Oh dear GG. You have blown your cover.

FWIW I think I know who GG is and used to work with her at Gatwick - she is indeed crew if I am right - difference of opinion to yours does not mean she has to be management.......

(edited to add as I remember there were many crew at LGW who share her opinions).

SP/delta - I don't want to see you guys/gals drastically worse off but I don't see the issue with working harder or smarter to protect the things you currently have while maybe shedding those things (such as the 2 night rest after diversion) which really aren't protecting you from anything so much as causing costs/disruption to the paying customer to rise.

As for New Fleet it was inevitable that something like this would come along one day and I fear there is little you will be able to do about it apart from coming to some legal understanding with the company about how it will affect the old fleets. That however will require an open and honest engagement with the IR team and Unite.

"Difference of opinion"..........you are not allowed to have one of those if you are a BASSA member.

We are effectively being bullied from the briefing room till we get off if you speak up with a "different" view to the BASSA line.

Time to review what business leaders think of Wille Walsh

What entrepreneurs think of Willie Walsh - Real Business

Oh dear Carnage, not such a good idea after all to work for free. Read this and then put your head back in the sand., fingers over your ears and go La La La La La La La

Deltaguy, if you have issues with me and my posts, please pm me. You may or may not believe my position in the company, which for clarity is purser at LGW, but that's your perogative I suppose.

Gg

Edited to say the same goes to SP.

Matt101, I don't believe I've flown with you, but if you care to pm me as well, we can figure that one out easily

SP, it doesn't matter what entrepreneurs think of Willie Walsh.

He is the incumbent CEO. Get used to it. Move on. Adapt. Think. Plan.

Oh, and BASSA, stop the hysterics, and negotiate a deal that we can accept, and that keeps us in the Cabin, and in business.

Unfortunately BASSA and some crew have been very naive since SFG was introduced. Didn't they think for a second it would come to LHR if it was successful at Gatters?

I would love to keep our terms and conditions but due to the current circumstances I will accept a change and at least have a job to go to.

I left crew a little while ago now but I am still very close to the cabin just in a very different part of the world.

GG - keep up the good work on here!

Carnage #1066
 

You don't work in marketing for BA do you? :)

I should point out that I now live in Dublin, so my SH choice is Aer Lingus or Ryanair. I agree that Ryanair aren't cheaper. They've forced everyone else to lower fares, which is good, but personally I think Ryanair has passed its usefullness now. I go to some lengths to avoid them, eg when I go to Aberdeen I now fly with Aer Lingus to Edinburgh and hire a car! Bit more expensive but also less unpleasant.

I'm not that fussed about getting fed and watered on short haul. I can use the lounge with Aer Lingus, so get something to eat and drink there before I get on the plane. Not as good as the BA lounges, I have to admit. I remember getting bacon sarnies and champagne in there with some fondness!

I hear what you're saying re T5. The problem for me is that I have to transit from T1 Domestic gates 80-90, which is a nightmare. Last time I did it (to T4 - pre T5) it took longer to get between terminals than it did to fly from Dublin. If I'd booked the DUB-LHR connection suggested by the BA web site I'd have missed my flight to Mumbai. Fortunately I ignored the BA suggestion, and booked an earlier DUB-LHR flight. Good decision considering I had to get the Tube to Hatton Cross and then one back to T4 in order to get between the terminals. Result? I decided to try transiting Schipol next time I flew East, and have not had a problem since.

T5 may well be great, but I've now had three years of acceptable experience away from LHR, so feel no inclination to go back to the kip that is Heathrow! This is indicative of the problem BA has, I think. It has alienated passengers over several years and now we don't see a good reason to risk using them again. My own catalogue of horrors comprises 4x lost luggage (3 on successive trips between LHR and Scotland in my pre-Ireland days), the aforementioned nightmare T1-T4 transfer, and a 12+ hour flight back from Tokyo with no catering, courtesy of one of BA's many industrial disputes. That last one was on a £4k CW ticket incidentally. It's not exactly indicative of great customer service is it?

No Andy. Quite clearly the CEO of British Airways is a laughing stock as far as those entrepreneurs are concerned.

He has been called "idiotic" by Stephen Archer. "This move reeks of panic" he adds.

