BA management are pathetic. They ruin holiday plans for thousands by their shambolic mis-management of t5, have a certain manager running away from the press when t5 was falling apart, a ceo who says, don't worry give me a year and you'll love t5, what more do you expect!
In years to come, BA management and their style will be the focus of many a case study on 'how not to run a business' and 'de-motivate staff beyond recognition'. Of course the best one will be 'just left school, think you're hard, how you too can become CEO of an airline'
While we're on the subject, what do the non-executive directors actually do? Why do we have pilot managers? Why do BA not recruit 'proven managers' from large organisations with a 'proven' track record of managing.
Finally, when will the financial institutions finally realise WW hasn't a clue about the concept of management or leadership.
In answer to your question, diversionary tactics to get the heat off them, because t5 is still a shambles, so spinning the news away from that is what's needed. Trying to intimidate balpa and financially weaken the union, to a level where by it's existence is purley symbolic. To try and maintain power by an apparent show of strength, when in reality their grip on power is slowly fading away.
I have to take issue with regard to Bob Ayling. Had he had the support of King and Marshall BA may not be in the shambles it is today. He was the only CEO that was prepared to take on the Unions. Let us not delude ourselves the future of BA rests with a CEO that has the courage and support to take on the unions and manage the company. Presently, and in particular at T5 the Unions are back in charge. I have to agree with your remark about Skippy.
IF this gets to court and IF BA win it may well turn out like Oscar Wilde, many years ago. He sued for libel, it was found that his reputation had been damaged and he was awarded 1p (old money!) damages as that was the value the court placed on his reputation. BA's low reputation has got a lot lower in the last few days, rightly or wrongly!
HZ123 "taking on the unions" is not the answer. It is not BALPA that has reduced BA to a laughing stock.
BALPA members have gone way beyond the call of contract for years in the face of such appalling man management that the system that is supposed to support the dispatch and receipt of flights is all but terminally broken. How about a typical Sunday at T4 with just ONE tug to push back aircraft? No tug crews due to ineptitude in man management - it was not an industrial issue. You can write that story across BA every day for the last several years.
As to Ayling - you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Ayling wasted MILLIONS of pounds of shareholder money on acquistions that were worse than useless - Deutsche BA, TAT, to name but two.
He championed BA's reputation for non-delivery with "The Millenium Folly" that spectacularly failed to work before HM the Queen on Millenium eve.
He destroyed staff morale and even the BA board realised he was a liability and axed him, (with the customary fat pay-off and pension).
Stick to darts HZ 123, you dont know much about BA.
As for Wee Willie going to court - the action of a desperate man busy wasting shareholder value on legal fees. If he won then any union would be barred from balloting for a strike because of the potential to cause loss of revenue and reputation for a firm. This is still a democracy and there is a right to strike in a democracy, righttfully governed by law. I cant see how he can win a dime.
BALPA have not had a strike for circa 26 years plus. Hardly militant, but that's Willies only plan for BA - smash down staff and hope to set a new low in every area for pay and conditions. Its a Customer Service business mate. How do you get staff to deliver a service if you alienate every single man and woman in the company who'se not on the take in the executive suite?
Bob was doing a good job, he like all the CEO's will have the bottom feeders giving him the info, yes, he will be rememberd for the tails, but that could of worked out a lot better had the press been doing some normal reporting of news items instead of having a go at a hi profile company.
And to top it all, the way in which Bob left the company was a turning point inside the company !!!
Gobonastick - as someone who always goes out of my way to help passengers and never looks at the union limits for working - only the legal limits - I take an exception to what you say. I don't even know what my union limits are, the passenger - my wage payer - always comes first. Until that is, the company do something which you really need to stand up to. None of us want to strike, none of us want the disruption, however as you can see without any problem, BA is screwing things up and you need a force to point them in the other direction. All those forces have been used up except the threat of strike - so what do we do? Disrupt a relatively small number of holidays so that literally millions are not disrupted in the future, or say that the passenger is king, lose the fight and create many times more misery in the future?
You have to realise that those who post on here are a minority and a voiceiforous one at that. Some of them know very little about what they are talking about. May I suggest that you have a good look at teh BALPA campaign website and understand the details of what is actually going on. This is about our livelihoods for the next 50 years or so, its important. Customers deserve better from BA, but the problem is not with the pilots, its with the managers at the top of the company.
