as a customer, I can tell the difference between an airline that strives for quality, albeit failing in many areas, and one that offers a cheap service using cheap labour (CC)

I am at a loss as to which "decent airlines" to who might be able to fill their place and offer a quality global network.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Anyone UK people with spare miles might consider Holidays4Heroes (http://www.holidays4heroes.org)

At the moment just a non-profit, but about to become a Registered UK Charity. Miles could be VERY useful. ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

strives for quality, albeit failing in many areas

Surely an oxymoron?

I do agree that the BA of 10 years ago was a decent airline, but the BA of 2010 is not.

That, however is rather different than wishing for 40,000 people to lose their jobs.

However, if the management of the company and the employees don't get their act together, this will be the final outcome, not necessarily this year or next, but sometime.

I fly with airlines who strive for quality and deliver it.

At the moment, for short haul, that includes

Air Arabia (lower grade, but fit for purpose)
Air Malta (still 2 x hot towels and always had my 1st choice of hot meal)
Austrian Airlines
Egyptair Express (but not the mainline)
easyJet (lower grade, but fit for purpose)
Lufthansa
Swiss

For long haul

LH/LX
Jet Airways

[Scumbag O'Riley]

That, however is rather different than wishing for 40,000 people to lose their jobs.Well thats obviously not what anybody wants but you have to look at the bigger picture.

What we passengers should want above all else is a marketplace and if LHR was opened up to effective competition then there would be other airlines who would fill their place. Currently we have a basket case locking up 40% of LHR slots. Other airlines are effectively being kept out of there when they might want to operate from there and provide a far better service than the current dysfunctional lot. That would generate jobs too. What about the other airline's employees?? It's also a very reasonable assumption that these new airlines would be more efficient than BA and that would generate additional demand which would provide employment, not necessarily based at LHR either.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ Scumbag - please elaborate on the "basket case" and others being "more efficient"? The only flight failure I ever had was a FlyBE technical out of SOU. Never EVER had one with BA.

BA has technical and flexibility capabilities that most airlines would only ever dream of. What's your choice of 'replacement carrier' for BA's European and World-wide and Domestic services? Come on, mate, get real. ;)

The fact that BA sometimes doesn't deliver the glossy product on 'some routes' isn't a case for binning the whole thing. All my experiences over the years with BA have been excellent - Domestic and European.

I've been just a little bit pi66ed with the BA LH service from LHR. Now - remind me who are the major whingers and whiners in the current IA? Oh - the LHR crews [or at least the CSDs], the ones that won't accept what LGW crews have been doing for 5 years? .... I'd better stop there, I think.

[ulxima]

+1
:ok:

My best of luck to all BA employees
Ulxima

[radeng]

If all the BA CC resigned and withdrew their pension pot (as they are entitled to do) could BA cover the cash outlay it would have to make?

If a lot more BA staff did the same, (or took the money out after being made redundant) you could envisage severe financial hardship for BA seeing how much the pension fund is in the red.

[spock33]

We're booked on 2166 TPA-LGW on Sunday evening. We're looking forward to thanking the loyal CC members for getting us home from this hell of warm sunshine & blue skies.

Roll on Gatwick's rain on Monday morning & the smiling faces of the lonely pickets, or will they all be at LHR?

[11Fan]

Then go a day earlier.

I'm with Evan on this. My international is down to zero now, all domestic but (presuming your travel department isn't tightass) you need to be in top form for your negotiations, etc. If you need to justify it, consider scheduling a short pre-meeting the day before. Go in for a few hours and then go back to your hotel and prepare for the next day.

[Final 3 Greens]

I'm with Evan on this. My international is down to zero now, all domestic but (presuming your travel department isn't tightass) you need to be in top form for your negotiations, etc. If you need to justify it, consider scheduling a short pre-meeting the day before. Go in for a few hours and then go back to your hotel and prepare for the next day.

Any company that sends employees across several time zones, in economy class, then expects them to go to work quickly and be effective is delusional and asinine.

If it doesn't justify either 48 hours of rest in country or business class travel, then it can be done by web meeting or conference call.

I try to do as much via these methods as possible and save the travel for the things were 1-2-1 is vital.

I have flown overnight in J, then gone to work the next day after 4 hours sleep - it can be done, but it is not optimum; even after J class, some recovery time is wise.

[boredcounter]

Rise from the ashes of bankrupt airlines?

[PAXboy]

old,not boldBad industrial relations starts at the top, not at the bottom, with the proviso that unions with a political agenda, such as Unite, can and do deliberately make a deteriorating situation 1,000 times worse.Yessiree indeedy. Mgmt get the unions they deserve. If generations of mgmt have been so poor as not to have good relations with their staff - then the staff will push the pendulum too far to one side., Unfortunately, human nature is then to push the pendulum waaaay past the harmonious mid-point - and all the way to the far side. Thus the sequence starts again. It happened to the coal mine workers (and they had a better case than the cabin crew) and it happened to the print workers.

Just today, I was listening to the story of a man who worked in newspaper and magazine printing in the 1970s. They did no more than four hours work for eight hours pay. One of them was called The Entertainment's Officer, as he organised the card games in the back room. Eventually it was stopped but ONLY after millions of pounds had been wasted and then many people lost their jobs.

I am not saying that those CC that voted to strike are in the same league but they have not recognised that the world is a totally different place than even five years ago. In conversation with the family of this printer today, they said it was incredulous that BA CC could even think of striking when people are being made redundant in the rest of the real world.

old,not boldThe real blame lies fairly and squarely with BA's dreadful, lazy, overpaid, over-manned and incompetent middle and senior management. Time-serving wasters, most of them, up to and including the Executive and non-Executive Directors.Yessiree indeedy. The 'non-exec' club is made up of retired execs that have already stuffed up other companies. If I was a non-exec of BA, I would have spent the last years asking them when and how the mgmt was going to slim down and many other things. Non-execs seem as impervious to the grass roots as the mgmt.

This is a VERY interesting point of view from the CC and it all rings true to me:
BBC News - BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm)

BUT, the CC did not work out that trying to use IA to change the mgmt attitude was NEVER going to work. They have been out PR'd on everything. The company was always in the last phase of it's life but now the CC will get a large chunk of the blame - not the mgmt that have been making mistakes for 20 years (Dirty Tricks blew up in their face 17 years ago and so I suggest 20 years from when they started such stupidity) and BA will not exist in it's present form in five years from now. The board of mgmt (exec and non-execs) are mostly to blame. The rest is just the passage of time and ALL companies must run their course, which is another thing that both mgmt and Unions tend not to understand.

As I have said so many times before but for the record:
It gives me no pleasure to say the above. I have never worked in the airline biz and have been a highly satisfied customer of BA.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

Oh deary deary me

Tonight an extensive strike-breaking plan moved into gear at BA as the airline prepared to move 65% of its passengers over the next three days with a workforce of 1,000 volunteer cabin crew and 22 chartered jets, including three Ryanair planes complete with no-frills flight attendants.

BA 'declares war' on union after talks fail | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/19/ba-strike-dates-union-talks)

Bit of a risk BA are taking here, what if the punters actually prefer it :) :)

[LHR747]

“British Airways is facing severe financial trading conditions”; this fact is often stated by BA cabin crew who have voted to strike. However, they are for the most part, totally unable to grasp the true meaning of this state of affairs. In so doing they have acted irresponsibly and risk the very existence of BA. It is no accident that BA cabin crew are the highest paid in Britain, it is a direct result of strong union action. Whilst this situation has long been highly undesirable for the airline, its shareholders and the customers who pay their inflated salaries, it is no longer tenable. BA is fighting for its very survival and the mostly poorly educated cabin crew, are being lead by a politically motivated union inexorably towards the dole queue. Insulated within this privatized state company from the real economy outside, these featherbedded low skilled employees will soon find their true worth in the job market. Many will be forced to take up minimum wage employment; others will never work again, living on state handouts and the remains of their once mighty pension scheme, now reduced to offering legal minimum payouts. All this loss in order to protect the unwarranted low work load, inflated pay and ludicrously titled Cabin Service Directors, who are simply stewards and stewardesses and should rightly be serving meals like the rest of the cabin crew. It is patently clear that the public holds no sympathy for the BA cabin crew and moreover the airline’s customers are now questioning their desperately poor performance when compared to those of BA’s competitors. In contrast to BA’s often-surly cabin crew, Virgin’s staff shine brightly and they work for half the pay.

[wascrew]

Interesting interview with non striker on radio5 y/day

BBC - BBC Radio 5 live Programmes - Victoria Derbyshire, 19/03/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgmgz#emp1)

[crewmeal]

I feel folks have short memories when it comes to BA's previous problems. With all the losses that it has occured over the past couple of years what happened when it came to pay the £300m fines for the fuel and freight irregularities back in 2008?

No doubt by trying to claw the money back then the Company would look at terms and conditions for all the staff, not just cabin crew. Or did the Company budget for this and it was all hidden under the carpet?

Perhaps if BA had played fair then they would not be in the mess they are in now!!!

[Cymmon]

This piece makes interesting reading.......

BBC News - BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm)

How much is true? If it is 100% then I back the crew.

[wascrew]

crewmeal
forget the history!!

this is all about the current state of the airline

and fyi all other areas of the business have taken cuts

but not the cabin crew!!!

hence the lack of support for cc from other BA employees

[Wycombe]

LHR747, your post is devalued by the needless reference to Virgin - a reference to "any other UK carrier" would have been fine.

Otherwise what you say is spot on.

These people and the irresponsible Union that represent them are living in a time warp 30 years behind the rest of their or any other industry.

Time to move on and accept that change happens - and that to have a inferior package might be preferable to having none at all.

Some of you have had it far too good for far too long. You have little public support, and won't win - one would have thought that message had got through by now.

[wiggy]

"How much is true"?

Well it's a fair representation of the Cabin Crew side of the story and a fair copy of a BASSA press release. However it completely misses inconvenient truths such as the Company's trading position, the fact that the Company have been trying to negotiate with the Cabin Crew Union reps for over a year but couldn't stop the bickering between the Reps themselves ( see the Judge's comments after the last BA vs. BASSA Court case), the fact that other employee groups have seen sense and taking pay cuts and/or modified work practices, the fact that it's the Union, not BA who are suggesting Cabin Crew take a pay cut, and the allegations that UNITE deliberately sabotaged a possible settlement last week by pre-emptively, and contrary to an agreement, announcing strike dates.



So all in all a pretty balanced piece of reporting, then again it's the BBC :mad:

[Blighty Pilot]

With Labour in cahoots with Unite and the BBC biasing towards Labour (Sun unearths alarming smears against Tories by state-owned BBC | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html) I am rapidly loosing faith in the BBC's reporting.
I have also noticed that they seem to have a personal vendetta against aviation and it would seem from their reporting that the industry is to blame for the worlds ecological issues.

[LHR747]

Dear Wycombe,

I referred to Virgin Airways because it is universally accepted as the gold standard for cabin service for a UK based airline but as you qite rightly say any airline would suffice for comparison.

[Global Warrior]

A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.
Taking strike action is against the ethics of cabin crew.

But we have families, mortgages and bills to pay - we cannot afford to lose £7,000 a year.


I doubt you will get £7,000 on the dole. But whilst you are queuing for your state handout, you wont have to tell anyone what you used to do, the whinging and whining will give it away......... you will relegate yourselves to "when we" status!!!!

But dont worry because those chaps in UNITE and BASSA wont be in the same queue as you. They will be up there championing themselves for taking such a staunch position!!!!

[crewmeal]

forget the history!!

So we just write off that money as if it wasn't important is what you're suggesting?

I know all depts had their T&C revised, cabin crew as well!!

[ironbutt57]

Amazing being in such dire financial straits, an airline will spend all this money to break the backs of labor..the very backs that bear the brunt of bad management decisions..

[Scumbag O'Riley]

and fyi all other areas of the business have taken cutsNowhere near enough though, drops in the ocean, other groups t&c will need to be revisited and they are 1970s style militant too.

[Premier1989]

Forgive me if I get this completely wrong, I am new to PPRuNe!!!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t BA remove an offer from the Union when they officially announced that they would go on strike? Surely from a business point of view, it would have been better to keep the offer on the table in order to avoid a strike full stop. I can’t see how removing the original offer, which the Union was intending on going to their members with, solves the situation of a possible strike. Yes I suppose the airline have been sort of embarrassed that their members were prepared to walk out, so you could say their face was damaged and therefore management now want a cheaper way out, but wouldn’t resolving the situation be better than the continual "talking around a table" scenario. You could say Walsh and the management team are shooting themselves in the foot by almost allowing this to happen, resulting in the airlines own demise!

However, a thought I had was if the airline was to go under, and the government decided not to bail them out, could that give BA more leverage to merge with Iberia and AA before the original planned dates (2012 I think?). If this was an option, is Walsh purposely destroying the airline?

Just a thought....!

[wiggy]

As far as I understand it the deal from BA was basically this - "Here's an offer. We will allow to extend the validity of your strike ballot in order to give you time to consult with all your members. However if you announce strike dates in the meantime, damaging forward bookings and cashflow, the ecomomics will have changed and the offer is removed."

Given it had taken 13 months to get that far I reckon Mr Wlash was being pretty reasonable, so why did UNITE , specifically Len McKlunk, announce the strikes dates? I don't see how any business can work with Union officials who behave like that, and I and others have a theory as to why McKlunk did it, and it has nothing to do with the wellbeing of BA Cabin Crew.......

"Is Walsh purposely destroying the airline?"

I think the shareholders and the long arm of the law would have something to say about that...

[dustyprops]

I have some sympathy with the Cabin Crew. Lot's of people have made valid points as to why the crew should take the proposed new conditions, however, isn't the fact that we sit here bitching and moaning about the conditions our side of the flight deck door down to years of giving away T&C's as our "leaders" have failed us at the top end of the business.

Employees always suffer when the likes of Walsh and co. screw up, and you never see these cuts returned when the times are better. How he is still there after the T5 farce is beyond me.

I applaud the cabin crew for standing their ground. Good luck:ok:

[crewmeal]

BA stand to loose a lot more than cash at this point. Remember Terminal 5? How much did they loose in loyality then?

Reading the posts about the service onboard, BA will loose out because of the standards onboard are being slowly erroded, eg lack of ammenities, choices seat pitch etc. BA are still charging premium prices but what does the passenger now get compared with 5 years ago?

No wonder the likes of EK, SQ, CX, MH, QF, EY, QR are doing better in the Far/Middle East

[CaptJ]

The BBC piece above is completely blown out of the water by its own words.

"£800 for a 4-day trip to Japan "
Two of those spent on the plane and hotel accomodation and transfers provided.
Just by chance I overheard a passenger talking to a Virgin crew member on a recent trip to Japan. They get two nights accomodation and something under £300 for the same trip. He said it was a pretty decent deal.

Of course you could criticise BA Management for paying such ridiculous allowances in the first place.