Stephen Bentley also agrees that Walsh has made "an idiotic move"

Brett Raynes MD of Backup says: "Before BA takes these drastic steps, it may be easier for the company to look at efficiency improvements first – and that’s not a euphemism for job cuts,”

David Readman a personnel professional states this has :“all been done from the hip and will cause enormous loss of trust in Willie Walsh and his position as head of one of Britain’s biggest enterprises.”

BASSA have certainly got their work cut out dealing with a CEO and management who are so publicly ridiculed for their ineptness.

Now this Charlie Mullins knows a thing or two about running a business:

Mullins blasts British Airways - Real Business

When is Walsh going to launch a Rights Issue to raise money for the downturn? It should not all be down to the staff when the shareholders potentially have so much to gain.

SP, stop WW bashing, and move on.

BASSA have had the lowdown on the company financial details for a couple of weeks now..........when are they going to let you and me know how things are?

SP,

In a recent post, you wrote:

"Brett Raynes MD of Backup says: "Before BA takes these drastic steps, it may be easier for the company to look at efficiency improvements first – and that’s not a euphemism for job cuts,” "


That is what the company has been trying to do, but Bassa is refusing to negotiate on an adult level...

Gg

GG. Where BASSA and BA disagree is over the Single Fleet and the prospect of new recruits as other crew are made redundant.

BASSA are not refusing to negotiate. Why would you as a Psr at LGW, have access to information where you can comment on whether the discussions are adult or not?

SP and GG, lets face it, we are getting no information...........well other than the update date 14 June........which was basic vitriole without any real information..........again!!

Andy in negotiations when there is so much at stake, you will not hear much about what is going on as the whole situation is so delicate and potentially volatile.

It is nothing to do with holding back information from the membership. It is par for the course. Sit tight.

SP #1086
 

Can you honestly say you've ever heard of any of the "business leaders" quoted? The only one I know of is the one who started it all off: Mullins of Pimlico Plumbers. His company is a bit like BA: expensive. You'll find as many recent complaints about PP on blagger.com as you've managed to find via google saying how bad WW is. If this is the limit of "business leader" criticism of WW, then he must be doing an even better job than I thought.

SP, yes it is holding back information!!

Lizanne has had the BALPA document for days, yet the full extent hasnt been given to us. We are led along to believe that it is a 'sweetheardt' deal.

BASSA has seen the figures, but still wastes time lambasting Walsh, fines, and fuel hedging.

Lets just suppose they pull a rabbit out of a hat, and can get a deal which allows 2000 Voluntary Redundancies but also involves salary cuts and changes to working practices, but required an acceptance that the company is in the poo.............surely there is no way that they could manage to change the thinking of us members.................because up until now, they have only effectively managed to do name calling.

SP - you're posts are starting to sound as erratic as the behaviour you think Willie Walsh is displaying!!! Anyway who are these nobodys in your linked page? I've never heard of any of them! Not exactly captains of industry are they? I'm sure WW will be devastated that the head of Pimlico Plumbers has had a pop at him. You're really plumbing the depths now!:}

JP - no I don't work in BA marketing!! But I have had plenty of exposure to the popular myths regarding BAs performance at LHR and so tend to have the facts readily to mind! I recognise that if you're flying from Dublin then a transfer at T5 isn't going to be efficient for you and the whole T1-T4 transfer situation was never great for anyone, I know that from personal experience. All I can say is that it's a lot better now than it used to be and if you happen to be going through T5 for whatever reason you might be pleasantly surprised. You can even take the HEX free of charge between T1 and T5 if you don't fancy waiting for a bus!

(PS It's probably of little consequence so far down the road but the lack of catering was a Gate Gourmet dispute, not a BA one. Unfortunately any airline could be affected in the same way if a key supplier suddenly stops working.)

SP, Balpa gave BASSA a heads up on the state of the company finances. It should hardly have come as a big surprise, just about every airline in the world is bleeding cash at the moment.

BASSA kicked off with their mantra of 'temporary problem, temporary solution. After that they have pig headedly refused to discuss anything further using the 'we've offered a solution, if they won't take it that's their fault' line of negotiation.

What people think of Willie Walsh's style is irrelevant. I don't think he has become CEO of a major airline at his age without having some business nounce. He is admired by the investors and the shareholders, anything else is mere fluff.

