BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[fincastle84]

I heard it. They repeated all the old stuff about the evil WW & how he has withdrawn staff travel from a female CC member who has only 6 months to live. I'm not sure that Victoria Derbyshire swallowed that one.

The employment lawyer tied them up in knots. He explained that ST was non contractural with Unite's agreement in order to avoid paying income tax on benefit in kind perks. The 2 CSDs were so :mad: that they thought he was talking about travel tax!

He also pointed out that BA have every right to fire all the strikers providing that non are re employed within 3 months. They certainly didn't like that one.

All in all I get the feeling that even the BBC has woken up to the fact that Unite are backing a losing horse. The interview was definitely not biased towards Bassa. The 2 CSDs certainly went away with their tails firmly between their legs.

[shobakker]

The latest news just shows how naive the unions are.

Did they really think that BA wouldn't go through with their threat to withdraw staff discounted travel? That perk alone must cost BA millions.

I really don't understand why the unions think they can win this one, and furthermore how they're "protecting" their members. Do they really believe that by striking and costing BA millions, they're doing the company any good - how do they propose to help their unemployed members if BA have to make mass redundancies after this strike? :ugh:

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I understood that Staff Travel was on a 'space available' basis - essentially the same as Standby. On that basis there's no real cost penalty to BA as such [BA staff use unsold seats].

However, the loss of the ability to take family and kids on cheap trips will be an unfortunate [and promised] consequence of IA.

I'm not completely clear how ST might affect the 'commuters' who live far, far away and fly into LHR to go to work. Is that a separate form of ST? As in "Home to Duty"? Otherwise some people's cosy living arrangements may be substantially screwed.

[radeng]

But you cannot trust BA. Last week, the web site that if you didn't get the service (no meals in Club Europe) you would get a refund. That's been removed, and they're refusing to pay where they didn't provide the service. I flew to Nice on BA344 last Sunday, in Club Europe, operated by Titan Airways. The seat was an economy seat, there was no champagne and no meal. So it was just the same as Eurotraveller, but more expensive. Having complained, they are going to send me a £30 voucher.

I reckon they have seriously broken the contract that we (BA and I) jointly entered into, viz. that they would transport me in a given class of service.

Now if they will do that to a Gold card holder on his eleventh flight with them this year, is there any reason for their staff to trust them?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ radeng ... I'd posed that question to myself, and had wondered how BA might handle some form of compensation. When I fly next month to IAD, I certainly expect to get the flatbed seat in J that I have already paid for. The food and drink is of little relative consequence [food not very special and I have to drive at the other end!].

I assume you complained to BA Exec Club?

[radeng]

Yes, and this is the answer:

I am extremely sorry your flight was affected by the industrial action by our cabin crew. I can appreciate how disappointed you were, especially as we failed to offer you a seat in Club Europe cabin. Please accept my apologies.
Throughout this situation, our main concern was for our customers and how it affected them. Staff worked tirelessly to try to reduce the significant impact this would have on our passengers. As a Gold Club member I appreciate this is little consolation for the frustration and difficulties you experienced.
I am also concerned that that the service you received on your recent flight to Nice was not what you would expect on a British Airways flight. Our priority was to operate as many flights as we could and this meant that we had to use alternative carriers. We did plan to make sure disruption was kept to a minimum however we know it caused problems for our passengers. Your comments will be passed on to the Customer Experience managers concerned so that we can review any plans we use in the future.
While I appreciate your reasons for asking, I am afraid I cannot refund the difference in fares of your tickets.
By way of an apology, I have, though, arranged to send you a travel voucher for £30 with my compliments. You are welcome to put it towards any published British Airways fare but not towards the cost of any booking that includes a hotel or prepaid car hire. There are a few things I need to let you know about using your voucher. It can be used by calling our reservation centre on 0844 493 0 787 but it cannot be used when booking on ba.com. The voucher is valid for one year from the date of issue and is not renewable. You must make your booking at least 10 days before you travel.

Thank you for taking the time to get in touch. As a Gold Executive Club member, your feedback is genuinely appreciated. I am sorry our service did not meet its usual high standards on this occasion and I hope it will not deter you from flying with us again.
Best regards
Jerome Pinto
British Airways Customer Relations
Your case reference is:8079705
Please use the following link if you need to send us a reply:
British Airways - Email us UK Executive Club (http://britishairways.com/travel/webforms/public/en_gb?eId=120001&wfpId=custrelreplies&case=8079705)



I haven't yet decided upon a response

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Hmmm ... I have some sympathy for their position during a strike, but to offer a Gold member a hedged-in £30 voucher seems a bit rough [especially when you consider the impracticability of actually using it!]. As a lowly Blue, I'd guess I'd have got nothing!

Wouldn't the simplest thing have been to automatically credit people experiencing the reduced standards with a bucket of BA Miles [factored for class, distance etc.]? That would create a convenient 2-way loyalty situation.

Ahhhh ... but, of course, not everyone is an ExeClub member.
Ignore my self-centred dribblings. :O

[What the Fug]

Two questions that come to mind, on this strike

How can BA sack people for going on strike, and do we want to live in a country where this is legal ?

If the unions won a majority to go strike why have they alienated so many of their members that they are ignoring the the outcome of the ballot?

[Snas]

How can BA sack people for going on strike, and do we want to live in a country where this is legal ?




Any employer can sack anyone for anything at anytime, just sometimes there is a price to pay as a result, the employer just needs to decide if the price is worth it. Unless the employer is silly enough to bring race, sex, disability etc into the mix the price to pay is usually very low indeed.

Dont think for a moment that I think thats good, I dont, but it is what it is.

As far as living in a country with such worthless labour protection laws, well, you have a vote soon to spend, spend wisely and change the country.

[emanresuym]

Good questions.
1. They can't. It is considered unfair dismissal to sack someone for striking as long as the strike is itself legal (which I believe this one is). However, if the industrial action continues for more than 12 weeks, I believe they can be sacked. In addition, I suppose any company may consider that someone willing to break their contract to go on strike is not likely to be very supportive of the company in the future and may therefore be more likely to be made redundant in the future.
2. I think this is a VERY good question. I've seen suggestions here and elsewhere that the union may have used rather a lot of rhetoric during the vote and not been completely clear about their intentions. But I admit I don't really know :hmm:

[just an observer]

Perhaps the reason that so many who voted yes to a strike are now working, is that BASSA got an improved offer in the form of 184 (I think) of the reduced crew level replaced, plus a cash bonus on the same basis the pilots would get shares, and possibly could have firmed up on the generally vague promises of continuing T&Cs (which were firmed up somewhat in the new offer immediately pre strike), but BASSA effectively refused to put it to a ballot by calling strike dates instead.

The deadline for calling strike dates had been mutually agreed between Walsh and Simpson of Unite to be extended, but by calling the strike, the whole thing came off the table, and one can't help but wonder if that was intentional, either by BASSA as they thought crew might vote in favour of it, or McLuskey who seems to have his own agenda.

[Andy_S]

If the unions won a majority to go strike why have they alienated so many of their members that they are ignoring the the outcome of the ballot?

Hundreds and hundreds of pages have been published on this forum asking the same question!

I'll make just a couple of observations of my own.

Firstly, the strike was always controversial. BA are losing money and are hurting badly in the current economic climate. As a result, BA have tried to negotiate, and eventually imposed changes in CC working practices. However, these are widely considered to be modest, there have been no compulsory redundancies, and no cuts in pay. Under the circumstances, a lot of CC have concluded that it would be self indulgent to support a strike which will further damage an already wounded company.

Secondly, however sorely some of the CC feel about the way BA have behaved, a lot of them recognise that it's still the best CC job in the UK airline industry, and the issues under dispute simply aren't worth losing salary, staff travel and possibly employment over. They may have voted 'Yes' but only to "send a message" to Willie Walsh; they never had any real intention of striking.

[Final 3 Greens]

Radeng

This is what the EU says

Upgrading and downgrading

1. If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class
higher than that for which the ticket was purchased, it may not
request any supplementary payment.

2. If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class
lower than that for which the ticket was purchased, it shall
within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3),
reimburse

(a) 30 % of the price of the ticket for all flights of 1 500 kilometres
or less, or

17.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 46/5
(b) 50 % of the price of the ticket for all intra-Community
flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, except flights
between the European territory of the Member States and
the French overseas departments, and for all other flights
between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres, or

(c) 75 % of the price of the ticket for all flights not falling
under (a) or (b), including flights between the European
territory of the Member States and the French overseas
departments.

Go get 'em, Floyd.

I would love to see them try and argue 'extraordinary' circumstances when they had considerable advance warning of the strike.

[radeng]

3 Greens,

many thanks for that.

I'll see what i get from my last email to them.....

[Ruthanne]

So is it stalemate now in this dispute??? nothing about any of the sides meeting? in for the duration now, sad really so many have so much to lose...including me, only as a passenger though, with plans for a big family reunion in Phoenix at the end of April...we all booked a long time ago with BA, I noticed that Phoenix flights have been cancelled in both of the strike dates, well the LHR - Phoenix part, for selfish reasons I hope its settled by then, but in truth I really don't think so....

[Ancient Observer]

Where BA and CC are in the strike process.

When a group go on strike in the UK it is completely normal for that group to become very emotional towards its employer. Equally, the employer becomes very emotional towards the strikers.

Thus, all the anti-WW stuff is normal. I'm not saying it is pleasant, it is normal, as is the removal of staff travel as the employers emotional response.

However, I'm a bit worried about the staff travel issue. To get strikers back to work, one normally finds a way around issues which are important for the strikers. Staff travel is one such issue. However, to "give it back" would deeply offend the non-striking staff. How will this be resolved?

Maybe BA have no intention of ever "giving it back", and have no intention of taking the strikers back???

[Ruthanne]

Ancient Observer

I really hope whatever is on the agenda that it is all sorted sooner rather than later....one thing is for sure there will not be any one winner

[Munnyspinner]

Having seem the alleged e-mail from Big WW to striking CC regarding travel conseccions one suspects that he is probably rather grateful that UNITE are effectivley doing his job for him. By taking away non contractual benefits he is going to get some instant cost savings ( probably not significant). Perhaps more significantly, having lost their perks, there is now a greater likelihood that that same group of CC will not want to stay with BA post strike - unless their perks are returned ( I suspect that will form part of the next negotiation.)

The stakes look as if they will rise and either support for UNITE will collapse (my bet) or BA will back down ( I think not!).

Perhaps somewhat unfairly, Lord Peter Meddlesome, has been putting it about that BA will not be given the same protection as the UK Banks that went under - when in fact what he means is that the government could not be seen to permit its biggest funder to ruin one of the the UK's biggest businesses and international flag carrier. Thanks Mandy, at least the share price is flying! (Ok - so, its down .65% today )

[Ancient Observer]

Ruthanne,

I've been involved in rather too many strikes. I just can't see a decent "we'll all happily work to-gether" way through on this one.

However, I do hope that you'll be "Standing on a corner in Phoenix Arizona"* by the end of April.

(*Eagles. They changed it to Southern California in the Live version.)

[Ancient Observer]

Munnyspinner - you're wrong about strikers being sacked. They can all be sacked at any time. Those who claim "unfair" dismissal may or may not get some sort of payout from a Court some years down the way.

[Ruthanne]

Ancient Observer,

So do I hope I am in Phoenix AZ, maybe they will get me there some other way?

btw love the Eagles, takes me back

[BillS]

To get strikers back to work, one normally finds a way around issues which are important for the strikers. Staff travel is one such issue. However, to "give it back" would deeply offend the non-striking staff. How will this be resolved?

Maybe BA have no intention of ever "giving it back", and have no intention of taking the strikers back???

I suspect that many of the non-striking staff would be happy to see ST given back to most of the strikers. It is the hard-core BASSA who are seen to have caused all the trouble, and who will not return, that surely must lose out - for them to regain ST would surely be seen as offensive.

BA, the company, is likely to have a similar view.

It may take a while longer for that hard-core element to all self select.

[etrang]

But you cannot trust BA

No, you can't. But unfortunately you can't trust bassa either.

[ExXB]

3 Greens,

many thanks for that.

I'll see what i get from my last email to them.....

Note the distinction here in Paragraph 2 of the Regulation (which is Regulation 261/2004, by the way). This isn't compensation this is a reimbursement. You aren't being compensated for being downgraded, you are being refunded for it.

I would love to see them try and argue 'extraordinary' circumstances when they had considerable advance warning of the strike.They can argue all they want, but the extraordinary circumstance defense doesn't apply to downgrading (nor to denied boarding, for that matter). If it happens they have to refund you.

Now - this exchange should be added to the 'How to P1ss off BA's best customers' thread', as yet again BA shooting themselves in the foot. Save a penny, loose a frequent flyer.

Mind you, on the other hand, had they cancelled your flight you would only have been entitled to a refund or a reroute, compensation isn't payable for flights cancelled because of strikes. In the Regulation this is clearly an extraordinary circumstance even with considerable advance warning.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

In addition to the "alleged email from Big WW", there's an "alleged" summary of WW's message at the BA employee Forum here Post 350 (http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=5592960#post5592960)

Allegedly I typed this, but that's impossible to verify either ;)

[Dunhovrin]

Wasn't it Winslow, Arizona? Surely it's "By The Time I Get To Phoenix"?

Good luck Ruthanne.

[cym]

See Moo's post on cc tread.

On the plus side they accept that the figures they have used have not been accurate

on the negative side they dont know that BA flight numbers suffixed with 'F' are freighter flights which BA announced they did operate to position aircraft for flights that had been canx and pax moved!

Conculsion on behalf of BASSA - whats this piece of metal in my hand and why do I have a hole in my foot!

Jez, can they get anything right? Soz, stupid question!!!

[ExSp33db1rd]

That perk alone must cost BA millions.
perk ? as in Company Car etc ? Airline staff are no different to many other companies who offer rebate facilities of some sort or another to their employees, but the Green Eyed Monster often conveniently forgets that !

see below ........

understood that Staff Travel was on a 'space available' basis - essentially the same as Standby. On that basis there's no real cost penalty to BA as such [BA staff use unsold seats].
Correct

Staff travel is one such issue. However, to "give it back" would deeply offend the non-striking staff. How will this be resolved?

and deeply offend the older pensioners who have been so recently and unceremoniously kicked out of Staff Travel access - for no fault of their own !

[ExSp33db1rd]

From the previously alleged letter to striking staff from W.W. ........


..........You may, however, continue to benefit from discounted commercial tickets (Hotline).




I'm not completely clear how ST might affect the 'commuters' who live far, far away and fly into LHR to go to work. Is that a separate form of ST? As in "Home to Duty"? Otherwise some people's cosy living arrangements may be substantially screwed.

BA staff and those pensioners still granted access to S.T. are allowed to buy 'Hotline' tickets, these are basically commercial fares at a discount, around 10% I believe but can vary, and also buy these for ANY of their friends, effectively just acting as a Travel Agent, so if you want a discounted ticket just befriend a BA staff member or valid pensioner. (Staff are limited to how many times a year they can utilise this function - so get in quick )

In my day I could live anywhere I liked so long as I could report for duty as required, how I did that was entirely my affair - and my responsibilty - I haven't heard that long distance commuting staff have any new concessions, but they might have, but relying solely on a normal Staff Travel standby basis would be fraught with hazard, I would have thought, tho' boarding using S.T is often ' who you know, not what you know' but it is more computerised now and less open to blatant favouritism by those checking the tickets. ( and don't tell me it never happens/ed )

By allowing striking C.C. to retain Hotline facilities, WW is still giving them the chance to commute to work, and ...... buy tickets for their friends to help B.A. ! ( do you think they will ?? ) tho' he has removed that potential source of income from the older pensioners that he has kicked out - zilch for us.