[ihateforums]

Why has the ba share price kept on going up in the past weeks? it closed at a record high yesterday when the talks broke down. Could it be because analysts believe that the strike will give BA a semi-legal possibility to shed many crews? I bet that BA will not want back the people who have striked who will beg for a job in 4 days. They will sack them paying the unfair dismissal fees but getting rid of their heavy and unnecessary legacy.

[ZeBedie]

For Walsh, this is not about BA or Unite, it's about his future career and building a reputation as union busting hard man.

[wascrew]

crewmeal

yes it isnt important in this dispute!
you can rant all you want about fines/fuel hedging etc

this is not about clawing money back!
it is about safeguarding the future of the airline!!

you need profits to invest in new aircraft products and compete

oh and also give some benefit to your investors ........ and in case you have forgotten them

your customers!!!

[M.Mouse]

...it's about his future career and building a reputation as union busting hard man.

What a naïve comment but if he 'busts' BASSA he will have done us all a favour.

[crewmeal]

wascrew - I totally agree with you, but the Company would have been £300m better off now if it wasn't for those fines, which would have pleased the accountants.

[ChicoG]

Crewmeal,

The fines were probably paid out of the excessive revenues they generated - that's why they were fined!

Fuel Hedging is an age old problem - you win some you lose some.

Neither of these required cuts from any employee and they were accounted for well before this crisis started.

The losses are a different story. BA's revenue is down a billion, and that's probably what they have lost in the last two years.

Everyone else accepted reasonable cuts, cabin crew haven't.

What's worse is that if CC accepted what was first offered, the only difference would have been a CSD having to do some real work, and the rest of the crew having to work a bit harder.

UNITE and BASSA's total intransigence will now cost you dearly.

BLAME THEM!

HINT: Find out where all of your BASSA reps are during the strike!

[Doodles]

ZeBedie
Do you seriously suggest that WW is acting on his own? This is the collective decision of the board, whose responsibility is to the shareholders. Judging by the share performance, the shareholders are supportive of the board's decisions. There are many more shareholders than union members.

Another simple example of the union being in the minority.

[teddybear44]

Dustyprops,

Yes, but what are they standing their ground over, I thought it was imposition and there we have one on Sky News banging on about New Fleet and losing 14K and that's why she's striking - Which is it? Do they even know themselves? The past is the past. We are where we are now and everyone else has taken some sort of hit but same old story with some groups. Is what they are being asked for so difficult in the context of what is going on right now in the world? Reality check please.

ZeBedie

You can't blame one person for the whole T5 mess. There was a lot of help in the scenario from other groups through lack of testing and planning and some very slow procedures in the early phases of opening. It's all ancient history now. I don't think he is out to prove his reputation...he already had it. That's why he is where he is as CEO and he is addressing what has not really been properly addressed in the past as part of a wider strategy for survival. I don't think there is much of a choice in having plans for modernisation and efficiency savings and everyone does need to contribute. That is what he is asking. Perhaps you would prefer some other option such as ignore the realities and wait for bankruptcy?

Ted

[ChicoG]

Ted,

Despite the T5 fiasco, BA turned a handsome profit, and paid bonuses accordingly. Even though Walsh was entitled to his based on the financial results, he elected not to take it and accepted responsibility for the T5 difficulties.

I think that says more about the man than than any BASSA blustering does.

They hate him because he's got the balls to stand up to them.

It's obvious that the BASSA hive mind is being encouraged to blame him for this dispute, even though half of the people spitting feathers STILL don't know what he offered to BASSA as far back as last June.

[teddybear44]

and that is part of the trouble......a personalised dispute

[bealine]

I can't even be bothered to respond.

God help all of us at BA, for it won't be the same company that emerges after the dispute, that's for certain!

[dudleydick]

Looking at the Sky News coverage of the Bassa meeting at the football ground it is very evident that almost every person seen moving around in the background, behind the commentator, were grey haired old men! Makes you think!

[teddybear44]

Unfortunately, as with most companies in this situation there can sometimes be a significant financial 'blast radius'. Some case studies may give a clue but, would a business head be tempted in such circumstances to re-visit other areas, quicker than he otherwise might have done, (that have already taken 'hits') in an attempt to claw back some of what ground has now been lost. Collateral damage....a terrible thing. I hope that those who negotiated sensibly do not suffer unduly as a result of all this.

[ChicoG]

News coming out that some previously cancelled flights are now being "uncancelled".

Let's see how "electric" it is on the picket line when they find that out......

Shades of "there are no American troops in Baghdad"......

[Capetonian]

God help all of us at BA, for it won't be the same company that emerges after the dispute, that's for certain!

That's about the most positive thing I've read on this topic for a while.

[Max Tow]

Hopefully some bright spark from the media will ask BASSA whether all its reps are leading from the front and are actually on strike? Troops might be a bit annoyed if they were being urged to go over the top whilst their leaders found an excuse not to...
Meanwhile, the flight schedule described by Unite as a work of fiction & a fantasy seems to be doing rather well.

[teddybear44]

Let's hear it for those poor souls on the ground, taking the flak ! Good job !!

[LHR747]

BA made an offer to Unite prior to strike dates being announced. The offer was made with the clear understanding that strike dates would not be announced prior to balloting the cabin crew. This is because once strike dates are announced customers stop purchasing tickets and existing customers cancel their flights regardless of the outcome of any ballot. Unite chose to announce the strike dates immediately. Coupled with that they had stated that they would not recommend the offer to their members. Having incurred the strike costs BA could no longer afford the original offer and therefore withdrew it. Unite knew this would happen but had every intention of calling for strike action regardless.

The Labour Party will almost certainly lose the general election in May and the Trade Unions will be severely restrained by a fiscally responsible Conservative government. This is therefore the last throw of the dice for a Labour movement firmly entrenched in the 1970s. The cabin crew are Unite's pawns in this power play and the losers are all of BA's staff and their hapless customers. The Labour Party meanwhile is not so much shackled to Unite as a willing partner and, as we now learn, fully paid up member in this destructive union movement.

I trust this has helped clarify some of the arguments raised in this forum.

[neroliie]

I hope that tempers don't get too frayed for the folks on the shop floor, and that travellers can get to where they need to. I'm still wondering whether I hope that the necessary egos can be pricked and busted, but seeing as I have no knowledge of the situation, I doubt I can really say that.

[TURIN]

Despite the T5 fiasco, BA turned a handsome profit, and paid bonuses accordingly. Even though Walsh was entitled to his based on the financial results, he elected not to take it and accepted responsibility for the T5 difficulties.

I think it was deferred. He got it the following year.

The Labour Party will almost certainly lose the general election in May and the Trade Unions will be severely restrained by a fiscally responsible Conservative government. This is therefore the last throw of the dice for a Labour movement firmly entrenched in the 1970s. The cabin crew are Unite's pawns in this power play and the losers are all of BA's staff and their hapless customers. The Labour Party meanwhile is not so much shackled to Unite as a willing partner and, as we now learn, fully paid up member in this destructive union movement.

I trust this has helped clarify some of the arguments raised in this forum.

Not really.

Dragging a private company dispute into the political domain does nothing to help at all as proven by the rantings of Call-me-Dave on PMQs this week.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support the CC in this dispute, wrong time, wrong issue, but employees need a collective movement to stop unscrupulous employers taking the p1ss.
BA are not in this instance doing that, but they will given half a chance as will any other employer.
This dispute has tarnished all TUs, as much as the disputes in the 70s and 80s did.
IMHO. :sad:

[STANDTO]

I have refused to fly BA since 2005, as a result of a complete clown of a customer services rep at Manchester couldn't quite grasp a simple customer service v economics equation, and as a result I ended up getting home eight hours late. That was with BA Connect, which although not perfect, fares a lot better under Flybe. I know it wasn't part of BA mainline, but the planes were painted in the same colours and as such, the association is valid. What made it worse was trying to complain in due course. Whether by letter, telephone, fax or email, nothing in reply. I feel desperately sorry for those employees who get the thrust of how bad things are in the industry at the moment, but I hope the whole outfit goes down the tubes.

BA behaves like some last bastion of colonialism. grave intertia has prevented it from modernising and developing in line with a changing world. Any service industry has to be immensely agile to survive these days. I don't think that their competitors have wholly got it right either. We fly Virgin to tokyo every couple of months. What we get aboard is good, but on the ground, there is still a burdensomely bureaucratic rulebook which prevents some flexibility which prevents common sense decisions which would have no effect on profitability.

What I would look for in a re-born BA are the following traits:

Clean, efficient, immaculate aircraft
Helpful, intelligent, personable and knowledgeable staff
An easy to understand pricing structure
An easy to access and flexible rewards structure
'get you there - get you home' as the ethos of the business model.
not overstretched in terms of routes
Sensible density onboard in all classes
the sense to drop unprofitable routes and stick to core business
Properly staffed call centres with staff who are empowered to make decisions
A degree of humility
A service ethic rather than one of arrogance.

- too much to ask?

[radeng]

Could someone explain what if....having called a strike, BA make arrangements for leasing aeroplanes, crew etc and cancel flights. Then on the day, the CC turn up for work. (or did thay have to say they wouldn't?) You could imagine the chaos. Too late to inform people that their flight is going to be running, lots of CC reporting for work but no work to do, and so still have to be paid.

[ChicoG]

I commented on Walsh refusing his bonus and I got this as a reply:

I think it was deferred. He got it the following year.

You can think what you like. Before you post something that isn't true, I would ask you to prove it.

The biggest problem in this dispute is the lies coming from one side.

I stand to be corrected, and will apologise if I am wrong.

[etrang]

You can think what you like. Before you post something that isn't true, I would ask you to prove it.

I can't comment on Willie's bonus. However, I am quite certain that there are many people who would be happy to do Willie's job for the basic salary alone, just like his cabin crew. How much does the CEO of Virgin or Ryanair or Easyjet get?

[PAXboy]

crewmealreferring to wascrew - I totally agree with you, but the Company would have been £300m better off now if it wasn't for those fines, which would have pleased the accountants.And they would also not have wasted the following:
"BA settled out of court when its lawyers found the lengths to which the company went to try to kill off Virgin. BA had a legal bill of up to £3m, damages to Branson of £500,000 and a further £110,000 to his airline." [Wikipedia for all sources under entry 'Virgin Atlantic Airways]

Once there was a mgmt that was capable of THAT, what else did they do?
Frittered money on too much mgmt
Conspired with rivals (more than once, if I recall correctly)
Blew a hole in their reputation and finances with T5Share price going up? Of course because the stock market wants a win and more money in the short term. They are not bothered about the long term, because they will be off frying other fish.

STANDTOBA behaves like some last bastion of colonialism.Of course it does, it's 80+ years old and the weight of baggage (pun intended) that old companies carry is huge. In the middle years, baggage from the early years, gives them ballast and helps them along. Eventually, the baggage outweighs it's value and it starts to bring them down. There is NOTHING that can prevent that. Whether helped along by casual mgmt (as here) or by union action (as here) or by the economic situation (as here) - they are now in the endgame.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of human beings are not programmed to accept the end of a game/company/govt/life and so they keep bashing on until they are forced to stop (Maggie Thatcher). On the other hand, if mankind were not this obstinately set on improving his own personal lot the world would not be dominated by humans. Darwin was right - survival of the fittest.

[slf22]

How big are Virgin, Ryanair or Easyjet in comparison to BA?

O'Leary 782K euros including bonus' this figure is from 2003
Michael O'Leary Profile - Forbes.com (http://people.forbes.com/profile/michael-o-leary/69434)

Walsh - £743K not including bonus' he turned down £550K in shares last year apparently.
BA chief Willie Walsh gets pay rise despite record losses - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6474165.ece)

Considering the fall in the exchange rates I doubt O'Leary is going to be interested.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

nowhere near 99%, never has been, certainly isn't now.

Loads and loads and loads of employees right now are accepting things are very very bad and taking redundancy/significant short working/significant pay cuts/decrease in conditions without going on strike.

Even workers in the car industry, a complete basket case only 30 years ago, are accepting significant changes so their employer might survive.

1200 people at the mrs' company were told recently that their jobs are almost certainly going. They aren't going on strike, they aren't exactly happy, but they know that walking out isn't going to do anything. Plenty of other companies are doing the same.

A significant number, certainly a large majority, of BA employees haven't had the attitude change yet that the other 1980's privatised company employees have had to go through. I suspect they never will.

[LHR747]

The strike is beginning to crumble as the majority of cabin crew turn up for work.

News just in from British Airways operations at both Heathrow and Gatwick conclusively demonstrates that the strike is beginning to crumble. Over 50% of cabin crew are turning up for work in defiance and as a direct challenge to the power of Unite. Pilots who had been called in to act as cabin crew are being redirected to work as pilots on the flight deck of additional services, as full cabin crew compliments are turning up for work. The atmosphere in the crew report centers is excellent with a real esprit de corps. Although it is still early to make a definite judgement on the state of the strike the signs are increasingly positive.

Cabin crew who are failing to report are being suspended indefinitely without pay and their future employment status remains uncertain. It looks like Mr Walsh is achieving a remarkable result and for this we should all be very relieved. The United Kingdom cannot afford a return to the destructive strikes of the 70s and if BA can weather this strike then this will certainly usher in a new post militant union era.

[Coleman Myers]

For those of you BA who turned up to work, thank you :D

"To fly, to serve"

[Hotel Tango]

Cabin crew who are failing to report are being suspended indefinitely

Surely, if the strike is legal, to suspend the staff striking must be illegal. Looks like we're going back to the dark ages where employees had no rights whatsoever.

[SGH]

There are two sides, but as a recent post said, time and place. Cabin crew at LGW accepted the changes. When the airline is losing one million a day, going on strike is not logical. A trade union is there to protect and serve its members, this is not happening here. There needs to be a rationalistion of terms and conditions. There needs to be a fix for the pension deficit. In this day and age what company can actually afford huge final salary pension schemes. People will lose out. It is not nice when it happens to you and I do have some sympathy for the cabin crew but they have to realise how the world works. I feel they are being buldozed into action that ulimately will cause them all more grief. The airline game is changing so fast, I feel unite should embrace change and let their members and the people who pay their wages down. Do not use the travelling public in your games to see who can be the most militant. You will lose in the end and so will members your proport to represent.

[west lakes]

to suspend the staff striking must be illegalIt is, apparently, illegal to dismiss them within 12 weeks of the strike dates, but not to suspend them

http://www.pprune.org/5584113-post3577.html

[call100]

There are two sides, but as a recent post said, time and place. Cabin crew at LGW accepted the changes. When the airline is losing one million a day, going on strike is not logical. A trade union is there to protect and serve its members, this is not happening here. There needs to be a rationalistion of terms and conditions. There needs to be a fix for the pension deficit. In this day and age what company can actually afford huge final salary pension schemes. People will lose out. It is not nice when it happens to you and I do have some sympathy for the cabin crew but they have to realise how the world works. I feel they are being buldozed into action that ulimately will cause them all more grief. The airline game is changing so fast, I feel unite should embrace change and let their members and the people who pay their wages down. Do not use the travelling public in your games to see who can be the most militant. You will lose in the end and so will members your proport to represent.
The point you miss, along with the press, is that 'The Union' is the members. That is why the Ballot procedure is set in law. It is the members who have voted to strike. They have not been forced into it by the Union. Yes they have been forced into it by the management at BA.
Read this quickly, because this opinion apparently is not allowed here. Even though I cancelled a BA flight due to the strike and had the hassle of changing my plans. I cancelled my flight to support the strike so I didn't mind the hassle that much. I think that Willie Walsh just wants to out-MOL, MOL. He could have averted this and got the savings he wanted. However, he has a different agenda. That is why I could not possibly support his stance.

