For those crew who do not want to strike (if it comes to that), you have two options: Vote NO to strike but go on strike to follow the big herd, or, Vote NO, stick with it and come to work. The company must protect you and there will be ways of getting you to/from work without you being "ambushed".
Eggs/sticks/stones doesn't scare me. I will stick with what is right for me, I am an individual and I will do what is most suitable to my situation. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with me, but we're all entitled to our own opinion.
CFC - PWC are accountants, not lawyers, but then as you don't wish to know about BAs financial situation I would't expect you to understand that. Lawyers are the people who'll be getting the high court injunction to stop you striking.
As an interesting aside to todays claims that BA didn't turn up at the meetings, it's hardly a surprise. BA announced negotiations were at an end last night and the union representatives should stand down until they were contacted by ACAS regarding the next step. They didn't even book a room at the venue as no negotiations were scheduled today. Makes you wonder why the union reps turned up with TV crews when they'd been told the night before that there was no meeting.
Which advice is that CFC? BALPA listened to and investigated what PwC had found. PwC were engaged by the Pension Trustees, and were legally obliged to be independent. They had unprecedented access to BA's books, something that was invaluable in assessing BA's financial health. I'll say it again, PwC was legally obliged to remain impartial when assessing BA's short, medium and long term future.
Why would BASSA refuse to even listen to what PwC had to say? Do a bunch of amateur accountants who are normally stewards and stewardesses know better than a world renowned accounting firm? Or did it not suit their ill informed, unresearched view that this was a temporary blip.
BASSA have badly let down their members, again. Whether they're part of Unite, the Nation of Islam or the Rolf Harris Fan Club they'll very soon be punished for their incompetence. What is most tragic though, is that their members will suffer untold stress and eventually lose more than they would have if their Union had engaged a little intelligence.
Glamgirl, well done. I think you represent the vast majority of crew. The sham is over for the rest, I'm afraid. It's decision time; stay employed or get your marching orders; the business cannot survive unless this happens ASAP.
ps BALPA did not lose in the High Court, they withdrew. No legal precedence has been set, but there is previous case law that didn't help. BALPA pursued the issue of OpenSkies and Article 43 of the Treaty of Rome as far as was legally possible without risking an unfavourable legal ruling. A ruling which would affect all TUs in Europe. BASSA/Unite/GMB and every other major union in Europe currently support BALPA's campaign to have Article 43 clarified and for it not to apply to IA wrt outsourcing.
But I bet BASSA didn't tell you any of that either. BALPA have letters of support from Unite.
We started this year with £1.4 billion in cash and told the market that we aimed to finish the year with £1 billion.
Now, I never said we didn't face a problem, but what I find astonishing is that just after the CEO states the situation is so desperate that he needs staff to work for no payment, he then releases an email with the above quote. Why the hell would anyone work for free when the company is sat on such reserves.
One way to preserve the cash balance is to protect the dwindling forward bookings which are available. Instead Walsh scares custom away, then, and I'm certain this is now the case, engineers industrial action. We are losing £3million a day. Thanks to Walsh that figure will rise. Walsh needs to convince unite that a compromise exists and restore customer confidence. So far his method has only worsened a bad situation.
So, going on what Walsh has said then, which believe me is more for public consumption than for employees and unions to base their assumptions on:-
£800m is cash held in advance of carriage. In other words, money BA have received from passengers who have not yet flown. So not really our money.
£300-400m is required to service fuel contracts, and keep credit card companies happy.
up to £100m is required to service other contracts and keep creditors "confident" in our business.
Our very own Trustees have stated that they will not tolerate cash levels below £1.3bn. They may well have to revise that figure downwards, or they'll be a run on BA.
You do the math.
What evidence do you have that Walsh has scared away business? I could equally argue that he has bought us customers- customers who would hate to see BA fail, who may not have booked with us if it wasn't for him explaining how close we are to the brink. I have seen no evidence of any adverse effect from the publicity we've had recently. But I do know talks breaking down with Unions, and irresponsible unions beating their chests will scare passengers away very quickly. As of course will a ballot for IA.
So let's deal in facts, not rhetoric. You have the BASSA forum for that.
