British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear BABOBO
If you look at the time of this post you could think I must have had a full night of X factor and Strictly washed down with a bottle of red.
The truth is I have just arrived in the USA, got to my hotel and logged on!
So, BABABO I read your post and admire the objective approach you are taking. I wanted to reassure you re. unions etc. We will have representation in the future, (currently I have none). I think it will look very different and actually make our space in BA a nice place to work.
How will this be achieved? Change is my bet, it happened in 1989 and I think it's about to happen again.
The truth is I have just arrived in the USA, got to my hotel and logged on!
So, BABABO I read your post and admire the objective approach you are taking. I wanted to reassure you re. unions etc. We will have representation in the future, (currently I have none). I think it will look very different and actually make our space in BA a nice place to work.
How will this be achieved? Change is my bet, it happened in 1989 and I think it's about to happen again.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Clarified
Change is my bet, it happened in 1989 and I think it's about to happen again.
Change is my bet, it happened in 1989 and I think it's about to happen again.
Hello Clarified,
I can tell you that I DID have a night of Strictly and X Factor minus the Vino!
Here's hoping to Change with intelligent, adult and sensible negotations in the not too distant future.
For your information, I'm also no longer with Amicus/Unite.
I will be crossing the picket line and coming to work.
Hope you have a pleasant trip.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear BABOBO
Thank you for expressing your thoughts, unfortunately you and all the other crew have, IMHO, been backed into a corner by BASSA. Failure to negotiate, reliance on the "throwing the toys out of the pram" as previously used in years gone by has left BASSA in the unenviable position of having to negotiate or ballot. The ballot itself doesn't specify why you would be striking either.
I was talking with some of my crew last night, they thought the reason for strike was the new crewing levels. So I as these questions;
1. Why wasn't there a call to arms when LGW had these crewing levels introduced?
2. Post 9/11 there was a reduction in crewing levels (a reduction from 16 to 15 on the 747). Why was there not a call to arms then?
The answer to both, I fear, is that it didn't directly affect the Ts&Cs of the BASSA leadership so it didn't really warrant any action. But now, we have the threat of New Fleet and all of a sudden it's different. Well, if New Fleet is why you are heading for a strike then take a look at the BA/BALPA dispute last year. New Fleet COULD affect your future earnings but it is purely speculative. We know that there is a European law that BA used to kick BALPA into touch regarding speculation.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again....Get BASSA back to the negotiating table but this time come with REALISTIC ideas abiut how you want to make your contribution to the savings required.
I was talking with some of my crew last night, they thought the reason for strike was the new crewing levels. So I as these questions;
1. Why wasn't there a call to arms when LGW had these crewing levels introduced?
2. Post 9/11 there was a reduction in crewing levels (a reduction from 16 to 15 on the 747). Why was there not a call to arms then?
The answer to both, I fear, is that it didn't directly affect the Ts&Cs of the BASSA leadership so it didn't really warrant any action. But now, we have the threat of New Fleet and all of a sudden it's different. Well, if New Fleet is why you are heading for a strike then take a look at the BA/BALPA dispute last year. New Fleet COULD affect your future earnings but it is purely speculative. We know that there is a European law that BA used to kick BALPA into touch regarding speculation.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again....Get BASSA back to the negotiating table but this time come with REALISTIC ideas abiut how you want to make your contribution to the savings required.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A Lurker" was kind enough to produce a list of all of the changes that were imposed.
The more I keep looking at that lengthy (and yes, obviously well thought out) list, the more I think how ludicrous it is that BASSA refused to participate in meaningful negotiations, and even now, instead of focusing on trying end the impasse, are out looking for crew who are "tired", or "get ill" because they've had to work with one crew down, so they've got something to use in the court case.
The same court case for which I wonder if they've put down their OWN names as claimants (something I would think BASSA members could check, as is this not a matter of public record, unless the judge deems it necessary to issue a gag order?).
What will BASSA members do if the strike vote does not come? Or if you see there is no real will to risk your jobs at a time of such high unemployment when it can be filled in a few weeks by someone desperate for one?
Accept things as they are? Resign, and save the company paying you off?
Or do the sensible thing and kick out the self-serving dinosaurs that run your union and send someone trustworthy to go and talk to BA on your behalf.