[Bongodog1964]

Quote:
Cabin crew who are failing to report are being suspended indefinitely
Surely, if the strike is legal, to suspend the staff striking must be illegal. Looks like we're going back to the dark ages where employees had no rights whatsoever.

I'm reasonably sure that BA can't suspend striking staff indefinitely, as this would break the law. What they probably can do is suspend them for the remainder of their duty period, as the convoluted rules agreed by BA and Bassa state very clearly what BA can do if someone fails to report for work.

[CYPR]

STANDTO

What I would look for in a re-born BA are the following traits:

Clean, efficient, immaculate aircraft
Helpful, intelligent, personable and knowledgeable staff
An easy to understand pricing structure
An easy to access and flexible rewards structure
'get you there - get you home' as the ethos of the business model.
not overstretched in terms of routes
Sensible density onboard in all classes
the sense to drop unprofitable routes and stick to core business
Properly staffed call centres with staff who are empowered to make decisions
A degree of humility
A service ethic rather than one of arrogance.

- too much to ask?

Although I don't agree with all of your points I think they would be a good starting point.

In answer to your question, NO.

[emanresuym]

call100:

The point you miss is that the CC only get to vote on what the union puts before them. So, on Friday when BA presented their offer the Union did not allow their members to vote on this offer. Instead they said they could not recommend it to their members - and then announced strike dates. Since BA had only made the offer on the understanding that dates would not be announced, Unite must have known that announcing dates for a strike would cost BA a significant sum and that the offer would therefore be withdrawn.

Given that it seems around 50% of CC reported for work today it would seem likely that the majority of Unite members would have voted for the BA offer - if only they'd been allowed.

[etrang]

'The Union' is the members

That's rather like saying "BA is its employees", its true to an extent but one employee, Willie Walsh, is vastly more influential than any CC or other front-line employee.

[ChicoG]

I can't comment on Willie's bonus. However, I am quite certain that there are many people who would be happy to do Willie's job for the basic salary alone, just like his cabin crew. How much does the CEO of Virgin or Ryanair or Easyjet get?

Walsh's remuneration is decided by the Board, who answer to the shareholders. It's their money, so they can do with it what they please. If they consider his package appropriate, so be it. It doesn't matter what other CEOs earn, and it has nothing to do with the current dispute, apart from the fact that BASSA are trying desperately to get rid of Walsh in the hope that their chickens will stop coming home to roost. As a result, they will try ANY angle to stitch him up. What they don't realise is that everyone else is right behind him.

BA are reporting that 97% of Gatwick crew turned up for work (no surprise there having been shafted by BASSA in the past), and 50+% at LHR.

Unite claim there are 20 BA aircraft parked at Cardiff because BA have no crew or passengers, when people on site at Cardiff are laughing at this complete nonsense.

Where are all the striking BASSA reps?!

[pb3]

Surely, if the strike is legal, to suspend the staff striking must be illegal. Looks like we're going back to the dark ages where employees had no rights whatsoever.


The best link wrt industrial action I've found so far is:

Industrial action (http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119711)

It it quite a bit of reading and is geared towards local authorities - but it is well written and easy to follow and the employment principles are general.

You may wish to jump directly to Section 3:
3 - Action against individual employees (http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119717#suspension)

This mentions:

... suspension without pay will only be permissible where it is specifically allowed for in an employee's contract of employment

So a pertinent question - What does the cc contracts of employment say?:hmm:

For info - the full trade union and labour relations Act (referenced in some places in the links above) is available online at:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (http://195.99.1.70/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1)

Not for the fainthearted!

In the end if the suspensions (only speculation at this point) do go ahead, the matter would probably only be resolved by highly paid employment lawyers in the courts.

Given UNITE's luck with the courts so far, I wouldn't want to bet my mortgage on this!

[Capetonian]

Willie Walsh is a man of his time.....
and its time he went.

How do you create a third rate cut price airline?
You take the best premium Airline in the world and put Willie Walsh in charge

Wee Willie is a hatchet man and BA shareholders will soon give him the chop if they have any sense.

...both sides 'claim an advantage'. How stupid can you get.
We fare paying passengers are so totally p....d off with BA, especially those of us who paid so much for up-coming long haul flight - and will NEVER EVER book BA again.

Just a few of the reader comments from this morning's Times.

[ChicoG]

Just a few of the reader comments from this morning's Times.

And I wonder how many were written by BASSA militants?

It certainly doesn't reflect what's coming out from Sky viewers on email and text. The majority seem to condemn BASSA and call on BA to sack the strikers and give the jobs to people who deserve them.

If only it were that simple.

[Flyluke]

Lot's of CC are turning up for work
Presumably many of these are the same CC who voted overwhelmingly (twice) to strike.
No surprise that they are, really. WW having played his ace card to withdraw, permanently, the awesome 10% travel deal that CC enjoy, the outcome was almost inevitable.
If he had played that card at the start, the entire Operation Survival would probably have been unecessary.

[Cymmon]

I have a few questions about the real reason for the strike on both sides.

If BA is so desperate to save money, how is it that it can find money to train people to do extra jobs, ie CC, then can use staff from offices to call 1000´s of people to inform them of flight changes. Then the BIG one, how can they justify chartering 23 a/c (some with crew) just to break a strike?

The unions are also head in sands, they want to stay in power by flexing muscles. But I agree negotiation is the only way forward. Which side union/management is refusing or lying?

If this employee is telling the truth, (why wouldn´t she?), it does actually seem to be bullying and intimidation from both sides.

BBC News - BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm)

[ChicoG]

If BA is so desperate to save money, how is it that it can find money to train people to do extra jobs, ie CC, then can use staff from offices to call 1000´s of people to inform them of flight changes.

Because they borrowed a large sum of money to fund the airline in the event of a strike (or, in other words, they saw it coming).

Then the BIG one, how can they justify chartering 23 a/c (some with crew) just to break a strike?

Because if they don't cabin crew are going to continue to suck the life out of the airline with unreasonable pay demands and archaic industrial agreements that stop BA competing with its rivals.

The unions are also head in sands, they want to stay in power by flexing muscles. But I agree negotiation is the only way forward. Which side union/management is refusing or lying?

BASSA are refusing. They always have refused, threatening a strike is always their preferred approach to industrial negotiations.

If this employee is telling the truth, (why wouldn´t she?), it does actually seem to be bullying and intimidation from both sides.

BA are merely stating facts. IF you strike, you WILL lose your staff travel. You WILL NOT be paid. etc.

BASSA, on the other hand, threaten to make life a misery for anyone who doesn't play it their way.

They are a cancer on the airline and need to be surgically removed if it is to survive.

[Guava Tree]

This strike is good because it allows BA Harridans , male and female, to deselect themselves from continued future employment in our national airline.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

A point just raised on "flyertalk" ... There were suggestions that the Teamsters in the USA, and indeed other foreign Unions, would carry out some sort of "sympathy action". Has anyone heard anything about that happening?

[teddybear44]

It would be unfortunate if the whole airline 'went down the tubes' as you hope. I don't work for them but I do know there are a lot of good people there who pull out the stops on a daily basis. There will always be the odd 'clown' anywhere and it may be possible that you might have encountered one that then hardened your disposition towards that airline. I agree with a lot of what you wish for but not that it goes down the tubes. For me there has always been a guaranteed bottom line to the product they provide and it would be so very sad if this current dispute hastened the end of BA but I doubt that. It's a complicated endeavour to run an airline and there does have to be some degree of 'bureaucracy' to keep things stabe and that everyone on the front line is not making it up as they go along - same anywhere really. Asking the person at the bottom of the chain to put his or her neck on the block to facilitate something going against the rules seems fair enough but if they say no, then why bear a grudge? Like I say, there are some great people there, doing there utmost, don't wish them out of a job.


TURIN - Good post:D

Ted

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

I've been keeping my eyes open regarding that issue in news reports and so far the only thing I've seen are words of support.

Perhaps Unite/BASSA realize how poorly that would be viewed by the public.

[spock33]

Hi T-T-B.

The BA strike isn't exactly hitting the headlines over here. There are no indications that BA flights are being delayed departing US airfields so I guess that as with much Unite rhetoric, so much hot air:D.

Interestingly the on line check in for tonight's TPA-LGW isn't allowing early check in although the departure time is according to schedule.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Hi spock - tonight's your night, eh?
Have a good safe trip - looking forward to the PXR! :ok:

[STANDTO]

You are right. On re-reading it is a little harsh. What I was trying to extol was a 'phoenix from flames' re-birth. Hit the reset button and develop an airline that is fit for purpose.

As a traveller, I jut couldn't risk booking with BA in any case these days. The disruption of having a cancelled flight just adds to the overall misery of air travel in the 21st century.

Here's hoping some good will come of this shambles

[Diplome]

Three executives who work with my husband flew BA yesterday (two different flights).

All reported, after much initial apprehension, that the flights were very pleasant with friendly crew. One mentioned in particular the work of the ground staff in setting a positive tone.

Well done BA.:ok:

[JB007]

According to BBC News 24, nearly half of the flights cancelled have been re-instated due to so many Cabin Crew not supporting the industrial action...

Truth or Propagander?!?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I've largely ceased to rely on Media info, as they never seem to check facts properly [cf Unite's claim of 20 ac parked up at Cardiff, which they all happily regurgitate as fact].

[Rusland 17]

I've largely ceased to rely on Media info, as they never seem to check facts properly [cf Unite's claim of 20 ac parked up at Cardiff, which they all happily regurgitate as fact].As far as I can see, the BBC is reporting each side's claims, including this one, as exactly that - claims - and is not merely "regurgitating them as fact":
Unite said a number of planes had been stacked up at airports, including 85 parked planes at Heathrow, 20 at Cardiff and 20 in Shannon.I do wonder, however, just how difficult it can be to validate such claims. After all, 20 planes parked up at CWL must be pretty hard to miss, and it wouldn't take half an hour for someone from BBC Wales to nip down to check...

[petit plateau]

I flew BA from Hamburg to LHR on Sat.

The flight was fairly full, and from a passenger perspective absolutely fine. On landing at LHR it seemed to me that there were more non-BA livery planes than usual at T5. Within T5 it seemed slightly less busy than usual. I am not a frequent/regular BA user so I can't be too sure on either point but it certainly was not an amazing number of non-BA planes, or an amazingly empty T5. If I had not known from the media that there was a strike on then I would not have even thought that there was something unusual at all.

The previous week I had to change an Expedia booking of BA in order to get to Hamburg (due to some weather problems that stranded me in Denver with Delta). The Expedia link to the BA website went better than I have ever seen it and I was able to modify my booking with no extra cost at all. I do not know if this is usual or if it was a sweetener to cope with the industrial action dsisruption but it was greatly appreciated by me. I run my own small business and any additional costs are most unwelcome (especially as I was actually travelling on something that was essentially a pro bono mission). It would be good to know if this was usual or unusual as it would affect my booking choices in the future (I always book cheapest ticket type, but not necessarily cheapest airline/route/time).

I had a bad spell with BA about 5-10 years ago that made me not prefer them and it is only recently that I have started considering them in my travel planning. From what I have seen over the last couple of weeks I will consider them more frequently in the future - especially if prices reduce more as otherwise it can be hard to justify to myself vs the locos.

Hope this is factual enough to be of help.

[Diplome]

Not exactly the most wonderful story for striking Cabin Crew.

Do these people not understand that you don't HAVE to talk to the press?

Late-night revelry of the BA cabin crews - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7488942/Late-night-revelry-of-the-BA-cabin-crews.html)

[ExXB]

Mythbusters (albeit hearsay) BA Parking at Shannon? - boards.ie (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65003122)

(Also hope it's OK to link to another forum like this.)

[teddybear44]

Thanks for that. I know myself what it's like when it turns to clag and how frustrating it is. During the January weather probs, I checked in, went through the security and in that time they shut down the best part of the short haul program including my flight and then all of us passengers trooped out in our thousands to try again later. I just had to suck it up. I did struggle to understand why it was so, since it was, by that time, blue skies etc but it seems that complex crewing agreements and logistics on the ground contribute to frustrate the best efforts to operate at times like that. This is why they need to modernise and I think the man at the top is right in what he is doing. That being said there are so many people on the front lines who see themselves as 'company' men and women and who give of their utmost accordingly. Maybe you don't get that committment everywhere and he should value that too. Like you I'm hoping for better things. Cheers.

Ted

[Cherwell]

The real reason for the strike.

I can see similarities with the miners’ strike 20 years ago. They objected to the closure of pits that were not economically viable. The management dug in and the dispute was about the ‘right to manage’.

BA union agreements dating back to the days when the airline was a government run bureaucracy stipulate that the unions must be consulted on the minutiae of their operations. So when competitive economic pressure requires a reduction in the number of crew on a flight, the union digs its heels in. Once again, the dispute is about the ‘right to manage’.

Mrs Thatcher saw what was coming, stock piled coal, and appointed Ian McGregor as the man to take on the NUM. I’m sure the BA board also saw what was coming and appointed Willie Walsh as the man to take on the union. This dispute was going to happen sooner or later and the stakes are very high indeed. Either the union will have to back down or BA will not survive the modern era.

[call100]

call100:

The point you miss is that the CC only get to vote on what the union puts before them. So, on Friday when BA presented their offer the Union did not allow their members to vote on this offer. Instead they said they could not recommend it to their members - and then announced strike dates. Since BA had only made the offer on the understanding that dates would not be announced, Unite must have known that announcing dates for a strike would cost BA a significant sum and that the offer would therefore be withdrawn.

Given that it seems around 50% of CC reported for work today it would seem likely that the majority of Unite members would have voted for the BA offer - if only they'd been allowed.
They would have voted to accept the offer agreed with the negotiating team, except that Walsh pulled it from under everyone's feet without any notice, (including to his own negotiating team)...He didn't want a settlement. There are more than a few in his management team who think it's time he went.
I wouldn't believe any of the figures coming out of the strike regarding how many turned up or didn't. Rarely will Joe Public get the truth...

[ChicoG]

They would have voted to accept the offer agreed with the negotiating team, except that Walsh pulled it from under everyone's feet without any notice, (including to his own negotiating team)...He didn't want a settlement. There are more than a few in his management team who think it's time he went.

If you think they would have voted to accept the offer, then why did UNITE call strikes?

