I am sorry about my next comments but I have viewed this from a distance after earlier jumping in with both feet.

The one thing this whole thread isn't, is objective. This thread has become nothing more than a place for those who are fundamentally against industrial action and fundamentally against the BA situation to tell everybody so.

Those who may be in favour are quickly rounded upon and sent to Coventry. What purpose does such an imbalance serve?

Workers have come a long way since the slave labour conditions just over 150 years ago. Everything you have as a worker, including time to spend posting here has been achieved through unions. Nobody prefers striking to working just as nobody prefers war to peace.

However there are times when strikes and wars become necessary. If you don't accept that you are naive.

If I am honest about the BA situation I didn't know who was right. What I do know is that any company prepared to announce obnoxious pay rises for senior management when the company is apparently on its knees with a huge pension fund deficit is not behaving in a responsible manner.

What else amongst their statements isn't completely true?

I also question the motives of posters like Diplome with almost 500 posts 99% of them here and against the BASSA position. That is an unhealthy interest or perhaps there are other motives. Also the posting routine, few days posting, few days silence.

Anyway, the miners back in the 1970's knew their pits were going to be closed whatever they did. They also knew that the situation was immoral. Good, safe and productive pits were going to be closed because they couldn't compete with government subsidized european coal. Remove the subsidies and the coal was very competitive.

If I am going to be thrown out anyway under such circumstances I personally do believe in taking people with me. I totally support what the miners did because it hurt those whose pockets are lined with gold most of all.

Not one pair of levi jeans are now made in the USA, most are made in countries where posters here wouldn't work because of the conditions. The huge profits though still build mansions in California which are probably built by former Californian levi workers.

All I witness here apart from a few noticeable exceptions is an I'm all right jack attitude coupled with a perception that unions put that at risk.
As the profit news seems to highlights today, BA haven't been completely honest about impending doom and imminent shut down.

Who are the fools?

SC, have you considered what BA's current financial results might have been without the cost savings "imposed" on IFCE and negotiated with all other departments?

PS My "unhealthy interest" in this dispute arises through being a loyal BA customer. Yours?

SC - Look at BA's accounts for the last financial year (the second consequtive year of record losses). Revenue was down by about a billion. Without cost cutting in the hundreds of millions it is questionable as to whether the company would still be here.

The "pay rises" were in fact salaries for new jobs. WW is getting a payrise because he is moving on to a different job. CEO of IAG is a much bigger, and more difficult, role than CEO of BA.

In any event, not least in a market as brutally competitive and volatile as aviation, profitability is no excuse for the long standing inefficiencies in cabin crew working practices which can work against the customer interest and should have been eliminated a long time ago.

Just as the Cabin Crew forum seemed to be getting derailed on the pay for MF, this one homed in on the pros and cons of the closed shop! we are now back on track thanks to BASSA's missive re the potential settlement1

For what its worth, much has been made of the term 'legacy crew'. Now, I always thought that a legacy was something worth having that you passed on to someone else. (Yes, I know that you have to die to make the bequest effective!) Isn't 'legacy crew' stretching the meaning somewhat? Can anyone think of a relevant alternative descriptor?

Last but not least, as a retired ex-member of UNITE, i have also been invited to vote for the next General Secretary. A pity one can't write-in a suitable name.

This website - as a whole - is based on free speech, as Safety Concerns knows only too well. Safety Concerns also knows that the stock in trade of PPRuNe is debate, which means an exchange of opinions on any given subject or issue. He/she might also be aware of what Voltaire's M. Araoult said.

If (s)he has issues with that, perhaps (s)he might be more comfortable posting on the BASSA and other crew-related fora? After all, those websites are renowned for their fairness and tolerance of views that contradict their own.

Litebulbs is an avowed supporter of trade unionism. Other contributors may (and have) disagreed with that contributor's opinions, but no one can say that Litebulbs is ever treated on this thread with anything less than respect.

That being the case, Safety Concerns, I really do not think that your premise can be defended.

(Oh dear: I have disagreed publicly with Safety Concerns. Now what are the coordinates for Coventry?)

Safety Concerns:

Your continued concern about the interests and objectivity of posters on this forum is appreciated.

