This post is a great example of the myopic Bassa world-view of what's been going on.
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
No mention at all of the havoc wreaked by unilateral bullying management with no regard for staff loyalty or indeed welfare.
The company has a responsibility to protect any worker from intimidation, whether they are a baggage handler, pilot, manager, purser. The same policy applies to all. It's staff loyalty and welfare the application of these policies protects.
Please give an example of such 'bullying'.
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
Most crew, or at least 4-5000 on duty during strike days don't strike. WW withdraws staff travel from the crew that are ill, or do strike. The airline's losses from the strike are entirely due to ill-conceived plans laid up to break the strike. I say ill conceived because I don't think it will be possible, for all sorts of technical reasons from visas through to public safety, insurance etc, to run the airline solely based on the recently trained temporary crew.
So the losses aren't due to cabin crew failing to turn up for work?
As for your technical reasons:
Visas - Issued. No problem due to a fast track temporary crew version in use.
Public Safety - Entrusted to the Civil Aviation Authority, who have approved and supervised both ground and airborne training.
Insurance - Why if all are trained to CAA mandated standards would there be a problem? None encountered so far.
Recently trained cabin crew will be augmented by the thousands of cabincrew who will turn up to work. Only 7500 voted to strike, of which I estimate 2500 will not turn up. So out of 13500 cc, there will be 11000 available, plus a thousand volunteers.
Problem?
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
Immediately WW declares an imagined sum to cover these losses and any other costs he can assign to it. He announces that there will have to be a permanent 2.6% pay cut across the board in addition to previous changes. Additionally he declares that all 'expensive' routes will go to a new long haul fleet and away from LHR WW.
In other words, crew lose out big time, and the eventual result will be the decimation of the current crew either to the four winds or to a new, much lower paid fleet. One that will only support single people living at home or in shared accommodation.
Can't disagree with much of that.
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
The strike is all but universally observed.
'Fat chance' is probably my most detailed reply available.
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
I think they're generally in profit.
Argument severely weakened by that one misconception.
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
Certainly the claimed £60m of savings isn't going to sway it significantly in either direction. In the medium term, a more reasonable management style is introduced and much of the wasteful crew agreements are eroded away item by item. Larger savings are made and BA remains in it's niche of being a full service, full destination list premium airline.
Not one business analyst in the city agrees with you. Where do you get your insight?
Originally Posted by
ba.husband
prognosis for BA as a budget airline? Wouldn't last 5 years. Aer Lingus hasn't lasted that long after WW wreaked havoc there has it?
It's never been suggested that it will be a budget airline. You can have a full service airline with cheaper staff. See Virgin.