British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise that this is slightly off track and will probably be removed, but it appears to be a common thing in the UK, incompetent unions.
Maybe they all went to the same union finishing school.
'Rail strike plans cancelled after court injunction'
BBC News - Rail strike plans cancelled after court injunction
Maybe they all went to the same union finishing school.
'Rail strike plans cancelled after court injunction'
BBC News - Rail strike plans cancelled after court injunction
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO one consequence of BASSA's tactics will be that BASSA reps are no longer given time off from work to perform their union duties. They will be expected to do it on days off, as BA is legally entitled to insist.
So even if BASSA are allowed back in the building (which is not certain yet, I don't think), they just won't have time to get involved in day to day stuff like they used to.
I still think there's a fair chance BASSA will call an all out permanent strike from mid-April. If they do that, it's all over for them.
So even if BASSA are allowed back in the building (which is not certain yet, I don't think), they just won't have time to get involved in day to day stuff like they used to.
I still think there's a fair chance BASSA will call an all out permanent strike from mid-April. If they do that, it's all over for them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I wanted to be cynical i would say that this was all a game by WW.
He knew that whatever deal he offered, Bassa would reject it.He was able to confidently say no new fleet knowing that Bassa would still say no and not show it to their members.
He knew that whatever deal he offered, Bassa would reject it.He was able to confidently say no new fleet knowing that Bassa would still say no and not show it to their members.
Those deals were there for the taking at each and every instance of offering and to think otherwise says more about BASSA than WW. If they had been accepted by BASSA at those times then this debacle would not be. To have the temerity to suggest the WW is playing games suggests that your definition of game playing needs to be revisited.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: london
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happens, the BASSA hate-filled militants will not change I think.
If BASSA ends, they will come back and although the CC Union practices may be more reasonable, the folk as seen outside the Aurora will bring bad feeling to the operation for years to come i fear.
My guess is that WW has won the battle, will recoup more than this crazy strike has cost, and is just engineering a way to ensure that the idiot-element as seen on the previously-mentioned utube extracts don't come back at all.
Then this great company can move forward.
If BASSA ends, they will come back and although the CC Union practices may be more reasonable, the folk as seen outside the Aurora will bring bad feeling to the operation for years to come i fear.
My guess is that WW has won the battle, will recoup more than this crazy strike has cost, and is just engineering a way to ensure that the idiot-element as seen on the previously-mentioned utube extracts don't come back at all.
Then this great company can move forward.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 55
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiflyer14
If I wanted to be cynical i would say that this was all a game by WW.
He knew that whatever deal he offered, Bassa would reject it.He was able to confidently say no new fleet knowing that Bassa would still say no and not show it to their members.
The deals now on the table are probably what he originally set out to achieve.Bassa has done the deal for him, and Bassa has hastened the arrival of new fleet by demanding crew back.You really couldn't make it up.
Most unions negotiate and the deals get better .Not us.
I am really worried how this will all end.
If I wanted to be cynical i would say that this was all a game by WW.
He knew that whatever deal he offered, Bassa would reject it.He was able to confidently say no new fleet knowing that Bassa would still say no and not show it to their members.
The deals now on the table are probably what he originally set out to achieve.Bassa has done the deal for him, and Bassa has hastened the arrival of new fleet by demanding crew back.You really couldn't make it up.
Most unions negotiate and the deals get better .Not us.
I am really worried how this will all end.
I've said from before christmas, he won't mind (too much) us striking, he will have a plan, he will not blink first. A strike would play right into his hands. So far, I'm not too far off the mark.
We could have saved the money the company wanted us to, and carried on being friends at work if it wasn't for this blooming strike.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said from before christmas, he won't mind (too much) us striking, he will have a plan, he will not blink first. A strike would play right into his hands. So far, I'm not too far off the mark.
They want to create division, remember Cesar? divide and conquer... they have played that game for years and have succeeded. Asking their members not to talk to their managers, not to believe what BA communicates! I am amazed that people are so lazy they would rather delegate their thinking to a third party than try and evaluate evidence and information for themselves.