[slf22]

In reference to this (http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=5593412#post5593419)
Are cabin crew/csd's whatever not paid a basic wage? :confused:

[wiggy]

I haven't heard that long distance commuting staff have any new concessions, but they might have, but relying solely on a normal Staff Travel standby basis would be fraught with hazard, I would have thought, tho' boarding using S.T is often ' who you know, not what you know' but it is more computerised now and less open to blatant favouritism by those checking the tickets. ( and don't tell me it never happens/ed )



Nothing new for the flying commuters...standby is still standby, though the relatively recent addition of "Hotlines" adds another string to the bow of travel options.

[Rollingthunder]

British Airways cabin crew who took part in the Unite union's three-day strike will forfeit their travel perks permanently, the company has confirmed............

[ChicoG]

Willie Walsh used the slash and burn management technique in Aer Lingus, and look how well that airline is doing these days.

More BASSA tripe. Walsh SAVED Aer Lingus and they managed to survive for several years after he left. Their problems now are related to the global economy that's seen airlines as big as JAL go tits up.

By all means dislike the bloke, but when your next email blames him for the fines, please note that I'll only have to point out that the fines came from the profits made as a result of the price fixing involved.

If he was doing a crap job the people that hired him would have let him go by now. As it is they trust him and have given him their backing, and the share price should tell you that investors do, too.

Back on topic, I personally cannot wait to see the next batch of would-be strikers slink into work because now they are starting to realise that BA management, other BA workers and investors have had enough of their selfish, puerile crap.

[Ruthanne]

Morning to all

I have noticed that on the strike dates that the flight to Phoenix did in fact go but went as a freight plane ...answer to my problems pack myself as freight ...or can I hitch a ride with one of the pilots here!!!!

[oggers]

I have followed this IA from the sidelines since the pre Xmas strike vote. The more I read and hear from those involved (particularly on this forum) the more I am led to the conclusion that BASSA are a bunch of clueless barrack-room lawyers. Just my opinion of course.

But I'd also like to say, from plenty of experience flying on BA that the CC and service has generally been of a high standard, and I would not hesitate to use them again. Once this ridiculous union has been sorted out that is.

[binsleepen]

I feel sorry for your plight re staff travel and I certainly don't want to reopen it. Why don't you open a separate thread to discuss it then you won't need to go off topic in virtually every post you write to remind us of the upset you feel with BA.

Regards to all

PS Ruthanne, my wife and child are also off to Phoenix, on the 15 Apr, so hopefully these flights will be reinstated if there is a 3rd round of strikes.

[Ruthanne]

Binsleepin

I so hope they are reinstated, I always thought that Phoenix was such
a popular flight, I wonder why it has not been reinstated yet? I guess that BA can re route though for passengers

[binsleepen]

Ruthanne,

Pheonix is seen as a leisure destination not business. It therefore has fewer premium pax. If you look on board there is only a small J section downstairs compared to the 744s that fly to New York. I guess that there is a smaller profit margin.

Regards

[radeng]

I expect BA's answer will be 'you were not downgraded, you just didn't get the normal Club Europe service.' Which is a weaselly approach......but we will see.

[Global Warrior]

I expect BA's answer will be 'you were not downgraded, you just didn't get the normal Club Europe service.' Which is a weaselly approach......but we will see.


Actually, i suspect BA will say that due to their staff that VOLUTARILY gave up their Staff Travel Rights, they are currently operating a limited service!!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Final 3 Greens]

Radeng

Their email to you said "I can appreciate how disappointed you were, especially as we failed to offer you a seat in Club Europe cabin."

Prima facie evidence of a downgrade and they have to pay you 33% of the ticket value in 7 days.

End of.

[Ruthanne]

Binsleepin

I appreciate for obviouse reasons BA will depart their flights that give them the most revenue, but the Phoenix to LHR route has not been cancelled on all strike dates. Of course its a leisure route but we are coming up to the holiday season and leisure routes fill up.

I would like to see some sort of statement from BA that there is hope
for all us leisure passengers that are booked on up and coming flights...
when people have plans, they are usually planned well in advance, its very disturbing the situation that we find ourselves in now....it takes all types of passengers to keep an airline in the skys...a little information to what perhaps they do for us e.g. is there a chance they will re book us on another flight?

All I seem to be singing is By the Time I get to Phoenix....those around me are getting rather bored!!!!

p.s. Club is always full when I travel as is first....very nice service it is too...but then I rather like to fly BA

[SLFAussie]

Over in the BA CC thread this letter to the editor of the Guardian has been posted:

British Airways strike letter: 'Macho Walsh wants to break the union' | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/25/ba-strike-letter-academics-walsh)

BA staff wondering why there might be support from these academics for the BASSA/Unite action might want to consider that large funding cuts are being imposed in academia because of the current state of the UK economy. Might these academics be looking for support from Unite in the near future in their own industrial action?

(Posted here because I'm (obviously) not BA staff)

[PaddyMiguel]

Might these academics be looking for support from Unite?

Maybe they should be looking for facts too. Unite never accepted any offer from Willie Walsh so how could WW reject their acceptance? They refused to recommend BA's offer if I remember correctly.

[call100]

Of course it would be naive to think that anyone could actually look at the content of the letter without coming up with some sort of denouncement. It wouldn't sit well with ones own political views, would it?

[Andy_S]

Of course it would be naive to think that anyone could actually look at the content of the letter without coming up with some sort of denouncement. It wouldn't sit well with ones own political views, would it?

I've read the content of the letter. The statement it contains which sticks out like a sore thumb is the following one:

What other possible interpretation can there be for Willie Walsh rejecting Unite's acceptance of BA's previous offer

That statement is completely incorrect, and as such invalidates the entire letter in my eyes. Unite never, at any point, accepted any of BA's offers. Either these 'academics' are very badly informed about this dispute, or they're putting their own rather partial spin on events. Either way, their credibility is badly compromised.

[ninja-lewis]

This is from a pro-union supporter elsewhere so I've taken it with a very large pinch of salt but can anyone verify it?

"they [BA] are now supposedly refusing refunds on flights they re-instated, at no notice, at the weekend. Stating that even though they didn't tell anyone which flights would be running, it is the customers fault and so don't deserve a refund"

[radeng]

Latest response from BA:


Thank you for coming back to us. I'm sorry for the error in our previous email.
For a refund of the difference in fares, I have passed on a copy of your file to our refunds team. They will calculate any applicable refund depending on the percentage of the fare you paid for the affected sector and based on the length of the flight. In the meantime if you would like to get in touch with them their address is:
British Airways PLC
P O Box 365 Refunds
HDA1 (R46)
Waterside
Harmondsworth
Middlesex
UB7 0GB
I hope you will fly with us again soon.
Best regards



So there you are! I look forward to see what happens.....

[Entaxei]

As professional academics, it is unlikely that they have ever held a normal job outside of academia, which potentially very much dilutes the value of any comments they make or opinions they hold of any situations in the world outside academia unless a full unbiased analysis is made of all aspects.

Whilst they lay claim to various areas of expertise in the field of employment relations in making an analysis, it is unfortunate that they display a total lack of such in their analysis of this particular dispute, in that they have obviously not taken into account any of the abortive attempts at negotiation during 2009, due to the unions refusal to have any meaningfull meetings and internal arguments. Neither have they apparently paid any attention to the courts judgement nor the details thereof or even read the proposals made by BA.

In their declaration of the current position, it is also apparent that they have not read the text of the statements and offers made by BA so far this year and, have totally ignored the unions responses and actions and the distorted and incorrect information that they gave out, which has led to this strike.

It is interesting to view the background and experience of the people whose names are appended to this letter as most - if not all - appear to have backgrounds associated with trade unions and union activity. An unbiased missive this is not and I would hope that any academics in these universities are cringing in horror at what is being said in the name of their establishments.

Propaganda is a two edged sword.

[The SSK]

How do 95 people, from - what? - 50 locations around the UK, write a letter? The answer is, they don't. Somebody writes it for them, they just sign it. Presumably the person who wrote it had all their names on a special contact list.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Given the lack of accuracy and analysis evidenced in the letter, I subscribe to the 'politically motivated' viewpoint from a single source. I cannot envisage that many 'professors' being so corporately pig-ignorant of FACTS.

I'm glad I decided not to become a professor - I'd be embarrassed to be associated with that title on the basis of that letter. ;)

[call100]

How do 95 people, from - what? - 50 locations around the UK, write a letter? The answer is, they don't. Somebody writes it for them, they just sign it. Presumably the person who wrote it had all their names on a special contact list.
No Kidding?? I guess you missed out the bit that about them reading it first??

Why did BA ignore ACAS and not reconvene the meeting where they withdrew the offer? The Union had agreed to meet at ACAS and call off the strike if this had been done.
ACAS were not happy with WW attitude and remarks made that were incorrect.

The point is that this is the sort of dispute that polarises opinion to the point that the facts get totally distorted. Either in the Media or on sites like this there are comments made that soon become accepted as fact when it's just an opinion.

I have no more flights booked with BA so the dispute has no affect on my travelling. I do think though that the dispute will have far reaching effects through out the country that will impact on everyone and not for the good whichever side you back.....

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ call100 ... was that the recent meeting [last week] at the TUC [or ACAS] where reportedly WW turned up and Unite didn't? Perhaps that was just another rumour as well; it does get very difficult to sift fact from fiction.

[Runway 31]

Just for my knowledge, is staff travel taxable i.e. a benefit in kind, like milage claimed or use of a leased car through work and who does the original work of a volunteer CC which I presume still requires to be done?.

[just an observer]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply, in fact they make a small profit on otherwise empty seats. This has been tested in the courts. (Not re airline employees specifically, but the principle)

Mileage claimed isn't taxable either if it is business mileage and paid under a certain amount per mile.

[dubh12000]

@call100. You do realise that WW withdrew the offer the moment McLuskey (note McLuskey, not Unite) called the strike? Standard practise as the moment this is done revenue loss due to reduced bookings can now be assigned to the action. WW was dead right, the minute the strike was called the goalposts moved.

[plane speak]

The Economist argues that the cabin crew are fighting a losing battle - Willie holds all the cards, and little damage will be done to the brand by the strike.

THE share price says it all. Since the end of last year, shares in strike-hit British Airways have risen in value by nearly a third (see chart). For all the apocalyptic headlines the airline is currently attracting, investors are increasingly confident that BA will win its battle with the cabin staff’s union, Unite, and that when the smoke clears, little if any long-term damage will have been done to its resilient brand.Full article here (http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15772880)

[just an observer]

Back to post 305, I would guess volunteers would be covered in their sections the same way holidays are. Most would have a maximum number that can be off at any one time, if the absence of a volunteer would exceed that, he/she would get used at a more convenient time. Besides, if less aircraft are flying, there are spare pilots, ground crew, handlers etc.

[Runway 31]

Thanks for your reply Just an Observer. Re the tax I would have thought that the benefit of staff travel would have has a sum applied to it by the tax man, they seem to tax every other benefit given. Maybe Mr Darling will have this in mind to help pay for the banks.

I was wondering if the number of volunteers indicated a degree of over staffing but your reply gives a good explanation.

Thanks again

[ExXB]

Latest response from BA:
So there you are! I look forward to see what happens.....
Well done. I've heard that BA's SOP is to offer very little, but as soon as you wave 261/2004 they roll over and play dead.

It will be interesting to see how their refund department calculates the 30% - betcha they don't include your fuel surcharge ...

[Ancient Observer]

Having studied a fair amount of left wing stuff in my time, I thought I ought to point out the political affiliations of the Profs on that letter - all the ones I know are very left wing, and bound to support Unite. I note that no Business School Profs were on the list.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Propaganda is a two edged sword.

and so is loyalty, as those who are so willingly rushing to save the airline now - and understandably so - will find out when w.w. wants them out of the way for some other reason in the future.

The loyalty they are showing now will not be ' money in the bank ' when they want a 'quid pro quo '. Sadly.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Unsubstantiated from "The Other Thread" It seems they couldn't wait 12 hours before doing something fatally stupid.
Unite are taking BA to court to claim that staff travel is a contractual right.
I guess Mr Hendy QC could do with a new Aston...


There you go, exspeedbird.
If it all works perfectly, you may have to find a new topic to talk about ;)

[just an observer]

The employment lawyer on 5 live yesterday said that staff travel is agreed non contractual by the unions, as if it were contractual then it would be taxable.

I can't confirm that, bit above my level of knowledge, but if they were to have it agreed as contractual, and it became taxable, CC/BASSA would be even more unpopular in BA generally, as it would affect all staff. Plus Unite act for many BA departments, not just CC. I hope they know what they are doing!!

[just an observer]

Mind you, I agree with baggersup, it would take years in the courts.

But it is apparently only a rumour, from another forum, not PPRuNe. Seems unlikely, for reasons stated above.

[hellsbrink]

Ok, I'm not crew and don't work for BA, but I do hope to get one thing clarified.

Under UK law, does the "12 week rule" apply under 12 weeks of CONTINUOUS industrial action or does 12 weeks of intermittent action (3 days here, 4 days there) mean that then an employer has the additional rights?

I'm not sure at all, but the answer to the above could have an influence on things, not only as far as the IA goes but also with opinions in this and the CC thread.

[jetset lady]

I suspect the Unite lawyers will eventually go to court over this but will use the argument that removing staff travel from the strikers only is discriminating against those taking part in legal industrial action.

I may not have a lot of faith in them but I don't think even they would be daft enough to try the contractual angle.

[call100]

@ call100 ... was that the recent meeting [last week] at the TUC [or ACAS] where reportedly WW turned up and Unite didn't? Perhaps that was just another rumour as well; it does get very difficult to sift fact from fiction.
ACAS were angry that WW had put that out. It was in fact not true......Unite were in constant contact with ACAS over the weekend. No meeting was ever arranged with ACAS.
Over that weekend ACAS asked Unite if BA put the withdrawn offer back on the table would they call off the strike. Unite replied they would.
ACAS then asked BA if it would reinstate it's offer if Unite called off the strikes. BA said they would not.

It is clear there was an opportunity there and BA made the choice not to take it....

To those who think I have some axe to grind I should make it clear that I have nothing but contempt for the leaders of both sides. There is no difference between them. As usual it's the people in the middle that always suffer. If they all pulled their collective necks in and let the negotiators negotiate this would all be over far quicker.

[TrakBall]

Jetset Lady

"I may not have a lot of faith in them but I don't think even they would be daft enough to try the contractual angle."

Just for the record, considering their last foray into court, you are talking about Unite/BASSA here???

TB

[hellsbrink]

Not sure how they could use "discrimination" of any kind as it was stated well before the strikes started. As has been said, it's not part of the contract, it's a "perk" that can be removed at any time at the whim of the company.

If they, Bassa/Unite, did try to go to court over this I reckon they would get short shrift even if they went down the "constructive dismissal" route at an Industrial Tribunal. Let's face it, BA's lawyers will have made sure that things were water and airtight before allowing the decision to be made.