What were the terms you used regarding an individual on the CC thread.."management stooge" "snitch" ?

I believe that if you were to peruse these threads you would see very few posters who are "anti-union". Quite the opposite.

The fact of the matter is that most here do not support BASSA's actions and in some cases remain confused as to just what they are asking for and what they expect to accomplish with their conduct.

Levi Strauss and Co. have nothing to do with the BA/BASSA dispute unless there is a uniform change the customers have not been privy to.

I hope my reply did not offend your sensibilities to the extent that you view it as a demand that you visit Coventry. You may weekend where you like :)

I'm not a 'regular' passenger as I work for the company. My comments and opinions are, naturally, my own. The sad fact is that many people attack the management (of which I am not one) for their 'bonuses' in the same way that they attack Bankers for theirs without realising the contract structure inherent within major corporations today.

Irrespective of what might be happening with a small minority of employees the Senior Management has a contracted responsibility to the Board for the continued growth of the company returning an investment gain to the shareholders. In order to achieve that growthand thus their bonuses they must hit specific, performance related targets. The Senior Management at BA, Willie Walsh and Kieth Williams have both surpassed what was contracturally required for them to receive their 'bonuses'. The standard pay packet for both men is below market average and the bonuses are only levied upon productivity. Considering that BA has come out of the current recession in a fairly good position with the ability to call on forward investments is testimony to good 'corporate' leadership. Personally, as an employee, I say good luck to them, they work damn hard and probably deserve it, in order for us to have it then we also need to move toward a meritocracy and performance related pay. If I want the same then I apply. I don't so I won't.

The CC dispute is something else entirely. As a passenger it is difficult to understand the longevity and scope of the current dispute without understanding how long BASSA have held the reigns of power and how deeply they have occasionally affected the operations of aircraft throughout the world.

So, please, discuss away but allow ALL posters the ability to put their opinions forward and never compare what is occuring here, in a private company, to that which happened to the miners in the 1980's.

To Safety Concerns - I have a husband works for BA, and his is the larger portion of the family income and shortly his BA pension will be the larger source of retired income, of course I am interested in the financial health of BA, but as I am not myself an employee I can't post on the CC thread.

I have seen over the last decade lack of pay rises in engineering, and reductions in department manpower far in excess of the reduction on CC on board, and I am furious that some CC seem to think they are entitled to a bigger share of the BA cake just because they are frontline staff, and that they are prepared to put at risk all the sacrifices made by other departments.

The news of the half year profit is very encouraging and shows that the airline is beginning to get back, but bear in mind this is after all the savings, including those 'imposed' on CC, and that this is the 'good' half year.

A company like BA must make profits, not break even, it's not just there for it's staff, it has shareholders who expect a dividend, and banks who expect capital repayments, not just the interest that appears in the profit and loss account, not to mention investment in new aircraft.

Again - do you understand company results? Top level figures mean nothing. It is perfectly possible to have a company posting "profits" and then going bankrupt. Have you analyised the balance sheet, investigated the P&L, looked at the various accounting treatment of the assets, the various depreciation and amortisation, the off-balance sheet finance (and the off-balance sheet liabilities)? Until you do that, you have no idea about the health of a company.

BASSA were given the opportunity to access all the public and private information to make that accurate decision, access which I do not have, and which numerous analysts in the City would love to get their hands on.

So who has been honest - hard to tell, but the headline news tells us very little about the health of a company.

SwissRef
 

A N D... the cashflow. It's usually the cashflow, or rather, the lack of cashflow, that sends Companies into bankruptcy, often at a time of coming out of a recession...

@ Safety Concerns

I have to say that I viewed your comment

with amusement.

However you regard its objectivity . I think it could be said to be honest which is more than your post is.

You seem to be using some very dodgy facts as "support" for your comments

1) Did they ? Doesn't match my memory of events but perhaps you have inside knowledge.

2) Of course. Those major European coal-producers like S Africa, Australia ( and maybe Ukraine ? ) The first two at least were supplying from hugely-productive open-cast pits. What deep-mine can compete there ? No subsidy needed.

