BA set to claim siginifcant damages from BALPA for 'damage to its reputation & brand'
 

BA set to counterclaim against BALPA for 'damage to its reputation & brand'....!


Within the BALPA led high court disclosure papers this week, BA has stated that it is seeking ' significant financial damages ' against BALPA -

' as a result of damage and harm to BA’s reputation and brand due to the strike ballot '

Given BA’s self-inflicted damage to its reputation and brand over the opening of T5, BALPA sees this claim as 'somewhat' ironic.

Discuss.......



See here for further:

http://www.baplane-bapilot.org/getat...e-Details.aspx


Edited to add the document link

Makes you wonder if the Board knew about this. But, one must presume, that no company would start a terrifyingly high profile court action without the Board being fully informed.

Whether the Board knew or not, this has to be wildly misjudged. Perhaps the legal department will have been planning this for ages and just went ahead because it was on the project plan ...

BA management are pathetic. They ruin holiday plans for thousands by their shambolic mis-management of t5, have a certain manager running away from the press when t5 was falling apart, a ceo who says, don't worry give me a year and you'll love t5, what more do you expect!

In years to come, BA management and their style will be the focus of many a case study on 'how not to run a business' and 'de-motivate staff beyond recognition'. Of course the best one will be 'just left school, think you're hard, how you too can become CEO of an airline'

While we're on the subject, what do the non-executive directors actually do? Why do we have pilot managers? Why do BA not recruit 'proven managers' from large organisations with a 'proven' track record of managing.

Finally, when will the financial institutions finally realise WW hasn't a clue about the concept of management or leadership.

In answer to your question, diversionary tactics to get the heat off them, because t5 is still a shambles, so spinning the news away from that is what's needed. Trying to intimidate balpa and financially weaken the union, to a level where by it's existence is purley symbolic. To try and maintain power by an apparent show of strength, when in reality their grip on power is slowly fading away.

Damage to reputation and brand ?
 

I'd have thought it was BA's manangement that was responsible for that !

Damage to reputation and brand ?

First came King, Marshall and Dirty Tricks.

Then Ayling with his silly aircraft tails, Skippy who killed Concorde and now wee Willie and the T5 fiasco.

The loss of reputation and brand has nothing to do with BALPA; I'm sure many non-ba passengers feel considerable sympathy towards ba's crews. I certainly do.

I have to take issue with regard to Bob Ayling. Had he had the support of King and Marshall BA may not be in the shambles it is today. He was the only CEO that was prepared to take on the Unions. Let us not delude ourselves the future of BA rests with a CEO that has the courage and support to take on the unions and manage the company. Presently, and in particular at T5 the Unions are back in charge. I have to agree with your remark about Skippy.

IF this gets to court and IF BA win it may well turn out like Oscar Wilde, many years ago. He sued for libel, it was found that his reputation had been damaged and he was awarded 1p (old money!) damages as that was the value the court placed on his reputation. BA's low reputation has got a lot lower in the last few days, rightly or wrongly!

HZ123 "taking on the unions" is not the answer. It is not BALPA that has reduced BA to a laughing stock.

BALPA members have gone way beyond the call of contract for years in the face of such appalling man management that the system that is supposed to support the dispatch and receipt of flights is all but terminally broken. How about a typical Sunday at T4 with just ONE tug to push back aircraft? No tug crews due to ineptitude in man management - it was not an industrial issue. You can write that story across BA every day for the last several years.

As to Ayling - you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Ayling wasted MILLIONS of pounds of shareholder money on acquistions that were worse than useless - Deutsche BA, TAT, to name but two.

He championed BA's reputation for non-delivery with "The Millenium Folly" that spectacularly failed to work before HM the Queen on Millenium eve.

He destroyed staff morale and even the BA board realised he was a liability and axed him, (with the customary fat pay-off and pension).

Stick to darts HZ 123, you dont know much about BA.

As for Wee Willie going to court - the action of a desperate man busy wasting shareholder value on legal fees. If he won then any union would be barred from balloting for a strike because of the potential to cause loss of revenue and reputation for a firm. This is still a democracy and there is a right to strike in a democracy, righttfully governed by law. I cant see how he can win a dime.

BALPA have not had a strike for circa 26 years plus. Hardly militant, but that's Willies only plan for BA - smash down staff and hope to set a new low in every area for pay and conditions. Its a Customer Service business mate. How do you get staff to deliver a service if you alienate every single man and woman in the company who'se not on the take in the executive suite?

Well said ShortFinalFred.

And Skippy didn't kill off Concorde. The manufacturers withdrew support. Why they did so is arguable but BA had no choice in the matter. But hey, lets not have facts prevent a good old ignorant rant.

