Looking back, if the company had honoured BASSA's acceptance to save the amount first put to them and not increased it by £30 million pa, where would we be now? Yes £30 millions per year worse off but would have saved £180 millions that was spent on strikes and a massive amount of bad publicity, produced a good 'one team' working environment and a loyal workforce.
You have to ask yourself why? So very sad.
Perhaps something to do with the monumental mistake of BASSA not challenging the inception of MF and concentrating on getting ST back and the re-instatement of their BASSA bullies. Thus leading to an initial cost saving of £100m
per annum increasing as the size of MF grows due to lower costs and no 'block' payments. Reduced compliments thus less HOTAC. MF have paid a bonus and benefit on the capital required to get rid of the constant, annual strike fest that was BASSA. Since we have seen an end to the almost yearly tent erection outside the terminal that announced the onset of another holiday period CC strike over nothing.
The problem with your brilliant plan from BASSA was that it never made sense. On another thread we had hundreds and hundreds of posts asking you to explain, in clear and simple terms, why BA were 'out to destroy' BASSA. Never once was an acceptable, rational explanation given. It was all whitewash, lies and hysteria. You seem to believe, once again, that BASSA was the sole target of the company when it hoodwinked, cajoled and lied to ALL of the other departments who were all so stupid that BASSA were the only ones in the company who could see behind the nefarious schemes.
It was this background that led to all of the other unions and departments refusing to sign off on cost savings until BASSA were brought into line. It was this background, along with the ability to analyse the companies confidential figures and the briefs from the city and investors that led to all the other unions agreeing with the company as to the state of the finances. It was with this background that an independent auditor, with no financial attachment to the company, agreed that, with the share price tumbling to below £1.10 per share, the company was in danger of hostile takeover for slots, that led all the other departments and unions to support BA against the ludicrous actions of BASSA. Thus, as BASSA were the only ones who failed to grasp simple concepts, they felt they were 'under attack'.
Who needs to justify their actions?
Now don't take things so personally Wibbly, we do like you really.
I don't take anything personally, you have no idea how little interest I have in whether you like me or not.
Iberia like the BA cabin crew dispute, is now in a fight to the death. After the destruction and misery wreaked at BA, Walsh was able to move on and the healing began. At Iberia, he has nowhere to go. The covenant on his reputation is about to be called in.
Now here is an interesting sentence. Its ironic that the working environment at BA now is far more pleasant than it has been for a long, long time. Notwithstanding a few die hard individuals the crew on the majority of my flights have been excellent and extremely friendly, engaging and social. The looming, bullying 'name and shame' spectre of BASSA is slowly dissipating and the crew are now beginning to realise that they were, indeed, hoodwinked. Not by BA but by BASSA. That atmosphere of fear of speaking out against the all powerful Union has gone and most of the genuine, hard working crew now look back at the time of the strikes an wonder why on earth BASSA did what they did to achieve absolutely nothing.
This is BASSA, the 'Union' that wants to brief, support and school their colleagues in Spain? God help IB Cabin Crew is all I can say.
your over inflated salary/pension would be that much safer.
Still enjoying it Wonker thanks, keep up the name spelling, you're running out of consonants.