It's another hiding to nothing, especially with Bassa's track record in the court

[hellsbrink]

It is clear there was an opportunity there and BA made the choice not to take it....

To those who think I have some axe to grind I should make it clear that I have nothing but contempt for the leaders of both sides. There is no difference between them. As usual it's the people in the middle that always suffer. If they all pulled their collective necks in and let the negotiators negotiate this would all be over far quicker.

It's clear that one side blinked when they were trying to bluff, and it wasn't BA.

Now, please read everything that has been posted here and in the CC forum, then you will see that there was no negotiation from one side, despite all the offers and reassurances BA gave. And remember that this went as far as BA granting an extention to the strike mandate, and allowing them to consider an offer (with the provision that no dates for IA were announced) which was withdrawn after the union announced the strike dates almost immediately!! BA are right to stand their ground on this now, the union had no intention of actually "negotiating".

[beamender99]

There is nothing about this on the Unite web site that I can see anyway, which does not mean it is not true (the lawsuit).

But if it were more than rumor, one might think Unite would announce it on their web site in "latest news?"

But maybe not...guess what I'm saying is perhaps this is just a rumor?

BA 'bully' bosses axe fare cuts for strikers - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/25/perks-berks-115875-22137471/)
So it might still be a rumour

.............."A spokesman said: "This is a non-contractual perk that we can withdraw at our discretion."
Unite, battling the airline's boss Willie Walsh over job cuts and changes to working practices, said it will fight for reinstatement of the perks - seen as a "custom and practice" part of the job.
An official added: "This demonstrates BA's bullying and contemptuous approach to employees."

A long-running holiday pay dispute between BA and its pilots was referred to the European Court of Justice yesterday.

Was this the "refer to high court" rumour that got misquoted?

[LD12986]

BASSA said the High Court hearing on crewing levels alone cost Unite £1.2m (plus they will have to pay BA's costs which will be much higher) and the latest from BASSA was that they were appealing to the Court of Appeal (!). A case on staff travel could easily run and run. For how long is Unite prepared to bankroll BASSA's days out in court?

[hellsbrink]

For how long is Unite prepared to bankroll BASSA's days out in court?

That is a bloody good question.

If Unite say "ENOUGH!!!" then they will be seen to admit the stance by Bassa was completely wrong and it will affect them, Unite, too in the eyes of not only the public but their own members (who may turn round and cancel their membership over this debacle). So I would reckon they will continue to fund things until they find a way to stop the action, without losing more face than they have already, at the soonest opportunity and try to claim some hollow, moral victory over some minor concessions to try and justify their positions. Unfortunately, the average Joe paying his subs to Unite will find out he'll have to pay more so they can cover the costs of repeated lawyers fees/court cases and that may mean more leave the union, meaning subs rise again to cover costs, etc, meaning........ You get the picture.

If I'm right, then expect some heads to roll through the whole Bassa/Unite organisation over this whole thing, as some people REALLY screwed up

[mary meagher]

Two amazing items found their way into print during this week.

The article in the Guardian by that young person who apparently had a lovely day out joining the picket line, booing the BA aircraft passing overhead, and acknowleging the toots of support from passing cars or even a passing fire engine. Come on, everybody, come along and join in the fun. Does the Guardian make a habit of printing this sort of stuff?

The second item is that incredible lineup of University Academics who were persuaded to sign a letter they hadn't bothered to read. Or if they did read before allowing their names to be used, had not bothered to follow the history of BA v CC's long drawn out descent into confrontation.

All of which ties in with the forthcoming election. Maggie Thatcher was swept into office on just such a raft of the Medusa; the despairing pax ended up consuming each other before the few remaining were rescued.

[ExSp33db1rd]

If it all works perfectly, you may have to find a new topic to talk about


Thank you, yes if ......... but I doubt it, but Unite / BASSA have deeper pockets than we had, but our funded legal advice didn't support taking them on.

Breath is held.


.........seen as a "custom and practice" part of the job.



it was seen as " custom and practice " even if not contractual, and promised for future retirement as well, during our employment time. The goalposts have not only been moved, but moved retrospectively. That takes a degree of deliberate malice. Not nice.

( yes, we do all still receive S.T. until 31st March, 2014, sorry if I've given the impression otherwise, but it is a long saga, P.M. me for details - if anyone is interested. )

[etrang]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply,

Staff Travel DOES cost BA something. The main cost would be the additional fuel burnt, and there would also be the cost of meals and other consumables used. Perhaps someone who knows can say whether there is a net gain or loss to BA from ST.

My guess would be that at the back of the plane the 10% of normal fare paid does not cover the additional cost, but that in premium cabins it probably does (because the extra fuel burn is the same where ever they sit on the plane (excluding additional luggage allowance)).

[ExSp33db1rd]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply

Yes of course there are some costs, Admin. alone, tho' with the move to more computerised ticketing that might be only a few bytes on a computer now.

I accept that I am probably one of only a few in this respect - but as BA don't even fly to NZ I usually cost them nothing but a possible Admin. charge as above, the airlines in the Interline agreements carry me, but I need to remain in the Staff Travel 'family' to be able to use them.

When Doomsday finally catches up with me in 2014 I will see retired staff from other airlines flying in seats on 'my' airline - whilst I'm denied the right to reciprocate on 'their' airline. ( I mainly use Qantas AKL - LAX v.v )

As a dying group, the Old Buffers being thrown out would hardly be a blip on the B.A. radar.

[wiggy]

My guess would be that at the back of the plane the 10% of normal fare paid does not cover the additional cost

IMHO your guess is wrong, the average commercial passenger doesn't pay the "normal fare" either.. so the "10% of normal" figure doesn't mean a thing. A lot of the time staff pax are paying maybe as much as 60- 70% of the amount a commercial pax sitting in the next seat to them is paying, for a seat that would other wise be unoccupied, so the only cost to BA is issuing an e-ticket, which is pretty much the square route of zero thse days .

[etrang]

the only cost to BA is issuing an e-ticket,

Well, no. As explained above the staff travel does cost BA extra fuel and meals, etc. But only the bean counters inside BA will know the actual numbers and even then they will be estimates.

From BA's 2009 annual report, fuel costs were 3bn pounds or about 32% of total costs.

[piton]

As crew in Holland we now (since 2-3 yrs ago) have to pay income tax on standby tickets - which has increased their cost substantially and made booked travel on loco's more attractive for short breaks. Arguments that an empty seat is not worth much of anything were not accepted by the Dutch version of the IRS.

[SamYeager]

Just seen WW being interviewed on BBC Breakfast. He made it emphatically clear that negotiation about ST was NOT going to happen. As a neutral I felt he came across pretty well.

[fincastle84]

I also thought WW came across very well. He certainly wiped the smug, disapproving looks off the faces of the 2 left wing supporting BBC interviewers. They even stopped waving their copies of the Gruadian.

Oops, am I being politically incorrect?

[iridium77]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply

The cost to the employer is not relevant for taxability or not - it's the benefit to the employee (a "benefit in kind") which is.

[TruBlu123]

Overlooked on this subject is the fact that BA annually sits down with HMRC and "agrees" a payment to the government for the benefit derived by employees and retirees from ST.
Also, in answer to an earlier post when ST09 was introduced it was stated that ST represents a NETT cost to BA even taking into account ID90% revenue as well as that derived from non BA staffers travelling on ID tickets. In part this is why some pensioners will loose out come 2014 when ST is withdrawn from them as a result of being either early leavers or retirees with relatively short length of service. It was sadly a cost saving measure. Rather short sighted IMHO. Let's hope we can influence a change for those affected prior to April 2014.

[wiggy]

the staff travel does cost BA extra fuel and meals

I take your point - yes everything has to be paid for, but I'd be interested in seeing the costs of a BA shorthaul "meal" these days ( which is going to be carried wether I fly or not). As for fuel costs... I reckon one of my commutes would add at most in the region of 6 or 7 kg to the burn....My guess is the the Company do cover the costs on a shorthaul flight, even on an ID 90 "down the back".

Perhaps someone who knows can say whether there is a net gain or loss to BA from ST.



Knowing how BA is run these days Staff Travel has to be run to make a profit...anything else would simply be unacceptable to the Boss :bored:.

[call100]

It's clear that one side blinked when they were trying to bluff, and it wasn't BA.

Now, please read everything that has been posted here and in the CC forum, then you will see that there was no negotiation from one side, despite all the offers and reassurances BA gave. And remember that this went as far as BA granting an extention to the strike mandate, and allowing them to consider an offer (with the provision that no dates for IA were announced) which was withdrawn after the union announced the strike dates almost immediately!! BA are right to stand their ground on this now, the union had no intention of actually "negotiating".
Fine...Believe as you wish, it means little to me. Nothing is clear. Certainly nothing is clear from the postings on this site.
The offer you refer to was worse than the original offer, so there was no way it was going to work, BA knew that.
Argue all you like, ACAS were there to help and BA wouldn't play ball. Then WW made up a story about Unite not turning up to a meeting. The meeting was never arranged.
It would be easy for them to resume talks with ACAS based on putting the original offer on the table. They don't want to do that. Fine I have no problem with that, it's WW's choice. However, in doing that, it's no good whining that the other side are not playing ball.
Good luck to all, whichever truth you support....

[emanresuym]

call100:
The offer you refer to was worse than the original offer, so there was no way it was going to work, BA knew that.

That's not quite right. The original offer which BA put forward was the one which Unite said they would ballot their members about, but that they could not recommend. This offer was dependent on strike dates not being called. It was the subsequent offer which Unite complained was "worse than the original offer".

That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of "facts" about which we will never get to know the truth.

[beamender99]

BBC News - BA's Walsh says he will never reinstate staff perks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8588516.stm)

includes

By Martin Shankleman, BBC employment correspondent
Willie Walsh reinforced his uncompromising reputation by speaking in such absolute terms. When asked if he will restore the travel perks taken away from strikers, he replied: "That will never happen... We have never, never negotiated on these perks and we never will."
While the categorical nature of these statements makes BA's negotiating position crystal clear, it has also, by definition, made it harder to reach an eventual deal.
In a previous strike in 1997, the perks were removed by BA, only to be reinstated at the end of the dispute. This must have fuelled the hopes of some strikers that the same conciliatory approach would be adopted by BA this time.

[just an observer]

The cost to the employer is not relevant for taxability or not - it's the benefit to the employee (a "benefit in kind") which is.


Here's the facts, straight from HMR&C web site The benefits code: cash equivalent of benefits: the general rule (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM21102.htm) Cost to the employer it is.

I daresay the Revenue do review BA regarding this and I'd assume it's done on an overall not individual staff member basis.

Meals on board - flights are generally overcatered to allow passenger choice - staff get what's left, so no cost. As for the complimentary washbags, staff are not allowed to accept them.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

In a previous strike in 1997, the perks were removed by BA, only to be reinstated at the end of the dispute. This must have fuelled the hopes of some strikers that the same conciliatory* approach would be adopted by BA this time.

* Insert 'submissive' and you have a partial indicator of how BA found itself in its current position.

The reality, which some people still seem to have trouble grasping, is that WW has to turn BA around financially, and that means that the old ways of doing business have to be turned around as well. Sadly, there will be both winners and losers in the process.

[hellsbrink]

It would be easy for them to resume talks with ACAS based on putting the original offer on the table. They don't want to do that. Fine I have no problem with that, it's WW's choice. However, in doing that, it's no good whining that the other side are not playing ball.

And why should they now put the original offer back on the table after BASSA/UNITE REJECTED IT!!!

You see, that's the bottom line. Decent offers regarding pay and conditions were made, but the union REFUSED to negotiate regarding these deals and rejected them without even offering THEIR OWN MEMBERS a chance to vote on the proposals that would directy affect them. Instead assorted lies and fog were thrown around to muddy the waters.. Now give one good reason why BA should now, effectively, beg the unions to come back to the table with an offer they rejected, with conditions attached by the union, etc after the idiotic performance of the union in all of this and the extra costs incurred due to this ridiculous action which seems to have been an attempt to protect the mollycoddled status of a minority of staff?

[etrang]

My guess is the the Company do cover the costs on a shorthaul flight,

Yes, i've done some rough calculations and revised my opinion. I assuming 140m Available Seat km per year, 70% load factors, 20% fuel used on cargo flights, 50% of the remaining fuel (ie 40%) used for the additional weight directly attributable to pax and luggage. Net result is about 1.3p per km per pax. So maybe 5 quid for the typical commuter flight, and less than 10 pounds including everything else.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

And why should they now put the original offer back on the table after BASSA/UNITE REJECTED IT!!!

Was it "rejected"? Or did the Union say "they would not recommend it to their members"? A subtle distinction, perhaps, but surely significant.

In any case, whilst one half of the Union corporate brain was saying that, the other half called the strike which guaranteed [WW keeps his promises] that the offer would be withdrawn. The Union therefore ensured that their membership never got the chance to read and consider what was on offer.

[emanresuym]

There's been a lot of discussion on here about the removal of Staff Travel and whether it is contractual. This seems to have centred around the tax implications. But I'm not sure that is really what's important. If Unite or CC have a case for changes to Ts & Cs it will surely be based on whether ST is part of their implied contract as a custom and practice.

This is a very complex area which I doubt many (if any) on this board have the experience to discuss. I know that I don't :bored:.

However, what I do know is that BA is a large company with access to an experienced legal team. Based on what has gone before, I find it unlikely that WW has made his comments with regards to ST without being pretty sure he is on strong legal ground.

[AG&T4ME]

I can assure you after spending 40 years working in law that BA legal dept would have this well and truly sorted. I think I am right in saying that companies pay an agreed sum to the revenue and customs on behalf of their staff who receive these 'perks' - of course all of the staff may or may not use them for whatever reason, but the vast majority do, as I have observed with seat moving on the flights I have taken - Ive yet to be moved up a notch even though I consider myself a frequent flyer.

[etrang]

It seems fairly clear to me at Willie Walsh IS trying to break the union, and its also clear that BASSA's actions all along have helped him do it.

[Safety Concerns]

lawyers, solicitors are no less mercenary than any one else. Much of the the time a company moves on nothing more than a legal opinion and not legal fact. It all depends at the end of the day on what you are attempting to achieve.

As for staff travel we will see. I doubt very much that BA can enforce this. Not because its a privilege, not because of any othe reason than the action is punishing strikers who are striking legally whether you agree with them or not and because the removal of staff travel in this case is extremely discriminatory.

Don't allow schadenfreude to creep in here.

[etrang]

You may be right, but despite their financial problems BA has much deeper pockets than the strikers. BA will be able to drag out legal actions for a long time, far longer than the strikers will be able to pay for full fare tickets to work.

[emanresuym]

Don't allow schadenfreude to creep in here.

I'm not sure what prompted this. I don't believe anything I've said suggested I like what's happening to CC. Like most if not all the people on here, I'd be a lot happier if none of this had been necessary. I'm just commenting on what would appear to be happening and guessing (like everyone else) about the outcome.

[Munnyspinner]

WW wants to break the union. The union has lost its negotiating position. Both parties are purveyors of untruths which will result in continued hassle for passengers.

Unite had the upper hand with a threat of a strike but now only have the economic impact as a bargainaing chip and , according to WW only 7% of customers will not be able to travel. Significant numbers of pax but nt enough to bring BA to it's knees.

Until staff are willing to take a stance Unite are going nowhere. BA will continue to bumble along. One wonders if there isn't scope to break off the non unionised part, with WW at the helm, leaving the rest for those who won't accept the revised terms?