A: Because BASSA didn't want their members to settle. That would mean them having to accept doing a bit of work. And McLuskey wants to make his name coming up to the UNITE leadership contest.

Woodley agreed with Walsh the 23 day extension to consider the offer, in return for not calling a strike. McLuskey announced the strikes. Walsh rightly withdrew the offer based on that absurd decision. McLuskey knew exactly what he was doing and understood the consequences.

Had UNITE asked their members to vote on the offer, and it had been accepted, there was your very simple solution to this dispute.

UNITE and BASSA do not want to settle. They want everything to stay as it was and sod the rest of BA.

They are reaping what they have sown as far as I am concerned.

And for Woodley to complain about the subsequent offer being worse, what does the idiot expect when UNITE and BASSA have just cost the seriously loss-making British Airways another 27 million pounds?

This union need to learn that it doesn't run BA, and Walsh is just the man to teach them.

[Global Warrior]

Quote:
Unite said a number of planes had been stacked up at airports, including 85 parked planes at Heathrow, 20 at Cardiff and 20 in Shannon.
Clearly this is NOT the truth

Another rep is claiming that there is massive disruption of BA Flights at LHR

He was standing close to the perimeter so only opening his eyes and looking up would prove him to be very economical with the truth

Allegedly BASSA reps called in sick rather than strike

UNITE did not allow the members to ballot on the final offer from BA

Why on earth would any professional body want to align themselves with BASSA or UNITE? Just based on the above its obvious that WW has more respect for CC than those union reps that represent the CC.

It seems its time to put your uniform on, wear it with pride, go back to work and denounce those that have put you in this position.

Yes there was a ballot and overwhelmingly the result was a yes to IA.......BUT a very reasonable offer was made by WW and the union did not even let the membership vote on it......... because they knew it would probably be accepted. Just that one reason alone is enough to question whether your union is representing you or not.


WW made it quite clear that if strike dates were announced, that is the point at which it would start costing BA due to cx reservations etc and that any offer would be withdrawn. The union went ahead and announced dates anyway!!!

[Cymmon]

In my opinion (whether right or wrong), if my company imposed a relative pay cut onto me after years of massive profits I would be upset. I would certainly consider strike action, if not I would operate to the absolute basics of my contract and ensure customers knew of my unhappiness. This, may, probably would stop people from re-booking, hence a loss of revenue.

BUT, if the company explained and proved the story, then said in a year or two, when its proven that the company is in profit (Plc´s have to issue statements), that they would then give me a guarenteed increase in pay commensurate with the increase in profits, then I would certainly look at working for and with the company to meet this target. Hence happy staff = happy customers and = re-bookings. Everyone is happy.

Impose cuts = even more problems, Talk, be open = helpful staff.

PS: References to the scum government who "broke" the miners strike is detestable. That low life, paid people to send in coal at greater cost just to close the mines. This was not just about Scargill, this was a Conservative government shutting down the North of England at ANY cost. They even took out steel. They broke my family up as some went to work others didn´t, it´s called divide and conquer! Any decent dictator knows how to do it!

I worked for a company and was involved in a 3 week strike. We came out worse off, I left. This same company is regularly involved in strike ballots and action 4 years later, suprisingly due to bullying and intimidation of the work force. Shame they have to ensure shareholders HAVE to have a 10% increase in dividend payments year on year, as promised by the top board.
Shame too that they forget that the people they intimidate also fetch in the revenue.
Another ballot is due soon, the 7th one. Some people never learn.

[Andy_S]

I would operate to the absolute basics of my contract and ensure customers knew of my unhappiness.

What a very professional attitude. Not.

This was not just about Scargill

Indeed. It was about who ran the country. The government or the unions. Make no mistake, Scargill had bigger ambitions than just miners jobs - he wanted to bring a democratically elected government down, and the miners were his cannon fodder. Question - where is Arthur Scargill now? Answer - living in a good deal of comfort, while many of the people he was supposed to be representing lost everything. Do you see the parallel with the BA Cabin Crew and BASSA?

[Cymmon]

My contract expects of me what is stated. I would do that, simple. I believe that this is the professionalism expected of me. The customers would know of my unhappiness purely due to the fact I did the job I was paid for. I would not use initiative (possibly a disciplinary for that), and would not try to help more than was expected.
If i believed I could improve myself I would give more.

[ben turpin]

I haven't read all the posts but a few seemed a bit facetious - as retired cabin crew member who joined in 1971 I used to look back with great fondness to the old Anchorage slips, the room parties but mostly to the camaraderie which existed in my day. Call me a dinosaur but I can't see present serving members being able to feel the same way. Hard to say if the strike could have been averted but surely everyone was aware of the perilous state of the company's finances - if the dire situation could have been made clear in maybe a less bombastic & belligerent way by certain managers & reasonable ways of saving costs suggested rather than draconian imposition maybe things wouldn't have got to this stage. Just saw the News a while ago & for some Unite rep to say that the strike is going well is moronic in the extreme - how can so many people's travel plans + the massive losses incurred by refunding or rebooking pax possibly be regarded as 'going well'? Finally, I hope all crew have opted out of donating money to Unite by choosing a charity instead otherwise their subscriptions will go straight back to Labour (are there really 200 MP's who are Unite members???)

[call100]

If you think they would have voted to accept the offer, then why did UNITE call strikes?

A: Because BASSA didn't want their members to settle. That would mean them having to accept doing a bit of work. And McLuskey wants to make his name coming up to the UNITE leadership contest.

Woodley agreed with Walsh the 23 day extension to consider the offer, in return for not calling a strike. McLuskey announced the strikes. Walsh rightly withdrew the offer based on that absurd decision. McLuskey knew exactly what he was doing and understood the consequences.

Had UNITE asked their members to vote on the offer, and it had been accepted, there was your very simple solution to this dispute.

UNITE and BASSA do not want to settle. They want everything to stay as it was and sod the rest of BA.

They are reaping what they have sown as far as I am concerned.

And for Woodley to complain about the subsequent offer being worse, what does the idiot expect when UNITE and BASSA have just cost the seriously loss-making British Airways another 27 million pounds?

This union need to learn that it doesn't run BA, and Walsh is just the man to teach them.
They couldn't vote on an offer that wasn't there. Simple...If the offer was there then the staff would have been asked to vote on it.
The rest of the post is not at all accurate, but, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[Global Warrior]

They couldn't vote on an offer that wasn't there. Simple...If the offer was there then the staff would have been asked to vote on it.


The offer was tabled by WW before the strike dates were officially announced. WW stipulated, if strike dates are announced, the offer is withdrawn. The reason the members were not allowed to vote on it is down to the actions of UNITE........ not WW

[ChicoG]

They couldn't vote on an offer that wasn't there. Simple...If the offer was there then the staff would have been asked to vote on it.

Why wasn't the offer there? Because UNITE/BASSA called a strike when it was agreed the offer that WAS on the table would be withdrawn if they did. We seem to be going round in circles here.

The rest of the post is not at all accurate, but, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Prove me wrong by all means. It's called debate.

In my opinion (whether right or wrong), if my company imposed a relative pay cut onto me after years of massive profits I would be upset. I would certainly consider strike action, if not I would operate to the absolute basics of my contract and ensure customers knew of my unhappiness. This, may, probably would stop people from re-booking, hence a loss of revenue.

Let's get it right, shall we? The only people asking for pay cuts have been BASSA!

BA ask to remove one crew member to make a specific saving. They did not ask for any pay cuts, or loss of allowances. The only sacrifice required from cabin crew was to cover that member of staff, asking the CSD to work the service - as they've been doing at Gatwick for years, which is why LGW are almost universally ignoring the strike call.

I agree that CC should negotiate some kind of reward for when the profits return, but with BASSA and UNITE negotiating, this was never going to happen.

In fact, the word is that Share Options were on the table (as they were for the pilots), but BASSA and UNITE cocked that up by refusing to negotiate from the time their initial "offer" was shown to be worth so little, to the June deadline on to the November imposition and, arguably, ever since.

I fully support Unions and they have an important role to play, but they have to be run for the membership, and not for the political ends of the union leadership or the sheer bloody minded selfishness of the BASSA reps.

This Union are a shower of :mad: and have so badly let down its membership.

If the membership weren't going to get rid of them, then Walsh had to. Hopefully, when the members see what was offered and what these weasels turned down, they will turn on them and kick them out of office.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Quote:
They couldn't vote on an offer that wasn't there. Simple...If the offer was there then the staff would have been asked to vote on it.
The offer was tabled by WW before the strike dates were officially announced. WW stipulated, if strike dates are announced, the offer is withdrawn. The reason the members were not allowed to vote on it is down to the actions of UNITE........ not WW

It couldn't hardly have been expressed more clearly. And it has been said endlessly here, and on other forums.

BA - we'll talk more if you don't strike, otherwise the offer's withdrawn.
UNITE - we'll strike.
UNITE - oooh, you withdrew the offer.

How difficult is that to comprehend?
Clearly, TOO difficult for some people in Unite.

[emanresuym]

The offer was tabled by WW before the strike dates were officially announced. WW stipulated, if strike dates are announced, the offer is withdrawn. The reason the members were not allowed to vote on it is down to the actions of UNITE........ not WW


I think its also important to remember that before they announced strike dates, Unite said that they would NOT recommend the offer to the union members. Yet for some reason once it was withdrawn they demanded that WW put it back on the table. :ugh:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

As has been said earlier on PPRuNe, this will be a Test Case for future students of IR. How on earth is one supposed to negotiate with people who simply ignore facts and clear-cut statements?

I'm not in any way denying the right of Unions and Management to disagree, and to try to negotiate a way out of an impasse. But the utter stupidity [followed by blatant lies] from Unite really makes me wonder about the sanity of some of those involved.

[OK, I know there are Union politics and power-positioning at play as well. But the way it has been [mis-]handled would seem to offer little credibility for those engaged in the "Great Game" on the Union side.]

[Blythy]

PS: References to the scum government who "broke" the miners strike is detestable. That low life, paid people to send in coal at greater cost just to close the mines. This was not just about Scargill, this was a Conservative government shutting down the North of England at ANY cost. They even took out steel. They broke my family up as some went to work others didn´t, it´s called divide and conquer! Any decent dictator knows how to do it!

I'd see the point of this argument, but Sunderland, one of the places really hurt by thatcher, apparently, by the closure of the mines and the shipyards, did get a massive car factory in return. Which was campagined for by thatcher of all people. I'm pretty sure that Sunderland is in a much better position now that it was in early 80s, as is the rest of the north. I'd also argue that Sunderland's devotion to Labour is harming the city (see the vaux site and other developments) as the council is too feckless and arrogant. But that's beside the point.

Can someone let me know why gatwick crew are striking? I thought it was all about heathrow T&C being brought into line with the gatwick staff?

[call100]

The problem on here seems to be the source of any information gained......So basically it is going to turn into the usual arguments based purely on ones view of the Politics. Doubt anyone actually contributing on here (including me) is in full possession of the facts. I know who I prefer to believe and I'm sure everyone else has their own 'side of the fence', so I guess everyone will have to wait and see how it pans out.
One thing is certain. The rantings on here will have absolutely no effect, either way, on the outcome.....:(

[emanresuym]

One thing is certain. The rantings on here will have absolutely no effect, either way, on the outcome.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif


call100: Finally something we can ALL agree on :ok:

[al446]

To all who are referencing the miner's strike - It was not about T&Cs, shutting mined out pits or anything other than the Plan For Coal being ripped up by Thatcher's government, this had been agreed with the NUM as part of ongoing reviews but she wanted to bring about confrontation as Heath had been dragged down by the miners, he famously pitched the question "who governs this country?" and was informed via the ballot box that it wasn't him. She never forgot that and acted accordingly.

The Nissan plant came about not because of Thatcher's lobbying but because the area qualified for EU subsidies due to its depressed nature, brought about in no small part by the actions of HMG.

I agree that the union has not played its best in this dispute but can see their point, comparisons with LGW CC are not relevant, they were hired on different contracts. The CC affected are looking at not just extra work due to reduction of compliment but also a pay freeze ie drop due to inflation. It is every worker's right to withdraw their labour in this position.

[west lakes]

were hired on different contracts.

But those that have been there longer than 3 or 4 years saw a contract change (downwards) negotiated by BASSA and others

[al446]

But those that have been there longer than 3 or 4 years saw a contract change (downwards) negotiated by BASSA and others

And they had the same right to strike as at present. They chose not to, that should have no bearing on present circumstances, their regrets may actually inform the decisions of some at LHR.

[LHR747]

Unite are the belligerent party here.

It takes a considerable amount of talent, initiative, hard work and effort to manage an airline and to steer it through the complex global regulations and turbulent waters of the aviation industry and fluctuating economic conditions. It takes years of hard work by all those who have toiled so hard and diligently to make a company successful and provide employment for thousands of people and a service for millions of others.

Whilst it only takes a matter of days for the few mindless fools from the Unite leadership to call a strike and tear it all down.

[LHR747]

The strike is collapsing. Here is a posting from a cabin crew member on BA's world wide fleet:

I thought I would give you an update from the floor!

I was rostered to operate a flight yesterday morning, which I did without any problems. I parked at the carpark and took the bus to T5 with some other crew. I definitely wasn't alone and there were probably 7 or 8 other cabin crew on the bus. I got to the CRC and found it to be very crowded. There were crew everywhere and I talked to one of the managers who said they didn't expect such a high turnout. This is why very few volunteers never got to work yesterday. If BASSA honestly believes 80% crew were on strike they are living in denial.

My flight operated with a full crew complement (no volunteers or ICC). The flight was chock-a-block but it went extremely well. All crew did an excellent job and all the passengers were pleased that they were getting to their destination.

I listened to what BF was saying yesterday and it's extremely worrying that crew will be let go after this strike. This would be compulsory redundancies in a very long time in the history of BA. Our beloved union BASSA can be held responsible for this. Well done BASSA!

This strike is almost coming to an end and I'm confident BA will deal with next weekend's strike too.

[Global Warrior]

From ITN

Unite and the airline clashed over the impact of the first two days of a three-day walkout, giving wildly different statements about the numbers supporting the action.

Chancellor Alistair Darling said the strike was "totally unnecessary" and continued the government line that the two sides needed to resume talks.

Tony Woodley, joint leader of Unite attacked the "macho" management style of chief executive Willie Walsh and said it was time for the airline's chairman Martin Broughton and "sensible" directors to intervene.

He said that despite "propaganda" from BA about the number of staff working during the weekend's strike, he was certain that the vast majority of Unite members were taking industrial action: "Contrary to the spin from the company about this strike collapsing, only nine cabin crew have broken ranks and 80 have gone sick. I am now appealing to the BA chairman and sensible members of the board to use their influence, put passengers first, and return to the negotiating table for the good of everyone."

Mr Woodley wrote an open letter to cabin crew congratulating them on their "magnificent" support for the strike, which is due to continue on Monday, followed by a four day walkout from next Saturday.


