Working for free with BA

[teresa green]

As most of you are aware, BA is basically up the spout financially, and asking staff to work one month for free, or take unpaid leave, as this will probably be not the last airline to make this request, Ladies and Gentlemen, do you do so and try to help stop it go under, (as they did in Compass) or think stuff em, its their problem, (however with the nagging thought of how do I pay off my house if they go belly up) QF came very close in the eighties asking the same thing, and most agreed at the time to put in the hours, so over to you.

[assasin8]

Here's a thought...

Maybe, when times were good, some of that excess revenue was put away for a rainy day, instead of management burning it on cigars, caviar, French champagne, overseas junkets, society parties, and executive bonuses...

We'd find it just that little bit easier to pull ourselves out of this mess now!!!

... Just a thought...:cool:

[Gingerbread]

:* Personally not aware of any compelling reason for Employees to be asked to take over, what is essentially Shareholder risk, without being provided with equity in their Company at least equivalent to their loss in wages + the usual risk premium.

[Fliegenmong]

I see Willy is going to give up his 120,000 a month pay packet for a month......WTF!!! So when the good times resume the staff will be paid a proportionate bonus? Or will they be told how BA really cannot afford it in good times?

He's paid that sort of money because of the resposnsibilty that comes with the job?

Give the responsibility to the Friggin cleaner, he/she can also run a business into the ground.

It's a 24/7 kind of job?

I was at Gatwick a while ago watching a cleaner drive a floor cleaner back and forth at 03:00 from my hotel room.....betcha he was not paid comparitvely for his 24/7 contribution

C'mon get real, how many people can you employ at 120,000 a month? At 120,000 a month it's almost possible to exisit in the UK!!!

Shame though, terrible shame to see such an icon as BA go though....makes privatising public assets look like a stupid idea....:sad:

[Mr. Hat]

If I like the company then yes no problem at all. If I don't like the company then not in one million years.

[yowieII]

Given the choice, seeing the financial reasoning and accounting behind it, then getting much more qualified briefings on that reasoning and accounting, maybe. Sure beats not having a say in it and doing it anyway cos you are hoping they will get through it because of some spin doctor with the gift of the BS gab makes you believe all will be fine:mad:

[oicur12]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, do you do so and try to help stop it go under, (as they did in Compass) or think stuff em, its their problem"

Well, its kinda your problem too because if they go under, there are no jobs out there.

[Falling Leaf]

A lot of these 'initiatives', LWOP, working for free etc are been used by business globally to protect their productive base for the 'inevitable' V shaped recovery from the current recession. The danger, which in my view is the most likely outcome, is that the recovery will be flat, or much delayed, and that eventually companies will have no option but to lay off their staff - for good.

So in working for free for a month, are you better off using that time/energy instead to try and find long term employment elsewhere. If your employer is in that situation now, then anything other than a V shaped recovery will see you losing your job anyway.

[Gingerbread]

Hmmm! Talk about prophetic:
BA pilots to share in 'pain and gain'
[/URL]

June 19, 2009 from: [URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/"]The Times (http://javascript<b></b>:print();)