I am really trying not to be inflammatory but gosh I cannot believe the tone and words used by the union in their comms. And the thought that anybody could believe such a blatantly one sided organization!!!!
don't talk to the other BA members ... they are all managers or have been brainwashed by managers! Well done to all those who have followed their advise.. you are as good as the leader you choose to follow! if they follow someone that cannot even read some numbers and understand if a company is really making a loss, then they deserve whatever they get! There is no-one more deaf than those who do not want to listen!
I am a BA employee but this are my views and not those of my employer.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas lights, you are bang on there.
Whilst the crew are not expected to have IQ's comparable to Einstein, it has staggered me for years that they hoover up the drivel that comes out of BASSA HQ without challenge. I know it can be intimidating to attend meetings or get shot down on the forum, but there comes a point when each individual crew member has to assimilate the situation from themselves, listen to what both parties are saying and take a considered decision.
Sadly, they should have all done this before voting for a strike, having had a whole year to consider the issues carefully. Having failed to do it then, they have now made the situation a whole lot worse by only blinking at the eleventh hour. Yes, the whole BASSA organisation is a lost cause, but the crew community has to take some responsibility for going along with it's propaganda for so long.
For info, from an earlier post, WW isn't leaving. The CEO post in Top Co is just his new position as CEO of the combined BA/Iberia group.
As for their latest diatribe, what a pathetic statement about nothing. It's absolutely clear they have lost control of the issue because they are waiting to see what Willie does next (which will be absolutely nothing apart from re-state his current position that the last offer is still available, but that ST will never be re-instated for strikers). If they were in control and confident they were making progress, they'd be on the front foot announcing more strike dates from the 14th onwards. I'm convinced that the hotheads are keen to announce more strikes and they are being blocked by Woodley who is desperate to try and negotiate without any new strike dates being announced. How long he can hold back the militants will be interesting to see.
Whilst the crew are not expected to have IQ's comparable to Einstein, it has staggered me for years that they hoover up the drivel that comes out of BASSA HQ without challenge. I know it can be intimidating to attend meetings or get shot down on the forum, but there comes a point when each individual crew member has to assimilate the situation from themselves, listen to what both parties are saying and take a considered decision.
Sadly, they should have all done this before voting for a strike, having had a whole year to consider the issues carefully. Having failed to do it then, they have now made the situation a whole lot worse by only blinking at the eleventh hour. Yes, the whole BASSA organisation is a lost cause, but the crew community has to take some responsibility for going along with it's propaganda for so long.
For info, from an earlier post, WW isn't leaving. The CEO post in Top Co is just his new position as CEO of the combined BA/Iberia group.
As for their latest diatribe, what a pathetic statement about nothing. It's absolutely clear they have lost control of the issue because they are waiting to see what Willie does next (which will be absolutely nothing apart from re-state his current position that the last offer is still available, but that ST will never be re-instated for strikers). If they were in control and confident they were making progress, they'd be on the front foot announcing more strike dates from the 14th onwards. I'm convinced that the hotheads are keen to announce more strikes and they are being blocked by Woodley who is desperate to try and negotiate without any new strike dates being announced. How long he can hold back the militants will be interesting to see.
Controversial, moi?
BBC Radio 4, 2000 hrs BST, 1st April. The Report.
Synopsis
Morland Sanders investigates the background to the strike at British Airways. How has a dispute over reductions in cabin crew turned into a long-running and costly row?
Union officials fear the dispute has the potential to cause acrimonious rifts between staff at BA - once dubbed the world's favourite airline. But managers say they have to cut costs and have put in place extensive plans to keep many routes operating. Travellers, though, face chaos and cancellations.
The Report examines the financial problems facing BA - and asks if the industrial action will result in business and first class passengers taking their custom elsewhere. They make up the premium market that the airline needs to keep for its long-term survival.
Producer: Sally Chesworth.
Synopsis
Morland Sanders investigates the background to the strike at British Airways. How has a dispute over reductions in cabin crew turned into a long-running and costly row?
Union officials fear the dispute has the potential to cause acrimonious rifts between staff at BA - once dubbed the world's favourite airline. But managers say they have to cut costs and have put in place extensive plans to keep many routes operating. Travellers, though, face chaos and cancellations.
