when do the sackings begin?
 

Why has the ba share price kept on going up in the past weeks? it closed at a record high yesterday when the talks broke down. Could it be because analysts believe that the strike will give BA a semi-legal possibility to shed many crews? I bet that BA will not want back the people who have striked who will beg for a job in 4 days. They will sack them paying the unfair dismissal fees but getting rid of their heavy and unnecessary legacy.

For Walsh, this is not about BA or Unite, it's about his future career and building a reputation as union busting hard man.

yes
 

crewmeal

yes it isnt important in this dispute!
you can rant all you want about fines/fuel hedging etc

this is not about clawing money back!
it is about safeguarding the future of the airline!!

you need profits to invest in new aircraft products and compete

oh and also give some benefit to your investors ........ and in case you have forgotten them

your customers!!!

What a naïve comment but if he 'busts' BASSA he will have done us all a favour.

wascrew - I totally agree with you, but the Company would have been £300m better off now if it wasn't for those fines, which would have pleased the accountants.

Crewmeal,

The fines were probably paid out of the excessive revenues they generated - that's why they were fined!

Fuel Hedging is an age old problem - you win some you lose some.

Neither of these required cuts from any employee and they were accounted for well before this crisis started.

The losses are a different story. BA's revenue is down a billion, and that's probably what they have lost in the last two years.

Everyone else accepted reasonable cuts, cabin crew haven't.

What's worse is that if CC accepted what was first offered, the only difference would have been a CSD having to do some real work, and the rest of the crew having to work a bit harder.

UNITE and BASSA's total intransigence will now cost you dearly.

BLAME THEM!

HINT: Find out where all of your BASSA reps are during the strike!

ZeBedie
Do you seriously suggest that WW is acting on his own? This is the collective decision of the board, whose responsibility is to the shareholders. Judging by the share performance, the shareholders are supportive of the board's decisions. There are many more shareholders than union members.

Another simple example of the union being in the minority.

Dustyprops,

Yes, but what are they standing their ground over, I thought it was imposition and there we have one on Sky News banging on about New Fleet and losing 14K and that's why she's striking - Which is it? Do they even know themselves? The past is the past. We are where we are now and everyone else has taken some sort of hit but same old story with some groups. Is what they are being asked for so difficult in the context of what is going on right now in the world? Reality check please.

ZeBedie

You can't blame one person for the whole T5 mess. There was a lot of help in the scenario from other groups through lack of testing and planning and some very slow procedures in the early phases of opening. It's all ancient history now. I don't think he is out to prove his reputation...he already had it. That's why he is where he is as CEO and he is addressing what has not really been properly addressed in the past as part of a wider strategy for survival. I don't think there is much of a choice in having plans for modernisation and efficiency savings and everyone does need to contribute. That is what he is asking. Perhaps you would prefer some other option such as ignore the realities and wait for bankruptcy?

Ted

Ted,

Despite the T5 fiasco, BA turned a handsome profit, and paid bonuses accordingly. Even though Walsh was entitled to his based on the financial results, he elected not to take it and accepted responsibility for the T5 difficulties.

I think that says more about the man than than any BASSA blustering does.

They hate him because he's got the balls to stand up to them.

It's obvious that the BASSA hive mind is being encouraged to blame him for this dispute, even though half of the people spitting feathers STILL don't know what he offered to BASSA as far back as last June.

and that is part of the trouble......a personalised dispute

I can't even be bothered to respond.

God help all of us at BA, for it won't be the same company that emerges after the dispute, that's for certain!

Looking at the Sky News coverage of the Bassa meeting at the football ground it is very evident that almost every person seen moving around in the background, behind the commentator, were grey haired old men! Makes you think!

Bealine
 

Unfortunately, as with most companies in this situation there can sometimes be a significant financial 'blast radius'. Some case studies may give a clue but, would a business head be tempted in such circumstances to re-visit other areas, quicker than he otherwise might have done, (that have already taken 'hits') in an attempt to claw back some of what ground has now been lost. Collateral damage....a terrible thing. I hope that those who negotiated sensibly do not suffer unduly as a result of all this.

News coming out that some previously cancelled flights are now being "uncancelled".

Let's see how "electric" it is on the picket line when they find that out......

Shades of "there are no American troops in Baghdad"......

That's about the most positive thing I've read on this topic for a while.

Hopefully some bright spark from the media will ask BASSA whether all its reps are leading from the front and are actually on strike? Troops might be a bit annoyed if they were being urged to go over the top whilst their leaders found an excuse not to...
Meanwhile, the flight schedule described by Unite as a work of fiction & a fantasy seems to be doing rather well.

Let's hear it for those poor souls on the ground, taking the flak ! Good job !!

Facts about the strike
 

BA made an offer to Unite prior to strike dates being announced. The offer was made with the clear understanding that strike dates would not be announced prior to balloting the cabin crew. This is because once strike dates are announced customers stop purchasing tickets and existing customers cancel their flights regardless of the outcome of any ballot. Unite chose to announce the strike dates immediately. Coupled with that they had stated that they would not recommend the offer to their members. Having incurred the strike costs BA could no longer afford the original offer and therefore withdrew it. Unite knew this would happen but had every intention of calling for strike action regardless.

The Labour Party will almost certainly lose the general election in May and the Trade Unions will be severely restrained by a fiscally responsible Conservative government. This is therefore the last throw of the dice for a Labour movement firmly entrenched in the 1970s. The cabin crew are Unite's pawns in this power play and the losers are all of BA's staff and their hapless customers. The Labour Party meanwhile is not so much shackled to Unite as a willing partner and, as we now learn, fully paid up member in this destructive union movement.

I trust this has helped clarify some of the arguments raised in this forum.

I hope that tempers don't get too frayed for the folks on the shop floor, and that travellers can get to where they need to. I'm still wondering whether I hope that the necessary egos can be pricked and busted, but seeing as I have no knowledge of the situation, I doubt I can really say that.

I think it was deferred. He got it the following year.

Not really.

Dragging a private company dispute into the political domain does nothing to help at all as proven by the rantings of Call-me-Dave on PMQs this week.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support the CC in this dispute, wrong time, wrong issue, but employees need a collective movement to stop unscrupulous employers taking the p1ss.
BA are not in this instance doing that, but they will given half a chance as will any other employer.
This dispute has tarnished all TUs, as much as the disputes in the 70s and 80s did.
IMHO. :sad: