Interesting article, especially when viewed side by side with the BA imposition.
The union’s response to cost cuts is puzzling, particularly given the poor productivity of Heathrow-based cabin crew.
Funny, that's what most people outside of the BASSA inner circle think.
Crew can legally accrue up to 900 flying hours per year; a work rate that discounters Ryanair and EasyJet regard as normal. BA’s Heathrow staff, however, only work about 600 hours a year.
My bold, odd again, especially as LGW have proven that, although tiring, 900 hours are achievable. Perhaps with concerted negotiation a happy middle ground could have been found?
Furthermore, unlike those for Gatwick staff, rules for Heathrow crew make switching staff between short-haul and long-haul flights difficult. This obstacle can leave a short-haul plane understaffed, while long-haul crew idle in another.
New Fleet, new contract anyone?
BA’s crew problems are deep-rooted. The carrier may have been privatised in 1987, but indexed and longevity-based pay rises still haunt contracts. The union has previously made an offer to BA to save about £140m, but it should accept that the premium airline industry is listing heavily to starboard. It needs to do something more substantial to help.
From a reporter, writer and economist at the Financial Times and totally independant from the Beelzebub management at BA ! Perhaps BASSA can slander, denigrate or otherwise malign this person as having no clue?
The bold is to highlight 'Industry' not company but industry!
Perhaps now BASSA will realise that its approach of 'No, No, No' has failed, the management have been telling the unions for the past 4 months since the deadline that imposition was coming and still, unlike all the other unions, have failed to come to the table with something meaningful, useful and workable.
Sad.