Remember there are further losses anticipated that must be paid for from somewhere, and if its cabin crew that has caused them, it's cabin crew that will be asked to pay for them.
Better to participate in the process as the other unions have and still are, than be forcibly bent over for six of the best and then complain that you never saw it coming.
The more I keep looking at that lengthy (and yes, obviously well thought out) list, the more I think how ludicrous it is that BASSA refused to participate in meaningful negotiations, and even now, instead of focusing on trying end the impasse, are out looking for crew who are "tired", or "get ill" because they've had to work with one crew down, so they've got something to use in the court case.
The same court case for which I wonder if they've put down their OWN names as claimants (something I would think BASSA members could check, as is this not a matter of public record, unless the judge deems it necessary to issue a gag order?).
What will BASSA members do if the strike vote does not come? Or if you see there is no real will to risk your jobs at a time of such high unemployment when it can be filled in a few weeks by someone desperate for one?
Accept things as they are? Resign, and save the company paying you off?
Or do the sensible thing and kick out the self-serving dinosaurs that run your union and send someone trustworthy to go and talk to BA on your behalf.
Remember there are further losses anticipated that must be paid for from somewhere, and if its cabin crew that has caused them, it's cabin crew that will be asked to pay for them.
Better to participate in the process as the other unions have and still are, than be forcibly bent over for six of the best and then complain that you never saw it coming.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be some parallels here... My bolds
Virgin staff strike is called off
The union said it wanted to negotiate with Virgin
A planned rush hour strike by Virgin Trains booking office staff at five mainline stations has been called off.
Transport Salaried Staffs Association members were to strike on Friday night at London Euston, Birmingham New Street, Coventry, Preston and Glasgow.
Virgin Trains said the strike was abandoned after legal advice questioned the ballot procedures.
The union said Virgin Trains was planning to close several ticket office windows, a claim the firm denied.
About 100 members of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) union were expected to have taken part in the strike.
They claim Virgin plans to cut back on the number of ticket windows open to the public which would force people to use more expensive ticket machines.
Union claims 'bizarre'
Gerry Doherty of TSSA said: "If this goes ahead we could end up with 10% fewer booking office staff," he added.
However, Virgin Trains said this claim was "bizarre" as it had no intention of reducing ticket office windows or staff.
Virgin Trains chief executive Tony Collins criticised the union.
"It is shameful that the TSSA leadership has deliberately confused its own members and our customers over what the dispute is about," he said.
However, Mr Doherty responded: "We are very disappointed that Virgin have left it to the last minute to resort to anti-trade union legislation to challenge the legality of a ballot which saw a 70% majority in favour of strike action."
He added the union did not want to fight the issue in the High Court but instead wanted to negotiate directly with Virgin.
The union said it wanted to negotiate with Virgin
A planned rush hour strike by Virgin Trains booking office staff at five mainline stations has been called off.
Transport Salaried Staffs Association members were to strike on Friday night at London Euston, Birmingham New Street, Coventry, Preston and Glasgow.
Virgin Trains said the strike was abandoned after legal advice questioned the ballot procedures.
The union said Virgin Trains was planning to close several ticket office windows, a claim the firm denied.
About 100 members of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) union were expected to have taken part in the strike.
They claim Virgin plans to cut back on the number of ticket windows open to the public which would force people to use more expensive ticket machines.
Union claims 'bizarre'
Gerry Doherty of TSSA said: "If this goes ahead we could end up with 10% fewer booking office staff," he added.
However, Virgin Trains said this claim was "bizarre" as it had no intention of reducing ticket office windows or staff.
Virgin Trains chief executive Tony Collins criticised the union.
"It is shameful that the TSSA leadership has deliberately confused its own members and our customers over what the dispute is about," he said.
However, Mr Doherty responded: "We are very disappointed that Virgin have left it to the last minute to resort to anti-trade union legislation to challenge the legality of a ballot which saw a 70% majority in favour of strike action."
He added the union did not want to fight the issue in the High Court but instead wanted to negotiate directly with Virgin.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helllloooooo BABOBO - an excellent post! 
Well done for thinking things through and using your vote wisely. 
