Hi romans
You are right about that Haiti stuff, have taken it out, not too different to BASSA WW2 comparisons though......
You are right, addressing the underlying BA cost base was almost certainly in plan before current recession. Recession or no recession, if your costs are out of kilter with the prevailing market rates in a highly competitive trading environment, they MUST be addressed. Airlines need to make c10% margin in order to reinvest in their equipment/products and pay an acceptable dividend to shareholders (would you loan someone huge amounts of money for nothing, when you could get a decent return placing your money elsewhere ??). Post 9/11 BA didn't pay a dividend for years. Those 747-400's were introduced in 1988 ! They are fuel inefficient and becoming maintenance hungry.....
On many routes, they have to match VS/SQ/U2/TG/CX etc on price (and with threat of IA probably have to undercut them) and yet operate with significantly higher costs and a more unproductive workforce - it is not sustainable.
Recession or no recession, BA has to tackle this for long term viability. Simples. The recession has just made addressing it even more urgent.....the aviation market is very different from just 10 years ago. EZY were formed in '96 with a couple of a/c - now look!
BA has offered to negotiate, but there has to be some acceptance on BASSA's part that savings and productivity efficiencies need to be permanent and real. Taking an entrenched position (BASSA) to "not negotiate" and refuse to have an open book approach (view the accounts with confidentiality agreement etc) isn't really a helpful or progressive approach. Still can't fathom the rationale around this ???
BASSA's response has been totally predictable, hence my assertion that they are playing out WW's strategy without him having to do anything much at all. If they took a different route, or turned their negotiating position on its head, they might just catch BA off guards. Yet they seem to just wheel out the same approach they have (admittidely successfully - sp ?) done for the last 30 odd years. I just think they have underestimated the gravity of the financial situ of the company/structural changes in the market and the resolve of WW. Look at the evidence, WW said, we must reach agreed changes by June 30 or we will impose. He has imposed. BASSA said they would not negotiate unless imposition was removed, UNITE are currently back in negotiations........
Also, whoever is advising BASSA on their
PR strategy in terms of public support must be nuts.....they're just not playing a very intelligent/clever game. In fact, again imho, they are just adding nails to their coffin.
With a General Election in the middle of all this, UNITE need to consider carefully their position. I do think this time it is terminal for BASSA, whatever way this goes I just can't see an upside for them, win or lose court case/ballot result.
Hopefully a new progressive group will form after this is all over (as I said I think such a union of people have an important role to play) but will take a more enlightened approach. BA (IMO) have gone past the point of no return with this relationship, they can't take all this pain, forward booking pain etc and not see the job thru to completion. They have a right and were appointed to manage a business and shareholders demand a decent return on their investment. They will try to push thru 'regime change' - they have little choice. Willie may well be (and he probably knows and agrees) the sacrificial lamb at the end to put workforce relations on an improved level post all this. However, he would have put BA on a more solid financial footing, and addressed a real issue where successive leaders before him have failed.