Amazing. Still banging on about how successful they are. I really would not have these people representing me. You would never know if they were telling the truth or not

[Two-Tone-Blue]

On the basis of that last [reported] bit of gibberish from Mr Woodley, I think there are strong grounds for Mr Walsh and BA to carry on under the current arrangements.

No conflict, no arguments, no negotiations ... just let Unite and BASSA fade gently into the sunset, taking their handful of militants with them.

[Ooops ... have I revealed Mr Walsh's game plan? :oh: ]

[JackMcHammocklashing]

Quote:
You deplore employees traveling in Business Class??? Try and fly 24 hours to Sydney and then get off the plane at 6.30am and be in the office for 9am to do a productive day's at work on site with a client that earns your company £1250 minimum!
Then go a day earlier. Even a nights hotel won't bust the bank comparing the difference between business and economy fares. When my old company went through the cost cutting regime, we did this and it wasn't unpleasant at all.


"To earn the company £1250" err less than the cost of the flight

Best take Evanelplus advice , go economy stay overnight in an Hotel

Jack

[JackMcHammocklashing]

"(I've recounted this before) Working for a client in HKG in the 90s. LHR-SFO two days biz for them. SFO-HKG arrive 18:00 and straight to bed. Arrived office Thursday morning knowing that the Friday was the BIG day with the three finalists in the Tender doing their presentations on a critical communications project. I was the lead consultant. So I had a day to catch up.

No. I was told the presentations had been brought forward to save a day. They had made me do both long hauls in Y as they would not pay more (PE did not exist). Result? I fell asleep during the presentations."

Sorry I do not get it?

You flew early and had a nights sleep, then arrived at the conference refreshed and ready to go but the main work had been done the day before as it had been brought forward, In which case, you would have arrived at the office at exactly the same time as you did only having slept on board on the way business class
(A night in a hotel is a much sounder sleep than on a flight)

You would have been a day late anyway but not refreshed!

Jack

[PAXboy]

JackMcHammocklashingSorry I do not get it?Sorry if I did not spell it out. Within four days, I had done two days business and travelled two thirds of the way around the globe in Y (some 21 hours of flight time alone, excluding airport time). I had one night's sleep at my destination with my body clock still out by eight hours. So I fell asleep at work.

Had the client have paid for me to get better rest on the two nights I had in Y, then he would have got his money's worth out of me. But he decided to 'save' money on the flight - because it could be seen by his manager. The fact that he lost money on me being non-productive was not visible to his manager. But his staff knew that he had penny pinched and were sympathetic to my situation. So - we ALL lost.

Now, back to the subject of the thread:
LH747Whilst it only takes a matter of days for the few mindless fools from the Unite leadership to call a strike and tear it all down.
Hhmmm, not quite. The mgmt have been doing that for 20 years but, due to the union's backward looking action - they will cop a huge amount of the blame.

[Litebulbs]

The mgmt have been doing that for 20 years but, due to the union's backward looking action - they will cop a huge amount of the blame.

That sums the whole thing up in one sentence.

[etrang]

Amazing. Still banging on about how successful they are.

What else can they do? They are in the middle of a strike, either they try and spin it as sucessful or they give up now. Clearly they are not yet ready to admit defeat.

Do you really expect Unite to say; "support for the strike has been less than expected, it looks like BA is going to win but we are continuing with the strike because we don't have any better ideas"?

[ChicoG]

Someone took the time to research and refute the BS from the BASSA Ministry of Disinformation:

The following is a point-by-point break down of Unite The Union’s press releases yesterday morning, Saturday the 20th of March:

- Unite The Union Release: British Airways has managed to fly only one third of its normal scheduled departures

- BA Strike Fact: British Airways publicly stated it would be operating 65% of its regularly scheduled flights during the strike a week prior to the strike. British Airways actually exceeded its estimates of 65% by reinstating more than 20 flights when more cabin crew than expected reported for duty.

- United The Union Release: BA’s flagship terminal T5 is a ghost town as passengers stay away

- BA Strike Fact: By all reported by witnesses on the ground, Heathrow Terminal 5 was very active. Passengers activity may have been a bit lighter than usual, however the first day of the strike was a Saturday and some people has swapped flights t avoid the strike, however by all independent eye witness reports T5 was busy.

- Unite The Union Release: The first long haul BA flight out (10am) was to Abu Dhabi

- BA Strike Fact: The first British Airways long haul flight to depart was in fact flight BA 117 to New York’s JFK at 8:20am. It departed on-time.

- Unite The Union Release: From 12.20pm until 2.30pm only 10 flights departed from Heathrow, normally there would be 50 during the same period

- BA Strike Fact: Between 12:20pm and 2:30pm the departure board from BAA’s London Heathrow Airport shows that 34 British Airways flights pushed back and departed the airport.

- Unite The Union Release: 20 more planes had been moved to Cardiff to be parked, and a further 20 flown to Shannon, in western Ireland, to sit out the strike

- BA Strike Fact: British Airways positioned and parked no aircraft at either Cardiff or Shannon.

- Unite The Union Release: By 2pm, only one flight to JFK airport had departed – normally there are five

- BA Strike Fact: Three British Airways flights from London Heathrow to New York’s JFK had departed before 2:00pm. BA 117 departed on-time at 8:20am; BA 175 departed 17 minutes late at 11:00am; BA 177 departed onetime at 1:35pm. Later in the day BA 115 departed on-time at 4:00pm and BA 179 departed on-time at 5:55pm.

- Unite The Union Release: At Gatwick, one third of flights have failed to take off

- BA Strike Fact: British Airways operated well above 66% of its London Gatwick flights. Independent reports verify that crews staffing at Gatwick were at expected levels.

It is worth nothing that yesterday during the strike various independent sources verified that 52.5% of British Airways’ Heathrow based cabin crews had reported for duty, as well as 97% of Gatwick’s cabin crew personnel. In various press statements Unite The Union has stated that 80% of its members were supporting the strike and not reporting to duty. The numbers issued by Unite, even in comparison to non-union cabin crews working during the strike, do not add up to 80% of its union members supporting the strike.

Since this Union have been lying to everyone, its members included, for more than a year, none of their current litany of lies raises even a gentle eyebrow to those in the know.

[tomkins]

I think that any information released by either BA or BASSA may be open to interpretation.
Although BA 177 to JFK did leave on time it was empty of pax and only had three flight crew on board,presumably sent out to pick up a crew who were in place in jfk and who would have to opperate back ,plus pax of course.
Just wonder how much of all this is mis-information.

[ChicoG]

Although BA 177 to JFK did leave on time it was empty of pax and only had three flight crew on board,presumably sent out to pick up a crew who were in place in jfk and who would have to opperate back ,plus pax of course.

Tomkins,

There is no attempt at misinformation in the author's statements.

If you read it again, UNITE never mentioned passengers, either.

- Unite The Union Release: By 2pm, only one flight to JFK airport had departed – normally there are five

- BA Strike Fact: Three British Airways flights from London Heathrow to New York’s JFK had departed before 2:00pm. BA 117 departed on-time at 8:20am; BA 175 departed 17 minutes late at 11:00am; BA 177 departed onetime at 1:35pm. Later in the day BA 115 departed on-time at 4:00pm and BA 179 departed on-time at 5:55pm.

All the author is trying to do is point out that UNITE/BASSA, as ever, are telling lies or have poor information (I have my own opinion on that).

The above information would seem to be independently verifiable, as are most of his other points, aren't they?

Whereas ALL of UNITE/BASSA's claims are not.

(Several people wrote to Sky and BBC News asking them to send someone to Cardiff and verify UNITE/BASSA's claims - miraculously, UNITE then claimed that all 40 aircraft that they "claimed" were parked at Shannon and Cardiff had been mysteriously moved back to Heathrow - which I assume costs a lot more in parking fees?).

I think UNITE's unsubstantiated claims are there for all to see. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak.

Another pair of claims just now on Sky:

BA state 98% of CC turned up for work at Gatwick yesterday, and 53% at Heathrow.

Unite claim only 13.5% turned up for work.

Who do you think is right? (For a start, who actually has access to the employee attendance information?)

[TruBlu123]

In the fog of war truth is the first casualty. Don't forget that Bassa/UNITE have at their disposal the finest example of the black art of propaganda namely Charlie Whelan. Mind you what he knows about aviation will not add up to a row of beans but heh does that matter to idealogues such as him.
I'm sure that a number of the departures from T5 were only carrying freight BUT the important point is that there would be a CC complement on board to operate the return as well as keep aircraft rotations as close to the programme for a full bounce back on Tuesday.
I have just heard an interview with an investor from Schroeders who are one of the biggest holders of BA stock. No panic there. As far as they are concerned BA needs to get its operating costs down and the current actions by the airline have their support.
:O

[BillS]

Shareprice (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BAY.L#chart2:symbol=bay.l;range=1m;indicator=volum e;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;sour ce=undefined) says it all!

[Safety Concerns]

AS to what is being reported as fact and what isn't, you need to take it all with a pinch of salt.

Unite in their usual incompetence are however stating it as it is, as they are talking about passenger flights continuing on their way with passengers. Remove all the flights that departed empty (freight only) from the BA statistic and it will look rather different.

That comment has nothing to do with my personal view on the situation or who I support.

[mary meagher]

Teamsters supporting BA cabin crew? O dear.

The history of the teamsters demonstrates how entrenched organised labour in the US is a long way from doing good for the common man. Or exercising any cooperation during national emergencies. The teamster priority has always been to make sure that any jobs available go to their own membership. Good old Jimmy Hoffa. Nice to see the family tradition being carried on.

I couldn't imagine the Teamsters having any kind of presence at JFK. Philadelphia, perhaps.

(We used to be amused by the adverts of THE SICILIAN ASPHALT COMPANY. Concrete overshoes provided.)

[Winch-control]

''Contrary to the spin from the company about this strike collapsing, only five cabin crew have broken ranks and 80 have gone sick," Unite's joint leader Tony Woodley said." (FT)

He appealed to the BA board to bypass Walsh and resolve the dispute to halt a second round of industrial action due to start Saturday, which is targeting the busy Easter holiday period.

So why exactly if the strike is so effective does Woodley wish to bypass Walsh?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ baggersup ... thanks for the report on Teamsters. :ok:

[ChicoG]

He appealed to the BA board to bypass Walsh and resolve the dispute to halt a second round of industrial action due to start Saturday

He can appeal all he wants, but he ought to read the FT:

As the airline and union traded claims about the impact of the strike, Tony Woodley, Unite’s joint general secretary, said he was trying to contact Martin Broughton, BA chairman, to help end the dispute before a second four-day stoppage next Saturday.

Mr Broughton told the Financial Times last night he had no intention of intervening “because Willie Walsh is doing a great job” and the entire board supported him.

“The ball is in Tony Woodley’s court,” Mr Broughton said.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

If I was BA for the next strike period i'd operate a full flying programme and have the "spare" sub chartered aircraft sitting at LHR as back up aircraft.
OK a few flights may be cancelled and a few punters would miss out but the strike will have lost it's direction and crew will report.
Lastly, why are all the Unite Officials from Liverpool....:\

[Phil Rigg]

Regarding the mysterious increase from 85 to 140 parked aircraft at Heathrow. I recall Unite saying at the time that they announced the alleged 85 aircraft with the other 20 at Cardiff and 20 at Shannon that this was because there was only room for 85 maximum at Heathrow.

I know nothing of the facts here but I can tell that someone is either contradicting themselves or even possibly telling porkies and not doing it in a clever way.

It was also very telling to hear yesterday of Unite calling for the intervention of the BA Chairman & Board which was rejected by a firm announcement from the Chairman this morning declaring support by the Board for its CEO commenting further that they thought the CEO was handling the situation very well.

Spending substantial money on international travel to the US seeking their union support was also a marginal play.

These are all clear signs of a side that is losing the negotiation and we will expect to hear and see even more desperate, and even bordering on pathetic, statements and actions in the days ahead.

Unite handled the negotiation competently, if not somewhat clumsily, up until calling strike action a week ago Friday when they had secured their best offer yet. What they failed to learn is that with the substantially increased pro-employee statutory employment legislation, when compared to the '70s, the power of strike action today lies in the threat and not in the action.

They could also do with sharpening their business negotiation skills which anyone who has the responsibility for running a business realises that in any negotiation the optimum tightness for the screw is to turn it until the head falls off and then back off by 1/4 turn but, ooops, by then the head has already fallen off!

[TruBlu123]

Bassa/Unite have not handled negotiations competently. BA has been at the table for 13 months with precious little to show for the time and effort. The union DID NOT sit down and have meaningful discussions throughout this period. The exception being when Woodley became involved. IMHO the problem lies with the Bassa leadership whom Unite have great difficulty in keeping in check.

[BOEING777X]

The quicker BA management start employing agency staff who are unable to strike, the quicker they can rid themselves of unionised crew (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/03/22/ba-strike) who clearly do not see the dire financial straits the airline is in.

They're deluding themselves if they think the Govt will step in to rescue BA if it hits the wall.

[sprthompson]

I'm hoping that BA survive this strike but the union get replaced - I think all the lies and propaganda they are peddling is unproffesional and childish, and the BA staff should leave them and not pay them any more money!

[lexxity]

Sky news reporting this morning that the 20 aircraft at Cardiff and Shannon are not so and are Unite fabrications.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I'm glad that 'correction' has made the Media.

[ChicoG]

Sky news reporting this morning that the 20 aircraft at Cardiff and Shannon are not so and are Unite fabrications.

Well done Sky! Now ask Steve Turner about it, and let's see how he weasels his way out of it by comparing it with Burma and Zimbabwe (which he did today, the obnoxious prat).

[ranger07]

The union has this morning claimed that more than 140 BA aircraft were standing idle at Heathrow, but this figure was disputed by a Sky News source which said it was closer to 36.

Does'nt give much credibility to Unite does it?:rolleyes:

[Airclues]

A reliable source has told me that BA are recording the claims made by Unite and intend to use them in a future court case. Apparently, if they can prove that untrue statements affected the finances of the airline, then they have a valid claim against Unite.

Can anyone with legal knowledge say whether this is possible?

[gsky]

Lastly, why are all the Unite Officials from Liverpool....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif

Answer:

Who else would employ them?

( and before anybody starts more "scouser" jokes. I am a "Scouser")

and so I can recognise a dyed in the wool socialist who prefers striking to working when I see one!

They have no interest whatsoever in their members, only their own "careers", and their socialist dogma!!

[Ancient Observer]

One minor point before we all get in to slagging off Scouse TU officials.

If you are old enough to remember Militant and its dire influence on Merseyside, It was the traditional TU Officials in the T & G, G & M and the other "private sector" TUs that got rid of Militant.

After that, most of the FTOs decided to represent other places.

[gsky]

Ancient Observer

Good point.

However

How would you describe Mr McCluskeys actions and words?

Militant or not?

[Dunhovrin]

In contrast to BA’s often-surly cabin crew, Virgin’s staff shine brightly and they work for half the pay

Nice to see you made it to The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7070287.ece), LHR747...