[ExecClubPax]

"WW wants to break the union."


I think you should add "in my opinion" because I've heard nothing from Mr Walsh that suggests he wishes to break the Union. From current performace, it seems Unite/Bassa are quite capable of doing that themselves.

"Both parties are purveyors of untruths which will result in continued hassle for passengers."

Well again. On balance, most statements coming from BA appear to be factual which can't be said for the Unite/Bassa side. It also occures to me, it is only BA that is trying to minimise the impact on passengers. On the other hand, it would appear the strikers have another agenda which doesn't include customer service.

[fincastle84]

Was it "rejected"? Or did the Union say "they would not recommend it to their members"? A subtle distinction, perhaps, but surely significant.


During his interview WW made very clear the sequence of events.

1. Derek Simpson had requested & was granted by BA a 23 day extension of the strike deadline in order to ballot Bassa members on WW's INITIAL offer.

2. Unite were recommending a rejection of this offer.

3. The extension was granted by BA despite WW's grave doubts.

4. The offer was dependant on there being no strike.

5. Unbeknown to either party Mclunky was about to announce the strike dates.

QED Final proof of how Bassa is being used & abused in the power struggle as to who will become the leader of Unite.:ugh: The sooner that Bassa's members realise this the sooner the strike will be over.

[TruBlu123]

Munneyspinner - I doubt if WW has Unite in his sights. After all many thousands of non striking staff are members of that union. Furthermore he has already offered Unite bargaining rights for New Fleet. Hardly the actions of someone hellbent on breaking the union. That said I wonder what his and indeed Woodley's thoughts are on BASSA. Probably not worth repeating.....

[call100]

And why should they now put the original offer back on the table after BASSA/UNITE REJECTED IT!!!

You see, that's the bottom line. Decent offers regarding pay and conditions were made, but the union REFUSED to negotiate regarding these deals and rejected them without even offering THEIR OWN MEMBERS a chance to vote on the proposals that would directy affect them. Instead assorted lies and fog were thrown around to muddy the waters.. Now give one good reason why BA should now, effectively, beg the unions to come back to the table with an offer they rejected, with conditions attached by the union, etc after the idiotic performance of the union in all of this and the extra costs incurred due to this ridiculous action which seems to have been an attempt to protect the mollycoddled status of a minority of staff?
Oh dear! I know we are never going to agree. I'll not change your mind and I don't have that intent. I do think though that you have been taken in by BA not giving out true facts around the negotiations. Your problem is that you think they are incapable of lying.
I did inform you that the Union had agreed, with ACAS, to carry on negotiations and not strike if the original offer was placed on the table. You decided to believe different, fine.
You should also learn that not recommending something is not the same as rejecting.

Are we going to have any effect on here....Answer no, don't be so naive, To be honest the whole debate is now becoming very tedious due to the inaccuracies and falsehoods the majority have to work with....This is from both sides by the way, but that is the symptom of carrying out negotiations in the media. Something both sides should (but won't) ensure happens..

[PaddyMiguel]

Munneyspinner - I doubt if WW has Unite in his sights. After all many thousands of non striking staff are members of that union. Furthermore he has already offered Unite bargaining rights for New Fleet. Hardly the actions of someone hellbent on breaking the union. That said I wonder what his and indeed Woodley's thoughts are on BASSA. Probably not worth repeating.....

WW may not have Unite in his sights but the crosshairs are firmly focused on BASSA. This strike is similar to the 1997 dispute when BA wanted £42m savings from Cabin Services and BASSA resisted having new entrants on lower starting rates. Ayling and Street caved in, reinstated strikers, restored ST and new entrants joined ...... on lower salaries.

The biggest savings for BA come in radical reform of the various scheduling agreements and allowances, the so-called Spanish practices. By crippling or sweeping BASSA away, WW and IFCE will have an opportunity to negotiate with reasonable CC reps a new agreement which will be both fair and workable. It may well be called New Fleet but the precedent of having crew on different pay scales working alongside each other has already been set.

[PAXboy]

etrangIt seems fairly clear to me at Willie Walsh IS trying to break the union, and its also clear that BASSA's actions all along have helped him do it.Oft is it said that, every organisation carries within it, the seeds of it's own destruction. This is often true of individuals, many presidents and prime ministers come to mind.

[PaddyMiguel]

what Marx actually said was It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive..... ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier..

[Two-Tone-Blue]

The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive....

Absolutely, Karl. :D

That fits WW perfectly, eh? What's your Plan B? Do you have one?

[ooops, you're dead, sorry Karl ... does BASSA have a Plan B?] :cool:

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

Thank you for the laugh.:)

Might I respectfully submit that whatever BASSA's next move it will include the enthusiastic and multiple use of the word "Macho".

[scotbill]

A wise head many postings ago said that both sides in any industrial settlement must have been seen to have won something (I paraphrase). WW agreed (reluctantly) to an extension of the strike window so that Unite could ballot the membership. Although Unite said they could not recommend the offer, they would have saved face if the membership had accepted the deal.
As we know, that 'get out of jail' card was torpedoed by L McCluskey announcing the strike. Does anyone know if it is true that this was at BASSA's request?
The withdrawal of Staff travel makes it very difficult for Unite to agree any settlement. A nice compromise might have been - "Come back now and your ST is safe; stay out and lose it."
One has to feel sorry for some of the ordinary members of the union who have been conned into acting as cannon fodder by the sort of propaganda we have seen on TV and quoted in these forums.

[oggers]

I found it noteworthy that - in light of the many comments on these pages pointing out that UNITE never accepted the now famous 'offer that WW refuses to put back on the table' - the 'academic experts' have quietly changed their letter from:

What other possible interpretation can there be for Willie Walsh rejecting Unite's acceptance of BA's previous offer

to:

What other possible interpretation can there be for Willie Walsh tabling an inferior offer to BA's previous one

A bit embarrassing considering how they bigged up their own expertise in these matters.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Because they are 'professors', and therefore very intelligent, and can therefore adjust their opinions in the light of evidence?

Shame they never considered the evidence beforehand. Still, they have achieved the objective, which is to cause further damage. Anyone else seeing a pattern of disseminating false information?

[ExecClubPax]

Even with the rewording as outlined above, it still sugests the denizens of acedemia lack a grasp of real world economics. Once the strike was called, BA's losses multiplied and consequently, as night follows day, any fresh offer had to cover those losses. In effect, Unite's decision to call the strike precipitated the inferior offer.

[Diplome]

Hardly an unbiased grouping of "experts".

With a tip of the hat to JetPack2, his post from the other board:


I know it should be a dead thread, but out of interest I googled one of the academics and found a whole host of them listed in a union activist poster...

And the first one listed in the letter to the Guardian (Philip Taylor) is found in a newsletter describing how he was talking at discussions with Unite...

I haven't looked further since it's a pretty obvious pattern!



Quote from "Organise 2008" poster-

A conference organised by trade union organisers...

With in depth sessions on the organising approach from GMB, PCS, RMT, TGWU-Unite and TSSA

And labour movement academics including:
Andrew Barton, Christine Cooper, (University of Strathclyde), Ralph Darlington (Salford University), Mary Davis (Working Lives Research Institute), Matt Flynn (Middlesex University). Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire), Anne-Marie Green (University of Warwick), Kate Hardy (Queen Mary, University of London), Miguel Martinez Lucio (University of Manchester), Kim Moody, (University of Hertfordshire), Sian Moore (Working Lives Research Institute), Mel Simms (University of Warwick), John Stirling (University of Northumbria), Mark Stuart (University of Leeds) Phil Taylor (University of Strathclyde), Martin Upchurch (Middlesex University).



Also on Phil Taylor from the University of Strathclyde SBS newsletter:

Professor Phil Taylor gave a presentation in London on 29 September 2008 to trade union UNITE’s National Financial Sector Committee on the crisis in
the financial sector and its potential effects for employees. The talk prefaced an in-depth discussion of how the union might respond to the threats posed to employment and working conditions.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks, Diplome ... a useful cross-post for the banned and others.

Even with the rewording as outlined above, it still sugests the denizens of acedemia lack a grasp of real world economics. Once the strike was called, BA's losses multiplied and consequently, as night follows day, any fresh offer had to cover those losses. In effect, Unite's decision to call the strike precipitated the inferior offer.

For "academia" please read "Hard-Core Socialists completely detached from reality".

For the record, I'm perfectly happy for people to hold opposing views to mine. I just [U]really don't like people lying to me, or assuming I can't form my own opinions. I've been around far too long to accept either of those impositions [can I go on strike now?].

[Entaxei]

If its allowable - could I just reiterate my previous post ;

As professional academics, it is unlikely that they have ever held a normal job outside of academia, which potentially very much dilutes the value of any comments they make or opinions they hold of any situations in the world outside academia unless a full unbiased analysis is made of all aspects.

Whilst they lay claim to various areas of expertise in the field of employment relations in making an analysis, it is unfortunate that they display a total lack of such in their analysis of this particular dispute, in that they have obviously not taken into account any of the abortive attempts at negotiation during 2009, due to the unions refusal to have any meaningfull meetings and internal arguments. Neither have they apparently paid any attention to the courts judgement nor the details thereof or even read the proposals made by BA.

In their declaration of the current position, it is also apparent that they have not read the text of the statements and offers made by BA so far this year and, have totally ignored the unions responses and actions and the distorted and incorrect information that they gave out, which has led to this strike.

It is interesting to view the background and experience of the people whose names are appended to this letter as most - if not all - appear to have backgrounds associated with trade unions and union activity. An unbiased missive this is not and I would hope that any academics in these universities are cringing in horror at what is being said in the name of their establishments.

Propaganda is a two edged sword.

[Ancient Observer]

Where is the Vision for the BA CC???

If Bassa are misleading Crew, where is the strong, re-assuring Vision for their future? Where are the "guarantees" ?

Where are the middle managers who will LEAD the CC??

If the managers don't like some of the militants, why don't they just fire them?

Unless some of the above is sorted, once the strike is over, the problems will fester............and the crew will continue to follow Bassa, not the managers.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Someone said that ... ;)

From the inevitable debris of this farcical IA will, IMO, arise a new and stronger BA. I will not compare WW with WSC, but they have the same clear focus on what needs to happen.

[4t2b]

Much has been said on the two forums about the effect this dispute will have on BA's regular customers. IMHO opinion it will have a minimum impact providing the Company continues to give the value for money product that we have all come to expect.

Case in point, for my annual November break in Florida from EDI I always seem to finish up using BA. Last night I decided to check out all the opposition, and the reult ? BA won every way up!.:ok:

There were slightly better prices out there but always with a sting in the tail, indirect flights, long connection times etc.:=

So get this nonsense out of the way and start rebuilding customer trust; I don't want to fly with anyone else!

[PAXboy]

PaddyMiguel
Nice one Paxboy but what Marx actually said was:
Quote:
It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive..... ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier...Nice one PM, BUT I would counter that - the CC are now the new petty bourgeoisie. After all, they have BMWs and the rest of the things that Marx did not envisage 'the workers' having!! They are remaining fearful about accepting change? ;)

[Munnyspinner]

This dispute seems to be about a difference of opinion between the management who have a duty to the shareholders to run the company profitably and the unions whose responibility is the welfare of their members.

It would seem that, from a huge majority in favour of (the threat) of strike action, it is a small minority that are willing to make the sacrifice to support the strike. Ww must threfore conclude that the majority of the cc are actually willing to work on his terms- albeit reluctantly. The union have used their sanction with little success as it would seem the prospect of escalating action would only serve to alienate support from customers and result in more staff losing valuable travel perks.

As regards face saving, BA could agree to restore travel perks for strikers if the union were to reach an agreement. However, I can't see what Unite have to offer? BA have made it clear further strike action is undesirable but the econo
impact does not seem to be significant for a company that has sustained massive losses before and who were beginning to return to profitability.

One question - why are all the labour party supporting unions now embarking on strike action in the last few weeks of a labour govt. Is this a cynical attempt to show that we need more of the gloomy G - I hope not.

Unfair , I know, but I suspect that BA would be better sacking the strikers and negotiating a compromise deal with those that want to carry on. As I said this would be unfair but otherwise I think the company will be left with a legacy of strikers and non strikers.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Sharp post, PAXboy ... :ok:

Professionals ... CC are not according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional)
A professional is a member of a vocation founded upon specialised educational training.
The word professional traditionally means a person who has obtained a degree in a professional field. The term professional is used more generally to denote a white collar working person, or a person who performs commercially in a field typically reserved for hobbyists or amateurs.

So perhaps they are the 'bourgeoisie' these days?
Another Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie)
Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society. Marxism views the group as emerging from the wealthy urban classes in pre- and early capitalist societies.

Ahhh ... are they 'working class'?

Last Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class)
Working class is a term used in academic sociology and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs, as measured by skill, education and lower incomes.

The sadness of all of this farce is 'perception'.

One upon a distant, CC were there to provide a service to the higher social class who could actually afford to buy an air ticket. They were, dare I say it, flying waitresses. As time went on, safety aspects were introduced, and salaries were increased. The BOAC steward[ess] acquired some form of status [self-perceived?].

They moved from being 'working class' to 'bourgeoisie', seamlessly and with a perception of a higher status in society, reinforced by ever-higher salaries, allowances, and benefits. But perhaps they never forgot their roots.

"Petty bourgeoisie" sums it up perfectly. I have absolutely NO quarrel with the perception of what CC do, and the vast majority do it well. They lie on the borders of 'definitions' - at one hand vital safety components, at another simply servants of the travelling public. Sadly, over the last few decades, self-importance in some quarters has overtaken the reality of what is actually involved in the daily task.

[Stoic]

The BOAC steward[ess] acquired some form of status [self-perceived?]. They moved from being 'working class' to 'bourgeoisie', seamlessly and with a perception of a higher status in society, reinforced by ever-higher salaries, allowances, and benefits. But perhaps they never forgot their roots.
What bull****. Until the 747 and the Woolworths' girls came in BOAC stewardesses were a class act!

[The SSK]

Two-Tone-Blue: One upon a distant, CC were there to provide a service to the higher social class who could actually afford to buy an air ticket. They were, dare I say it, flying waitresses. As time went on, safety aspects were introduced, and salaries were increased. The BOAC steward[ess] acquired some form of status [self-perceived?].

They moved from being 'working class' to 'bourgeoisie', seamlessly and with a perception of a higher status in society, reinforced by ever-higher salaries, allowances, and benefits. But perhaps they never forgot their roots.

Disagree. Once upon a distant, the job of stewardess (on BOAC at least) attracted well-brought-up gels from good families on the look-out for a suitable husband, whom they might very well encounter on board. A lot of them married into the aristocracy.

I spent a year, 40 years ago; on the BOAC check-in desks where many of them ended up when (relatively young) age or marriage grounded them. They were fabulous company.

[fincastle84]

They were fabulous company.

I quite agree. I met one with her husband in Cape Town at Christmas. She was accompanied by her very couth & wealthy husband but after a few glasses of wine we were regaled with some fabulous stories of those halcyon days. Her old man learnt quite a lot.

What a girl & still wearing a pair of fantastic pins!

[Stoic]

Not too much I hope!

[fincastle84]

Fortunately he was so fatigued with wine that by the next morning it was all a lurid fantasy. For me also!:ok:

[scone69]

Can someone please remind these people who are trying to destroy a Great British company that they do not fly the aircraft but meerly "wait on" and therfore do not deserve a fraction of what they already get never mind what they have been offered. A reality check comes to mind!

