BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[hellsbrink]

It is clear there was an opportunity there and BA made the choice not to take it....

To those who think I have some axe to grind I should make it clear that I have nothing but contempt for the leaders of both sides. There is no difference between them. As usual it's the people in the middle that always suffer. If they all pulled their collective necks in and let the negotiators negotiate this would all be over far quicker.

It's clear that one side blinked when they were trying to bluff, and it wasn't BA.

Now, please read everything that has been posted here and in the CC forum, then you will see that there was no negotiation from one side, despite all the offers and reassurances BA gave. And remember that this went as far as BA granting an extention to the strike mandate, and allowing them to consider an offer (with the provision that no dates for IA were announced) which was withdrawn after the union announced the strike dates almost immediately!! BA are right to stand their ground on this now, the union had no intention of actually "negotiating".

[beamender99]

There is nothing about this on the Unite web site that I can see anyway,

which does not mean it is not true (the lawsuit).

But if it were more than rumor, one might think Unite would announce it on their web site in "latest news?"

But maybe not...guess what I'm saying is perhaps this is just a rumor?

BA 'bully' bosses axe fare cuts for strikers - mirror.co.uk
So it might still be a rumour

.............."A spokesman said: "This is a non-contractual perk that we can withdraw at our discretion."
Unite, battling the airline's boss Willie Walsh over job cuts and changes to working practices, said it will fight for reinstatement of the perks - seen as a "custom and practice" part of the job.
An official added: "This demonstrates BA's bullying and contemptuous approach to employees."

A long-running holiday pay dispute between BA and its pilots was referred to the European Court of Justice yesterday.

Was this the "refer to high court" rumour that got misquoted?

[LD12986]

BASSA said the High Court hearing on crewing levels alone cost Unite £1.2m (plus they will have to pay BA's costs which will be much higher) and the latest from BASSA was that they were appealing to the Court of Appeal (!). A case on staff travel could easily run and run. For how long is Unite prepared to bankroll BASSA's days out in court?

[hellsbrink]

For how long is Unite prepared to bankroll BASSA's days out in court?

That is a bloody good question.

If Unite say "ENOUGH!!!" then they will be seen to admit the stance by Bassa was completely wrong and it will affect them, Unite, too in the eyes of not only the public but their own members (who may turn round and cancel their membership over this debacle). So I would reckon they will continue to fund things until they find a way to stop the action, without losing more face than they have already, at the soonest opportunity and try to claim some hollow, moral victory over some minor concessions to try and justify their positions. Unfortunately, the average Joe paying his subs to Unite will find out he'll have to pay more so they can cover the costs of repeated lawyers fees/court cases and that may mean more leave the union, meaning subs rise again to cover costs, etc, meaning........ You get the picture.

If I'm right, then expect some heads to roll through the whole Bassa/Unite organisation over this whole thing, as some people REALLY screwed up

[mary meagher]

Think before you press the send button!

Two amazing items found their way into print during this week.

The article in the Guardian by that young person who apparently had a lovely day out joining the picket line, booing the BA aircraft passing overhead, and acknowleging the toots of support from passing cars or even a passing fire engine. Come on, everybody, come along and join in the fun. Does the Guardian make a habit of printing this sort of stuff?

The second item is that incredible lineup of University Academics who were persuaded to sign a letter they hadn't bothered to read. Or if they did read before allowing their names to be used, had not bothered to follow the history of BA v CC's long drawn out descent into confrontation.

All of which ties in with the forthcoming election. Maggie Thatcher was swept into office on just such a raft of the Medusa; the despairing pax ended up consuming each other before the few remaining were rescued.

[ExSp33db1rd]

If it all works perfectly, you may have to find a new topic to talk about

Thank you, yes if ......... but I doubt it, but Unite / BASSA have deeper pockets than we had, but our funded legal advice didn't support taking them on.

Breath is held.

.........seen as a "custom and practice" part of the job.

it was seen as " custom and practice " even if not contractual, and promised for future retirement as well, during our employment time. The goalposts have not only been moved, but moved retrospectively. That takes a degree of deliberate malice. Not nice.

( yes, we do all still receive S.T. until 31st March, 2014, sorry if I've given the impression otherwise, but it is a long saga, P.M. me for details - if anyone is interested. )

[etrang]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply,

Staff Travel DOES cost BA something. The main cost would be the additional fuel burnt, and there would also be the cost of meals and other consumables used. Perhaps someone who knows can say whether there is a net gain or loss to BA from ST.

My guess would be that at the back of the plane the 10% of normal fare paid does not cover the additional cost, but that in premium cabins it probably does (because the extra fuel burn is the same where ever they sit on the plane (excluding additional luggage allowance)).

[ExSp33db1rd]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply

Yes of course there are some costs, Admin. alone, tho' with the move to more computerised ticketing that might be only a few bytes on a computer now.

I accept that I am probably one of only a few in this respect - but as BA don't even fly to NZ I usually cost them nothing but a possible Admin. charge as above, the airlines in the Interline agreements carry me, but I need to remain in the Staff Travel 'family' to be able to use them.

When Doomsday finally catches up with me in 2014 I will see retired staff from other airlines flying in seats on 'my' airline - whilst I'm denied the right to reciprocate on 'their' airline. ( I mainly use Qantas AKL - LAX v.v )

As a dying group, the Old Buffers being thrown out would hardly be a blip on the B.A. radar.