It is interesting to read through this thread about all the legalities about striking, but I'm afraid it will undoubtedly be by the by. I remain convinced that because the Union have sent ballot papers to the people who have taken VR, and they will have left BA by the end of November, it will undoubtedly render the ballot null and void. This was probably what Mr W was expecting. Game Set and Match to Mr W then.
So Finncastle, contrary to Fume Events' fumigating, you WILL travel. And rest assured that if it were to happen when the strike is on, you will be looked after by the likes of the dedicated and hardworking people on here like BABOBO, Clarified, Tiramisu, Glamgirl, Nuigini, etc. cos we will all be volunteering to work.
The service you will get will be 2nd to none!
As for the Union's amateurish attempt to use people's names on the court petition, this is positively ridiculous. There is obviously a risk that you could be liable for costs, and the Union have an obligation to make people aware of this.
Secondly, why do they need all that info? This court case is about whether or not this (One crew member off) is "contractual". So whether I am tired, injured, working harder
or not, is irrelevant and a court will surely throw anything out that has no relevance to the case.
Cor blimey, if this is the best legal advice UNITE can obtain on membership fees of about Ł155,000/month then it is pathetic.
Do Not Give Your Name to the court case
VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM THE UNION
Well done for thinking things through and using your vote wisely. It is interesting to read through this thread about all the legalities about striking, but I'm afraid it will undoubtedly be by the by. I remain convinced that because the Union have sent ballot papers to the people who have taken VR, and they will have left BA by the end of November, it will undoubtedly render the ballot null and void. This was probably what Mr W was expecting. Game Set and Match to Mr W then.
So Finncastle, contrary to Fume Events' fumigating, you WILL travel. And rest assured that if it were to happen when the strike is on, you will be looked after by the likes of the dedicated and hardworking people on here like BABOBO, Clarified, Tiramisu, Glamgirl, Nuigini, etc. cos we will all be volunteering to work.
The service you will get will be 2nd to none!
As for the Union's amateurish attempt to use people's names on the court petition, this is positively ridiculous. There is obviously a risk that you could be liable for costs, and the Union have an obligation to make people aware of this.
Secondly, why do they need all that info? This court case is about whether or not this (One crew member off) is "contractual". So whether I am tired, injured, working harder
or not, is irrelevant and a court will surely throw anything out that has no relevance to the case.Cor blimey, if this is the best legal advice UNITE can obtain on membership fees of about Ł155,000/month then it is pathetic.
Do Not Give Your Name to the court case
VOTE NO AND RESIGN FROM THE UNION
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal proceedings.
As for the Union's amateurish attempt to use people's names on the court petition, this is positively ridiculous. There is obviously a risk that you could be liable for costs, and the Union have an obligation to make people aware of this.
The holiday pay case is of particular interest because it went through two appeals before the petitioners lost on the last hearing and must have racked up substantial legal fees. In the other case of course, BA lost!
Last edited by ottergirl; 22nd Nov 2009 at 21:45. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiflyer14
I am unsure as to you are being genuine with your postings because you seem to be totally misguided and ill-informed....your quote
"I remain convinced that because the Union have sent ballot papers to the people who have taken VR, and they will have left BA by the end of November, it will undoubtedly render the ballot null and void. This was probably what Mr W was expecting. Game Set and Match to Mr W then"
The ballot is valid if those members where members of the trades union and employed by BA when asked to submit their vote - so in your own words. Game Set and Match to BASSA then
You then seem to call into question your own colleagues way of working and attempt to pacify peoples concerns when you genuinely have no idea of the outcome and then go on to promise people that they will travel, in all honesty that is totally wrong, you may be building false hopes for those poor people
"So Finncastle, contrary to Fume Events' fumigating, you WILL travel. And rest assured that if it were to happen when the strike is on, you will be looked after by the likes of the dedicated and hardworking people on here like BABOBO, Clarified, Tiramisu, Glamgirl, Nuigini, etc. cos we will all be volunteering to work."
You then say
The service you will get will be 2nd to none!
Surely that should read "no 2nd service"
You then go on to say
As for the Union's amateurish attempt to use people's names on the court petition, this is positively ridiculous. There is obviously a risk that you could be liable for costs, and the Union have an obligation to make people aware of this.
