VS-LHRCSA,
Originally Posted by VS-LHRCSA
In the end, we know why LGW is different and we know why SF LGW was created. We know why the company are trying to create a version at LHR and fair dues. I can see the business case for it, especially the flexibility aspect of it.
Exactly. From a business point of view, it unfortunately makes sense.
Originally Posted by VS-LHRCSA
What I don't agree with is taking away terms and conditions from an existing contract just because another airline doesn't have them, or in your case, another fleet. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on making life better at LGW and fighting for improvements there rather than bringing down another fleet who's only crime seems to be its very existance?
As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, they are not actually planning to take away anything from the existing contracts. The contracts and fleets will run side by side, until eventually, as people leave, retire, transfer etc, the old fleets at LHR will cease to exist. Yes, the chances are high that the most lucrative trips will go to the new fleet but at the end of the day, BA has a responsibility towards it's share holders and the managment have to be seen to making the move towards improved efficiency, flexibility and, ultimately, profitability.
I'd love to be able to concentrate on improving LGW's terms, but, realistically, I know that's never going to happen. The recent MOA negotiations have proved that. No one, apart from a bitter minority, wants to see you guys lose what you have fought so hard for, but times have changed and the old days are well and truly gone for
all airlines and
all fleets. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.
Jsl