[JackMcHammocklashing]

I appologise for the long words, but I can not find a glossary for the abbreviations used

Why does BA not fly 100% flights this weekend?

We are constantly reading that 60% scheduled last weekend and all the Volunteer Cabin Crew were stood down and sent to hotels as enough staff had turned up to crew the planned flights

Then why not make it 100% flights manned by 60% cabin crew and 40% of the Volunteer Cabin Crew

Job done

Jack is there a glossary McHammocklashing

[ExSp33db1rd]

What bull****. Until the 747 and the Woolworths' girls came in BOAC stewardesses were a class act!

Absolutely !!

but let's not denigrate the present staff, the job is different now, remember that before they were called Stewardesses they were Air Hostesses. World of difference.

Flight Attendant hasn't qot quite the same panache to it.

[mary meagher]

possibly because the loss making flights that are only 10% booked are cheaper to cancel and consolidate. This pruning may be profitable, in many ways.

[Entaxei]

In BOAC photographic unit, in 1957, one of our tasks was to take the passport and file photographs of all Hostesses, with the paperwork came their resume, from memory every one had been to private school followed by finishing school!! - normally in Switzerland - as you say a class act. :ok: (Disclaimer - Not that the present ladies are'nt equally classey!!)

[Dawdler]

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.Someone said that ... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gifWinston Churchill during WWII at the conclusion of the period known as the "Battle of Britain"

[ExSp33db1rd]

TruBlu123

Rather short sighted IMHO. Let's hope we can influence a change for those affected prior to April 2014.

Thank you for your consideration, but that will only happen if enough present staff make an issue of it, and why should they, by and large they aren't interested, and what can the affected pensioners do - go on strike ?

But staff ought to be concerned - if BA can welch on their promises and previous inducements to those already retired, think what else they might do when THEY retire, and how they might also be so suddenly kicked in the guts.

It's the HYPPO principle - Here's Your Pension P**s Off - and watch your back.

The issue has to be kept alive if there is any chance of a re-think, but I'm reviled and abused when I do that.

There are other facets of S.T. 2009, too. Do serving staff realise that if they are now entitled to upgrade to a First or Club seat by virtue of their employment position, should they unfortunately die, then they immediately become Former Staff, and spouse of Former Staff are forbidden any upgrade whatsoever, not even the ability to pay the new 3 x fare to request a Club seat. Some present Captains might not know that !

[wiggy]

Winston Churchill during WWII at the conclusion of the period known as the "Battle of Britain"



(Thread drift) Nope, it was a couple of years later after El Alamein.

[dudleydick]

In the 1970's 90% fare rebate was a privilege (NOT a right) and we usually managed to get away on the flights we wanted despite being wait listed. Even then we were warned that if we did not report back for duty on due date and time we risked our jobs. We almost always managed to get aboard as pax levels were in the 70%ages. Now airlines are packing them in with levels over 90% and I advised my staff, at least ten years ago, that the rebated fare "privilege" should not be considered a major beneficial factor in working for an airline. My point is that withdrawing the privilege sounds more dramatic that it really is. That is in my humble opinion.

[Stoic]

Wiggy you are quite correct. It was in the speech Churchill gave at the Mansion House lunch on 10 November, 1942.

This battle was not fought for the sake of gaining positions or so many square miles of desert territory. General Alexander and General Montgomery fought it with one single idea. they meant to destroy the armed force of the enemy and to destroy it at the place where the disaster would be most far-reaching and irrecoverable.... Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Henceforth Hitler's Nazis will meet equally well armed, and perhaps better armed troops. Hence forth they will have to face in many theatres of war that superiority in the air which they have so often used without mercy against other, of which they boasted all round the world, and which they intended to use as an instrument for convincing all other peoples that all resistance to them was hopeless.

[wiggy]

Now airlines are packing them in with levels over 90% and I advised my staff, at least ten years ago, that the rebated fare "privilege" should not be considered a major beneficial factor in working for an airline

Very true, it's a hit or miss benefit these days, especially when the LoCos can offer similar fares on much the same route, for a confirmed seat...

However ( as always), rightly or wrongly many Crew members have engineered their lifestyles around the ability to travel to and from London on rebate tickets. Maybe the Crew members should have considered that when making the decision to strike.

[finncapt]

If, as BA have suggested, only 765 persons went on strike and assuming BASSA are correct when they say 5% of the crew are commuters that gives about 38.

How many commuters have actually lost their staff travel?

Maybe none.

[Rollingthunder]

BA strike: Second walk-out by cabin crew begins

Dozens of BA flights were grounded during last weekend's strike
More British Airways flights have been cancelled as a second strike by the firm's cabin crew gets under way.



How to kill a career.

Went on strike once, lasted 17 minutes

[vanHorck]

WW is not far off becoming the man of the year. Let's put his face on Time Magazine!

Bassa has been fighting the battle not for the good of the employees long term welfare as a Union should should, but for reasons such as the election of the new Union Chairman, the protection of perks of some of the Union reps and mainly because

they want to continue to have the power to control BA.

In the last reason lies the great economic downfall of (formerly Great) Britain.

Companies should be managed by management and staff should be represented by responsible unions which measure every step against the long term welfare needs of their people. This includes the union's need to ensure the company can remain profitable in a worldwide market place.

Who on earth EVER decided that if the unions were the holders of the ultimate power within companies this would be a good long term thing for the British economy and its people? Who let it come this far!?

Margaret Thatcher fought the battle and now WW still has to fight the same battle.

I am 54 now, and I can remember that when I was little one pound equalled something like almost 3 Euro's ! Now at a rate of 1.1 Euro that is one heck of a depreciation within hopefully just over half a lifetime!

Yes it is sad for all the misguided CC who voted for IA or even participated, but this battle has to be fought and won by BA to the benefit of all businesses in the UK and more importantly for the benefit of all employees.

Surely Bassa must go down in history as being the worst Union ever, who rejected a brilliant deal for the members for the benefit of... well of whom or what really?

[finncapt]

vanHorck

I am a bit older than you, but I remember going to Switzerland in the late 1950's and there were about 12 SFR to the Pound.

Can't remember how many Guilders my father got when we went to Holland.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

My thanks to all of you who reacted to my quote from Churchill - especially those who failed to note the smiley!! :)

My attempt at socio-economic definitions was also intended as light-hearted, and the more astute of you may have noted my liberal use of inverted commas. My point was that the BOAC 'well-brought up gels' may indeed have come from the higher strata of society, but the tasks they performed in the workplace re-assigned them as 'working class' for the duration of their duties.

All that having been said, I shall now devote some time to reading the newspapers for the latest collection of unverified facts and uninformed opinions! :ok:

[BEagle]

A school teacher friend flew to the UK with ba and is due to return to Germany this weekend - with a party of schoolchildren.

Fortunately both ba's website and telephone answering service have been providing a first class information service about this stupid strike and I was quickly able to confirm that my friend's flight will be operated at the scheduled time, but by another airline.

I cannot believe that people as seemingly intelligent as ba cabin crew are subjecting themselves to the 'Red Robbo' socialists running their union. TV images of sour, granite-faced union 'leaders' talking in harsh Northern accents takes me back to the early 1980s and the miners' strike.

They didn't win, nor will Unite.

For heaven's sake, wake up and get a reality check, ba cabin crew. Your Ts and Cs are pretty damn good and Unite will only destroy you.

Fortunately my long haul business class flight next week is with another airline....

Somehow I cannot imagine that the Roz Hanbys of this world would have gone on a strike called by some jumped-up union nobody back in the days when BOAC was a proud company with high standards of cabin service.

Incidentally, there have NEVER been 3 €uros to the £. The €uro was probably worth about £0.67 at its weakest and is now around £0.90.

[vanHorck]

Finncapt

I can remember it being 5 Guilders 75 cents but I have recollections about 7 guiders something too...

At 2,20 Guilders for a Euro at the Euro introduction date that makes it 2.61 Euros for a pound as my last exact recollection, honest!

Currently it stands at 1.11 Euros so the depreciation is a factor 2.35 at a minimum.

You could be right regarding the Swiss Frank too at the some time, somewhere in the seventies the swiss had a pretty bad economic time, with their watch technology suddenly being outdated and others.

Genuinely I believe the pound has depreciated substantially towards most currencies and the power struggle in the UK as to whom has/had control in companies is, at the very least, a major major factor.

Beagle, this link:
Google Answers: Exchange Rates: Dutch Guilder & Pound Sterling - 1978 and last pre-Euro (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/267127.html)

suggests that in 1978 the rate was 4.04 guilders to the pound. That's 1.84 Euros for a pound or a factor of 1.65 in 32 years and I am referring to post war , say mid fifties. The tables of the Fed don't go back after 1971 but there I make the rate 8.64 (Guilder to Dollar = 3,60, Pound to Dollar =2,40). That's even worse than what I suggested...

[Two-Tone-Blue]

The following is from today's Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7528237/BA-strike-strike-for-one-day-lose-up-to-two-weeks-pay.html) - is this 'old news'? or inaccurate?
I'm surprised not to have seen any comment about it on the CC Thread.

Workers who take part in industrial action lose their pay while they are striking. But many BA cabin crew have discovered that during last week's strike, if they did not turn up for one day's work, they lost up to two week's wages.
This is because BA decided to strip them of pay for the full duration of a return trip, including rest days in between and the mandatory rest days at the end.
Crew who fly to Australia, for instance, are rostered to work for 14 days – the amount of time BA allows for the crew to fly to and from Sydney, rest in between, as well as have four days' rest at the end. Crew due to fly to the States or Asia, who went on strike, lost six days pay.

[beamender99]

The damning pictures of British Airway's cabin crew they WON'T be waving on the picket line | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1261074/The-damning-pictures-British-Airways-cabin-crew-WONT-waving-picket-line.html)

Having details of expenses exposed like this will certainly not endear CC to the public or the rest of the BA staff.

BASSA have managed to create a situation where the press have decided to investigate further and it could brew another expenses story following the MPs in parliament story.

Oh dear what a can of worms !!

[binsleepen]

TTB

There have been comments about crew not being paid for the rest days after the flight that crew missed while striking. Bassa talks about in its latest release. Important message to Unite BA cabin crew from the joint general secretaries (http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/important_message_to_unite_ba.aspx)

The Volunteer CC are not trained on the 747s so cannot help with that side of the operation.

By the way my grandfather says he remembers getting 6.7 bazillion German marks to the pound in the '30s :)

Regards

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

I read that also. Its almost amusing that the strikers' are surprised that they aren't going to be paid for the down-time for the flights they refused to report for.

Its truly amazing how many individuals didn't fully think through what the consequences of their actions would be, and a shame that their Union did little to prepare them for the realities.

...also, is that really TWO WEEKS PAY FOR TWO FLIGHTS? Am I the only one who is surprised by that number?

[binsleepen]

Diplome

I think its 4 flights.

eg 1st out to Singapore then layover,
2nd Singapore to Sydney then layover,
3rd Sydney to Singapore then layover,
4th Singapore to London then several days off

Regards

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks for the clarification, binsleepen.

Those layovers [justified, of course] certainly add to the manpower requirements, and financial cost, of operating LH. It seems to represent 4 days work and 10 days off - with BA paying salary and expenses for a lot of 'unproductive' time whilst effectively getting a 2-day working week in return. No wonder CC manpower savings are high on WW's agenda.

[PAXboy]

As I understand it, BA would like to have OZ based crews so that the UK crews would do the LHR~SIN, layover and return. The OZ crews would work SYD~SIN, layover and return. This would greatly reduce layovers down route but this was not agreed, many years ago.

I sit to be corrected and I think that numerous carriers would like to do this, perhaps some do. It would be interesting to know.

Coincidentally, there is an identical problem - but sort of in reverse - in British railway ops. The old BR (so I suppose the new companies) wanted drivers to operate to the max of their hours then layover and work a return train the next day. But the (long standing) agreement is that they work half their hours, then turn and work back to base, so that they always get home. This can, I gather, cause waste of time as they may have to wait longer than statuary rest period at the turning point for the return service to operate back. Again, I sit to be corrected.

[Diplome]

Thank you to both Binsleepin and Paxboy for your posts.

The staffing issues are incredibily interesting....and complicated :)

[dubh12000]

No sign of the Willie "Hitler" Walsh masks and dirty laundry this time round (so far).

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Much will become clearer by mid-day on Monday.

At that stage everyone will have a better idea of how many flights BA have been able to operate. BTW, I will believe BA's figures, bacause as a plc they are not allowed to lie.

And, I am sure, BASSA will have generated additional fictional statistics which will undermine their case, the people who pay their subs to the Union, and indeed disrespect the whole of BA's good and loyal staff.

[vanHorck]

I ve read quite a few comments on the CC forum about people (allegedly) having resigned their membership from Bassa.

Rather than breaking the strike through flying with volunteers and wet leases which seem to infuriate the strikers, I would suggest that resigning membership from Bassa will conclude this matter rapidly as Unite just cannot afford to loose al that income.....

:ok:

But then, looking at the pro-strike vote % yet subsequent strike turn-out on strike one, it seems there are quite a few cowards amongst the cc so I guess this is not going to happen...

:ugh:

[PAXboy]

ExSp33db1rdBut staff ought to be concerned - if BA can welch on their promises and previous inducements to those already retired, think what else they might do when THEY retire, and how they might also be so suddenly kicked in the guts.This will sound harsh: 'Twas ever thus.

In the 21st century, with the Western world in decline after an unprecedented 50 years of growth and prosperity??? Whilst the company stays afloat, there will be more snips. When it gets bought out/goes under - then there is no telling what will happen but the only word is 'less' not 'the same' or 'more'.

The issue has to be kept alive if there is any chance of a re-think, but I'm reviled and abused when I do that.I am not reviling you and it is your prerogative to pursue rewards that you have already earned. But there will be no re-think because the world is so utterly different from the one in which these contracts were made.

I recall saying to my father (at least ten years ago because he's been gone almost that long) that, for the best intentions that he and my mother had, the upbringing they gave my siblings and I was almost useless for the world in which we found ourselves. It was no criticism and he agreed it as a statement of fact.

[LHR747]

Last week I wrote the following:
"The strike is beginning to crumble as the majority of cabin crew turn up for work.

News just in from British Airways operations at both Heathrow and Gatwick conclusively demonstrates that the strike is beginning to crumble. Over 50% of cabin crew are turning up for work in defiance and as a direct challenge to the power of Unite. Pilots who had been called in to act as cabin crew are being redirected to work as pilots on the flight deck of additional services, as full cabin crew compliments are turning up for work. The atmosphere in the crew report centers is excellent with a real esprit de corps. Although it is still early to make a definite judgement on the state of the strike the signs are increasingly positive.

Cabin crew who are failing to report are being suspended indefinitely without pay and their future employment status remains uncertain. It looks like Mr Walsh is achieving a remarkable result and for this we should all be very relieved. The United Kingdom cannot afford a return to the destructive strikes of the 70s and if BA can weather this strike then this will certainly usher in a new post militant union era."

This weekend will almost certainly herald the end of the strike and the return to normal operations. Unite will not have been 'broken', whatever that means, but they will clearly have had to accept a management compiled cost saving program. The BASSA militants will have the choice of staying with BA and accept the new deal or leave.