I refer to a colleagues posting of the well fought battle by a BA Pilot - who named herself and WON in court - no costs there......
You then go on and say
Secondly, why do they need all that info? This court case is about whether or not this (One crew member off) is "contractual". So whether I am tired, injured, working harder or not, is irrelevant and a court will surely throw anything out that has no relevance to the case.
I am staggered that you think this is the reason why we are going to court - there are at least 16 breaches that the Union are contesting
I assume then that if some of your colleagues happen to go on strike and MAINTAIN your current income and conditions - you will resign in protest or at the very least give a portion of the money that you would lose if BA got their way?
I am unsure as to you are being genuine with your postings because you seem to be totally misguided and ill-informed....your quote
"I remain convinced that because the Union have sent ballot papers to the people who have taken VR, and they will have left BA by the end of November, it will undoubtedly render the ballot null and void. This was probably what Mr W was expecting. Game Set and Match to Mr W then"
The ballot is valid if those members where members of the trades union and employed by BA when asked to submit their vote - so in your own words. Game Set and Match to BASSA then
You then seem to call into question your own colleagues way of working and attempt to pacify peoples concerns when you genuinely have no idea of the outcome and then go on to promise people that they will travel, in all honesty that is totally wrong, you may be building false hopes for those poor people
"So Finncastle, contrary to Fume Events' fumigating, you WILL travel. And rest assured that if it were to happen when the strike is on, you will be looked after by the likes of the dedicated and hardworking people on here like BABOBO, Clarified, Tiramisu, Glamgirl, Nuigini, etc. cos we will all be volunteering to work."
You then say
The service you will get will be 2nd to none!
Surely that should read "no 2nd service"
You then go on to say
As for the Union's amateurish attempt to use people's names on the court petition, this is positively ridiculous. There is obviously a risk that you could be liable for costs, and the Union have an obligation to make people aware of this.
I refer to a colleagues posting of the well fought battle by a BA Pilot - who named herself and WON in court - no costs there......
You then go on and say
Secondly, why do they need all that info? This court case is about whether or not this (One crew member off) is "contractual". So whether I am tired, injured, working harder or not, is irrelevant and a court will surely throw anything out that has no relevance to the case.
I am staggered that you think this is the reason why we are going to court - there are at least 16 breaches that the Union are contesting
I assume then that if some of your colleagues happen to go on strike and MAINTAIN your current income and conditions - you will resign in protest or at the very least give a portion of the money that you would lose if BA got their way?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FT Interview with Willie
There is an interview in today's FT with WW in which he is reported as saying "there will be no compromise this time, it is a very different dispute to the last in 2007".
Personally I think the claimed effect of the removal of one crew member from the a/c pales into insignificance compared to the potential disaster that may await most employees of BA. And that is the Pension. If you read the (very long) full transcript of the interview with Willie, the legal powers of the regulator to "fix" an underfunded scheme are frightening.
Personally I think the claimed effect of the removal of one crew member from the a/c pales into insignificance compared to the potential disaster that may await most employees of BA. And that is the Pension. If you read the (very long) full transcript of the interview with Willie, the legal powers of the regulator to "fix" an underfunded scheme are frightening.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pension is actually irrelevant for the vast majority of Cabin Crew as it's such a poor scheme - I have worked for BA for 22 years and my total pension earned to date is Ł10,572 at 55 my pension is forecast to be Ł14,566 per annum and at age 60 Ł21,992 per annum.
Hardly life changing sums given that I would have done 35 years service at 55!
Hardly life changing sums given that I would have done 35 years service at 55!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pension is actually irrelevant for the vast majority of Cabin Crew
..............and it is a whole lot better than just relying on the state pension.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Andy - no I was responding to somebody else bringing up the pension - wasnt me!
They seemed to think it was a big deal - when the truth is it's not what a lot of outsiders perceive to be - no gold plated pension for Cabin Crew thats for sure
They seemed to think it was a big deal - when the truth is it's not what a lot of outsiders perceive to be - no gold plated pension for Cabin Crew thats for sure
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl wrote:
That's because in those cases it WAS the individual taking them to court, not the Union. The female pilot didn't pay costs because she WON.