I feel there is a deeper reason behind his playing of the position of BA in the press and I feel it might well have a legal slant. As everyone on the CC forum likes to remind flight crew of the Open Skies mess I will admit that BALPA never saw the legal right hook coming and were knocked out by it. Surely that should be a warning to BASSA. There is a lot of behind the scenes manoeuvring going on by BA and BASSA are standing in the firing line. Various bits of paper work have been filed, the 'serious and special reasons' are in the public domain and the deadline approaches.

Remember that when BASSA prints the strike ballot.

SP #1092
 

"When is Walsh going to launch a Rights Issue to raise money for the downturn? It should not all be down to the staff when the shareholders potentially have so much to gain"

You may be interested to know that BA's share price high occurred in Q1:07, when it reached 578p. Yesterday it closed at 125p, a fall of almost 80% from the high. Stockmarkets are generally down from early-07. However, BA has underperformed the FTSE All Share by 25% in the last year. That's not very different to other full service airlines in Europe versus their wide market benchmarks.

BA paid a dividend in the year to 3/08, the first time since 2001. The dividend was cancelled in the year ended 3/09, and only one analyst expects it to be reinstated before 2012.

There isn't much in those numbers to suggest shareholders will be eager for more BA at the moment. Any such issue would have to be at a deep discount to ensure it was taken up or could be sold to new shareholders.

Will WW make such an issue? Yes I think he may well want to do so. Why? Because BA is heavily geared and the position will worsen with further losses forecast for the year to 3/2010. In addition, I think BA is more heavily geared than competitors, though I'm not entirely sure. What does WW need to do to make a rights issue appealling? He needs to show a likely improvement in operational efficiency which means, basically, getting more of each £ of revenue down to bottom line profitability. That's not just now in the downturn, but in future when revenue improves. How does he achieve it? Partly by looking for cost reductions and greater operational flexibility, eg by re-negotiating staff operating conditions.

"by re-negotiating staff operating conditions".............or imposing them using SOSR if BASSA havent negotiated a deal by the 30th June!!

Andy, this question should be asked to the Chairman herself.

Bingo! The CFO is confident of being able to raise the cash the company needs to bolster it's liquidity position. I doubt he'd hold that sentiment if BA were going to roll over and place the forecast business plan savings in the 'too difficult' box.

At the end of the day, whether there is a Rights Issue or not the government will not allow BA to go bust, when so may of its competitors get state aid. JAL has just received a 'soft loan' from the Japanese government to tied it over and as we all know, Alitalia, Air France, Olympic, SAS even Aer Lingus ...would never be allowed to go bust.

As for VIRGIN, no one knows how much money Branson is pumping into it.

If British Airways failed it is as if Britain has failed. That is the problem when you have the countries name in its logo.

Niugini, I agree, the question should be asked of Lizanne.

I think next month many questions will be asked of her.

Notwithstanding that your point is somewhat contentious, if BA has gone bust because the cabin crew won't modernise do you think any new money, from whatever source, is going to be directed at your pay packet? You'll take a bigger fall from that than anything Willie is offering you! And you won't get to vote on it.

British Leyland anyone?

This government has neither the money nor the inclination to bail out BA. British Leyland failed, British Steel went out to Corus. The Government has sat back and watched Vauxhall get sold without any guarantee of job security.

They don't give a stuff about private industry, only that it provides the taxes to pay for their golden pensions and parachutes. Mandelson is a parasite who never thinks pro-actively.

Don't ever believe that BA can't go bust.

SP #1106
 

"At the end of the day, whether there is a Rights Issue or not the government will not allow BA to go bust"

I genuinely hope you are not relying on this when deciding whether or not to push BA to the brink. The market certainly does not share your optimism. At yesterday's closing price, BA was valued at the book value of its tangible assets as at 3/09. In other words, investors currently value BA at the price it could get for selling its property and planes. That's a bit simplistic, but it most definitely is not pricing in any kind of government handout. Also, your "bail out" policy only works until June 2010. I'd suggest there is no hope whatsoever of a Cameron government bailing out BA. Or, if it did, the consequences for you would be way worse than anything WW might inflict on you. Can you honestly see an Old Etonian underwriting Union privileges at BA?