BRITISH Airways pilots have agreed to take a bet on the prosperity of their company by accepting shares worth pound stg. 13 million ($26.8m) as part of a deal to save the airline pound stg. 26m a year.
The arrangement is part of a draft agreement with BA's 3235 pilots for a package of wage cuts and productivity gains.
The shares will not be granted until June 1, 2011, and cannot be sold for a minimum of three years after their allocation.
The number that each pilot receives will depend on the stock's price when they are granted.
BA's shares have fallen by more than two-thirds in the past 2 1/2 years, as rising fuel bills and declining demand for first-class and business seats has badly hit the bottom line.
Andrew Fitchie, an analyst for Collins Stewart, has a price target of 214p on the shares, meaning that by the time the pilots are granted their allocation, they could have missed out on some of the potential to make a profit on them.
However, the British Airline Pilots Association said that it was pleased with the deal that it had struck and acknowledged that drastic measures had to be taken.
Association general secretary Jim McAuslan said: "We have been doing some intensive research and polling over the last two months.
"Our research indicates that BA is facing a real business challenge and this is not the case of the employer crying wolf.
"We have always said that as a union we would share the pain if our members shared in the gain."
About pound stg. 16m of the annual savings will come from wage reductions, with the other pound stg. 10m resulting from pilots working longer hours and changing shift patterns.
The changes amount to a 2.61 per cent cut in the pilots' average basic pay, which is thought to average about pound stg. 80,000 a year, and a 20 per cent reduction in flying time allowances -- an additional payment received by pilots for every hour in the air.
In return, BA's pilots, who earn an average total of pound stg. 107,600 when bonuses and allowances are added to their basic salary, will be granted pound stg. 13m of shares on June 1, 2011.
The pound stg. 26m in cost savings equates to pound stg. 8037 per pilot, while the share allocation amounts to pound stg. 4018.
The deal will put pressure on the airline's 15,000 cabin crew to reach a cost-cutting agreement of their own.
They are in discussions with BA after the airline told them that it was looking to cut 2000 of their jobs in the scramble to save money.
A spokesman for Unite, the trade union representing the cabin crew, said yesterday that talks were continuing.
A BA spokesman said: "We are pleased that we have reached an agreement with Balpa and that it will recommend proposals to its pilot members in a forthcoming ballot."

A sign of the times I reackon. :hmm:

[Captain Marvel]

Well I've been working for free for the past 25yrs.

The gov't takes a huge chunk in tax
The bank takes a chunk for the mortgage
The school takes more in fees.
The kids take some and go to the movies
The wife takes more and heads off to lunch.

I'm left in an empty house with not even enough change to go and buy a beer!

[snoop doggy dog]

Can't understand why BA got all the press and CX/KA nothing?:rolleyes:

We have taken 3 or 4 weeks unpaid leave already. The CX management sprouted off about preserving cash (only $15 Billion HKD in the kitty we find out latter), then no sooner we have given up the pay (idle threats made about people who are not team players and sharing the pain), they spend the f@ckin coin on buying back 10% of the shares! :mad:

They are all trying it out :suspect:

[Mr. Hat]

With this latest development Virgin Atlantic would surely be rubbing there hands together.

[Sue Ridgepipe]

Can't understand why BA got all the press and CX/KA nothing?
Probably because CX are not asking you to work for nothing. You might not be getting paid, but at least they are not asking you to keep working at the same time.

[struggling]

Article below suggests that airlines like BA & Qantas will have to decide if they want follow the Southwest model or the Ryan Air model.

There are two routes to survival for airlines
By Professor Greg Bamber- June 19, 2009