Off-thread slightly, and forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but a question for pilots working as CC: Have you got an arrangement with Security allowing you to bring your own water and food to work TFN?

[Global Warrior]

BA strike leader urges fresh talks
35 mins ago

The leader of striking British Airways cabin crew has made a fresh appeal for talks to end their dispute, which he said had cost the airline tens of millions of pounds. Skip related content

Tony Woodley, joint leader of Unite, also mounted another attack on the company for trying to "browbeat" its staff into accepting worse pay and conditions.

Mr Woodley, addressing a rally of striking union members at a football ground near Heathrow airport, said it was the "economics of the madhouse" for BA to be spending money on contingency plans to deal with a three-day strike by thousands of cabin crew, which ends at midnight on Monday, rather than seeking to resolve a bitter row over cost-cutting.

The dispute is costing BA tens of millions of pounds, with flights leaving empty of passengers and aircraft being leased from other firms at an estimated cost of £300,000 a time, he claimed.

He said: "The economics of the madhouse should now be put to one side. We need to reach a sensible, fair deal, to get this company up and running again, to get passengers flying again, to get all of the planes off the ground."

Mr Woodley, who has appealed to the BA chairman and "sensible" members of the board to intervene in the row, said the dispute was "extremely serious", adding that the only way to resolve it was for negotiations to resume.

It is understood that Mr Woodley has contacted TUC general secretary Brendan Barber about restarting talks which collapsed last week after BA tabled an offer Unite complained was worse than a previous one, which they could not recommend or even put to members.

To cheers from striking cabin crew, Mr Woodley said: "It is important to remain strong and determined to get a settlement you know is fair. Keep your heads up."

Business group London First, whose members include many of London's internationally-based businesses, said the capital's reputation as a centre for global trade was being damaged by the strike.

Chief executive Baroness Valentine said: "Despite the best efforts of BA management and many staff to continue to put the interests of passengers first, the strike is reminiscent of a best-forgotten era. The message from BA's London-based business customers to both sides is: Get back to the negotiating table, and to union members: Get back to work in the meantime."


The economics of the mad house!!!!! Oh dear

[Hipennine]

"A reliable source has told me that BA are recording the claims made by Unite and intend to use them in a future court case. Apparently, if they can prove that untrue statements affected the finances of the airline, then they have a valid claim against Unite.

Can anyone with legal knowledge say whether this is possible?"

Can't say, but I would guess that the same argument would also apply to:

A CC member who does not strike, but can prove detriment if they are eventually stuck with poorer terms than originally offered by BA, or

A striking CC member who argues that they only struck because of the misinformation put out by Unite, and suffer consequences of strike action

[jethrobee]

I flew on one of the charters this morning, great service, I was very very pleased to get out to my week of meetings with customers.

I would say T5 was slightly quieter than a normal Monday morning, at least the BA lounge seemed quieter. :ok:

[wiggy]

question for pilots working as CC: Have you got an arrangement with Security allowing you to bring your own water and food to work TFN?

No need. The aircraft are being loaded with catering for passengers and crew, though on some flights it's salads only............

[ANstar]

There is a poll on money expert - do you support the strike?

MoneySavingExpert.com Polls (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/22-03-2010/who-do-you-support-in-the-ba-strike)

[fincastle84]

We've just flown overnight TPA-LGW in J. It was about 2/3 full.

Despite landing 25 minutes late at TPA due headwinds, we were still airborne on time. Therefore I deduce that the Teamsters' union went out of their way to assist in a very speedy turn round.

The Captain set the tone for the flight by giving a rousing welcome to the pax & proudly announcing that the aircraft was crewed by a fully operational Gatwick crew, no volunteers required. He was also pleased to announce that we SLF were to receive a full meals service. This happened very speedily despite quite choppy clear air turbulence.

During the flight, surely a record at 7.5 hrs, I was able to have a lengthy chat with the purser about the present situation with Bassa. Time & space will not allow me to repeat the words used & opinion expressed; suffice to say that there is NO sympathy or understanding for or of Bassa's position.

Throughout the flight as always the service was both friendly & efficient.

One of our cases was unfortunately damaged at LGW during unloading. It was very quickly sorted out at the BA desk in the arrivals hall; a new one is on the way. Both BA staff members were totally scathing about the strike. They pointed out that they had taken their cuts a year ago so fail to see why LHR CC should be an exception. Again I won't repeat how they described grey haired CSDs!

As a result of our latest flight we are more than ever supportive of BA & the excellent crews & personnel. I cannot see any way in which Bassa & Unite can be allowed to bring down this great airline.

[sitigeltfel]

My wife is flying MRS - LGW tomorrow morning and the flight is being operated by Astreus. I have tried to log on to BA.com to manage the booking and print the boarding pass, but the site will not allow it. It looks like a case of turning up at Marseilles in the morning and hoping for the best.

Mrs S will be very disappointed if...

a, The flight is cancelled.
b, Bruce Dickinson is not the captain!

[SpringHeeledJack]

Myself and family are doing a long haul flight on Thursday. On the BA website it states that no warm food will be provided on the flight. We will survive, however could someone explain why if catering and ground handling are working normally and said meals only have to be heated by pressing a button by cabin crew, why is is unlikely that there will be warm meals onboard ?

Any answers appreciated.



SHJ

[emanresuym]

SpringHeeledJack:
I'm not certain, but I believe the reason is that BA is operating flights with fewer CC than they would normally - this enables them to operate more flights than if they all had the usual complement of CC.

[Stoic]

More Unite Fact or Fiction via the Guardian website Once Again Unite The Union Gets The Facts Wrong Regarding The British Airways Strike - Flying With Fish (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/03/22/once-again-unite-the-union-gets-the-facts-wrong-regarding-the-british-airways-strike/)

[TightSlot]

why is is unlikely that there will be warm meals onboard ?
Educated Guess: - Hot meals are usually slower to prepare and serve, and sometimes, to clear in than cold - they're also trickier to cook and prepare. Protective gloves would be required and additional training time.

A cold meal can't be burned or spoiled (unless dropped).

I assume that in the time available for training volunteer crew, none of this was viable.

[Skipness One Echo]

My concern, as SLF and a commercial analyst, is the cultural behavious of BASSA. They are currently stomping up and down personalising their CEO as Hitler, and BBC are quoting that their best hope is that the board go right around Willie Walsh and re-start negotiations directly with the union.

It is frightening to me, the lack of commercial awareness these pampered people have. They are now actively trying to bring down their own company (and colleagues) and topple the CEO. Might I remind them the board hired Willie Walsh having read his CV as a tough negotiator and VERY tough with unions. This is the reason that the share price is holding up well.

Willie was hired to destroy the dead grip of BASSA that prevents management managing without deferring to the all powerful and pampered dinosaurs.

If you think BA ought to be paying over the odds for Cabin Crew simply because they always have done, then you're mad! Swissair anyone? Sabena? UnitedThe childish personalisation of these schoolkids with their employer on t-shirts as Hitler beggars belief. Add that to the Iwo Jima motif on the website and I genuienly wonder what a bunch of fruitcakes BASSA really are.

[emanresuym]

An interesting article in the Telegraph yesterday...
Late-night revelry of the BA cabin crews - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7488942/Late-night-revelry-of-the-BA-cabin-crews.html)

This isn't going to get public opinion on the side of CC :eek:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

We've just flown overnight TPA-LGW in J. It was about 2/3 full.

Despite landing 25 minutes late at TPA due headwinds, we were still airborne on time. Therefore I deduce that the Teamsters' union went out of their way to assist in a very speedy turn round.

The Captain set the tone for the flight by giving a rousing welcome to the pax & proudly announcing that the aircraft was crewed by a fully operational Gatwick crew, no volunteers required. He was also pleased to announce that we SLF were to receive a full meals service. This happened very speedily despite quite choppy clear air turbulence.

During the flight, surely a record at 7.5 hrs, I was able to have a lengthy chat with the purser about the present situation with Bassa. Time & space will not allow me to repeat the words used & opinion expressed; suffice to say that there is NO sympathy or understanding for or of Bassa's position.

Throughout the flight as always the service was both friendly & efficient.

One of our cases was unfortunately damaged at LGW during unloading. It was very quickly sorted out at the BA desk in the arrivals hall; a new one is on the way. Both BA staff members were totally scathing about the strike. They pointed out that they had taken their cuts a year ago so fail to see why LHR CC should be an exception. Again I won't repeat how they described grey haired CSDs!

As a result of our latest flight we are more than ever supportive of BA & the excellent crews & personnel. I cannot see any way in which Bassa & Unite can be allowed to bring down this great airline.

J'accuse. You are obviously in the pay of WW, or Lord Ashcroft, or "Call me Dave".

How dare you come on here and present FACTS, and then start attacking baggage handlers as a side issue :ugh:

Glad you had a good trip, mate - the CAT always happens during meal service, of course. Much smoother down at 5,000 ft :ok:

[4t2b]

The one thing this debacle has brought to my attention is the disparity of the workloads between Long and Short Haul. I flew MIA-Edin the day before the strike began, the MIA-LHR leg was as normal. Lots of CC for the first hour or so then cabin dimmed and few CC in evidence; the CSD was never seen at all !

Contrast this on the connection up to EDI, a full (one hour delayed) a/c with minimum CC who work like the preverbial blue bottomed flies. A full hot breakfast and drinks service in a little over an hour! Magnificent !:D

Do the CC pay scales reflect the difference in work loads on the various routes?

[Ancient Observer]

gsky - I was not defending Mc Whatever, the Disunited fellow. I was jusy trying to put in some balance about Scousers. (I worked there in IR in the mid 70s. I think that Confucius offered me interesting times).

McWhatever simply wants the publicity.

AZ

(oh, no, I'm AO on here. My AZ slip must relate to your moniker)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ 4t2b ... exactly my regular experience.

LGW-JER, the guys & gals work their nuts off doing a full service on a sector of under 1 hour. Fantastic, efficient, cheerful.
LGW-MLA, faultless. Even with a delay due to 'unidentified package' the last time, 'Nigel' kept everyone informed.
LHR-IAD, the CC can't wait to get the main meal served and then ...... vanish.

I've developed a 'reputation' with the Mods for "slagging CC". Actually, I have always given credit where it's due. In my experience over the last few years, it's not due to LHR LH ... for some reason.



I'm only a paying J-class punter - my views frequently do not count, but my company's expenditure might.

[PAXboy]

My work regularly takes me to a venue where one of the staff is a retired BOAC CC (as he points out, in the days before trolleys and you walked up and down the aisle with a stack of trays loaded with china crockery, not plastic). His only observation was, "It all sounds like the disputes we had 25 years ago. You could not believe either side then - or now."

[wiggy]

"Tightslot" has it pretty much on the nose...if you're on a 777 service, it may in part be crewed by "volunteers" - pilots, ground staff and the like. They have been fully trained in the safety aspects of the 777 but have not received the training that would allow them to use the ovens, handle hot food, etc. If it's any consolation the cold food we had on board yesterday was fine.

[Ancient Observer]

If any crew members lose a few pounds due to the strike, they'll be extremely pleased that their leader will not lose any money,........

Union boss Derek Simpson enjoys perks - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4276786/Union-boss-Derek-Simpson-enjoys-perks.html)

[wascrew]

Have just seen the BBC news and could not believe the JUVENILE (no other word to describe it!) of the cabin crew at bedfont f.c.
Pig masks, underwear on a rope,hitler t-shirts,stupid childish songs and other ridiculous banners.
How are they supposed to be treated with any dignity and respect now or gain any ounce of public support?
Lost the plot??
I think so!!!!!!!!!!

However some may be brought back to earth tomorrow as reported on another thread that strikers who were due now avaialble for work tomorrow are being asked to report to the trsining centre (in civvies) where possibly they will be presented with take it or leave it contracts

Now that is when this becomes serious and not some stupid jolly!!

[Two-Tone-Blue]

"Professional" Cabin Crew?
Some are, some aren't ... just like any other sector of society.
I agree it does little for the dignity of their working colleagues [pick a %ge] but that's the way of life in 'Modern Britain'.

Personally, I would have had serious thoughts about trying to take on WW in the current scenario by behaving like that ... but then I do have serious thoughts at times, so it would never have happened anyway.

I don't wish them ill, I just feel so sorry that they have strutted as 'professionals' in the company of those who actually are.

[fincastle84]

Thanks for your red herring re the baggage handlers. They were even considerate enough to put the broken wheel alongside the suitcase!

My one regret is that as this forum is probably read by only a small percentage of BA CC my positive comments about our superb flight will not get to the people who really matter. The comments would help to counter balance some of the biased reporting from the Bassa Broadcasting Corporation.

Maybe a mod might allow them to be copied over to the other forum.:sad:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

fincastle84 ... certainly don't ask me to cross-post that one. :O

Actually, the broken wheel aspect says quite a lot for whoever was handling that bag. He cared enough to do that, which is nice. Well done! :ok:

Mods - would you accept one of us cross-posting that report?
Or do it yourselves?

[TightSlot]

More people view this forum than you might imagine fincastle84. However, I'll post a reminder in the close of play post on the CC Forum thread to try and ensure that those crew posting are aware.

[cym]

If you thought that the BBC was bad should have watched Sky - theirs was a disgrace and couldn't have been more pro BASSA if they tried,

In my opinion the BBC were more balanced

One critism of them all - check facts that BASSA hand out, eg 20 planes ins storage at CWL - not

Staff will use their coverage to help them make informed decissions in this dispute, and in this respect none of the broadcasters have covered themselves in glory

[wascrew]

Might there be questions on the quality/suitability to air travel of the bag too?

[west lakes]

Have just seen the BBC news and could not believe the JUVENILE (no other word to describe it!) of the cabin crew at bedfont f.c.Interestingly these

http://www.unitetheunion.com/pdf/Unite%20Rule%20book%20-%20effective%201%20May%2009.pdf

Contain this: -

RULE 27. MEMBERSHIP DISCIPLINE
27.1 A member may be charged with:27.1.5 Bringing about injury to or discredit upon the Union or any member of the
Union.I wonder what action if any Unite will take?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks, TightSlot. :ok:

I could imagine, at this time, you regretting ever being made a Mod! ;)

[LHR747]

The following is a quote from the posting by Dunhovrin:"...a question for pilots working as CC: Have you got an arrangement with Security allowing you to bring your own water and food to work TFN?"The inference made here is a thinly veiled threat, it has been reported to the authorities for investigation. Should this threat be shown to have come from a serving BA staff member then disciplinary action will surely follow.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

No response there, then. :sad:

However, all this sort of stuff is recoverable from data-logs at the server.

BTW - as SLF have been banned from the CC forum, you 'drivers' can fork off from here ;)

[cacti]

The Australian Pilots Dispute in 1989 (http://www.takver.com/history/pilotsdispute1989.htm) we all lost our jobs back in the late 80's-early 90's, it started with the pilots and then they went through the whole industry deregulating every job, we were told we would all be re-employed under new enterprise bargaining agreements but the reality was we were prosmised the world and given an atlas.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

The Australian Pilots Dispute in 1989 we all lost our jobs back in the late 80's-early 90's, it started with the pilots and then they went through the whole industry deregulating every job, we were told we would all be re-employed under new enterprise bargaining agreements but the reality was we were prosmised the world and given an atlas.