[wiggy]

My guess would be that at the back of the plane the 10% of normal fare paid does not cover the additional cost

IMHO your guess is wrong, the average commercial passenger doesn't pay the "normal fare" either.. so the "10% of normal" figure doesn't mean a thing. A lot of the time staff pax are paying maybe as much as 60- 70% of the amount a commercial pax sitting in the next seat to them is paying, for a seat that would other wise be unoccupied, so the only cost to BA is issuing an e-ticket, which is pretty much the square route of zero thse days .

[etrang]

the only cost to BA is issuing an e-ticket,

Well, no. As explained above the staff travel does cost BA extra fuel and meals, etc. But only the bean counters inside BA will know the actual numbers and even then they will be estimates.

From BA's 2009 annual report, fuel costs were 3bn pounds or about 32% of total costs.

[piton]

As crew in Holland we now (since 2-3 yrs ago) have to pay income tax on standby tickets - which has increased their cost substantially and made booked travel on loco's more attractive for short breaks. Arguments that an empty seat is not worth much of anything were not accepted by the Dutch version of the IRS.

[SamYeager]

Just seen WW being interviewed on BBC Breakfast. He made it emphatically clear that negotiation about ST was NOT going to happen. As a neutral I felt he came across pretty well.

[fincastle84]

WW BBC interview

I also thought WW came across very well. He certainly wiped the smug, disapproving looks off the faces of the 2 left wing supporting BBC interviewers. They even stopped waving their copies of the Gruadian.

Oops, am I being politically incorrect?

[iridium77]

Originally Posted by just an observer

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply

The cost to the employer is not relevant for taxability or not - it's the benefit to the employee (a "benefit in kind") which is.

[TruBlu123]

Benefit in Kind

Overlooked on this subject is the fact that BA annually sits down with HMRC and "agrees" a payment to the government for the benefit derived by employees and retirees from ST.
Also, in answer to an earlier post when ST09 was introduced it was stated that ST represents a NETT cost to BA even taking into account ID90% revenue as well as that derived from non BA staffers travelling on ID tickets. In part this is why some pensioners will loose out come 2014 when ST is withdrawn from them as a result of being either early leavers or retirees with relatively short length of service. It was sadly a cost saving measure. Rather short sighted IMHO. Let's hope we can influence a change for those affected prior to April 2014.

[wiggy]

etrang

the staff travel does cost BA extra fuel and meals

I take your point - yes everything has to be paid for, but I'd be interested in seeing the costs of a BA shorthaul "meal" these days ( which is going to be carried wether I fly or not). As for fuel costs... I reckon one of my commutes would add at most in the region of 6 or 7 kg to the burn....My guess is the the Company do cover the costs on a shorthaul flight, even on an ID 90 "down the back".

Perhaps someone who knows can say whether there is a net gain or loss to BA from ST.

Knowing how BA is run these days Staff Travel has to be run to make a profit...anything else would simply be unacceptable to the Boss .

[call100]

Originally Posted by hellsbrink

It's clear that one side blinked when they were trying to bluff, and it wasn't BA.

Now, please read everything that has been posted here and in the CC forum, then you will see that there was no negotiation from one side, despite all the offers and reassurances BA gave. And remember that this went as far as BA granting an extention to the strike mandate, and allowing them to consider an offer (with the provision that no dates for IA were announced) which was withdrawn after the union announced the strike dates almost immediately!! BA are right to stand their ground on this now, the union had no intention of actually "negotiating".

Fine...Believe as you wish, it means little to me. Nothing is clear. Certainly nothing is clear from the postings on this site.
The offer you refer to was worse than the original offer, so there was no way it was going to work, BA knew that.
Argue all you like, ACAS were there to help and BA wouldn't play ball. Then WW made up a story about Unite not turning up to a meeting. The meeting was never arranged.
It would be easy for them to resume talks with ACAS based on putting the original offer on the table. They don't want to do that. Fine I have no problem with that, it's WW's choice. However, in doing that, it's no good whining that the other side are not playing ball.
Good luck to all, whichever truth you support....

[emanresuym]

call100:

The offer you refer to was worse than the original offer, so there was no way it was going to work, BA knew that.

That's not quite right. The original offer which BA put forward was the one which Unite said they would ballot their members about, but that they could not recommend. This offer was dependent on strike dates not being called. It was the subsequent offer which Unite complained was "worse than the original offer".

That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of "facts" about which we will never get to know the truth.

[beamender99]

BBC News - BA's Walsh says he will never reinstate staff perks

includes

By Martin Shankleman, BBC employment correspondent
Willie Walsh reinforced his uncompromising reputation by speaking in such absolute terms. When asked if he will restore the travel perks taken away from strikers, he replied: "That will never happen... We have never, never negotiated on these perks and we never will."
While the categorical nature of these statements makes BA's negotiating position crystal clear, it has also, by definition, made it harder to reach an eventual deal.
In a previous strike in 1997, the perks were removed by BA, only to be reinstated at the end of the dispute. This must have fuelled the hopes of some strikers that the same conciliatory approach would be adopted by BA this time.

[just an observer]

The cost to the employer is not relevant for taxability or not - it's the benefit to the employee (a "benefit in kind") which is.

Here's the facts, straight from HMR&C web site The benefits code: cash equivalent of benefits: the general rule Cost to the employer it is.

I daresay the Revenue do review BA regarding this and I'd assume it's done on an overall not individual staff member basis.

Meals on board - flights are generally overcatered to allow passenger choice - staff get what's left, so no cost. As for the complimentary washbags, staff are not allowed to accept them.