This will herald a sea chance in industrial relations in Britain and allow those who took a more pragmatic, and dare I say realistic, approach towards company costs, prevail over the militants.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ VanHork ... i think that's unfair on several counts.

1. "Allegedly".
Some people are 'allegedly' BA CC, and posting on that Thread. There is no reason to doubt people saying they have resigned from BASSA unless YOU have evidence.

2. "Cowards".
That is a VERY strong term to use. Please remember that many/some CC were grossly misled by the Union as to what they were actually voting to strike about. I suspect many simply thought they were "sending a message to WW". Also remember that many, through ignorance or indoctrination, apparently refused to read any messages from BA and simply read what what BASSA said.

There are a lot of good people out there, trying to save their company and their jobs. Please don't disrespect them.

[TruBlu123]

I have watched with incredulity the BBC reporter Louisa Baldini interview a member of CC. She claimed a) salary of £11k pa after 11 years, b) no sick pay, c) no holiday pay and that not all allowances were generous eg BUH, £70 for 2 days. Is Baldini gullible or was she instructed by her editor not to challenge this statement.
My take is that the CC in question is on a post 1997 contract and that she is part time. Her claim regarding sick/holiday pay is plain wrong and that meal per diems reflect the costs at destination. Thus BUH would compare unfavourably with say GVA but her money there would go a lot further.
To cap it all Baldini expressed empathy that she had come straight from her flight to be with colleagues on the picket line at Hatton X. Big deal, she probably nightstopped somewhere in Europe and operated one sector home to LHR. Hardly a hard days work by even CC standards on SH.

[fincastle84]

What else to you expect from the BassaBroadcastingCorporation?

[TruBlu123]

FinnCastle84:

You are right of course. Why let facts get in the way of a good story. Makes you wonder what has happened to Lord Reiths' founding mantra - "Nation shall speak unto Nation".

Mind you I thought the piece in the Daily Mail today was most unfair to CC. These photographs were never intended to be published for all to see. Harmless high jinx like that should not be used against CC no matter how misguided many CC are about the issues in this dispute.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Thanks, TruBlu and Finky ... sums up the 'balanced reporting' we expect from the Beeb, for which the people pay the licence fee.

It would have been nice if Ms Baldini [who I would ;)] had prepared herself for about 10 minutes by getting a faint grasp of the issues involved.

BBC? I have to pay a Sky subscription on top of my BBC Licence Fee to be able to see the cr@p they transmit, as I can't get the terrestrial signal where I live ..

[Ooops, thread drift ... sorry, folks]

[Two-Tone-Blue]

:cool:

Possibly an unfair comparison, but I did smile.

[TruBlu123]

:D Me too!

[vanHorck]

Sorry about the "alleged" resignations from BA. What I mean is that i don't know it's true, although I suspect it probably is, given all the lies that Bassa have been spreading.

As to the cowards, I don't feel the need to withdraw that statement. Let me explain:
Before I do, please allow me to show my appreciation for those CC who voted NO to the strike and came to work. My respect to all those staff. More below on the good ones.

Now to the cowardice.

Many thousands of Bassa members who are now not striking voted FOR a strike. It is far too easy to say they were misled by their union (Wir haben es nicht gewusst). After all, many thousands were not misled at the same time and with identical access to information.

I would suggest those who voted FOR the strike but in the end did not strike are at the very least egoistic but more likely in many cases cowards, afraid of loosing pay or complimentary travel.

The fear is that this is the quiet militant group who strike venom in the veins of BA and will do so again whenever they can, because to them the demise of PLC BA or PLC UK is irrelevant when compared to their short moment of being "in charge" of BA. Pathetic really....

Somewhere in between will be those who genuinely voted for a strike but decided against a strike for other than egoistic reasons. To those well done as well!

I hope the BA management will win to the point that management can be allowed to manage and that the unions will have learned to look after the genuine well being of those they represent and this in the long term including allowing streamlined market conforming procedures and accepting change when it is needed for the health of the company.

Again, respect to those who keep BA flying!

[PAXboy]

vanHorckI would suggest those who voted FOR the strike but in the end did not strike are at the very least egoistic but more likely in many cases cowards, afraid of loosing pay or complimentary travel.Well, here is a very good example of two people reading the same information in totally opposite directions.

My interpretation of those who voted for the strike but then decided to work is that they MIGHT (obviously, I cannot know)
had the chance to consider more information than was then available to them
discussed things further with their colleagues
discussed things further with their families
just had to consider the implications and the public reaction (I mean public not media)They will also have had to consider that, once the strike is over, that they might encounter difficult working relations with those who DID strike. Since the pressure of having been a strike breaker can be severe, the very LAST thing I would call these people is 'cowards'.

[vanHorck]

Only a few weeks ago the CC forum was full of posters crying out for the yes voters to go on strike, they were calling their bluff....

Now it s all changed. Those who voted for a strike (when thousands of other voted against it based on the same information) but decided against it are the heroes?

Anyway does it matter? The CC who had the intelligence to read up and voted against the strike were the ones who were right, they deserve A LOT of respect.

The ones who are striking in a way deserve respect too, for sticking to their beliefs, even though they have made a seriously wrong decision imho.

Both sides of the fence (hopefully without militants) will have to work together, wounds will heal, crusts will disappear, let's hope not too many scars will remain. From that point of view Paxboy, I accept your intention.

[LD12986]

Is this the best Unite could come up with for today?

How an earth would passengers be able to board a flight if there were no crew on board to man the doors?

BA: United we stand (http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand.aspx?lang=en-gb)


15:30, 27 March 2010 - Day one of second strike
So far approximate figures show:

Long Haul Heathrow
- thought to be operating at 30% below capacity
- 60 flights planned but 22 of these are cargo only including flights to New York, Johanesburg and Hong Kong
- 6 flights were loaded with passengers then unloaded - no crew - and told to rebook
- Zone E, Terminal 5 now congested; passenger barriers brought out for first time in the dispute to manage crowds;
- tannoy announcements being made by company blaming Unite and cabin crew for the problems
- most flights flying well under capacity
- first flight to Miami, a key weekend route, cancelled
- in-bound flights now being cancelled, including LA flight

Eurofleet Heathrow
- again many grounded as BA relying on 8 other operators to carry passengers
- first 5 flights this morning - delayed because of no crew
Flights now flying with reduced crew. Heavy reliance on 700 pilots as crew.

Gatwick
- all long haul gone one crew member down
- by 9am, running out of 'volunteer' crew

Unite also announces it is seeking legal advice on legality of BA's move to deny pay to strike breakers beyond strike dates and its plans to define crew who are sick as strikers, so withdrawing their travel assistance too.

[ChicoG]

Unite also announces it is seeking legal advice on legality of BA's move to deny pay to strike breakers beyond strike dates and its plans to define crew who are sick as strikers, so withdrawing their travel assistance too.

Typical Unite tosh. It's not "travel assistance", implying that the company provide it to assist commuters.

It's cheap tickets given as a perk of the job. If the commuters that have lost it through trying to damage the company have to take a big hit, then they can quit or move - the company will be better off without them anyway.

[scotbill]

BBC TV abandoned any pretence of impartiality (or accuracy of reporting) this morning when some self-appointed 'consultant' on industrial relations was allowed to spout an undiluted union line on how WW was creating another Wapping to destroy the union - and with it the airline. Apparently it was completely without precedent in the history of industrial relations for an employer to withdraw an offer.
OK - I know it was 7.15 am after the clocks had gone forward but cannot BA do more to ensure a more balanced view is presented to the nation?

[pencisely]

Sat in T5 Concorde Lounge waiting to go to SFO and I can say all looks absoloutely normal. Flight is showing as being on time and I am looking forward to congratulating those CC and volunteers who will be delivering the service today.

From what I can see this IA is not well supported and as each new strike is announced the airline appears better able to handle the impact with minimal service impact. Could be a longhaul for BASSA who have completely mis-read the public mood on this.

[Rusland 17]

BBC TV abandoned any pretence of impartiality (or accuracy of reporting) this morning...Are you really suggesting that BBC is taking sides in this dispute - and is on the side of the union and strikers? That's quite remarkable, because the usual moan on internet forums is that BBC is pro-Labour, and it is generally acknowledged (although I disagree) that the action being taken by Unite is damaging the Labour government.

In the news reports I have heard (I tend to listen to Radio 4 rather than watch TV news) both sides have been allowed to present their case and have been robustly challenged by the interviewer. Which is exactly as it should be.

Incidentally, earlier this morning it was reported that David Cameron criticised Gordon Brown for not supporting those cabin crew who choose to break the strike... yet Cameron then refused to take sides himself. Politicians, eh? :rolleyes:

[scotbill]

Are you really suggesting that BBC is taking sides in this dispute - and is on the side of the union and strikers?

Sadly, the lack of rigorous questioning of some union spokespersons has demonstrated that too many TV reporters have not bothered to do their homework on this dispute. Has anyone seem any comment on the fact that this dispute has so little support from the rest of the staff - or any focus on BASSA rather than Unite?

SB

[HZ123]

Somone suggesting that the 'media' does not take sides! What a great outlook you must have on life?

[vanHorck]

Oh..... The Beeb let s an anonymous CC member confirm she's only on 11.000 basic a year and doesn't get paid when she doesn't fly or even when she's sick....

With the kind of money rolling into this state institution, you'd expect them to check facts before broadcasting.

[RoyHudd]

I wish the BBC would go on strike.

Doubt they will, though they must be fed up with the BA strike, being one of BA's largest corporate customers. (Yes, piggies do fly!)

[vanHorck]

I just formally complained to the BBC about the above (first time I ever did). More people should do this. It is just not fair to anyone to allow any spin from either side.

Especially in a conflict like this, the BBC should be aware of the spin and refuse to collaborate by checking any fact and refusing to broadcast anything that cannot be verified.

More people should complain to the media about this, it s the only way to help a rapid resolution for us mere mortals.

[HZ123]

Thats rich you do not even pay for a license?


Time to Say Goodbye (http://www.funstufftosee.com/goodbye.html)

[4t2b]

Nice , if sobering, link.

[vanHorck]

Thats right, being a foreigner I do not pay for the license.

But does that matter? The broadcasting of spin, especially if it could be mainly one sided could well extend the length of the conflict. If I was loosing, I'd use spin....

Does the general public or do the CC want extended damage of is it time to look for damage limitation by ending this strike asap so that the wounds can start to heal?

Sorry for being rich....
:ok:

[Diplome]

HZ123:

Wonderful and thought provoking link. Thank you.

[Low Flier]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01605/2703-MATT-INSIDE-w_1605133a.gif

[miamimike]

And one day believe it or not everyone will be back together.Pilots flying the jet,Cabin Crew serving our customers.But,just imagine the team spirit,the CRM!!.This is the real damage that has been done.

[Stoic]

"Pilots flying the jet,Cabin Crew serving our customers.But,just imagine the team spirit,the CRM!!"

Surely Miamimike this is exactly what is happening now. My daughter, who was a pax on the first flight to Milan this morning, texted me to say: "Cabin crew v jolly and friendly btw" Sounds like an excellent basis for enhanced CRM to me.

Are the boys and girls at the BFC refusing to work simply removing themselves from BA and becoming more and more irrelevant by the day?

[Diplome]

Stoic:


Are the boys and girls at the BFC refusing to work simply removing themselves from BA and becoming more and more irrelevant by the day?


In a word, Yes :)

The strike has already seriously damaged Unite and BASSA in that, with all the numbers their members represent, they could not shut down BA. Of course the airline has been negatively affected, but every day that BA is able to maintain at least 50% of flights is a win for the airline.

The only way this was going to work for BASSA was if they could deal a crushing blow to BA's operations. So far that simply hasn't been done.

[Ruthanne]

The link to Time to say goodbye, I found it so sad....you know you never know how good you have it until it is no longer there!

Coming back from Windsor yesterday I came across the Unite double decker bus on a very busy roundabout....whilst there was much shouting and banner waving coming from the top of the open bus, I noticed that all around them people watched silently, no cheers for them, no encouraging
car horns, just silence, other than their shouting!!!!

All very sad !!!!!!

[miamimike]

Im sure Stoic the situation you describe is true.Im sure theres a bit of a bravado/pioneering spirit in the air.Whatever the outcome,whoever "wins",inevitably the operation will be back....the difference being,striking crew non striking crew and the pilot community all back together.
My experience is that teamwork,mutual respect particularly between the Cabin Crew and yourselves are absolutely fundamental to the success of the brand and the company.This will be the legacy of this dispute.

[cacti]

Yes you are right...the rich get richer the poor get the picture !

[Diplome]

Can somone please expand on the "hot towel" issue I keep hearing about?

[jethrobee]

I need to book another trip to the USA (Boston), in addition to the several long haul business class I have recently booked by other carriers due to the strike. These include trips to Boston/Sydney/Atlanta and two further Boston ones.

So based on my historic BA preference the travel agent checked prices, same flight class (Business) same dates 18th April out 30th April back

The Price for British Airways £4446.77, Virgin £2967.77, so in the midst of trying to keep passengers, and encourage premium pax back even in the uncertainty of further strike action BA are expecting a £1500 premium.....

Looks like I will be sticking with Virgin on this one, I fear that the damage to BA has been done forever. It is a shame I cant earn points on American Airlines, but then Virgin service is much better in my opinion.

[Lou Scannon]

Well, miamimike, let's hope that everyone will get together again after the strike and if they do, it will be thanks to the efforts of the crews who have operated during the strike keeping the company afloat.

I am told that there is a party atmosphere on the flights and in the crewrooms today that makes the open top 'bus people look rather foolish.

[Diplome]

jethrobee:

I was just discussing this issue with another traveler.

He recently used Virgin to fly back from the States and, though he has a fondness for BA, he stated that the service made BA feel a bit "dated".

I'm hearing far too often that some BA Cabin Crew treat customers (and most people I know fly First or Business) as an aside. Perhaps this strike will create the opportunity for some refreshening of approaches by Crew and provide the company with the flexibility to renew the service standard.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ jethrobee ... in the case of your forward booking, that might well be the case, as the cheaper seats have been sold already.

Do a comparison 3 months ahead of your planned date, and I would expect you'll find the BA/VS prices are the same to a penny/cent. ;)

[pb3]

@JethroBee
So based on my historic BA preference the travel agent checked prices, same flight class (Business) same dates 18th April out 30th April back

The Price for British Airways £4446.77, Virgin £2967.77, so in the midst of trying to keep passengers, and encourage premium pax back even in the uncertainty of further strike action BA are expecting a £1500 premium.....



I've just priced up LHR to BOS return for those dates in Upper class without Limo transfer - the Virgin equivalent of BA's club world product) for those dates and the price is £4412.77 :confused:

Must have been a special fare.

[LD12986]

Can somone please expand on the "hot towel" issue I keep hearing about?


Diplome: BA wanted to give WT+ pax hot towels. The unions said no, you'll need an extra crew member for that.

[Diplome]

LD12986:

Thank you.

The next time a striking Cabin Crew member says "Its about keeping the service excellent, its about our customers!" I'll simply reply with this:


British Airways faces significant hurdles if it wants to change work practices, as it found this year when it wanted to start a hot-towel service in premium economy.

Bassa, the union that represents cabin crew, said that negotiation was required.

It wanted the number of crew on a Boeing 747 increased from 15 to 16 — at a cost of tens of millions of pounds — in return for distributing the hot towels.