Yes, mate, life's a bitch - and then you marry one and then you die.

The reality is economics. You over-pay people, and eventually the chooks come home to roost. I'm lucky, I spent my life working for UK Military plc, so I was forked over every way you care to name. Don't even go there - I had a great life, a successful career, no regrets, no whinging either [which from a Pom is good going]. ;)

But just think [as a completely off-topic moment] why you all lost your jobs.
U N A F F O R D A B L E ?
it's not rocket science. It's called ...
E C O N O M I C S !
:ok:

[boe777]

British people are the real losers, British Airways was my pride, my Airline and at one point the best in the world.. pride of every British citizen, alas its no longer the case, it pains me to see a flagship Airline bearing my countrys name in complete shambles, I dont know what the real issue is with the Crew and the Management, but in this instance the Crew have let down Britain. The whole world is laughing at us.. I know over the years Bad management has led BA down the drain, but to top it up the crew is dragging BA to its grave.

I honestly wouldnt mind helping the crew who are still working inspite of strike on flight if I was flying.
Thats what I will say to all and everyone, lets do out bit to help our Airline.

[77]

Nice thought. Lets hope that those who feel that the current dispute is a big mistake will feel able to book their flights with BA and support the employees who still want a job. Especially those crew still working and doing their best to serve their customers, the passenger.
If you feel that BASSA and UNITE are out of order then maybe supporting BA by flying will help send a message. Hope you get a smiley crew as well.

[beamender99]

If you thought that the BBC was bad should have watched Sky - theirs was a disgrace and couldn't have been more pro BASSA if they tried,

In my opinion the BBC were more balanced



I understand BA are restricted in what they can say but unless they start facing the press they will hack them off and that will not help BA's cause.
One of the TV lunchtime reporters resorted to a hidden camera report from T5. Meanwhile however they perform BASSA is getting the air time.


One critism of them all - check facts that BASSA hand out, eg 20 planes ins storage at CWL - not



I phoned both the BBC and SKY news depts. to ask them to check this out. Pointing out that it was a very task to count the A/C at CWL or even to ask BA.
They had changed their reports by the next morning omitting CWL and SNN.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

i honestly believe that the minimal communication from BA is strategic, in that BA is allowing Unite to dig a large hole with its large mouth.

Apart from a very light rebuff to the Media about reporting 'inaccuracies', BA is saying very little other than offering reassurance to the passengers [oops - they're the ones that fund BA, aren''t they?]. BA are being cool and sensible, and running an airline - period.

Unite is just stamping its feet and talking more gibberish that a gibbon on speed, and lying its way into the history books as "Unite The Untruth".

I do feel so sorry for the people who have been led down this path. The reasons have been discussed at length before - no need to repeat that.

[cym]

But by then the damage had been done - truth had been lost. Most people never re-read an article and no retraction in terms if publishing false information was issued.

I'm ex CC and have many friends still in their community - you cannot believe how hard it is for them to get accurate independant information on which to base critical choices they need to make.

Sky - hang your head in shame
BBC - try harder

[fincastle84]

Very many thanks. I know that during my flight last night the CC members were very appreciative of the support from their pax.

The guys & gals at LGW are feeling very exposed during this dispute. They are very worried that they could ultimately suffer the axe through no fault of their own.

[cym]

M8

'Unite is just stamping its feet and talking more gibberish that a gibbon on speed'

Just love it! - I'm going to remember and use that putdown - its a classic!

Its the cannon fodder I feel sorry for

[DP.]

Apart from a very light rebuff to the Media about reporting 'inaccuracies', BA is saying very little other than offering reassurance to the passengers [oops - they're the ones that fund BA, aren''t they?]. BA are being cool and sensible, and running an airline - period.

Unite is just stamping its feet and talking more gibberish that a gibbon on speed, and lying its way into the history books as "Unite The Untruth".Very true TTB. The reaction to BA's statement today was a perfect example. BA simply lay out the fact that they are a plc and therefore have a responsibility to make sure that any information they release is, by law, truthful, to the best of their knowledge.

And how do Unite portray it?

"A brazen attempt to prevent media reporting Unite’s side of the present dispute. Not content with gagging cabin crew, so they cannot tell their side of the story, British Airways PR operation apparently wants to establish a monopoly of news coverage."

[midman]

Off-thread slightly, and forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but a question for pilots working as CC: Have you got an arrangement with Security allowing you to bring your own water and food to work TFN?
Thanks for the concern, but no need to bring our own food or drink in, there's cold food on the flights for passengers and cabin crew, and of course lots of hot drinks too.

And when I'm flying the aircraft, mine's a Tea white none please. ;)

[RTR]

Its becoming clear that BASSA are at the root of the problem here. By adopting the tactics of intimidation, lies and the fabrication of 'items that will surely impress' the 'leaders' have demeaned the cabin staff. That is not right and its not fair. And when you see, as we did yesterday, one rep who is reported to earn £50k and has only worked as a CSD (one of the lucrative jobs) for a very small number of hours in the past year, it is pretty clear that BASSA has a large group of self serving people at the helm, including militants. Unite have shown their true colours through Woodly so both unions are in the poo.

The girls and guys who are the cabin staff of BA deserve better, and it is pleasing to see that they have had enough and formed their own council. Now perhaps they will resign from BASSA en bloc.

I believe Willie Walsh and Bill Francis will keep their word. I believe that they will strive now to ensure the future of BA and its much valued staff. The cynics will have their say and the die-hards too but in the end BA will win. It is just a crying shame that it came to this.

[iwalkedaway]

Having flown to and from the US recently on BA and having experienced/sensed the pre-strike atmosphere amongst CC - which was plainly tense at that time - experience of onboard atmosphere during the strike has come as a stark contrast; as SLF it was a change on BA to see an apparently extremely cheerful crew sharing banter with one another and with us, the customers. One - OK, I will say it - typically more mature CC (female) told me that "It's nice to be doing what we're good at without worrying about what we do or say for fear of being reported - not to the management, but to BASSA...".

I found that staggering (perhaps naively). Have other SLF found bad atmosphere pre-strike, and relaxed and apparently happy team work on strike flights? Reading the CC thread itself there are several reports of refreshing atmosphere where they sign on for duty, lending weight to the above. Presuming those posts are genuine could this be the start of a cheery new world at BA LHR, LGW-based CC already seems to be there...since BASSA cut them adrift (I believe that's correct?). Leaving the militant tendency on the ground seems to have taken the poison out of the flights?

On PR, BA pronouncements, what few there have been, certainly seem to stack up as verifiable - in stark contrast to Unite's consistent untruths, exaggerations and whistling in the dark. Reminiscent of Pravda in fact? That man McLuskey also seems to have faded into the background - staying out of the limelight to the point of invisibility? Like our Great Leader himself, one might think. Sorry Mods, that bit's off-thread. But the change of atmosphere is significant, and it must do a great deal to make CC working conditions more pleasant than - probably - for several years?

iwalkedaway

[finncapt]

Probably can't post on the "real" thread.

I wanted to compliment Nurjio, comment last line of post 172, it really brought a smile to my face.

[Winch-control]

Everything appears back to normal at LHR this morning and not much in the online papers as yet either. Almost like the last three days were a non event.

Airport Departures & Arrivals (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do)

[TURIN]

ChicoG

I commented on Walsh refusing his bonus and I got this as a reply:


Quote:
I think it was deferred. He got it the following year.

You can think what you like. Before you post something that isn't true, I would ask you to prove it.


Steady on fella. I said 'think' because I was unsure and hoped someone would be able to verify (or otherwise) my claim.
I had based my comment on the memory of an article many months ago.

This was it.

Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, will receive an inflation-busting 6 per cent pay rise, taking his salary to £743,000 this year, and could gain £1.1 million in deferred share bonuses. (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6474165.ece)

It 'suggests' his bonus was deferred.

However as it is a newspaper article I accept that it could be highly misleading if not totally inaccurate.


Keep taking the pills ChicoG.

[just an observer]

Back in the day when my OH got a bonus in shares from BA, which is admittedly a long while back as they have not done it for ordinary employees recently, the shares were put in trust for 3 years and could not be sold during that period. If that applies to Mr Walsh's share bonus, that could be described as 'deferred'.

If that is the position, and he did forgo it as stated in the article, then it's gone permanently. How £550,000 share bonus got to be £1.1 million (ie double) in the headline, don't know, unless he is to get the bonus for two years under his remuneration package. At any event, he appears to have given up the first share bonus, and the year before's cash bonus, time will tell whether he takes the second share bonus if that's what he is due.

[etrang]

TURIN, I believe the article you posted was saying that the 2009 bonus would have been paid in "deferred shares" ie shares that Willie would not have access to and could not have sold immediately for cash, although it seems he did not even take those. I agree the article is not very clear and could be misinterpreted.

[Snas]

This may provide a bit more detail on this subject.

BA chief Willie Walsh to turn down bonus for third year running - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/5498590/BA-chief-Willie-Walsh-to-turn-down-bonus-for-third-year-running.html)

Frankly however, his pay, bonus etc is not an issue with regards to this dispute as far as I can see.

[wascrew]

Aah snas
but if you ask the strikers/bassa it is an issue to them
quite rightly i dont know why they keep bringing it up as the dispute is about their pay terms and conditions
but if you saw y/day at bedfont the crew see this as a battle between themselves and WW (the devil,hitler,pants,weewillie etc)
one winner in the battle methinks!!

[Ancient Observer]

I would like to know how and when BA can/will turn to the future way of employing and motivating their CC.

Clearly, some of the "CSD"s (what a stupid job title) are not doing their job at all. Rather, they are simply doing their best to maximise their income, and the Company and the staff can go hang as far as they are concerned.

Other "CSD"s perform better, for both the company and the CC.

Maybe one way forward would be to pay the CSDs only on the basis of CC and passenger feedback. Only non-striking CC would be able to fill in the confidential feedback on csd forms, (as this is Aviation, the form would be called something silly, like ConFoC), and CC and pax would comment on the CSD performance.

[Snas]

Well, I have just spent 5 mins of my life I wont get back reading this: - 'I was a BA cabin crew protestor' - Guardian Weekly (http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=1514&catID=1)

It brings nothing new to the table, but is perhaps an example of what the pickets looked like from within.

I really cant be bothered to read it again but I dont recall the author saying if he/she was actually on strike or not?

[wascrew]

Have been forwarded the following `tweets` from unite

``Where's Willie? Hasn't he heard the phrase 'it's good to talk'?

``Look at the pictures of all the planes parked up... BA says the strike had little effect - who do you believe!?``

both sent this am

[Skipness One Echo]

Rumour had it that BA were sending a few planes to take off and circle then land to make it look like a normal day; however you only had to go on the British Airways website to see this was not a normal day.

"Heathrow Ground, Speedbird Strikebreaker One, requesting push and start for visual circuits Runway 27L?"

:ugh:

There's a woman on the Sun website holding up a picture of WW as Hitler. When, and I hope it's when she gets dismissed for gross misconduct, do you think maybe she'll understand then? Planet BASSA!

[crippen]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01600/2103-MATT_1600593a.gif

[just an observer]

from the end of the Guardian article - "Eventually there will be no work for us and we will earn less. Obviously there will be no more promotion on the existing fleets either.

The current negations are dealing with this and the union has offered cost savings such as pay cuts and proposed that the new contracts fly integrated with us."

As I understand it (from the other thread for crew) the original offer way back in June 09 had no 'new fleet' as such and was presumably integrated - just as the lower rate of pay contracts since 97 or 99 have been integrated? But BASSA turned that down as it had the 'one down' provision we now all know about.

The two most recent offers, now withdrawn, say there will be opportunities for promotion on the existing fleet, but without going into huge detail. They also brought in the average flight pay offer so that it would offset any route changes to new fleet.

Unite's recent offer, turned down by BA, actually agreed that all new crew taken on to negate the 'one down', which has already had the voluntary redundancies/part time to reduce crew numbers, would be to new fleet, and the Unite 'paycut' was repayable in year 3.

Has she seen any of these offers? What info has BASSA put out one wonders.

[DP.]

'I was a BA cabin crew protestor' - Guardian Weekly (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardianweekly.co.uk%2F%3Fpage%3Deditor ial%26id%3D1514%26catID%3D1)It's nice to see that being on strike is so much 'fun'.

[emanresuym]

I would like to know how and when BA can/will turn to the future way of employing and motivating their CC.

Clearly, some of the "CSD"s (what a stupid job title) are not doing their job at all. Rather, they are simply doing their best to maximise their income, and the Company and the staff can go hang as far as they are concerned.

Other "CSD"s perform better, for both the company and the CC.

Maybe one way forward would be to pay the CSDs only on the basis of CC and passenger feedback. Only non-striking CC would be able to fill in the confidential feedback on csd forms, (as this is Aviation, the form would be called something silly, like ConFoC), and CC and pax would comment on the CSD performance.


AO. I'm also very concerned at how this can all move forward once the strike is done and dusted. I've seen suggestions from some quarters that all strikers should be sacked, but I really don't think this is either feasible or sensible.

If I were WW, I would want to distinguish the leaders from the led and deal with them differently. Effectively, separate the wheat from the chaff. In most companies I would expect this sort of 'intelligence' to be held by the managers, but I don't know whether this is true for BA.

What do others think?

[ExecClubPax]

Between 1994 and 2001 I had the privilege and honour to manage the Gatwick division of an organisation with operations at most major airports around the UK. Indeed, with only two short intervals, I worked at Gatwick from 1965 (with British United) until 2004. Except for a few notable exceptions, it has been my experience that staff of all organisations working at the "White Elephant" tended to support their employers and give 100% whenever the going got tough. I can say with pride that during my watch as manager colleagues in my business regularly out performed those at most other airports. Therefore, I was gratified and not at all surprised to see that BA's Gatwick based cabin crew continued that tradition over the last weekend with an almost 100% turn out for work.

This magnificent show of support for their employer and customers should be seen against a backdrop where BA's Gatwick based crews already work to revised complimenting arrangements opposed by the Unions for Heathrow crew. Their allowances have been subjected to increased tax payments and the scope and opportunities for trips have been reduced as BA consolidates its London operations by transferring services to Heathrow. Even so, almost to a man/woman, the Gatwick cabin crew answered their employer's request and resisted the Union's demands for strike action.

Of course, I'm unrepentantly biased. However, for what it is worth, I want to say well done to those conscientious and brave cabin crews whose attendance ensured that virtually all BA's services ex Gatwick operated during the industrial action. Well down to the BA management whose activities facilitated the staff’s response. Well done to Gatwick for maintaining its tradition of continuity of service.

[Munnyspinner]

As an ex BA customer I find myself divided over the strike.