The Report examines the financial problems facing BA - and asks if the industrial action will result in business and first class passengers taking their custom elsewhere. They make up the premium market that the airline needs to keep for its long-term survival.
Producer: Sally Chesworth.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employee Forum with Willie Walsh on 31 March
Here is what Willie Walsh had to say at this third employee forum during the dispute.
The operation had been successful and all promises had been delivered. He praised the cabin crew who had worked during the strikes and the support given by volunteers in the air and on the ground.
Here are some of the figures he gave.
Week 1
======
60% of customers flown
78% of LH programme flown
50% of SH programme flown
21 or 22 wet-leased planes used
715 passenger flights
86,262 passengers carried
Cost: £7.5m per day
Week 2
======
80% of customers flown
83% of LH programme flown
67% of SH programme flown
11 wet-leased planes used
931 passenger flights
118,575 passengers carried
Cost: £5.5m per day
Of the LHR and LGW crew rostered:
20 March: 57% worked
30 March: 73% worked
Corporate customers had all stuck with BA.
The contact centres had dealt with 453,000 calls, up 30%.
The strike pages of ba.com had had 3.1m views between 20-20 March. This had reduced the workload on the contact centres.
A survey of BA had revealed the following.
19% - enhanced view of BA
64% - the same view of BA
17%- a lesser view of BA
He acknowledged the importance of the 17% but said that there was no permanent damage to the brand.
He compared some figures with those of Unite's (BA's in brackets).
Wet-lease £14m (£3.3m)
Daily loss £15m-£20m (£7m)
Total loss £100m (£43m)
By comparison, it was estimated that the 1997 dispute cost BA £125m.
He revealed that he and Tony McCarthy (director of People & Organisational Effective) had met Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley last Sunday at the TUC. However, no further talks have been arranged.
Forward bookings were holding up well in April and beyond and do not appear to have been affected.
He was asked about new fleet. He said that it is a solution to cabin crew cost reduction. New entrants on new fleet will be separate from current fleet.
He was asked how he would recover the cost of the dispute from the IFCE budget. He said that he would not reduce his last offer to Unite as it would be unfair to penalise cabin crew. Instead, he would get cost reductions elsewhere, such as in facilities to unions, e.g. rooms, time off, etc.
Still on the current offer: he believed that it was fair and he would be willing to put it forward as the basis of a solution. However, the reinstatement of staff travel would not be part of a negotiated settlement.
He was asked about the maintenance of CRM. He said that he had had a heated discussion with Tony Woodley on the union's failure to deal with some crew. He said that any intimidation would not be tolerated and should be reported.
He was asked about how relations with cabin crew would be mended. He said that co-operation would be needed with the trade unions.
He was asked about suspended crew. He said that he would not interfere with the disciplinary process involving the 14 crew, and he would accept the outcome of the process.
The operation had been successful and all promises had been delivered. He praised the cabin crew who had worked during the strikes and the support given by volunteers in the air and on the ground.
Here are some of the figures he gave.
Week 1
======
60% of customers flown
78% of LH programme flown
50% of SH programme flown
21 or 22 wet-leased planes used
715 passenger flights
86,262 passengers carried
Cost: £7.5m per day
Week 2
======
80% of customers flown
83% of LH programme flown
67% of SH programme flown
11 wet-leased planes used
931 passenger flights
118,575 passengers carried
Cost: £5.5m per day
Of the LHR and LGW crew rostered:
20 March: 57% worked
30 March: 73% worked
Corporate customers had all stuck with BA.
The contact centres had dealt with 453,000 calls, up 30%.
The strike pages of ba.com had had 3.1m views between 20-20 March. This had reduced the workload on the contact centres.
A survey of BA had revealed the following.
19% - enhanced view of BA
64% - the same view of BA
17%- a lesser view of BA
He acknowledged the importance of the 17% but said that there was no permanent damage to the brand.
He compared some figures with those of Unite's (BA's in brackets).
