British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Jarvy]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[henkybaby]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

No, it is:

Never let the truth get in the way of a good strike.

[A Lurker]

For all of you going on about LHR / LGW

Let your CEO answer !!!!!

Oh dear Mr Walsh - seems you may have forgotten about this

[FlyingOfficerKite]

It seems that UNITE has not just shot the cabin crew in their collective foot, they have blown both feet off.

Incredible lack of insight.

How embarrassing to have Harriet Harman as a partner in all of this too. Oh dear.

KR

FOK

PS: Chris - gauge is 'gauge' not 'guage' - proof-reading, spell-checkers, dictionaries - all great tools for the would-be journalist!

[Papillon]

Mmmm, AL, you do also appreciate that the awful performance of LGW over the last decade and more is the reason for the endless cuts in personnel and scaling back of operations? If you want to use it as a comparison to current circumstances, it is that a refusal to face reality is the reason why Gatwick is a pale shadow of what it was. Albeit in slightly different times, the likes of CityFlyer and GB Airways did show it was possible to turn a profit in BA livery at LGW, and that was by - yes - having comparatively low salaries as well.

[henkybaby]

Alurker

Maybe I am daft (distinct possibility) but why do you think this letter proves or helps anybody's point?

[The Real Slim Shady]

How about an alternative to Willie's plans?

Would the cabin crew and Unite sign up to this?

Everybody earning more than £200K takes a 25% paycut.....lead from the front.

Everybody earning more than £100K takes a 20% paycut to a minimum of £100K.

Everybody, and I mean everbody, making more than £50K takes a 15% paycut with those earning around £50K accepting a cut to £50K.

Everybody earning between £25K and £50K accepts a 10% paycut to a minimum of £25K.

A campaign to generate 15% ancillary revenues from 3rd party sources e.g holidays, hotels, car hire, insurance.

A return to pride in the company: a return to service as a prioirity. A return to BA being the World's Favourite, the benchmark by which others are measured.

Get the company back in to profit: once 3 successive quarters of profit are announced, all the employees get profit sharing. Not based on salary but based on equal shares.

Cut costs, no nightstops for short haul crew, increased productivity, shorter turn rounds, cut loss making routes, bases abroad and finally........staff travel....no limit on staff travel for staff members. If a seat is free they can have it for taxes. Staff travel for family relatives, exactly the same but for a fixed fee + taxes.

No more pension fund, but the company will contribute 8% to a maximum of 8k per annum to an individuals private pension.

No loss of licence, no medical, no health insurance etc.

But you get to keep your job :-)

[APYu]

A Lurker

An interesting letter. But you arent being asked to get the same pay as London Gatwick are you? So the content of the letter still stands - LHR get paid more than LGW for all of those reasons stated.... Not clear on what point you might be trying to make.
Even New Fleet wont be on the same pay as LGW as that will be market rate plus 10%

[A Lurker]

henkybaby

Exactly the point Henky - Gatwick and how its run has NOTHING to do with this current dispute - yet Mr Walsh and numerous others on how keep going on about LGW compared to LHR - when it is quite clear - from the CEO's own 'hand' that they are two entirely different operations and as such cannot be compared - so lets get back to the issue in hand and stop all this LGW compared to LHR ramblings

[henkybaby]

I think you could offer something much simpler.

• No pay cuts.
• No redundancies.
• Some sacrifices in working conditions.
• One less crew member on Long Haul.
• Some staff will even get a pay increase.
• You keep your pension.

Oh wait....


I'll get my coat.

[fincastle84]

Ignore A Lurker

Don't let him wind you up. He's made his point. Now ignore him & he will suffocate from the lack of attention.

[henkybaby]

Alurker

So many arguments have been made up to justify this strike that nobody knows what it is really about.

BASSA says that BA had no right to change some of the working conditions because they are contractual.

They do not even object to the changes or the need for the changes but to the way BA enforced them. BA on the other hand claims the changes were non contractual. A judge is to rule on this in Feb.

All the other arguments (like: you need 15 people to keep pax happy) were introduced by BASSA, not by us. The epitome being that they were worried the changes would do harm to the BA brand, possibly destroying it forever.

Even the most fervent strike supporter must by now agree that never has been more harm done to an airline (or a company) than by the unions to BA. Agreed?

[Glamgirl]

Here's one for the legal eagles..

If the strike goes ahead and WW decides to sack the first day strikers, would these (ex)cc be able to file a law suit agains unite due to false claims in any way?

If the injunction is awarded and no strike action, could members of unite claim for "stress, trauma etc" due to false information? (As in claim from unite - for clarification).

Just wondering if it's possible and whether anyone's considered it?

Gg

[APYu]

LGW and LHR are very different in many ways A Lurker - but performing the same service on the same 777 aircraft with the same number of crew and the same number of passengers is not one of them. Either its safe or not. Simples.

[A Lurker]

Henkybaby

When BA lose their case in February - their biggest failing was that they never gave the statutory amount of notice of their intention to change the contracts


Right Im off for the night now - glass of red wine and Spooks!

[henkybaby]

BA needs to present its case for dismissal to Unite if it concerns more than 20 workers at a time. Until that case is heard they cannot be legally fired. That is beside the 12 weeks protection.

Besides, WW won't fire crew. They (BA and WW) are winning the publicity war. It would be silly. WW has other ways to get rid of them. Trust me.

[henkybaby]

Alurker

You were doing so well. Why dodge the difficult questions?

Such a shame.

[Jarvy]

But didn't the CC at Gatwick vote for the strike, so it is relevant. Or was it only the CC at LHR?

[henkybaby]

I believe LGW crew voted 80% against.

[Glamgirl]

Oh, and for the record, part of the reason LGW has had trouble in the past in regards to making profit has been due to the fact that as soon as a route made profit, it would be moved to LHR. How can LGW then make profit, when the opportunity is taken away from us?

Examples of such routes: TIP, KBP, LEN, RIX, VNO

Considering LGW (LH) is the only part of the business making a (small) profit at the moment, we're a great example of how it can be done. And we're increasing flights to 2 Caribbean destinations in the Summer season 2010. We must be doing something right, I suppose. Assuming, of course, that BA will still be here by then...

Gg

Ps

But didn't the CC at Gatwick vote for the strike, so it is relevant. Or was it only the CC at LHR?

Union members at LGW had the opportunity of voting. Some said yes, some said no. A lot didn't say anything at all. I firmly believe we were told a few little "porkies" as to why we should vote yes.