BA refused, claiming that hot towel service did not constitute a significant change in working practices.

The service has been introduced, but BA cabin crew told The Times that many staff still refuse to give out the hot towels because it is not a union-sanctioned activity.


I believe that excerpt is telling in the extreme.

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

Looks like I need to start booking a lot earlier for Denver :)

The problem with Virgin is simply that your options in the States are really limited and to be perfectly honest their website irritates me. lol.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Hi, Diplome! ;)

Pre-booking cuts costs, simples. OK, I/we are the "comfortable retired" who are flexible and can plan ahead, and our trips to our '2nd home' in Virginia usually get booked within a couple of weeks of returning home from the previous one ;)

For those with different scenarios, the pricing scales can be a beeeetch. Short-bookings cost a fortune.

The one thing I will say for Virgin [about to test reliability etc.] is that this time they were the cheapest car rental by a mile!! A 3-week SUV for £534 with Alamo [with ALL the insurances] out of IAD that undercut everything else on the Web - IIRC, the BA equivalent was over £700 when booked with the flights.

[iwalkedaway]

Part of the background to this present shambles is surely that for decades BA has been smothering its CC with praise, assuring them that they are the best in the world, the face of the airline, topline this, world-class that...and pandering accordingly to the ever-ratcheting demands made by the relevant unions. The truth is they have long since been overtaken, having lost sight of world-class standards in their own fog of self-congratulation.

I still like BA as a carrier, and feel a loyalty to them, but it has to be admitted that much of their fleet is now decidedly down-at-heel with a distinctly used look (I'm not too much of a gent to stop myself adding "just like a fair percentage of the cabin crews"), ESPECIALLY in contrast to the fresh, bright and shiny hardware, service and services offered by the Eastern upstarts - Singapore, Emirates, Etihad etc.

And when it comes to BA's sommeliers recommending some wine or other as being "truly exceptional" one is now as likely to add "price-wise", whereas the modern rivals genuinely have pushed the boat out and provide true quality. Once this damned strike is sealed and settled, and appropriate arses have been kicked all round, I hope there's sufficient left in the kitty for BA to update, uprate and climb back onto that dizzy tightrope where they once reigned pretty much supreme. Too optimistic? But a reality check is long overdue...and not just for BASSA and Unite.

[cym]

Personal opinion, but to me, having used both BA and VS frequently, in all cabins BA beat them in terms of quality of serviceand comfort by a country mile - this is especially the case on the VS LGW 744 fleet - which are terrible.

I do however admit to a degress of bias being ex BA CC!

ST is just a nail for BASSA to hang their coat on, its something tangible to their members and god knows they need that. They fail totally when you look at any other aspect of their handling of this dispute.

WW has them cornered and they are desparate for a reason to distract their members attention away from this fact

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

Good evening :)

Our travel plans are a definite mix. Part planned ahead, part on the spur of the moment as business requires.

I explored different offerings the other day looking at how the First and Business Class compared and Virgin is limited for some of my needs.

Would be wonderful to see BA come out of this situation more flexible in its ability to serve its customers though I'm not thrilled with the AA partnership. Definitely NOT my preferred carrier in the States.

Have you noted some rather dispirited commentary coming from some of the strikers. They sound a tad less confident.

Perhaps Unite will come to the table with a reasonable offer...though I'm not holding my breath.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ iwalkedaway ... I couldn't agree more. Especially on the wine, which is either not available as per menu or, if white, insufficiently chilled ;)

However, the BA aircraft may be tired ... but so were Maxjet's during their brief moment in the sun. And their CC, and the incredible lounge at STN, made up for it to the point that you never really noticed the rattles and creaks and scuff-marks. They pitched Customer Service at the top of the list, and for a couple of years that was, for us, the ONLY way to fly.

BA ... I have absolutely ZERO emotion about the airline at all, I'm sorry to say. They fly me from A to B, they feed [and occasionally water] me, they are reliable and well maintained ... and do an average job LHR-IAD.

On other sectors, both European and Domestic, they can be simply amazing.
Remind me, where is all the current problem coming from? ;)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ Diplome ...

1. Spur of the moment business travel is a beeeech. Fortunately I can run my business without having to travel anywhere! :)

2. VS limited on destinations, BA schedules may not fit - it's hard out there. I can't get to IAD without a night-stop at the Sofitel at LHR, for a start. However, at least IAD is one of BA's 'preserved destinations'.

3. As to the semi-strike - my money remains on WW, simply because he, and his staff [God, they have put in some overtime] have had a complete game-plan, with options, in place for months. The dullards in the Unions may be able to book a bouncy-castle at short notice, and generate random 'distortions of the truth', but I seriously doubt they have any Plan B [or even a Plan A, to be honest].

[Diplome]

Dulles, possibly one of my least favorite airports. Do they still use the buses?

I must admit I do maintain a certain fondness of certain businesses (hotels, airlines, etc.) that serve me well. My husband finds it amusing as I can be rather ruthless in certain business areas, but will stay at the same hotel in Washington D.C., regardless of the Willard being next door, will forgive an airline for a miss here and there if the service is outstanding..and will be loathe to change.

I used to fly Alaska Airlines from Seattle to San Diego about 2 or three times a week and grew to love the airline. Moved to another area and it took me ages to readjust.

It has been a bit disconcerting to read that the staff I enjoyed was pitching fits over a hot towel service :rolleyes:

[lowcostdolly]

This week I travelled LGW-JER-LGW. JER is my "second home" and I do this route often

My choice on this route is governed by price and convienience.

Convienience to me at the moment is check in at the south terminal as I have to bus it to the north to fly BA. I can get a hold allowance with BA free of charge but I don't need it......others do so BA might then outdo their rival FlyBe on this.

The last time I flew BA on this route (over a year ago) they attempted a "full breakfast service" on a 40 minute flight.....presumably with a reduced crew. The breakfast was delivered but not with the best grace. As CC for another carrier I can empathise with the time pressures on them but as SLF I don't expect my baggette almost thrown at me :eek:

I flew FlyBE this week because

They were cheaper than BA when i booked but only just
They were not affected by threatened IA so my flight was reliable
They take off from the south terminal (personal preferance but I wouldn't pay to do this)However when I was at JER waiting for my flight all BA flights to LGW were taking off as scheduled....so the IA here at least was having minimal impact.
It is the minority that are affecting the image/future of BA......the militants at LHR who have had it far too easy for far too long.

So what if a CSD who is on over £50,000 a year+ benefits has to serve on a trolley......welcome to my world luv as a PU where I get nowhere near what you do :ooh:

If the LGW crew can see the bigger picture then why cannot their LHR colleagues or am I missng something? I've not read the thread so I might be :oh:

[Diplome]

Full Service Breakfast on a 40 minute flight?

My goodness...lol..that's just crazy. Personally I think you might have gotten off rather lightly. With only 40 minutes I might expect not only the baguette but the coffee to be tossed :)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

In Club, LGW-JER, you get a full [cold] lunch with wine. It's an eating competition to get it down your through before 'top of drop' abeam Alderney.

How the CC manage it, I don't know, but IMO that's a serious positive for the BA CC operating out of LGW. They are amazing.

[Diplome]

cym: This must be a rather painful time for you. I've been a tad surprised that the striking Cabin Crew haven't told their Union to tone down the disparaging remarks made about their airline and to concentrate on the dispute itself.

Unite/BASSA have done more to diminish Cabin Crews' image than anything that management could have dreamed of.

Two-Tone-Blue: I will admit to becoming rather a fan of the Gatwick Crew. Have experienced their fine service and have heard not one negative remark regarding their service from others other than the occassional hiccup that will happen.

Rather telling that Unite acts as if Gatwick doesn't exist and ignores the amazing things they are accomplishing during this difficult time.

[fincastle84]

How the CC manage it, I don't know, but IMO that's a serious positive for the BA CC operating out of LGW. They are amazing.

I totally agree about the LGW CC & on long haul they do it with less CC than LHR. Now what is this strike all about???????

PS As to your earlier remark about we retired folk booking early, we've just snagged our Amex J freebies to GND for March '11. Must be our military training.:ok:

[LD12986]

Here is the latest work of fiction from Unite:


16:30, 28 March 2010 - Day two of second strike

Unite estimates that on a normal working day 2100 crew are rostered to work.
During the strike, BA has significantly reduced the number of crew rostered to work.
Up to now, 359 crew have reported for duty. This includes 100 International Cabin Crew, who are not on strike. That leaves BA with 259 crew at work today.
But 331 have declared themselves to be on strike and a further 21 are sick.
So, more than 50% of those rostered to work are on strike.
This is before the numbers of crew who were not rostered and are also backing the strike are taken into consideration.
So BA's claim that most crew are working is another distortion.
Unite believes that today BA is trying to run its service with only around 15% of cabin crew who should be working normally.
Baggage - reports suggest v few bags being loaded onto the BA aircraft all day. Heavy reliance on the wet leased planes to maintain European service.
Reports also indicate that BA flights are leaving empty. They set off for a destination, expected to be a European city, switch planes and return. This is to keep up the pretence of planes taking off and landing as normal.
Most long haul flights are running with 2 fewer crew.


BA: United we stand (http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand.aspx?lang=en-gb)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

As ever, Finky, we are flying in close formation!

Every flight I have had from LGW, on Domestic and European has been GOOD.
Every flight I have had from LHR, on LH has been 'disappointing'.

Funny thing, it's the same Airline. I wonder what's wrong?

PS - next IAD booking will be for Sep, probably make that in May as soon as we get back! And 97% certain it will be with BA. :ok:

[lowcostdolly]

TTB My point exactly!!! The LGW crew seem to manage what the LHR crew cannot.....service with a reduced crew on an extremly short flight. Except at LHR their flights are mainly long haul are they not?? Those are the flights where they have loads more time and scope to achieve the service levels even with a reduced crew compliment.

I've never travelled club but in economy at least the product was delivered on the particular route I travelled.

I just feel IMHO that if WW wants to keep up the service rather than product levels on some rotes he needs to take a look at the service levels vs expectations of the travelling pax. Personally I don't care if I don't get a "free" bacon baggette and drink "tossed" on such a short route. Some might however and be happy to wolfe down on descent. Others like myself may be happy to be offered the option on board and pay as we go.

Horses for courses I guess.

The LGW crews do a great job but wear the same BA uniform. Some SLF tar them with the same brush as their counterparts at LHR. Please don't.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Weird ... who are these people who are not on strike?
Up to now, 359 crew have reported for duty. This includes 100 International Cabin Crew, who are not on strike. That leaves BA with 259 crew at work today.

Whichever, as usual it's complete borrocks. Although the Unite Broadcasting Service [aka BBC] said something a few minutes ago about only 50% of CC working.

I'm sure they checked those numbers before transmitting to the Nation, of course. The BBC wouldn't lie to their licence payers, would they? :eek:

[cym]

Yes, this is a very difficult time - I do see many friends still at BA feeling that they are between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand there is a growing realisation that BASSA has sold them a pup, on the other there is genuine fear about the consequences if they work and then found out to have done so which I can understand. It can be a very lonley place if your on a 4 day trip and you are ignored or even attacked by so called colleagues.

Consistently I hear that if Unite had put the deal offered by BA to members the reality is it would have been accepted. How in the name of god could Loony Len then go ahead and announce strike dates well knowing that that would scupper the deal that had been dependant on no annoucement? The reason as I see it is internal Unite politics with their internal elections pending.

I'm left of centre politically but do believe that this is a situation that WW must be allowed to manage to its conclusion

[Diplome]

For anyone looking for clues that Unite knows its in trouble their latest communication is revealing.

Unite is no longer in a "only 6 crossed the picket lines" mode, but is now desperately trying to skew numbers to make it appear that they have over 50% support of their own membership.

They don't...and the heat is on.

[jethrobee]

well, i agree, short term prices airlines are based on loadings, I have been traveling plenty to realise that.

However, the same flights are available using some of my miles for free, so that would lead me to believe that the load factor on that route isnt that high.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Excuse me Jethro - this just in from the CC Thread ...
Where did you get your figures from. Here are the planned and cancelled flights between 0600 and 1200 today from LHR (excludes codeshares on IB, AY, etc):

Time Total Cancelled
0600-0700 3 1
0700-0800 22 9
0800-0900 19 2
0900-1000 24 8
1000-1100 16 4
1100-1200 22 8

Total planned flights 106, total cancellations 32. So, BA operated 74 flights or 70% of flights, which is better than the plan.

[Diplome]

You have to hand it to British Airways, and I don't just mean management, I mean ground crew, engineering, flight deck, cabin crew, etc., etc., they have done an incredible job of facing this challenge to their existence.

I wasn't sure if they were going to be able to pull it off. The logistics alone, when faced with an unsure labor source, etc., was daunting.

But they BA flag still flies...with no apologies. :ok:

[fincastle84]

Every flight I have had from LHR, on LH has been 'disappointing'

From my limited experience of LHR LH in J I have to differ. Maybe it's because our flights have always been to either JNB or CPT which are popular with the CC as well as the pax. At Christmas, under the new reduced manning, the service was brilliant.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

That may be a factor. LHR-IAD may not be popular for a variety of complex reasons.

Just checking my 'travel diary' ...

07-1 - "Food 3/10, staff 4/10".
07-2 - "No canapes, late start of DVD".
08 - Upper deck 744. Missed parts of service to the OH seated outboard both outbound and inbound.
09 - OH ticked off by CSD because her seat wouldn't motor upright. Missed parts of service. Warm white wine. Inedible bacon rolls on return.

It just doesn't seem to deliver on that sector ... the rest of the time, on other sectors, it's GREAT. :ugh:

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

For heaven's sake. Its WHITE wine..if its warm ask for a few ice cubes.

Diplome (who drinks white wine, but has absolutely no respect for it :))

[Two-Tone-Blue]

For heaven's sake. Its WHITE wine..if its warm ask for a few ice cubes.
Diplome (who drinks white wine, but has absolutely no respect for it )


Peasant! :=

:ok:

... however, we digress from the Thread Topic.

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

:D

[Diplome]

Two-Tone-Blue:

On a more serious note...it is interesting that you are being delivered less than standard service on this one particular flight.

Perhaps a letter to BA may be in order as it does seem to be a bit of an anomaly regarding your whole BA experience.

[jethrobee]

I think that is great news Two-Tone, I really hope that BA emerge from this to be the strong airline with the great quality that we all used to know and love.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

It's not as though it's 'The End of the World'. Despite what some might think from some of my comments on PPRuNe, I'm not a serial complainer.

The revelations of the last few months on the CC Thread, and a few PMs, have given me a reasonable idea about the 'whys and wherefores'. So ... I/we are really looking forward to next month's trip under 'interesting circumstances', and we'll be going again in Sep [when hopefully a revitalised BA is operating]. Then I will make a judgement - at the moment there are (a) too many variables, and (b) we fly infrequently, so may have just been unlucky.


[Although it was never like that with MaxJet, which was always 100%+ :ok:
I'll never forgive them for over-expanding too soon - the best flying experience we have ever had, and they've gone :{]

[Rollingthunder]

Look better in the air.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2010/3/12/1268395154765/British-Airways-has-annou-002.jpg

[Papillon]

Full Service Breakfast on a 40 minute flight?

Ah, remember the good old days when CityFlyer (the airline, not the BA brand) used to run a full Club Europe service with hot meal on the 35 minute sector from AMS-LGW of an evening with a full load of 60 CE pax?:eek:

Crew used to hate it (understandably), but my, they were good at it.

