PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BA and Project Columbus III
View Single Post
Old 23rd Jun 2009, 08:35
  #1029 (permalink)  
wobble2plank
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SP, if you bother to read a little more into the Lindsey dispute you will also see that the workers were sacked and then told they could come back to work on 'new contracts'. This is their sticking point and, as has already been said, they are specialised and difficult to replace workers.

Sadly, looking around the myriad of fresh, young faces at Brain Crank the other day, the same cannot be said for CC.

So take comfort from your rhetoric because it doesn't even apply to the situation at BA.

How defensible the current CC T's & C's are to the shareholders and investors is obvious. Totally indefensible. Currently doing the rounds are CC bunk rest lights. This is the 'biggie' of the day as the engineers are complaining that they seem to be getting broken with alarming regularity. Odd that when, if the bunk light is permanently 'on' (for safety reasons) when the swith is broken, then the CC can't get adequate rest thus trigger a £500, yes £500, discomfort bonus! So, please, please, please tell me how that is defensible?
wobble2plank is offline