The way an air carrier relates to its staff is crucial in difficult economic times.
AIRLINES, their customers and staff are weathering tough times as they face the global financial crisis as well as more competition.
It will be interesting to watch the US-Australia trans-Pacific market, which will soon have four competitors, rather than only two. Similarly, since Melbourne-based Tiger Airways has entered the market, there are now four not two brands in mainline domestic aviation.
Many airlines have collapsed. Profits made by airlines in boom times have been wiped out by their losses in recessions.
In the past, airlines were highly regulated. On many international routes before deregulation there were typically monopolies or duopolies of two national flag airlines — based in the home country of each airport. The US led moves towards deregulation in the 1970s and the UK followed in the 1980s. Since then, Australia and many other countries have deregulated to some extent.
Is it possible to design more sustainable airlines that better serve the interests of customers, investors, employees and the wider society? Similar questions are relevant to many other enterprises in other industries.
One management survival strategy for airlines is to focus on cutting labour costs by paying the lowest possible wages and benefits, keeping staffing as lean as possible and avoiding unionisation or minimising trade union influence if or when employees organise.
Ryanair, based in Ireland, adopts such a strategy. Its employment relations strategy is to focus on low costs via wage minimisation, union avoidance and employee control. By some measures, it is now the largest airline in Europe.
In contrast America's Southwest Airlines, founded in 1971, chose employment relations strategies based on paying people well, as well as fostering employee commitment and partnerships with their unions. It is now the largest and most successful airline in the US.
These two airlines are the two most influential role models for other "new-entrant airlines". Both strategies also include achieving low total costs by increasing employee and aircraft productivity, for example, by speeding up turnaround times of aircraft at airports. Most new airlines have tried to adopt aspects of the approaches pioneered by Southwest Airlines and Ryanair.
Australia used to have a "two-airline" policy which was, in effect, a duopoly. The domestic mainline routes were shared between Australian Airlines, now
Qantas, and Ansett.
Since Qantas was privatised in the 1990s it has generally operated profitably. Ansett was mainly a domestic airline. The strategic position of these "legacy airlines" was to offer full service. They had relatively high operating costs and fares.
Impulse and Virgin Blue Airlines both started flying in Australia in 2000 after several short-lived attempts to start a third domestic airline. Virgin Blue co-founder Brett Godfrey and his team saw Southwest as a model.
The almost simultaneous launch of Virgin Blue and Impulse caused a price war. Qantas and Ansett dropped their fares to match the new entrants' start-up deals.
As the legacy airlines had higher costs, the fare reductions were a challenge for all the airlines. During the price war, Qantas took over Impulse. Ansett, taken over by Air New Zealand, was soon declared bankrupt.
When they began, Australia's new-entrant airlines enjoyed a 30 to 40 per cent cost advantage compared with Qantas. Nevertheless, unlike many legacy airlines in other countries, Qantas has continued to be profitable. This is partly thanks to its successful relaunch of Impulse as Jetstar as well as to its strong position in international and corporate markets.
One paradox is that, simultaneously, the rhetoric from several overseas airlines (for example in the US) has emphasised the importance of improving customer service and fostering employee commitment while seeking to reduce employees' economic rewards or to retrench them. This sends contradictory messages. Since Virgin Blue aimed to provide a friendly service, albeit without all the full-service "frills", it generally followed Southwest and adopted a commitment approach in which its staff interact most with customers.
In contrast to many other airlines around the world and despite the rise in fuel costs in 2008 and the global financial crisis, Virgin Blue has tried to avoid retrenching employees. Its rationale is that it has invested heavily in recruitment and training. Despite now cutting about 400 jobs, Virgin Blue is trying to avoid sacking more people. Instead it is offering employees various forms of leave or redeployment to V Australia, its new international airline. However, some airlines have followed Ryanair as the model for employee relations — for example, AirAsia (based in Malaysia, but now also flying to Australia). AirAsia has rejected a partnership approach and is taking an aggressive union avoidance. This reminds us that airlines and other businesses still have scope for strategic choice in employment relations policies and developing co-operative industrial relations. However, their scope for choice is influenced by the regulation of product and labour markets.
It remains to be seen how the Government's new Fair Work laws may influence the employment relations strategies of airlines and other enterprises in Australia.
Professor Greg Bamber is director of research in the department of management, faculty of business and economics at Monash University.Billion dollar question is:

Can Qantas concurrently mange both a Southwest strategy and a Ryan Air strategy without splitting itself apart?Yep! they can, but only if it follows Virgin Blue's lead and allows staff to move between Jetstar & Qantas. :ok:

[psycho joe]

Virgin Blue has tried to avoid retrenching employees. Its rationale is that it has invested heavily in recruitment and training.

What a croc... At the time of inception I doubt there was any jet operator in the South Pacific spending less than VB on training and recruitment.

Despite now cutting about 400 jobs, Virgin Blue is trying to avoid sacking more people. Instead it is offering employees various forms of leave or redeployment to V Australia, its new international airline.

Aren't they in fact forcibly transfering people onto an unpopular type (Ejet), complete with pay-cut and transfer to a city not of your choosing?

My bet is that when all the Ejet positions are filled, VB will start recruiting for the inevitable 737 crew shortage.

[Angle of Attack]

oicur12

Well, its kinda your problem too because if they go under, there are no jobs out there.

What a load of Croc! Its only your problem if you cant move on to another company!