I do agree with you that BA will not "go bust" or disappear. It has a very large number of valuable slots at LHR which lots of airlines would like to have. I also agree with you that BA is still something of a prestige brand. I'd probably articulate it in a different way ("flag carrier" airlines disappeared 20 years ago). So, worst case, somebody would buy BA, or it could be split up. The two questions are: do you want that, and who are your possible new owners? Only you can answer the first question, but I can have a stab at the second, and it won't be any of the established legacy airlines that would buy BA. There would be all kinds of competition issues, eg we know that the EU will bar anything that further concentrates slots at LHR. We know it because slot concentration at Dublin was their one objection to the Aer Lingus-Ryanair combination. If anyone else buys BA, what is the risk they'll want more change more quickly? Would they be buying a long term business, or a turnaround situation that can be restructured and then sold on to another airline quickly?

Would you prefer to be in a stronger airline that gets through the downturn, or risk being one of those that doesn't make it and is swallowed up? There are clear benefits to being one of the survivors. There will be a lot fewer airlines in a few years time, meaning the potential for bigger market shares for the survivors. However, BA still needs to be operationally efficient to then take full advantage. And it needs to change even to get there.

So,

£29,400 basic pay old CC.
£35,000 basic pay old purser.
£45,000 basic pay old CSD.

£20,000 allowances.

Diversion, reading lights and temp control (CC bunks), wheelchair, towels , plus plus plus and staying in some of the best hotels world wide etc etc etc.

The story going around is BA CC cost about double VS CC as a rule per hour of flying.

I am interested to know how much do BA want to reduce the above T&C's/cash as a % of the package in place now and how much are the CC unions thinking as a deal that will get the wolf to back off ?

Feeling the tempo of posters on here a allows me to take a wild guess, BA want 25/30% reduction and CC unions would accept 4/8%, can any of the more informed on here pick any numbers/% ?

Technically it started as only 14%, half would be met by a mix of pay and productivity measures, the other half by the introduction of a "new fleet". (That is new recruits on market rate with industry standard agreements.)

Over a period of years of course the new fleet would take over as old people left and thus the whole operation would one day reach a standard competitive cost base.

BASSA says it's quite happy to negotiate a settlement as long as it does not affect pay, does not reduce crewing levels, protects all jobs and does not involve a new fleet, which leaves............... ?

Now the situation is worse with 16 aircraft being stood down so the targets may have moved a little.

I suspect most of the savings can be made by newfleet and some productivity improvements without too much of a salary hit. And while the green eyed monster is rearing it's head about "some of the best hotels world wide", they are nothing of the sort, just standard business level hotels. Virgin share a few of them too.

JP


I agree that another airline will not buy BA as it stands. It is more likely an investment company will buy BA, hive off the non core parts of the airline, enforce new terms and conditions, probably mass redundancies - then sold on. This will leave what remaining staff there are on worse contracts to what they are on now, or worse still, no job.

So SP if you want to be part of that, you and you're colleagues are well on the way. It will probably be the only thing BASSA will achieve:D:ugh:

SP & Others
 

Incidentally, I forgot to mention your belief that being "British" will save BA. There are lots or very recent examples of companies dropping the "British" from their corporate name. Such as:

• British Petroleum plc. Now just plain BP plc
• British Gas plc. Now just BG plc
• British Aerospace. Now BAe Systems plc

And you will undoubtedly be aware of BAA plc, nee British Airports Authority plc, nee British Airports Authority. BAA plc is owned by Grupo Ferrovial, a company domiciled and headquartered in Spain. If "Johnny Foreigner" can own the gateway airport, I'm not sure why there's a problem with the main airline going the same way either. bmi (another one to drop the "British") is now German isn't it?

Incidentally, ever wondered why such companies drop the word "British"? It's simply to make themselves more marketable internationally. They worked out that they gained more outside the UK by dropping "British" than they gained internally. Hardly surprising when only 1% of the world's population is British. So the question is, was Bob Ayling really wrong to stick "global" (but weird) art all over the tails of BA planes all those years ago?

Anyway, SP, just something to consider. For me, I think your belief that being the "flag carrier", and "British" will ensure government largesse is misplaced.

Well Jay Pee we can agree to differ.

I do not think that 40,000 jobs going in BA, plus all the people who work indirectly for the carrier, is anything the government can stomach. There are far less workers in the UK car industry now, yet the government rushed out the scrappage scheme to protect their jobs....and many more on the Continent and around the world as well!

Plans fo a third runway seem like a complete joke in hindsight, yet Willie campaigned so hard for it. Now the UK may not even have its national flag carrier any longer, due to Walsh's expected impositions and the resultant industrial mayhem.