I dont understand all the commotion from pax blaming the pilots. It is quite simple. The pilots have a contract with BA. They are in dispute with them. The pax have a contract with BA. Ba are responsible for providing the service for that contract. If ba dont have the resource because of lack of skills equipment or people then it is BA who are to blame.
The Pax have no contract with the pilots until they are on board the aircraft, then it is one of legal responsibility for their safety. ANO refers. Nothing to do with any other agreement or law. My licence wasnt a gift from any airline it is issued by the govt .end of logic.
So to sum up if BA (povider) cant source the appropiate labour effectively (the pilots) due to contractual dispute and so cant provide the product they have charged for then the PAX have a right to moan at BA.
Once more for those at the back THE PAX CONTRACT IS WITH BA. NOT THE PILOTS Unless there are those out there who would like to blame the pilots for T5 after all they have kept willy busy for a few months and thats why he took his eye off the t5 ball. Oh and while I'm at it. The following is a list of other things that are not the fault of the pilots or in fact any crew. It is not exhaustive Fog Turbulence traffic jams on the way to the airport Crowded terminals Delays atc Crappy little terminals in greece that your tour company left you at. A shit hotel you paid next to nothing for DVT Sunburn Badly swollen legs from dehydration and sunburn while wailing about dvt. Medical services at the airport. Free oxygen whn you were too tight to pre order it. Your bloody angina pills in your hold baggage. Anyone like to add?
Things we are responsible for. Getting you to your destination not dead, injured or otherwise damaged. erm thats it
I have to confess that being a fairly simple person (sic!) I don't really understand what's really behind BA taking this action against BALPA.
If they are trying to break BALPA/IFALPA financially then I think they are on a hiding to nothing in the long term. Remember that you might have to lose a battle to win the war. If the Unions do become financially broke then I am sure the pilots will be even more motivated to regroup in which case BA better watch out!
Remember Pearl Harbour - at the time a victory for the Japanese but years later USA dropped the Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
At another level I find it quite heart breaking that airlines and pilots are in the current situation.
Excuse me but am I missing something here? Damages for what and caused by what? I was unaware that any strike had taken place and that all that had happened was that the union had quite properly sought the views of its members. So? What are the damages for?
I think someone is pulling someones leg.
I feel "Wally" Walsh would do better by keeping BAs head down. In the travel trade they are very poorly percieved and especially after the debacle at T5 which had absolutey nothing to do with either cabin or flight crew. If he wants more business then his marketers need to adopt a completely new strategy.
I see troubled times ahead all because of a little Irishman with brake fluid on the brain. The expression " he couldn't organise a p...........etc" comes to mind.
Still, great flight crew and at the end of the day that's what really matters.
Legal documents from both parties have now been filed with the Court setting out the particulars of claim for declaratory relief for BALPA and BA’s response.
In its documents British Airways has set out its defence to BALPA’s claim, and has filed a counterclaim for damages as a result of damage and harm to BA’s reputation and brand due to the strike ballot and uncertainty resulting from potential industrial action.
What reputation? I would have thought that the BA pilots could turn the accusation around and throw it at the Directors. Pilots have a long term interest in the company because of their pensions and future employment. Show me a Chief Exec that has lasted more than 5 years in BA without bailing out with a payoff.
2 Queens Counsel (the most experienced and expensive lawyers that money can buy) plus another senior Barrister?
I would hazard an informed guess that one weeks worth of High Court argy bargy with associated preparation will exhaust at least a quarter of Balpa's annual legal budget. (someone correct me if you have better knowledge but I believe this is of the order of £400 000 a year)
Make no mistake the legal issues are complex and arguable and if there is an appeal which would be to the Court of Appeal and then House of Lords I would like to know how or where Balpa will get the necessary resources from?
Litigation of this nature can be ruinous just on the basis of cost......From where I am looking BA are in an infinitely better position to play the legal game than Balpa ...and indeed could contrive to secure its ruin by prolonging the legal process.
Maybe I have missed something but unless someone is bankrolling Balpa (by legal insurance.....which I doubt) this is a pretty high stakes game with the ruin of Balpa a potential consequence. I sincerely hope all concerned know exactly what they are getting themselves into.