Everyone
Of course any redundancies affect people, and most of us have mortgages and as such are affected and concerned at our abilities to provide for our loved ones, that's natural and I'm sure that no one would have any issue on that point.
However, whichever way you look at it, the numbers at BA do not add up. Despite divesting many functions over the Ayling years through a policy of outsourcing various tasks (be it Engineering functions (wheels, brakes and eng overhaul) and catering, security etcetc, we [and yes I am a Nigel, within BA] still have 250+ employees per aircraft in comparison to DLH et al of 220-ish, who by the way, still retain the aforementioned functions plus others in-house.
So, when taking this in conjunction with a policy of reducing capacity and transferring work to BMed, GB, BRAL, etc, and the numbers at HQ inexorably rising, what do you think is required - more people as an overhead per aircraft, or fewer?
Well, I know what I believe, and when I heard the news that jobs were to be shed at BA, and that the number was ONLY 1800 and that they were coming from in the main frontline staff, then I thought f*** me, that will require 2000 more staff at Waterside to manage the process, and THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES..... we need to shed 10,000 non-frontline staff. That alone will improve annual profitability by £1bn pa.
Any arguments?
I think not.....