Wet-lease £14m (£3.3m)
Daily loss £15m-£20m (£7m)
Total loss £100m (£43m)
By comparison, it was estimated that the 1997 dispute cost BA £125m.
He revealed that he and Tony McCarthy (director of People & Organisational Effective) had met Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley last Sunday at the TUC. However, no further talks have been arranged.
Forward bookings were holding up well in April and beyond and do not appear to have been affected.
He was asked about new fleet. He said that it is a solution to cabin crew cost reduction. New entrants on new fleet will be separate from current fleet.
He was asked how he would recover the cost of the dispute from the IFCE budget. He said that he would not reduce his last offer to Unite as it would be unfair to penalise cabin crew. Instead, he would get cost reductions elsewhere, such as in facilities to unions, e.g. rooms, time off, etc.
Still on the current offer: he believed that it was fair and he would be willing to put it forward as the basis of a solution. However, the reinstatement of staff travel would not be part of a negotiated settlement.
He was asked about the maintenance of CRM. He said that he had had a heated discussion with Tony Woodley on the union's failure to deal with some crew. He said that any intimidation would not be tolerated and should be reported.
He was asked about how relations with cabin crew would be mended. He said that co-operation would be needed with the trade unions.
He was asked about suspended crew. He said that he would not interfere with the disciplinary process involving the 14 crew, and he would accept the outcome of the process.
Last edited by Caribbean Boy; 1st Apr 2010 at 22:31. Reason: Added information inadventently left out
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobmij
I have read your reply several times and I am completetly baffled.Please explain.I have never said that Bassa is a transparent organisation.you appear quite aggresive by using the word temerity .Please expand on this reasoning as I have no idea where you are coming from.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to confirm some points about the savings?
Earlier, HiFlyer mentioned that the original plan was to take 1 member off to make the savings.
As I understood it, the "1 member off" alone wouldn't be enough to make the £60-70-80m worth of savings on its own, and was also linked to a new disruption agreement and New Fleet. This was on the basis that BillF said the two options were;
(1) Everyone take a share of the pain,
or
(2) Just work a bit harder and new joiners take the pay cut,
2 being the overwhelmingly preferred (if a little myopic!) option.
From the various figures put out by both sides, does anyone have a rough idea of just how much exactly the "1 member off" saves? I can't imagine it's anywhere near the full amount.
Also, has the new disruption agreement been imposed along with the 1 member off? What is the difference in wording compared to the old one?
Finally, any truth in the rumours that ex-Temps are being offered New Fleet contracts? Anyone seen one?
Thanks.
Earlier, HiFlyer mentioned that the original plan was to take 1 member off to make the savings.
As I understood it, the "1 member off" alone wouldn't be enough to make the £60-70-80m worth of savings on its own, and was also linked to a new disruption agreement and New Fleet. This was on the basis that BillF said the two options were;
(1) Everyone take a share of the pain,
or
(2) Just work a bit harder and new joiners take the pay cut,
2 being the overwhelmingly preferred (if a little myopic!) option.
From the various figures put out by both sides, does anyone have a rough idea of just how much exactly the "1 member off" saves? I can't imagine it's anywhere near the full amount.
Also, has the new disruption agreement been imposed along with the 1 member off? What is the difference in wording compared to the old one?
Finally, any truth in the rumours that ex-Temps are being offered New Fleet contracts? Anyone seen one?
Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
617
As you know, industrial disputes can be emmotive but I bear you no more aggresion by the use of the word temerity (bold or rash) than I am sure you do towards WW by calling him a game player.(In fact, I bear you no aggresion at all) Simply put, can you seriously believe that a man who is involved in securing a fair and descent wage for tens of thousand of his staff, not to mention a good return to those who have tied up their capital by investing in BA, would play games with the union and risk disaster.
I can't.
Before anyone tries the 'he's doing his best not to pay us a good wage' line of arguement I'd like to say that 10+ years working for other airlines has made me think otherwise. That you are on the brink of disaster surely cannot be blamed on his actions so far. To have clearly made offers, set deadlines and conditions and stuck to them can only be the actions of a competent manager. I have noticed that during my career the best managers I have met have been both firm and fair and it seems to me that WW has been nothing if not both of those. Needless to say they are not always popular but that is not a trait for which they are paid.