I say to you, and A Lurker, and anyone else: Go for it. If you want to give your names to the Union and risk being liable for MILLIONS of pounds of costs, than good on you. I don't, and I won't.
I also say to you, if you want to strike, and risk being asked to sign a New Fleet contract before you can return to work, then BRAVO. You do it. I don't and I won't.
All we are doing on this thread is WARNING people of the enormous dangers that the Union are exposing them to. Unite should be warning them but are not. If you don't want to heed the warnings, then so be it. But please don't come crying on here when you're out of a job, or liable for costs, etc. etc.
A Lurker, I would never give false hope to our customers. There is a HUGE workforce that are willing to coming into work. BABOBO and others who have come on here are an example of that. Somehow BA will ensure that our customers are looked after, and I and others intend to help them do that in any way we can. That is, after all, what we are employed to do.
I can think of nothing more abhorrent than ruining people's Christmas travel plans, and if I have to come into work on Christmas day, on a day off, I will. Neither you, nor any 5 man picket line based at Waterside is going to stop me.
Do Not Put Your Name to the Court List
Vote No and Resign from the Union.
In two memorable tribunal cases against BA (both coincidentally from BALPA members), one around holiday pay and one from a female pilot wanting part-time, on both occasions were the names of the petitioners personal names and not that of the Union representing them.
I say to you, and A Lurker, and anyone else: Go for it. If you want to give your names to the Union and risk being liable for MILLIONS of pounds of costs, than good on you. I don't, and I won't.
I also say to you, if you want to strike, and risk being asked to sign a New Fleet contract before you can return to work, then BRAVO. You do it. I don't and I won't.
All we are doing on this thread is WARNING people of the enormous dangers that the Union are exposing them to. Unite should be warning them but are not. If you don't want to heed the warnings, then so be it. But please don't come crying on here when you're out of a job, or liable for costs, etc. etc.
A Lurker, I would never give false hope to our customers. There is a HUGE workforce that are willing to coming into work. BABOBO and others who have come on here are an example of that. Somehow BA will ensure that our customers are looked after, and I and others intend to help them do that in any way we can. That is, after all, what we are employed to do.
I can think of nothing more abhorrent than ruining people's Christmas travel plans, and if I have to come into work on Christmas day, on a day off, I will. Neither you, nor any 5 man picket line based at Waterside is going to stop me.
Do Not Put Your Name to the Court List
Vote No and Resign from the Union.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker, here´s a reminder of what you agreed to when you signed up for PPRuNe:
You´ve earned yourself a 3 day thread ban.
The Mods
Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack.
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack.
The Mods
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crewforum/BASSA forum
There are a few questions arising over the last few pages that could easily be laid to rest if they were posed on Crewforum or particularly the BASSA forum, where the union legal experts would be able to reply.
1) If a crewmember allows their name to be used in the forthcoming court case, is there any possibility that the crewmember could be individually liable for costs?
2) Can a crewmwmber who participates in a legally balloted strike be sacked?
Both these questions should have YES or NO answers, followed by some qualifications and explanations.
If the answers could be posted here, it would save a great deal of circular argument!
As an aside, I'd like to thank A.Lurker and co, who have recently joined the debate and been willing to engage on detail with rational and articulate argument, instead of empty rhetoric.
1) If a crewmember allows their name to be used in the forthcoming court case, is there any possibility that the crewmember could be individually liable for costs?
2) Can a crewmwmber who participates in a legally balloted strike be sacked?
Both these questions should have YES or NO answers, followed by some qualifications and explanations.
If the answers could be posted here, it would save a great deal of circular argument!
As an aside, I'd like to thank A.Lurker and co, who have recently joined the debate and been willing to engage on detail with rational and articulate argument, instead of empty rhetoric.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to let you know how WW sees things;
----------------------
Interview: Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways
Published: November 22 2009 23:02 | Last updated: November 22 2009 23:02
FT=Financial Times, WW=W.Walsh. My bolds.
FT: I guess the strike is what everybody wants to know about. Should people be cancelling their tickets, and have there been any developments today?
WW: No, but the issue is, as you know, they [the Unite union representing BA cabin crew] are just going through the balloting process at the moment, so people have been talking about this, assuming that everything is going to work out the way it has been written in the press, but we’ve got to wait and see. So I still believe there’s a long way to go.