I think I'm correct in saying that a substantial amount of that 1 Billion cash is actually passenger ticket money that has been paid in advance. Once BA's reserves fall below a certain value, the travel agencies/credit card companies stop forwarding us the cash until the passenger has flown ( just in case BA go bust in the mean time). This is at about the same time that the oil companies start asking for cash up front rather than payment a month in arrears (in case BA go bust again).
Obviously BA want to keep the precise amount at which our creditors lose confidence in us very close to its chest, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a BASSA rep) to realise it could be around December time at our present cash flows.
One only has to take a look at BA's monthly fuel bill to see that if we have to pay for fuel up front, we are finished as a business.
My guess is we are paying at least 100 million a month for fuel. 6 months of that reduces our 1.4 billion "cash" to 800 million and takes us to December. Then BA's losses really kick in for the winter.
All this is obvious stuff. Hopefully, the rocket scientist BASSA reps have drawn up a new business plan for BA as well as a new industrial agreement and we will all be able to go back to how things were.
Last year's fuel bill was £3billion so the maths is quite simple - last year BA paid £250million a month in fuel alone. That was up £1billion on the previous year, or £166.67 million a month. So it's probably in the region of £200million a month so that Dec estimate is out by quite a large margin. The real date is probably closer to Sep hence this needs sorting ASAP.
At the risk of being picky, I gather that we have hedged at lower prices than last year, so our fuel bill this year should be less than the 3 Billion last year. However, I agree with the sentiment that the company has to get a firm grip on its costs fast.
One could argue that the unions that settled first have played a blinder as it is difficult for the company to come back with modified demands, however, those unions that haven't signed are now having to deal with moving goalposts.
That's not to say that the company wont come back with the begging bowl in October.
I believe the real crunch will come when the pension acturies release their scheme shortfall numbers. Yes all the potential savings which BA is hoping to achieve from salary sacrifice and changed working conditions will help, but they pale into insignificance when pension liabilities of circa 3 billion are published. The sums which BA paid into the schemes last year easily accounted for the 400 million posted loss.
What I believe we are seeing here is a fundimentially sound company IF it could just divest itself of these huge pension liabilities.
I just do not think the UK wants BA, the national carrier, to fail so maybe the government should take these liabilities onto its books? The sum involved is tiny compared to the Billions that have been spent on supporting the UK banks. In exchange BA could give the government shares as collateral.
I just do not think I just do not think the UK wants BA, the national carrier, to fail so maybe the government should take these liabilities onto its books? wants BA, the national carrier, to fail so maybe the government should take these liabilities onto its books?
What do you base that on? Who do you mean by "the UK"? And the government has mired itself (sorry, the next 2 generations of taxpayers) in such huge debt that there will be no handouts for BA. Forget it! BA is not considered a 'heartland' for Labour voters!
"What I believe we are seeing here is a fundimentially sound company IF it could just divest itself of these huge pension liabilities...so maybe the government should take these liabilities onto its books? The sum involved is tiny compared to the Billions that have been spent on supporting the UK banks."
Two problems with your logic here. Firstly, if the government does this for BA, then it's hard to see how they can refuse to do it for every other underfunded defined benefit pension scheme. The total deficit of all such schemes is around £250-300 billion right now. Secondly, the government already has about £750 billion in unfunded pension scheme liabilities of its own employees (civil servants, NHS workers etc). It's likely that the government will want to cap these in future, ie stop public sector defined benefit pension schemes. I suspect keeping this quiet until after the election is one reason the comprehensive spending review has been shelved until post-election. Anyway, there's no chance of the government taking on additional private sector pension liabilities. The UK would lose its AAA rating within days if the government adopted this approach. Keeping it is more valuable than a few thousand BA staff, I'm afraid, painful though that may be to hear.
BA has got itself into a pension mess which sees its pension schemes valued at approximately 8x that of the company itself, with a deficit equal to 5-6 years of "normal" pre-tax profits. It's BA's problem to get out of it. As pensions are simply deferred income, one way of mitigating the pension problem is to cap, or even reduce, current salary levels and staff numbers entitled to such pensions, thereby also reducing projected pensions payable in future.
Incidentally, the deficit numbers may not be as bad as you think. If long term interest rates rise, and they have been doing in recent weeks, that actually decreases the present value of pension liabilities. As asset values have risen since March, when they hit 10-12 year lows, the pension schemes will have had a double benefit over the last three months. There will still be a (big) deficit, but might not be at the £3 billion level.
Linear Mode