On the one hand management / staff relations at BA have reached such an all time low that something has to give - otherwise the Airline will be knackered. Even as a disaffected customer, I would not like to happen.

Unfortunately, its all got a little bit personal and one wonders if big WW were not in the picture whether the leaders at UNITE might not be able to clinch an acceptable compromise?

It would appear that the markets, not unsurprisingly, are wholly behind the management given the obviuos long terms benefits that will flow under a restructured BA. Clearly, the bulls in the city think BA can see out the strike and expect CC to buckle before the Airline. at £7m per day they probably can last a lot longer than their staff and at 65% capacity they are no doubt getting 100% load factors on the routes they can operate. Until bookings start slipping, which will happen once the holiday season begins, BA wil maintain cashflow which will mean thatthey won't be hurting for a while.

I don't like the approach of BA management and feel they are responsible for the creation of a pretty customer unfriendly airline that I will no longer use. I will accept that customer cuddly is not a profitable as the inflexible world of FR, which BA are apparently using as their business exemplar. However, at the same time BA CC have a pretty cushy number when the full salary and benefits package is measured against competitor airlines - or so it would appear to this outsider.

Equally, I cannot support UNITE which appears somewhat inconsistent and naive in their approach. Surely it is completely useless walking out of one set of talks because the offer wasn't acceptable then walking out of the next because BA refused to table the previuos offer. What did they think they were doing? If BA do strip the strikers of their travel perks then that is a win for management. Little by litte they are going to get their way.

Caught in the cossfire are the myriad of CC who are hard working and proud of one great airline. I cannot condemn them for striking - it is their right. Rather than a complete unwillingness to compromise, I suspect the CC stance is as much a reaction to years of abuse from Big WW and his cohorts. I have equal compassion for this on strike and those who can't afford, are too afraid, or don't want to.

Finally, the sooner the strike is over the sooner I will not have to breakfast elbow to elbow with some displaced BA silver card holder stuck inthe middle row on my prefered carrier. Hurry up guys get it sorted!

[ExecClubPax]

Rather than being in two minds, this is a time for some single mindedness.
The issues at stake in the current round of industrial action at BA is management's right to manage. Over the last year, the company has negotiated with its work force. All but the cabin crew have come to agreements concerning the necessary cost cutting to keep BA solvent. Either by refusing to negotiate or by trying to manage the business itself, the Union side has precipitated a situation which the management of any organisation could never tolerate. What the BA Board has to do now is ensure it and only it manages the business. That way, the employees are more likely to have long term job prospects. Acquiescing to unreasonable demands reinstatement of crew numbers (the Judge in a recent court case ruled BA's reduced cabin crew complimenting was reasonable) would be a disaster and deliver the airline to receivership within short order.
Nevertheless, I too hope for a speedy resolution because as a BA Silver Card holder I have no intention of changing airlines if the national flag carrier operates to destinations I wish to visit.

[Stoic]

Note that Janus, a US investment company, now has 5.08% of BA voting rights. See
News Release (http://www.bashares.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69499&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=1405037&highlight=)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

On the one hand management / staff relations at BA have reached such an all time low that something has to give - otherwise the Airline will be knackered. Even as a disaffected customer, I would not like to happen.

Unfortunately, its all got a little bit personal and one wonders if big WW were not in the picture whether the leaders at UNITE might not be able to clinch an acceptable compromise?


I wouldn't hang either of those paragraphs exclusively around WW's neck.

In particular, taking your second paragraph, would UNITE actually offer/agree anything that genuinely allowed BA to return to operating profit? Everything we've seen is basically about retaining the status quo ante for the more highly paid staff - which thus means that the CSD does minimal work, whilst poaching the best trips ... or sits at home long-term sick whilst working full-time for BASSA. None of that will generate the necessary savings, and Unite's best offer is to call for a pay cut which impacts those CC at LGW - who have dared to prove that reduced manning levels are workable.

I don't see the hand of WW in any of those factors. Do you?

[oldflyboy]

Sadly as retired BA cabin crew I am not eligible to post on the specific cabin crew thread, so I tiptoe into this passenger forum to ask if any of you, either as passengers, pilots or cabin crew, have witnessed or experienced any backlash from returning to work strikers today? I would hope not, but given some of the vitriol directed at Mr Walsh and the booing of their own flying aircraft (DUH?) :ugh: by those at Bedfont on TV yesterday, I do expect some.

Also do we know if those returning today have been spoken to by their Managers at all?

Oldflyboy

[ChicoG]

As far as I see it, BA appointed WW - an ex pilot and ex union negotiator - to manage the airline. He's managed to make a case to all but the BASSA militants for sensible cost cutting and changes to the pay structure to allow them to compete in future.

BASSA and UNITE's response has been nothing short of slander and libel, a campaign of character assassination that says more about their intellectual limits than it does about Walsh's ability to spot the way forward for British Airways.

If I sound grumpy about the snipes about his "deferred bonus" and the rest of the tirade of nonsense, it's because I happen to think that he's paid well and deserves it, was ethical in turning down a bonus when he's perfectly entitled, and wants the best for all BA employees - but will not suffer the BASSA fools gladly.

As for taking a chill pill - as long as these union retards keep chucking out "Macho", "Machismo" and other highly unsuitable terms, and even have the temerity to equate their overpaid BASSA brown nosers with the murdered monks and ethnic tribes of Burma, or the thousands starving in Zimbabwe because of the actions of a cynical and greedy oligarchy (sound familiar?), then there is no other way of saying it than to affirm that they can kiss my hairy :mad:

:ok:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

From the CC Thread ... Striking crew have just starting receiving ESS messages about staff travel removal, effective 14th April.


Which date, according to my diary, is when Unite was going to call "Strike Three".

Interesting! :ok:

[LD12986]

WW is a man of his word:

Dear Colleague

I am writing to advise you that our records show that you failed to report for your rostered duty over the strike period of 20 – 22 March, we therefore consider you to have taken part in industrial action. As a result the following consequences will apply.

Loss of Pay


As we have previously explained you will not be paid from the point you started taking industrial action until the date you are either allocated another duty, or you undertake your next rostered duty. As you are in breach of contract over this period we are entitled to deduct pay. This deduction will take place in March’s pay.

Removal of staff travel


We have advised all cabin crew on a number of occasions that if you took part in industrial action, this would result in the permanent withdrawal of your staff travel concessions. These concessions are non contractual and granted, changed or withdrawn at the sole discretion of British Airways.

Therefore, from 14 April 2010, you are not eligible to benefit from any staff travel concessions either in your own right or as a nominee of another serving or former British Airways’ employee.

You may no longer use any type of rebate travel concessions whether on British Airways flights or those of other airlines associated with British Airways for concessionary travel purposes. Concessions include Basic and Premium Standby, Annual Bookable tickets – whether granted for status or length of service. You may, however, continue to benefit from discounted commercial tickets (Hotline).

The decision to withdraw staff travel concessions in these circumstances has not been taken lightly. The industrial action in which you took part has severely impacted upon our operations and customers and we will, undoubtedly, suffer additional costs and further losses as a result.

There is no right of appeal following this decision.

[ExSp33db1rd]

From the CC Thread ...
Quote:
Striking crew have just starting receiving ESS messages about staff travel removal, effective 14th April
Maybe for every C.C. removed from S.T. concessions, one of the older Pensioners who have just been so unceremoniously kicked out of S.T. concessions, can be re-instated on a one-for-one basis ?

As we were told that we were only removed to improve the S.T. " Budget", where's the objection ? ( or were we lied to ? )

Or .... if the striking C.C. are re-instated during ' negotiations ' we can show that Corporate B.A. can indeed change its mind, and apply the same philosophy and caring consideration to us, too ? ( remember the old BOAC slogan - BOAC Takes Good Care of You - unless you dare grow old )

And we didn't even go on strike !

[Airclues]

And we didn't even go on strike!

What about 1969?

1969 | 1792 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%201792.html)

Dave

[bs13]

A question from a (definitely former - are you surprised?) frequent BA flyer - if everybody who is unhappy due to their employment situation in the current economic climate would go on strike - where would it all end up? Suddenly your "thank you for choosing BA, we know you have a choice of carriers...etc.etc." has a new and very real meaning - mainly for BA.

[Dawdler]

'I was a BA cabin crew protestor' - Guardian Weekly (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardianweekly.co.uk%2F%3Fpage%3Deditor ial%26id%3D1514%26catID%3D1)It's nice to see that being on strike is so much 'fun'.Yes, like..... On the bus we were like excited children on a school trip cheering as we past the picket linesshows a mature thought through position, er... doesn't it?

[ChicoG]

"On the bus we were like excited children on a school trip cheering as we past the picket lines"

shows a mature thought through position, er... doesn't it?

Let's see how fun they think it is when they read Walsh's email (if it hasn't got too many long words for them).

Over on the CC forum, a BASSA supporter posted this:

Crew who have, are and will operate throughout these periods should hang their heads in shame. A large portion of the membership are fighting to retain jobs and minimise the depth of the pay cuts so they can retain employment opportunities into the future not only for themselves but for the crews of the future.

The members who have respected the democratic decision to make this stand also have mortgages to pay and are making this stand for the benefit of all (including the strike breakers). To break rank and assist the airline and its overpaid managers only prolongs the process. The tag of a strike breaker is one you will wear for the rest of your lives and take in to your grave. The dirty looks on flights and comments at social functions will continue forever.

It really does demonstrate what BA are up against. The author doesn't seem to understand, or ignores the fact that assurances that BA offered more than a year ago stated categorically that T&Cs would be protected and New Fleet was off the table, and NO PAY CUT WAS REQUIRED (Only BASSA offered one!).

The insidious note of the second paragraph only goes to illustrate the mindset of these obnoxious strikers. Who in their right mind would even WANT to go to a "social function" with people so anti-social?!

If you happen to see any example of bullying or harrassment on your BA flight, please ask for a comment card, report the incident and post the card on your return (don't give it to the crew lest a BASSA supporting CSD chooses to "accidentally lose it"). Don't be afraid to let the offending crew know you are doing it either - they have no control over your choices, eye drops and saliva excepted.

As passengers, we can play our part in ridding our national carrier of these useless people, and help to restore the airline to its former glory.

Added:

From the Scottish Herald:

Scotland faces months of strike misery after Scottish Gas engineers voted to follow British Airways cabin crew in staging industrial action. Members of the GMB union voted overwhelmingly in favour of a national walkout, with more than four-fifths of respondents backing a strike ballot. Some 8,000 members were balloted across the UK and the union said response rates were high .

Union leaders accused British and Scottish Gas of “macho management and bullying”, which they said was leading to attacks on terms and conditions of employment.

Has anybody seen this Union "How to handle a strike" manual that they all seem to use? It's all a little bit too camp for me....

YouTube - Sinitta - So Macho (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0eVeHVJ7wA)

[Dunhovrin]

The inference made here is a thinly veiled threat, it has been reported to the authorities for investigation. Should this threat be shown to have come from a serving BA staff member then disciplinary action will surely follow.

You can try, mate, but I work for an airline where we're a bit more realistic about what would happen to CRM if we were to dress up as the girls and do their job. It's not a threat, it's a realistic assessment of the future FD-CC relationship based on chatting with a fair few BA CC whilst commuting and what they think of pilots doing this. Plus a mate of mine watched a couple of you meerkats nearly coming to blows in The Bull Run over working as CC. And both were against the strike.

As an aside, I too am against the strike but also think you're naive if you think turning up to work down the back is going to break the it. Or even get WW on your side - pilots are next but one on WW's hit list after some of the more entrenched ground staff. And the way you handled Open Skies doesn't bode well.

How have the authorities responded by the way?

Edit: I don't think so!!

[ExSp33db1rd]

And we didn't even go on strike!

What about 1969?


Sure, the pilots went on strike in the ‘60s, but the present S.T. attack on pensioners is not disciplinary based, and is targetted at all ex-staff from all departments, for what reason ?

We were told that it was due to budget constraints, but the new rules actually open the floodgates for far,far, more staff numbers than the pensioners that have been kicked out, the removal of a pension to qualify greatly increases the number of participants for a start

I have repeatedly stated that I personally, but can't speak for all of course, have no rancour with the fact that present staff now get many more S.T. benefits and opportunities than we ever even dreamed of, life moves on, but don’t p**s on me to achieve your benefits – leave me and my kind alone with what we worked for and were promised, contractual or not.

My comment that we didn’t even have to go on strike to be punished, referred to the present situation.

[bizdev]

First of all let me state that I am firmly behind BA on this whole saga and find it quite bizarre the Union's position.

Having said that - I used to work for BA, and in the 70's was one of the engineers standing on the picket line at Hatton Cross striking over shift pay (if I remember correctly). I was a young lad at the time and very 'wet behind the ears'. But my understanding was that the 'power' of a Union was in its solidarity. And that which ever way you voted to a call to strike, or any other voting issue, you all stood behind the majority decision whether you agreed or not.

I therefore have some sympathy with the strikers who can see Yes voters (to a strike) going in to work - if it was me I would be livid too.

If you want to belong to a union then you should abide by the rules - the massive % of the vote strike should have resulted in the grounding of BA.

Thank heavens it has not, and I fully support those that have carried on working - but I do question why most voted yes to a strike though, and I don't buy the Union lies and indoctrination line - cabin crew are not stupid - not the ones I have know anyway.

But for those not understanding why the strikers are so 'upset' on the picket lines, I can understand how they must feel - very lonely right now.

bizdev

[Andy_S]

if everybody who is unhappy due to their employment situation in the current economic climate would go on strike - where would it all end up?

Like hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other people, I work for a company who are struggling in the current economic climate. My salary has been frozen, and I've had to take on some of the workload of colleagues who have lost their jobs.

I have a very simple choice. Take it on the chin, or look for employment elsewhere. The third option of withdrawl of labour under these circumstances is like cutting off your nose to spite your face; it will further damage an already struggling company and maybe even deal it a fatal blow.

I've chosen to take it on the chin. I enjoy my work and I'm unlikely to obtain a better deal for comparable job responsibility elsewhere.

Surely my situation is similar to BA CC who claim to love their jobs and remain on industry beating salaries, terms and conditions that they simply wouldn't obtain elsewhere. Unfortunately, many of them don't see it like that. If you put it to them that if they don't like what BA are offering they should try their luck elsewhere, the bog standard response seems to be "why should I"? And this, to me, goes to the heart of the problem. They have a huge sense of entitlement. Far too many CC seem to think that BA is run for their benefit; to provide working conditions tailored to their convenience, to support their lifestyle, to offer career opportunities. The idea that BA are a business working in a competitive environment and owned by shareholders who require a return on their investment just doesn't seem to compute.

[Snas]

The latest from Unite has given me a good chuckle: -


Unite has condemned the move by British Airways to withdraw travel benefits from striking cabin crew - many of whom rely on the travel assistance to get to work following BA's decision to close its regional bases and require the vast majority of cabin crew to operate out of Heathrow, no matter where they may live.


My bold : source (http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/unite_condemns_bas_attack_on.aspx)