It's true that you never have said that BASSA is a transparent organisation and therein lies much of the problem. If it were then I think you would have had resolution some time ago as the members could have acted earlier to prevent what seems to have been deliberate misdirection.
This strike is not a game, it's a tragedy. BA does indeed have the potential to be the worlds best and most profitable airline, recession or not, and the sooner the staff all start pulling in the same direction to that effect, the better for everyone.
As you know, industrial disputes can be emmotive but I bear you no more aggresion by the use of the word temerity (bold or rash) than I am sure you do towards WW by calling him a game player.(In fact, I bear you no aggresion at all) Simply put, can you seriously believe that a man who is involved in securing a fair and descent wage for tens of thousand of his staff, not to mention a good return to those who have tied up their capital by investing in BA, would play games with the union and risk disaster.
I can't.
Before anyone tries the 'he's doing his best not to pay us a good wage' line of arguement I'd like to say that 10+ years working for other airlines has made me think otherwise. That you are on the brink of disaster surely cannot be blamed on his actions so far. To have clearly made offers, set deadlines and conditions and stuck to them can only be the actions of a competent manager. I have noticed that during my career the best managers I have met have been both firm and fair and it seems to me that WW has been nothing if not both of those. Needless to say they are not always popular but that is not a trait for which they are paid.
It's true that you never have said that BASSA is a transparent organisation and therein lies much of the problem. If it were then I think you would have had resolution some time ago as the members could have acted earlier to prevent what seems to have been deliberate misdirection.
This strike is not a game, it's a tragedy. BA does indeed have the potential to be the worlds best and most profitable airline, recession or not, and the sooner the staff all start pulling in the same direction to that effect, the better for everyone.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlexSRS: Now, we're on the same wavelength. 
In answer to your questions:
BF stated on 26 Feb that savings from crew complements = £127m (compromise down from £140). New Fleet is planned to save £4m by March 2011 but will obviously put LHR in line with other carriers, and therefore generate future savings.
That therefore appears to indicate, as I stated, that we have achieved the bulk of the savings and just have the New Fleet to deal with.
The disruption agreement, to my knowledge, has not been imposed, and is included in the recent offers that have been made.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
In answer to your questions:BF stated on 26 Feb that savings from crew complements = £127m (compromise down from £140). New Fleet is planned to save £4m by March 2011 but will obviously put LHR in line with other carriers, and therefore generate future savings.
That therefore appears to indicate, as I stated, that we have achieved the bulk of the savings and just have the New Fleet to deal with.
The disruption agreement, to my knowledge, has not been imposed, and is included in the recent offers that have been made.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobmiij - yes we have all been trying to "pull in the same direction". But now, in this period of "lull", we are extremely unsure as to what is happening. 617 described very well how it feels to be "us" right now! We are trying, as always, to see the positives, but I personally am struggling to see the rationale in this latest offer being put back on the table, for the following reasons:
1. To coin a much-loved pprune phrase: Has WW "blinked"?
He withdrew this offer the day strike action was announced and prevented Unite allowing the members to ballot on it. Why has he now changed his mind? If members are now to ballot on it, what purpose has delaying that ballot for 2 weeks served? Could he have called off the strikes, perhaps through a court injunction, while the ballot was conducted?
2. He sat on the BBC Breakfast sofa and categorically stated that this offer was "gone". It is now back, with no real explanation - why?
3. If the offer is balloted, and general feeling amongst crew is that it would be accepted, it may have far-reaching consequences:
a. 73% of (loyal, dedicated, hardworking) crew that crossed picket lines MAY feel somewhat hard done by. It has the potential to alienate his most loyal crew members.
b. BASSA come back in and pick up where they left off - how can that be beneficial to the business?
4. If he has re-tabled this offer, why not the previous one with the bonus in it? As FlexSRS pointed out earlier, we will only achieve that bonus if targets are achieved, so where's the hardship? The previous offer has the possibility of remotivating the workforce; this one does not.