[anawanahuanana]

Owen Stanley: To be fair (which is hard for me as an ex-B.A employee who dislikes them as much as the next man), actually yes, in the good times they did share the love around a bit. It was called profit share, and let's not forget that in the good times, many people actually got half decent payrises negotiated.:ugh:

To those that think that the company going under is someone elses problem, just remember that when you're sitting in your hotel room in Lagos waiting to report for you contract job thousands of miles away from home because it's the only thing you could get after the local job market was flooded with people who didn't think it was "their problem"........:ugh::ugh:

[WoodenEye]

For Airline Employees still blessed with discretionary disposable income (Ie: BA/Qantas Pilots, Engineers, Etc,) any opportunity to:

1. Save their well paid jobs,
2. Trade Salary for Equity on favourable Terms & Conditions
3. Secure meaningful Voice & Participation in the management of their Airline

Has to be a God sent opportunity in the long run.

Hopefully Professional Associations with foresight will be able to 'exploit' the current GFC to secure enterprise agreements that deliver 10% of their members annual income via dividends from employee owned equity.

Without the power & influence, Equity brings with it, Professional Employees (Pilots/Engineers) will continue to be marginalised.

Bring in on I say. Asking and/or accepting 'Working for Free' ain't in the interest of anybody. :O

[On Guard]

Pshyo Joe

You were not forced to the E Jet, you could choose redundancy. At least you got a choice!

[Dark Knight]

http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/robofq/FlyforFood.jpg


WE

The lesson we supposedly should learn is the lesson history teaches.

For starters go and talk to the United Airline pilots and staff.

United Airlines share price: High -Jan 2007 U$51.16 Now - U$3.85

Staff ownership of United virtually worthless and highly likely to deteriorate further.

Pilot Pension Scheme - GONE!

In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings United management went to the courts and had the United Pilots Pension Scheme disbanded. (not sure about other staff pension schemes (engineers, flight attendants, etc, but think the same thing happened))

How much power & influence do the staff (co-owners) of United Airlines have these days?

The experience in other airline staff ownership schemes has generally ended in tears before bedtime.

It is management’s job to run the airline, sell the seats, provide the capacity and provide the staff to fly, clean, maintain, and load the aircraft. It also managements job to take the risks, provide the capital for efficient and safe running of an airline and to do so profitably.

At the same time management should provide a fair days wage for a fair days work whilst the staff do a fair days work for a fair days pay.

DK

[WoodenEye]

Viewed from the other side of the coin, if the Superannuation and 401K ESOP savings of United Pilots has been devistated as DK suggests; then keeping their jobs by buying United Shares at $3.85 and not $51 (with before tax dollars), looks more & more like a 'Get Out of Goal Free Card, - paid for by Government. :ok:

[struggling]

United is a poor example which has a lot more to do with bad timing (911) than it does with backing their company.

Have done some surfing of the net and according to the UK legal firm - Field Fisher Waterhouse Field Fisher - www.ffw.com (http://www.ffw.com)

Since 1992 when employee schemes got underway, employee owned companies have outperformed the FTSE All Share Index each year by an average of 10%, and
Over successive 5 yr periods, they have outperformed the index by 78%.More to the point, reasons given for the improved performance includes employee engagement, higher standards of governance and conservative growth strategies.

Looks like BA's Pilots have backed the numbers and can look forward to keeping their jobs while turning a profit on their investment.

[porch monkey]

Work free for a month huh? Who'd a thunk it. Well, I guess it means that GA has finally caught up to the airlines. Or, maybe, the airlines have sunk to GA level. All depends on your point of view I guess..

[QFinsider]

When the irish turd willie has a salary that is a reasonable multiple of the operational workforce, I will believe that it is time to consider the populace work for nadda.

As I understand it the bog irsh second cousin, non aussie "CEO" of QF is away at end of financial year...For the driver of the QF performance show he is absent a lot. maybe him and cousin willie have a family shindig....

[fearcampaign]

BA made the press and Cathay did not for one simple reason.

BALPA who represent most pilots in B.A have a professional press officer who's role it is to represent the pilot's interests in the press.

It was spun carefully to have the PERCEPTION that BA pilots were working for free.
CNN, BBC etc ran with this story on TELEVISION.
This is now the public perception of what BA pilots are doing to help the company.

Whilst I acknowledge that BA pilots are making cuts they do in fact stand to gain if and when the airline recovers and fair enough too!!!! If it is good enough for the execs then the staff should not be treated differently.

Some print articles reported the pay for shares but overall a job well done by BALPA's press officers and company secretary who was interviewed on CNN worldwide.