I have thought long and hard as to whether or not to contribute to this discussion again. I have been reading through it over the past few weeks and have come to the conclusion that the moderators play a fair and even hand even if we have not seen eye to eye in the past.
I have had posts removed as has PiB and many others. Those posts have contained both pro BASSA comments and anti BASSA comments. As the moderators have previously admitted some are lost as collateral damage in a broad sweep cull whilst others are removed as they go against the thread or are offensive. Fair enough. So, my hats off to the moderators and thanks for a thankless task as MrB has put it.
Back to the thread.
As usual we have a cyclical debate going here with the same old topics being raised again and again without any valid, factual or relevant counter arguments coming back from the pro BASSA contributors.
Fuel Hedging.
Ironically fuel hedging is, as Tocamak pointed out, its own worst enemy. Normally an airline will hedge with different companies at different prices in order to stabilise to cost of fuel over the operating year and, hence, give it the ability to forecast its fuel costs. As the fuel price began to climb forecasts of the price of oil, irrespective of the OPEC production levels, was topping $200 a barrel. At such a figure no airline in the world could have continued to make a profit. However, as airlines rushed to hedge, which is in itself speculation, the speculator market began to buy hence pushing the price up and up. One of the first indicators of a recession is the rapid increase in consumption followed by a dramatic fall. As seen in the 1970's oil crisis which led into the 80's recession. OPEC were pushed and pushed to increase production but refused, enjoying the artificial high, oddly enough as the price plummeted they started to increase production, always one step behind. Now many of the OPEC counties are feeling the pinch severely. Look at Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
What company wouldn't have hedged at $94-96 a barrel with those projections and no foresight of the coming crash? If, with our 20/20 hindsight glasses on, we had been in a position where fuel had hit $200 a barrel we would all be trumpeting the fuel hedging as a great success.
You can't have it both ways and the fuel hedge department has been, since privatisation, in the black over all.
So, fuel hedging fiasco, Nil Points.
Price fixing, punitive fining.
How much EXTRA profit did the company make from artificially high ticket and cargo pricing? Well, to be honest we will probably never know. However, the level of fines must be taken into context of the extra profit gained by the companies involved, and no we weren't the only ones involved. Hence, using 'generic' figures if we made and extra $200million profit and got fined $300million it is a loss of $100million. Still a large figure in made up numbers land but, hopefully, you get the point.
Remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The AGM
Remember that the shareholders were as incensed with WW and the Board as BASSA? We were all looking forward to a vote of no confidence from the shareholders in Martin Broughton and his appointed CEO Willie Walsh? Seems it didn't happen, despite the BASSA lemmings. Willie Walsh runs the company on behalf of the Board for the shareholders. His job is to return a profit and, if possible, a dividend. He gets his brief from departmental heads and then treats all departments as the bottom line of a spreadsheet. He is not interested in the day to day running of the company at the coal face and quite rightly so. BASSA needs to get a grip on how to influence to board which is through the departmental chain of responsibility. Targeting the CEO is nonsense especially when they have received a resounding vote of 99% confidence from those who own the company. You may feel his direction is wrong but, looking at the losses over the industry, many would beg to differ.
Consultancy.
Why did they lay off managers and then 're-employ' them as consultants? Another horrendous WW mistake! Err, on actually. Consultants have a mandate that runs as long as the company needs them. They do not require NI payments, pension payments, medical cover, bonuses etc. They come at a fixed (tax deductible) fee for a defined period and are far more 'money' efficient to employ for 1 month than to have a permanent member of staff doing 1 months work over a year with all the added costs.
BASSA figures.
Could someone from the pro BASSA brigade please explain to us where the 2.61% pay cut figure came from?
Also the $60million saving from the proposed (only BASSA approved) disruption agreement? Where does BASSA get the idea that the CC alone could save the company $60million over 18 months by implementing a disruption agreement? Aircraft will still get diverted. The landing costs, displacement costs, parking, fuel, passenger handling, navigation fees, engineering costs etc. will still be incurred. Is it not a little above BASSA to take credit for the cost savings that could possibly come from ALL other departments? They might however, due to the magnanimous gesture by BASSA, be for only one day now. Allowing the majority of sensible CC who want to get the passengers and themselves back home, to do their job without fear of BASSA rule breaking and a witch hunt.
Back to back flights? 'Allowing' extra back to back flight for those that want to bid for them. How, exactly, does this save money when all of the box payments, the back to back payments and the rest of the paraphernalia still exists?
BASSA valued its savings at £174m, PWC valued it at £54m, still a good saving according to BASSA but one has to ask why BASSA are trumpeting that BA are the monsters for not taking it? If you think your house is worth £250,000 you wouldn't entertain an offer at £75,000 would you?
Looking over the fence
Forgive me Moderators but I just wish to put this 'share deal' to bed once and for all.
The current share deal as negotiated has a fixed monetary figure attached to it. That means that if all of the multitude of trigger points are achieved then shares to the value of that fixed figure will be issued. So, if the share price is low then that figure will be divided by the share price and that amount of shares will be issued. If the share price is high then fewer shares will be issued. Quite simple really.
If you like to look of such a deal then try and negotiate it yourself.
As to the Telegraph story, well if you were to base a story entirely on the quotes from WW I am sure you would get a different article. If you base the story purely on the comments of the UNITE/BASSA negotiators then of course they are going to tell you they are single handedly holding the company up. That's what they are paid for. Not sure Tony Woodly is worth the cost but that is for the membership to decide.
I sympathise for those CC who I have talked with over the past couple of weeks. I have gleaned from them that they feel they are being misrepresented but cannot speak out due to fear of reprisal from the very Union that they pay to protect them. Many of them do not have a full overview of what is occurring nor a balanced brief on the reasons behind the dispute. They have not been given adequate information on the possible future based upon either a successful or unsuccessful deal. These are the personnel who will be hit the hardest as they are the ones who are paying for an organisation which is not delivering its basic mandate to represent its membership.
Tomorrow sees the next round. I truly hope it goes well for the sake of those moderate crew who it has been my privilege to fly with.
Last edited by wobble2plank; 3rd Aug 2009 at 09:31.