We’ve introduced the changes. They came into effect on Monday. Crew are operating normally, doing a great job. No adverse reaction to the changes that we’ve introduced. Feedback both in terms of crew and consumers is perfect, so no... it’s as we thought. You know, there’s been no impact on customer service.
And I think it reinforces my view that these changes are changes that don’t actually have an adverse effect on the people working in the business, and won’t have an adverse effect on customer service, and yet are significant in terms of the value to British Airways.
I think they’re very fair, I think they’re reasonable, and I think it’s the minimum that we need to do to address what’s clear to everybody is a cost challenge within the business. So I’m confident we’re doing the right thing.
FT: Is it going to be similar to the 2007 strike situation where eventually you do end up settling?
WW: No, it’s not. It’s very different actually. It’s very, very different. In fact, there are actually no similarities to 2007. I say that for a number of reasons. In 2007, I saw things that I wasn’t happy with. I wasn’t happy with the way we had managed things, and while I didn’t accept all of the criticisms that were being levelled and talked about, I saw there was some merit in the arguments that were being made.
This is very different. We’ve spent nine months in formal consultation, negotiation with the trade union group. Nobody can question our commitment to the talks. Nobody can question our patience. Nobody can question the business needs. Nobody can question the rationale. Nobody can question the fairness of what we’re doing. This is completely different to what we had seen before. <----(ie Unite Lawyers take note - Flex)
FT: So you’re more determined not to settle.
WW: I’m always determined to do what’s right, and I think what I did in 2007 was what was right at that time. And so that’s why people should not look for parallels or look for precedent or look for signals.
I would not have moved forward to implement these changes if I didn’t think that was the right thing to do. And when I implemented the changes, I meant it. It wasn’t a move, just another game that we’re playing, I implemented these changes because I believed it was the right thing for the business to do, I believed it was the responsible thing for management to do in the circumstances, and I’m absolutely committed to seeing them through.
FT: Why does BA have such a poor history of industrial relations?
WW: I don’t think we do; genuinely. It’s interesting, I spoke at Kingston University last night and I was asked this question. I think what we have is we’ve got a lot of publicity around industrial relations in BA, much of it inaccurate, because the media will write the story, strike at BA, summer of discontent. But they write that every summer.
So I did an interview with Chris Blackhurst [of the Evening Standard], and the first thing he said to me was, correct me if I’m wrong, but is the first summer that you haven’t had a strike in BA? I said, no, Chris, it’s actually the fourth year in a row where we haven’t. And I said the last one was a strike in Gate Gourmet, which then boiled over into BA, and it was not a dispute with BA.
So I said, our track record is very different to the perception. The problem is we’re a high profile company, so your newspaper writes about us all the time, every newspaper does, and anything that happens within BA tends to happen in the public domain. So you hear a lot more about BA. I think you hear a lot more about the airline industry.
FT: Air France and Lufthansa don’t seem to have the same sort of problems.
WW: No, Air France have had them recently. Lufthansa have had them recently.
You don’t read about it. It’s a bit like ... you know, I’m into football, so there’s a big debate on the radio about Thierry Henry handling the ball in the France Ireland game.
And somebody was saying, we wouldn’t be debating this if it happened in the match between Slovenia and Russia. So the only reason we discuss this is because it’s local to us and we have an interest in it.
But it happens. I don’t think we’ve got a bad track record, but I think our industry is a high profile industry. Our industry is a legacy industry. Our industry is heavily unionised, and so we’re unlike a lot of industries today. So for that reason, I think we tend to be in the spotlight more.
But I don’t think our track record is that bad. I think we’ve got a good track record when it comes to change within the business.
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all.
Booking profiles haven’t changed at all.
Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
----------------------
Interview: Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways
Published: November 22 2009 23:02 | Last updated: November 22 2009 23:02
FT=Financial Times, WW=W.Walsh. My bolds.
FT: I guess the strike is what everybody wants to know about. Should people be cancelling their tickets, and have there been any developments today?
WW: No, but the issue is, as you know, they [the Unite union representing BA cabin crew] are just going through the balloting process at the moment, so people have been talking about this, assuming that everything is going to work out the way it has been written in the press, but we’ve got to wait and see. So I still believe there’s a long way to go.