[Diplome]

Rollingthunder:

BA was flying today, and Unite is now desperately trying to work numbers to create the impression that the support they have is over 50% of Cabin Crew. We all know that is not the reality.

They do look better in the air, with a crew that are productive, know that they work for an airline and not a Union, and that they are still the best paid Cabin Crew in the U.K..

The strike has failed. Period. Even with their membership numbers Unite/BASSA could not keep BA from the air. The majority of their members are not supporting their position, let alone other unions or co-workers.

Its time for Unite to put an offer on the table to BA that is reasonable, respects the contribution of Cabin Crew, but also recognizes that BA will change, make reasonable savings, and compete against new rivals.

[GemDeveloper]

I have resisted commenting until now… but I have to rise to the bait offered by the conversations about CC, and service, and how this can differ…

I am old enough to have flown with, and remember, the BA before Marshall… and the one thing that I recall was the inconsistency of the service. It varied from the very good to the dire. Stand up the European Fleet CC who worked BRU-MAN on a BAC1-11 on the Thursday evening flight before the August Bank Holiday 1982. See? That experience (O.K., made the better by the fact that we were going ‘home’ after an overseas assignment), is burnt on my brain. It was a wonderful return to Britain, at least an hour before we got there. And despite the short sector, and the full aeroplane, nothing was too much trouble. AND we were travelling with a 9 month old youngster.

What “Putting People First” did was to bring to the airline, and particularly the cabin service, a level of consistency that made BA, together with the original Club product, stand out from the Competitors. It was good service, one was made to feel welcome, one was made to feel special. And each time that it looked as if the Competitors were about to come up with an offering that would seriously compete, BA would raise their game and stay ahead.

So, I flew regularly with BA, around the world, but mostly within Europe, to the Far East, and to South Africa, and managed to pass go and collect an Executive Club Gold Card which I held for many years.

What I noticed in the last few years before I retired was that the old inconsistencies had crept back in. Sometimes when I flew, I was made to feel very special. Other times, I was just SLF, the cabin service was performed with very little grace, and, as others have already commented, there seemed to be an almost unseemly rush to get it over with so that the lights could be dimmed and the maximum number of CC could disappear and get their heads down in the Wendy House.

There are Competitors out there. I note with interest the comments about Virgin, but to me the real threat comes not from other North West European airlines, but those of the emerging economies. I have flown a lot with SQ (yes, I had a Gold Card with them). There is no doubt that SQ service is totally consistent… even to the extent that one knows at which rows the welcoming CC will be standing as one boards. Sometimes, it is so ‘process driven’ that it can feel a little sterile. I have flown less with people like Malaysian, Korean, and Emirates; whilst their cabins might not have quite the comfort of the BA offering, the service is good, and the CC are attentive.

But I think that, for many people, and not just for Brits, ‘coming to Britain’, even when one is fourteen hours away from LHR or LGW, can be a very calming experience. Clarkson mentioned it in his piece in last Sunday’s Telegraph. I would not have expressed it quite like that, and I am not sure quite what Third World hell holes he has lived and worked in, but I have empathy with the sentiment.

I think that there is one good thing that might come out of this strike, and all the agonising that honest, decent people have been going through as to whether to support their Company, in which they obviously still feel great pride, at the risk of being ostracised by some of their colleagues, or whether to support their Union, which up to now has been their main source of information, however flawed. That good thing could be that BA take the management of staff working remotely, and over whom there can be relatively little direct supervision ‘on the day of the race’, far more seriously, and provide the clear leadership that will allow people to do things that they didn’t know were possible. That would allow BA again to become a leader in its industry.

I see from the comments from some of the people who have been flying over the last two periods of the strikes that the absence of grumpy CC has allowed them to rediscover some of their old feelings about their job and how they go about it. If those same people, with the active support of their managers, can catalyse some of the magic back into BA service, yes, in the cabin, but also right across the customer experience, then the airline will become Great British Airways. And I, and many others, would rejoice.

Good luck to you all.

[4t2b]

I think this question may have been partially answered on the "other" thread but perhaps someone could confirm it for me.

When the Company announces it has flown 60% of it's sorties today it means 60% of the sorties it would have flown on a non-striking day?:confused:

[Diplome]

Papillion:

I'm simply stunned by some of these postings about short time service.

How in the world do Cabin Crew accomplish this? I keep envisioning this rather fabulous Monty Python sketch...but Cabin Crew really do complete the mission.

Amazing!:ok:

[Papillon]

That particular flight (Thu/Fri night) was always the one the crew loathed above all - not because they disliked hard work or anything silly like that, but because it was just so hard to achieve. Believe me, it was something to behold on the rare occasions I got to see it.

Sometimes they didn't quite manage it (inevitable), but overwhelmingly they did indeed provide a full CE service (and an ET service for the other 40 pax). Utterly, totally brilliant crews, almost every week.

[LD12986]

Latest from BASSA:


BASSA > Latest News

Day 5 - Family day.Mar 28th, 2010 by admin

We’re getting stronger and stronger as each day passes.

We know a lot of our members are mums and dads with young children, so we tried to make today a little different and welcoming for them to attend. It was a family themed day, with face painting, bouncy castle and kid’s games; bottom line, everyone loved it, young and old!

It was a fantastic and sunny day and our biggest turnout so far.

The BA press machine is in overdrive trying to convince the world and fellow crew that everything is normal and everyone is turning up for work - they are NOT.

This is to try and weaken your resolve and make you think you are alone in taking strike action - you are not, it’s running around 50/50 between those going on strike and those breaking the strike but remember, of those going to work, the total includes pilots, ground staff operating as crew, temp crew and ICCS.

They are also deliberately misleading the press by counting inbound crew in the figures they release.

After eagle eyed crew revealed the truth about mounting cancellations by simply monitoring BA.com. They are now attempting to conceal cancellations and empty departures by removing the F for “Freighter” prefix to the flight number and instead have added a one so the BA039 becomes the BA1039 in the departures. To the untrained eye it looks as though many more flights are departing. They are not, these are empty positioning aircraft because they have no crew. It’s concealment on a substantial scale, to try and win the PR battle, simply take a look for your self before they disguise it another way and you should be able to see this quite easily.

The media is now beginning to see through the spin; Sky News has shown the best analysis so far, stripping away cancelled flights, empty flights and code share flights to reflect a far, far lower number of “real” departures.

This is not in any way meant to make light of going on strike and the impact that it can have; we know taking strike action is daunting and worrying for every single person, but we are now getting a steady stream of first time strikers and people who worked last weekend that have now changed their mind, coming along to Bedfont because they want to be a part of it.

We have had to open a third car park to accommodate everyone who wants to join the burgeoning numbers at Bedfont.

Coaches will be coming down from Manchester and Birmingham tomorrow with our commuting members to join us.

With crew being such shy, retiring individuals, it was not surprising that the open-top bus was still the most popular draw, amassing the longest queues - with the opportunity to sing, shout and wave our flags around the airport!

This is the most critical part of this whole dispute, WE CANNOT EMPHASISE THIS ENOUGH! If we stay strong and united, we will send the strongest possible message that Mr. Walsh must return to the negotiating table. If people go to work then that division will be perceived as a weakness and simply convince Mr. Walsh that he does not need to negotiate.

WE WILL NEED YOUR STRENGTH MORE THAN EVER TOMORROW AND TUESDAY- WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE COMPLACEMENT; PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE THIS TO OTHERS-DON’T LET THEIR MIND GAMES AFFECT YOUR DETERMINATION- EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO GOES TO WORK WEAKENS US AND MAKES A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMNET ALL THE MORE DIFFICULT.

If you have any doubts over your colleagues’ commitment and the sacrifices being made, today we were humbled by two stories in particular.

One young, Italian new-entrant crew member on Worldwide is a commuter from Rome and came today to join with us - paying for his own flight and four night’s accommodation at the Arora. He went on strike and was willing to lose his staff travel in order to support his fellow crew.

Another striking part-time main crew member had been given 13 days of xxxx as she went on strike for a nine day Aussie - she will have been deducted 13 days of pay - she also commutes from Paris. Again she has lost a substantial part of her earnings and lost her staff travel - she is on the picket line every single day.

We all should be humbled and made all the more determined by their selfless sacrifice; all we ask is that you also play your part and join us...

COME TO BEDFONT, WE NEED YOU! OUR STRIKE IS WORKING BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF IT.

[Papillon]

OUR STRIKE IS WORKING BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF IT.

Oh dear, they really should proof-read this stuff :confused:

[TURIN]

OUR STRIKE IS WORKING BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF IT.


Eh???:confused::ugh:

[Stoic]

What is the point of your post? You show a picture of the tails of 6, or possibly 7, 747s and 2 other BA aeroplanes at a terminal building. This is a quite frequent sight on any day at LHR. Situation normal.

Is your point that the strike has failed because it is making derisory impact?:)

[Stoic]

YouTube - british airways commercial alternative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_hzrB_FI4)

[Mariner9]

After eagle eyed crew revealed the truth about mounting cancellations by simply monitoring BA.com. They are now attempting to conceal cancellations and empty departures by removing the F for “Freighter” prefix to the flight number and instead have added a one so the BA039 becomes the BA1039 in the departures. To the untrained eye it looks as though many more flights are departing. They are not, these are empty positioning aircraft because they have no crew

Well the BA website shows pax tickets available for Tuesday's BA1039. And also for numerous other BA1039's listed after the strike period. Clearly not in fact empty freighters with no crew. One would have thought that the aforesaid "eagle eyed crew" would either have knowledge of BA codes first hand or have thought to check their information (and of course tell the truth) :=

[Diplome]

With credit to TURIN on the CC Thread:


In the lead up to industrial action taking place a number of communications were circulated by Unite Cabin Crew Reps and BA management. These were attempts by both parties to state the positions they had adopted and explain the reasons why. Unfortunately one of the documents released by Unite made reference to existing Cabin Crew employees being left to operate"ageing and ill maintained aircraft" These comments were inconsiderate towards Unite Engineering members and at best misplaced. We personally have taken this up with your Cabin Crew colleagues and we understand that your Engineering Convenor Ian Kemp has invited Cabin Crew Reps to a future Unite Engineering Group meeting to discuss the detail of the document with Unite colleagues.
On a personal basis we want to assure you that the high standard of skill and quality our engineering members constantly exerise while contributing to the success of BA Engineering is something that this Union is proud of and we know you are. There was certainly no deliberate attempt to undermine your achievements in anyway. We do understand that it may have seemed like that, if so please accept our apologies.
This aside we have noted that in some E Mailed letters of complaint individuals have taken it upon themselves to include Senior BA Management in their list of recipients. We would ask you to refrain from this practice particularly at this difficult period as this may be used in a divisive and disingenuous manner. We also understand that some disenfranchised Unite members are actively encouraging membership of one of our affiliated sister trade unions, Prospect.While we have every respect for the work Prospect undertakes in a number of industries it has no collective bargaining rights within BA. We have spoken to our good colleagues on this matter who have given us assurances that this practice will stop forthwith. In fact the general secretary of Prospect has only last week sent a strong letter of solidarity to Unite wishing thec union success in resolving the current dispute.
We know that the unite national and regional officers have a very good relationship with our Senior Workplace Reps at BA engineering. A number of your reps are delegates to the new Regional and National industrial Senior Sector Committes with regular workplace visits taking place. We fully acknowledge the positive contribution Unite workplace Reps made during the recent negotiations to develop a single working agreement and consider our Aviation Engineering membership throughout the UK to be an integral part of the new Unite CAT structures. Please do not allow anyone to convince you otherwise. If there are occasions when you and your colleagues take issue with Unite we want you to discuss and resolve matters with your reps and full time officers.

A typical Unite/BASSA ploy. Trash a proud and competent service in the press, and then release a pathetic "Oh never mind" "private" email.

Is it no wonder that the rest of BA do not support their actions?

[pencisely]

Just arrived in SFO on BA285 staffed by 12 in the cabin which included one engineer and an office based volunteer.

Service was fantastic as was the spirit of the whole cabin crew team. They seemed to cope well despite being 2 down and with a pretty full flight.

Flight left about 20 mins late but made up time en-route.

Terminal 5 seemed pretty normal for a Sunday and I only noticed about 3 wet leases in the 4 hours I was in the terminal.

I thanked as many of the crew as I could personally for sticking to their principles and refusing to be bullied into wholly inappropriate strike action. The phrase "wrong fight wrong time" comes very much to mind.

It was evident to day that the whole BA team were working very hard to get flights away and mostly seemed to be succeeding. The UNITE action has wholly failed to bring the airline to anything near a standstill.

[plane speak]

(Excludes codeshares; Includes leased aircraft)
analysis based on BA.Com flight departures as of 1am

Longhaul
52 69% Planned to operate
23 31% Cancelled

Shorthaul
96 46% Planned to operate
111 54% Cancelled

Total
148 52% Planned to operate
134 48% Cancelled

[Hotel Tango]

No strike will ever achieve a 100% stoppage. Based on the above figures of 48% cancelled flights, as a neutral, I'd say that the strike is very much successful.

[ExecClubPax]

Remarks acknowledging the committed customer service offered by BA's Gatwick based cabin crew during the current round of IA do not surprise me.

Gatwich as a base for civil aviation has always punched above it weight. Having worked there since 1965 (initially with BUA when 3 cabin crew regularly produced a full hot breakfast on BAC 1-11 flights to Rotterdam) it demonstrates present day crews are still maintaining the "can do" attitude.

Having said that, I would guess ignoring the call to strike has more to do with the Union failure to properly represent its members at Gatwick during T&C negotiations and taxation issues over the last year or so.

Another Union "own goal".

[Diplome]

Hotel Tango:

Unite isn't holding its own members....and BA is running to plan.

No, this strike is not a "success". It won't be a success unless the Union can force a better deal than BA's initial offer, and that doesn't seem to be on the horizon yet.

[Hotel Tango]

Diplome, unlike most posters here I'm not taking sides. As a neutral I don't call the cancellation of 48% of flights "running to plan". In my eyes "running to plan" is operating 100% of my schedules. So, you may think what you will, as far as I'm concerned 48% represents a sizeable impact by the strikers.

[Diplome]

Of course its a sizable impact. No reasonable individual would expect there not to be a sizable impact.

However BA has done an impressive job of minimizing the strike's effect and when you have 63% or 66% (I've heard both figures) of Cabin Crew reporting and no new offers on the table the Union is hardly in victory mode.

Will be interesting to see if the Cabin Crew reporting numbers stay constant.

[Wannabe Flyer]

as far as I'm concerned 48% represents a sizable impact by the strikers.Well depends on how one looks at it. BA could argue that 48% disruption does not constitute a sizable victory. Cups is half full or half empty. :p

What % does seem apparent to SLF is that in excess of 75% of posts here and other forums the feeling seems to be anti strike. Now by that I mean the method in which the Unions have gone about conducting their bullying tactics. I am in no way commenting on the demands of the CC.

Maybe they need a WIFI connection out at the airport so some of the strikers can post here.

Main question is that post Tuesday what next? 21 million loss x 2 weekends = 42 million. I don't think BA will give in to the demands so will the Union call another strike???? All that was achieved was a loss of money for all, which by the BA can recover is some form or the other (from the strikers) but how will loss of wages of be compensated????