I don't believe Germany ever exported to the UK.

Your attempted smears of wages, profits etc have already been debunked.

Personally it always leaves a bad taste when someone serves up a load of distortions and prepared half-truths, especially when they start off by piously saying they can't keep quiet any longer ( or similar )

For those that are interested, a company the size of British Airways, operating around the globe with crew positioned for 'convienient' morning flights, the cost of liquidity (the amount you need to have in cash reserves before your creditors (Hotels/airports/fuel providers/Nav agencies/Ground handling Agencies) demand cash up front), is, approximately £600-£700 Million.

Dip below this level and you start having to pay either in cash or 'up-front' something that, in our debt interest driven world, is quite difficult.

Hence the ability to attract investors, future investors and current investment is imperitive. What the CC Union fail to realise is that without the actions taken to rationalise costs within the company and bring it into a competitive level with the rest of the LH aviation world, the company could very well have folded.

We all have 20/20 hind sight it seems that BASSA have theirs rose tinted.

Quoth MissM: Marvellous: 355 prolix (and sometimes peculiar) messages boiled down to 23 words.

Right, since when did those two sources start dealing with details..!

What I find annoying with BASSA is the fact that they don't do anything that indicates they are part of any negotiations at any level (Unite included).
Whenever I have been involved in consultative ballots, (a very handy tool IMO), we always agreed with the company on the communication of any offers being made. This was to ensure that the correct message was getting across and neither side could dilute or distort the facts. This was done whether recommending acceptance or not.
Once the ballot had gone out then we had a policy of only answering any questions posed by members concerning the ballot in line with the recommendation given.
So if the recommendation was for acceptance then that is the message that should be given.
This should be the way to go even if you don't agree with the recommendation as a rep. At the end of the day it should have been agreed by the majority of reps. (which makes me think this is not a BASSA agreed recommendation).
On many an occasion I have had to push a recommendation I didn't necessarily agree with. That's the way it goes and it comes with the territory unfortunately....

@ Call100 ... what you are describing could be called a 'democratic process'.

Regrettably that does not seem to be BASSA's way of operating; there's is more like a mob being fired up by extremist orators and using 'dubious practices'. I shall avoid any direct reference to similar examples from 20th Century history.

MissM from the other thread “vote NO to this proposal.” My question is when exactly is this vote going to take place. It seems considerable time has pasted since this ballot was announced. Maybe MissM can tell us what progress is being made toward this ballot.

I can answer why there is a delay.

Both BA's and Unite's legal teams are reviewing the wording of the section of the agreement, which refers to ACAS involvement and that is causing a delay, in case the offer wording has to be amended, prior to putting it to the vote among Unite members.

It is not Bassa delaying it. In fact I expect it is causing them considerable stress seeing as they were hoping for a strike at Christmas!!

Oh well, let's cause the paying passengers [anyone remember them?] more grief.

I speak as a majority of one when I say I really don't care about this "dispute" much more.

I'm forward booked for my leisure travel, and my staff are booked for business ... with BA.
I'm also looking at a toothless dog, baying at the moon, with no clear idea of what it wants apart from something vaguely unreal and 'something' else. The probability of BASSA identifying reality is, IMO somewhere around the 0.000055% mark. They [whoever they are?] will therefore continue to howl about irrelevant things that are vaguely associated with the dispute [in that some other people wear BA uniform].

Unless someone sensible [I'm always an optimist] has something meaningful to say, I'm really profoundly bored and just carrying on "Flying BA".

Safety Concerns
 

As I remember from your previous postings on the other thread, none of your 'concerns' have been over 'safety', but backing BASSA 100% - not necessarily with any valid proof - to the point that you were barred from posting as you do not meet the required criteria to post.

Looking at this as an attempt by you to again influence arguments in favour of BASSA - using any elements, relevant or not, including historical ones (1970 Miners), you have succeeded in wasting everyones time and effort over the last 21 posts responding to your spurious arguments.

I also seem to remember from those previous posts on the other thread that it was claimed that the troll 'Safety Concerns' was identified as a cover for one DH.

So I guess the highlights have to be - don't feed the troll - you never can tell who or what you are responding to.