I think it is a disgrace that this man, applying the same tactics at Aer Lingus after 9/11, can come to the UK and be allowed to destroy its flag carrier on the anvil of profit. This is not about the survival of the airline, it is the unacceptable face of unbridled capitalism.

If BA goes under it'll be because of the economic climate and the failure to respond to the collapse of the premium travel market, not because they lost £100M on an abortive cabin crew strike. You can try to personalise it all you want, demonise Willie Walsh if you will, but he's only doing what any competent CEO would do. Changing the man won't change the strategy. 7 days til the hangmans noose tightens round BASSAs neck!

SP - WW & Aer Lingus
 

I have to say you confuse me with your constant references to WW's "failure" at Aer Lingus. I don't know anyone that shares your view. Aer Lingus was saved by WW, not destroyed by him. WW came up with a strategy to fight back against Ryanair, which involved matching them for price, extending the route network, and going LoCo. To be fully implemented, it required fleet renewal and expansion, something the Irish government could not finance. WW recommended privatisation in order to raise the finance. Ahern would not commit, so WW brought matters to a conclusion by submitting an MBO proposal. Maintaining Aer Lingus as a quasi-full service airline which, in reality, was dominated by the DUB-LHR route, was a one-way bet to bankruptcy. Once EU fares deregulation was implemented, and Ryanair could fly to Stansted for under €50, then Aer Lingus' €300 economy fares simply resulted in empty planes.

WW made Aer Lingus profitable. Before that it was a typical state-owned "flag carrier" that, like most similar organisations, managed the near-economically impossible feat of being a monopoly that lost money.

I suspect I know why you view WW as a failure at Aer Lingus. No doubt BASSA keeps in close fraternal contact with SIPTU over in Ireland and they tell you what a Dickensian mill owner-type he was. They had similar discussions with WW about restructuring to yours. I won't bore you with the details. They're too depressing anyway. Just one thing to keep in mind, though. WW managed to grow Aer Lingus (more routes, more planes, more flights) whilst, at the same time, cutting staff numbers. Not sure how you manage that unless the organisation is grossly inefficient to begin with.

Small point but where is the Government going to find the £X billion it would take to bail BA out?!?!?

Carnage. How have you managed to come to the conclusion that Walsh is competent?

Savings from cabin crew contracts will make no difference to whether BA survives or not. Why should employees accept permanent changes to their pay if management don't do the same?

The latest communique from Walsh (Title no longer "Fight for Survival" but "Action for Survival"!!) is reasonably upbeat with a certain amount of back peddling about our demise.

By replanning capital expenditure he aims to finish the financial year with £1 billion in cash, down from £1.4 billion. So, there is "no immediate threat" to our business. We have performed "significantly better" than the industry average and we have "significantly more cash" than many of our competitors. Not bad at all. Very good in fact.

The tone of his letter seems to suggest he has lost the confidence of his own staff. He mentioned how the newspapers haven't made "pretty reading". Oh how your work for free scheme has backfired Willie. Crew on the BA ESS forum are in open revolt. It is amazing! Like a virtual picket line.

He is still after structural changes to the employee cost base, and describes these as "essential" to our short-term survival and to our long term viability. Why? We are outperforming our competitors and he has identified no structural reason which would support permanent structural changes to the employee cost base

Yes Jay Pee there were inefficiences at Aer Lingus, no doubt some due to pay awards negotiated by Walsh when he was an IALPA rep. BA has been privatised for a long time and although somewhat top heavy, has done quite well over the years. BA is competitive on EU routes price wise and offers a free bar and food as well.

By putting Aer Lingus in the low cost pool, what can they offer that is better than RyanAir? They can't undercut them on price, so service sells after all. Aer Lingus should have stayed a full service airline selling itself on the quality of its product and the professionalism of its crews.

Having £1 billion at the end of the year relies on implementing the business plan in full. If it isn't done then we'll have less than £1.2 billion. We still need to tap the capital markets to move forward to the tune of £600M, and that won't be forthcoming if they don't see strutural change in BA to guarantee a return on their investment. The cabin crew contribution won't save BA in isolation, nor will the pilots' , but that doesn't mean either of us should be exempt.

Service was excellent on the BA pre-1990 inter-German flights with 3-crew on a 737, providing hot meals on 40 minutes sectors. How different can an early Brussels/Edinburgh/Paris/Amsterdam be?

A job is known as "work" as it tends not to be "leisure"...