classic video but pre - 'MG Midget from uniform stores' days

Well here we are again, July 1st and the start of yet another totaly avoidable BA fiasco. Once again BA management are digging into an entrenched position of refusing to pay the Mixed Fleet Cabin Crew a decent living wage, whilst spending huge amounts of cash on wet leasing aircraft and crews to cover the continueing strike action.

Well done Mixed Fleet strikers for having the courage and conviction that many on this forum didn't think you had! And shame on the strike breakers and ground staff who are volunteering to be tempory crew, your misguided action will only prolong the dispute even more.

Lots and lots of spaces in the car park this morning…….

KTF

Unfortunately Mary, 9 shiny Qatari A320s parked too. Ready to take up the slack.

It's also the start of Wimbledon fortnight.

You're right, even without a Strike and before Mixed Fleet was born, BA occaisionaly had to wet lease Short Haul aircraft and crews because of crew "sickness " during Wimbledon and other social events in the summer!!

I haven't read through all of the posts on this thread, but would be interested to answers to the following questions:
1. What did the strikers/union gain from the first series of strikes?
2. Surely the people joining BA as Mixed Fleet Crew knew the terms and conditions and salary before they signed their contracts, do what justification for then going on strike because the pay is too low?

I understand that MFU reached a potential settlement on financial terms but was unable to recommend the deal because BA would not remove the loss of staff travel and loss of bonus from the agreement.

The information from MFU about current strikes references the right not to be punished for undertaking legal action. If correct, this is why many people believe that BA could have averted the current strike at very little cost.

As for knowing what one signed up for, anecdotal evidence suggests that MF crew are not earning what was advertised. I cannot confirm if that is the case, merely that it is what is suggested in answer to the question.

I wonder if Mr Cruz and the I.T. lost their BA concessions for the I.T. f**k up??

Unless its in their contracts that in the event they screw up they loose their BA concessions it would be illegal to remove them.

And it would be relatively simple court case to get them back and they would also get damages.

In this case CC did have it in their contracts that going on strike would mean they would loose their concessions so it perfectly legal.

I understand that the difference is slight but significant. Staff travel is not a contractable right rather than being an employers term of contract that it will be removed.

The problem is that during the big BASSA strikes BA did the same and removed pay and concessions. Then in order to return to some kind of normality rescinded this and there was no loss to crew.

It seems that the new management see this as weakness and will stand firm no matter what in order to send a strong signal to others who may contemplate taking action.

The strikes seem to be having very little, if any, real effect on BA so I guess they will continue to play hard ball.

Not sure about very little effect, so far this year with the strikes plus the major outage the cost will be significant? Doubt there will be any bonuses for the next year!

I suppose it depends on how one defines 'little effect'.

From a passenger point if view it is correct to state very little effect. From a company point if view the debate remains open. This doesn't equate to a failure on behalf of the union. The target was disruption to BA not its customers.

There is the old adage that if you don't know history, you may be doomed to repeat it. Crew who were not around during the BASSA/BA weenie roast should have been well served to do their own research on how BA and Willie handle cabin crew strikers.

It could have saved them a great deal of loss and heartbreak if they'd done deep research and tried any other way possible. If all else failed and strike was imminent, then crew needed to be aware what they were up against. I'm afraid that some crew, who may have still been in 6th form last time Willie took on a cabin crew union, just didn't know what would happen.

He's played another blinder. He's made missing crew unremarkable and basically unneeded.

PC767, you hit the nail on the proverbial. Little effect though isn't quite correct--I'd go so far as to say Willie has delivered to a great number of his premium pax a BETTER service on strike than without one.

The Qatar wet leased aircraft have a genuine wider comfier premium seat up front--not the narrow economy seat with just a table in the middle seat.

Reports coming in from veteran BA travelers in CE are extolling their wonderful experiences during the strike, saying the Qatar crews are fantastic, many of the pilots flying them are British anyway, the food service is of a much higher caliber and served with panache and professionalism by Qatar crew (compared to BA's CE food service), and they are even getting their pre-flight champagne service during loading. Value ADDED not lost.

Some report friendly banter over the strike with Qatar crew and overall the cabin atmosphere is reported to be jovial.

When an airline delivers better, higher quality service during a strike to many of their highly valued premiums, then a union needs to wake up and smell the roses and try another method to get justice for its workers.

This method currently in play is not the way. But for gasping dinosaurs like Unite, they only have one arrow in their quiver--strikes.

I'm sorry for all involved on the crew side. It's awful. You've been led badly. BA are playing hard ball yet again and they are in this for keeps. Deep pockets and full planes going out.

They may eventually cave, but only after maximum point has been made about what happens if you strike. We'll see.

Does anyone know,if the Qatar crews are reporting at CRC? If so what kind of reception by BA crews?

Also who is catering the Qatar services?

QR wet-lease to be extended to end of July
 

Don't know the answer to VC10s Q above, but ......

Application to extend the QR wet-lease right through to 31 July.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2229.pdf

Comments by close of play Thursday

Interesting. Regular BA passengers may also be seeing just what has been taken from them at BA. Strike or no strike BA now has more seats per aircraft than Qatar, all of which are served by 3 cabin crew against 5 for Qatar. Better seats, better crew ratios, better product, better and free food and beverage; the only area BA seems to be 'higher' is in pricing.

For many passengers, travelling Qatar might just be the reminder they need that BA is also taking them for a ride. I was also under the impression that BA MF crew were highly commended for being young, enthusiastic and friendly.

...........................

All this talk of WW, where is Alex Cruz, he is the CEO of BA and one can only presume must be on an extended holiday, unless someone knows better? Our guests do indeed check in at T5 with the residents and rumour is, it is all very friendly including a bit of banter!

Claptrap. He's allowed a hosts of Cruz Control's super cost savings to be sprayed against a clatty wall as BA has to spend a fortune chartering a fleet of aircraft in the medium term. These MF kids are not the red barons of the old BASSA brigade, they're young enthusiastic kids who were mis-sold a poorly paid job to make an off the shelf Accenture clone another million in the bank. Aside from cost cutting what is Cruz good for? His latest idea is to have two airlines in one, a loco down the back and a premium up front, insisting he's competing with Norwegian and ignoring the KLM, Swiss and Lufthansa's of the world. He'll have great short term profits till he cashes out and someone else has to come in a rescue the brand when cost cutting can go no further.
"Show me the ******* money" as Willie Walsh once said.