If anyone can explain the positives in this offer being re-tabled, I'd really love to hear it. I remain ever the optimist, but this feels very much like an anti-climax, after all the hype and hopes that have occurred. What am I missing?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
1. To coin a much-loved pprune phrase: Has WW "blinked"?
He withdrew this offer the day strike action was announced and prevented Unite allowing the members to ballot on it. Why has he now changed his mind? If members are now to ballot on it, what purpose has delaying that ballot for 2 weeks served? Could he have called off the strikes, perhaps through a court injunction, while the ballot was conducted?
2. He sat on the BBC Breakfast sofa and categorically stated that this offer was "gone". It is now back, with no real explanation - why?
3. If the offer is balloted, and general feeling amongst crew is that it would be accepted, it may have far-reaching consequences:
a. 73% of (loyal, dedicated, hardworking) crew that crossed picket lines MAY feel somewhat hard done by. It has the potential to alienate his most loyal crew members.
b. BASSA come back in and pick up where they left off - how can that be beneficial to the business?
4. If he has re-tabled this offer, why not the previous one with the bonus in it? As FlexSRS pointed out earlier, we will only achieve that bonus if targets are achieved, so where's the hardship? The previous offer has the possibility of remotivating the workforce; this one does not.
If anyone can explain the positives in this offer being re-tabled, I'd really love to hear it. I remain ever the optimist, but this feels very much like an anti-climax, after all the hype and hopes that have occurred. What am I missing?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 2nd Apr 2010 at 07:55.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF14
HF. I think the chronology was
1. WW puts offer on table with extension on basis of no strikes
2. 1 hour later BASSA/Mclunky call strikes
3. At 11th hour on day before strike, WW puts another (poorer) offer on table
4. strikes happen
5. WW says offer in 3, above will form the basis of any resolution.
ie not the original offer, but the poorer second offer reflecting the costs to BA of the lost business subsequent to the strike announcement.
1. To coin a much-loved PPRuNe phrase: Has WW "blinked"?
He withdrew this offer the day strike action was announced and prevented Unite allowing the members to ballot on it. Why has he now changed his mind? If members are now to ballot on it, what purpose has delaying that ballot for 2 weeks served? Could he have called off the strikes, perhaps through a court injunction, while the ballot was conducted?
2. He sat on the BBC Breakfast sofa and categorically stated that this offer was "gone". It is now back, with no real explanation - why?
He withdrew this offer the day strike action was announced and prevented Unite allowing the members to ballot on it. Why has he now changed his mind? If members are now to ballot on it, what purpose has delaying that ballot for 2 weeks served? Could he have called off the strikes, perhaps through a court injunction, while the ballot was conducted?
2. He sat on the BBC Breakfast sofa and categorically stated that this offer was "gone". It is now back, with no real explanation - why?
1. WW puts offer on table with extension on basis of no strikes
2. 1 hour later BASSA/Mclunky call strikes
3. At 11th hour on day before strike, WW puts another (poorer) offer on table
4. strikes happen
5. WW says offer in 3, above will form the basis of any resolution.
ie not the original offer, but the poorer second offer reflecting the costs to BA of the lost business subsequent to the strike announcement.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk. Agreed.
However, what has been achieved by not allowing the ballot to have been started 2 weeks ago? A lot of pain barriers have been thrashed since then, and us non-strikers are now wondering why?
WW announced at this weeks' forum that he intends to recoup the cost of IA from the BASSA facilities (thanks Carribean Boy for that post). That would seem totally fair and reasonable. Where exactly is the cost of IA being recouped in Offer 2?
However, what has been achieved by not allowing the ballot to have been started 2 weeks ago? A lot of pain barriers have been thrashed since then, and us non-strikers are now wondering why?
WW announced at this weeks' forum that he intends to recoup the cost of IA from the BASSA facilities (thanks Carribean Boy for that post). That would seem totally fair and reasonable. Where exactly is the cost of IA being recouped in Offer 2?
HiFlyer
If
That's a very good question, and I'm sure one that the non-strikers, and the pilots, many of whom I believe BASSA think "are beneath contempt", need an answer to.
BASSA come back in and pick up where they left off - how can that be beneficial to the business