We’ve introduced the changes. They came into effect on Monday. Crew are operating normally, doing a great job. No adverse reaction to the changes that we’ve introduced. Feedback both in terms of crew and consumers is perfect, so no... it’s as we thought. You know, there’s been no impact on customer service.
And I think it reinforces my view that these changes are changes that don’t actually have an adverse effect on the people working in the business, and won’t have an adverse effect on customer service, and yet are significant in terms of the value to British Airways.
I think they’re very fair, I think they’re reasonable, and I think it’s the minimum that we need to do to address what’s clear to everybody is a cost challenge within the business. So I’m confident we’re doing the right thing.
FT: Is it going to be similar to the 2007 strike situation where eventually you do end up settling?
WW: No, it’s not. It’s very different actually. It’s very, very different. In fact, there are actually no similarities to 2007. I say that for a number of reasons. In 2007, I saw things that I wasn’t happy with. I wasn’t happy with the way we had managed things, and while I didn’t accept all of the criticisms that were being levelled and talked about, I saw there was some merit in the arguments that were being made.
This is very different. We’ve spent nine months in formal consultation, negotiation with the trade union group. Nobody can question our commitment to the talks. Nobody can question our patience. Nobody can question the business needs. Nobody can question the rationale. Nobody can question the fairness of what we’re doing. This is completely different to what we had seen before. <----(ie Unite Lawyers take note - Flex)
FT: So you’re more determined not to settle.
WW: I’m always determined to do what’s right, and I think what I did in 2007 was what was right at that time. And so that’s why people should not look for parallels or look for precedent or look for signals.
I would not have moved forward to implement these changes if I didn’t think that was the right thing to do. And when I implemented the changes, I meant it. It wasn’t a move, just another game that we’re playing, I implemented these changes because I believed it was the right thing for the business to do, I believed it was the responsible thing for management to do in the circumstances, and I’m absolutely committed to seeing them through.
FT: Why does BA have such a poor history of industrial relations?
WW: I don’t think we do; genuinely. It’s interesting, I spoke at Kingston University last night and I was asked this question. I think what we have is we’ve got a lot of publicity around industrial relations in BA, much of it inaccurate, because the media will write the story, strike at BA, summer of discontent. But they write that every summer.
So I did an interview with Chris Blackhurst [of the Evening Standard], and the first thing he said to me was, correct me if I’m wrong, but is the first summer that you haven’t had a strike in BA? I said, no, Chris, it’s actually the fourth year in a row where we haven’t. And I said the last one was a strike in Gate Gourmet, which then boiled over into BA, and it was not a dispute with BA.
So I said, our track record is very different to the perception. The problem is we’re a high profile company, so your newspaper writes about us all the time, every newspaper does, and anything that happens within BA tends to happen in the public domain. So you hear a lot more about BA. I think you hear a lot more about the airline industry.
FT: Air France and Lufthansa don’t seem to have the same sort of problems.
WW: No, Air France have had them recently. Lufthansa have had them recently.
You don’t read about it. It’s a bit like ... you know, I’m into football, so there’s a big debate on the radio about Thierry Henry handling the ball in the France Ireland game.
And somebody was saying, we wouldn’t be debating this if it happened in the match between Slovenia and Russia. So the only reason we discuss this is because it’s local to us and we have an interest in it.
But it happens. I don’t think we’ve got a bad track record, but I think our industry is a high profile industry. Our industry is a legacy industry. Our industry is heavily unionised, and so we’re unlike a lot of industries today. So for that reason, I think we tend to be in the spotlight more.
But I don’t think our track record is that bad. I think we’ve got a good track record when it comes to change within the business.
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all.
Booking profiles haven’t changed at all.
Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22,000 pounds in a pension is equivalent to about 550,000 lump sum at current annuity rates. Actually, at age 60 (not 65) it is probably more than that, closer to 600,000. Could be even higher value with survivor benefits, indexing etc.
May not be a life changing amount of money to you, A lurker, but it is a fair chunk of change for most!
May not be a life changing amount of money to you, A lurker, but it is a fair chunk of change for most!