It was more the "daft enough to work for a bunch of thieves" comment to which I drew particular attention to quash.
Yes, changing working conditions will draw particular ire from any employee group whom is used to one situation or another (BOTH pilots, support staff, managers and groundcrew); the real difference is that the large change has not yet happened from the state-owned BA to the privately-owned BA. I think that the appreciation that the company is not able to support people NOT working to the max is not there, but it should be - because what else do you expect from a company that has to compete with othere who do?
True, if one works in the city that is taken as part and parcel of the job, but there needs to be more appreciation that we are all professinals working for companies whose needs are not fixed in stone and do change. Whatever you pay a Goldman Sachs banker, you will still irk him and his family to send him to NY over an Easter when he has planned other things.
Nobody is trying to compare the two since, as you rightly say:
I signed up to a job with a pensions plan and accepted the sacrifices in career progression, salary and lifestyle that entailed. Now I'm being asked to make more sacrifices whilst seeing that pension snatched away.
The difference is that in the real world the Goldman bonuses are snatched away in the bad times, but people still fight for the jobs as there always remains the prospect of future riches - and when that occurs the whole market is suffering so there are no job alternatives.
The comparison that can be made is that both are companies owned by shareholders who require a return, and with creditors who must be paid. Why would you want to own a company with bolshy, self-important employees, who cannot empathise with how their fellow employees have to work to keep the whole thing together, and erode the value of your company?
The
PR needs to be better to get any empathy from the public.
HF Apologies - I misread one of your lines above - it was not you!
Agreed but they're unlikely to kill themselves and take a few hundred others with them when they do it.
I am not diminishing the importance of safety. I am stressing that it is not all that is important. What is the value of a very safe uneconomic company?
NIL