Sorry for the drift, but.

Bob was doing a good job, he like all the CEO's will have the bottom feeders giving him the info, yes, he will be rememberd for the tails, but that could of worked out a lot better had the press been doing some normal reporting of news items instead of having a go at a hi profile company.

And to top it all, the way in which Bob left the company was a turning point inside the company !!!

Good luck to BALPA on this one.

Gobonastick - as someone who always goes out of my way to help passengers and never looks at the union limits for working - only the legal limits - I take an exception to what you say. I don't even know what my union limits are, the passenger - my wage payer - always comes first. Until that is, the company do something which you really need to stand up to. None of us want to strike, none of us want the disruption, however as you can see without any problem, BA is screwing things up and you need a force to point them in the other direction. All those forces have been used up except the threat of strike - so what do we do? Disrupt a relatively small number of holidays so that literally millions are not disrupted in the future, or say that the passenger is king, lose the fight and create many times more misery in the future?

You have to realise that those who post on here are a minority and a voiceiforous one at that. Some of them know very little about what they are talking about. May I suggest that you have a good look at teh BALPA campaign website and understand the details of what is actually going on. This is about our livelihoods for the next 50 years or so, its important. Customers deserve better from BA, but the problem is not with the pilots, its with the managers at the top of the company.

Nice Diversionary Tactic
 

Win or Lose, it will take the focus of T5 and put it somewhere where its not their fault.

Sounds like good tactical thinking.

I dont understand all the commotion from pax blaming the pilots.
It is quite simple.
The pilots have a contract with BA. They are in dispute with them.
The pax have a contract with BA. Ba are responsible for providing the service for that contract.
If ba dont have the resource because of lack of skills equipment or people then it is BA who are to blame.

The Pax have no contract with the pilots until they are on board the aircraft, then it is one of legal responsibility for their safety. ANO refers. Nothing to do with any other agreement or law. My licence wasnt a gift from any airline it is issued by the govt .end of logic.


So to sum up if BA (povider) cant source the appropiate labour effectively (the pilots) due to contractual dispute and so cant provide the product they have charged for then the PAX have a right to moan at BA.

Once more for those at the back THE PAX CONTRACT IS WITH BA. NOT THE PILOTS
Unless there are those out there who would like to blame the pilots for T5 after all they have kept willy busy for a few months and thats why he took his eye off the t5 ball.
Oh and while I'm at it. The following is a list of other things that are not the fault of the pilots or in fact any crew. It is not exhaustive
Fog
Turbulence
traffic jams on the way to the airport
Crowded terminals
Delays
atc
Crappy little terminals in greece that your tour company left you at.
A **** hotel you paid next to nothing for
DVT
Sunburn
Badly swollen legs from dehydration and sunburn while wailing about dvt.
Medical services at the airport.
Free oxygen whn you were too tight to pre order it.
Your bloody angina pills in your hold baggage.
Anyone like to add?

Things we are responsible for.
Getting you to your destination not dead, injured or otherwise damaged.
erm thats it

I have to confess that being a fairly simple person (sic!) I don't really understand what's really behind BA taking this action against BALPA.

If they are trying to break BALPA/IFALPA financially then I think they are on a hiding to nothing in the long term. Remember that you might have to lose a battle to win the war. If the Unions do become financially broke then I am sure the pilots will be even more motivated to regroup in which case BA better watch out!

Remember Pearl Harbour - at the time a victory for the Japanese but years later USA dropped the Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

At another level I find it quite heart breaking that airlines and pilots are in the current situation.

BA to claim damages....
 

Excuse me but am I missing something here? Damages for what and caused by what? I was unaware that any strike had taken place and that all that had happened was that the union had quite properly sought the views of its members. So? What are the damages for?

I think someone is pulling someones leg.

I feel "Wally" Walsh would do better by keeping BAs head down. In the travel trade they are very poorly percieved and especially after the debacle at T5 which had absolutey nothing to do with either cabin or flight crew. If he wants more business then his marketers need to adopt a completely new strategy.

I see troubled times ahead all because of a little Irishman with brake fluid on the brain. The expression " he couldn't organise a p...........etc" comes to mind.

Still, great flight crew and at the end of the day that's what really matters.

Willy,

This passenger (and BALPA) member is now into day 10 without my bags.

Your operation has lost my bags, not BALPA. How exactly do you think that BALPA is damaging your reputation? Sue yourself first.

A quote from the website document found here: http://www.baplane-bapilot.org/getat...e-Details.aspx

What reputation?
I would have thought that the BA pilots could turn the accusation around and throw it at the Directors.
Pilots have a long term interest in the company because of their pensions and future employment. Show me a Chief Exec that has lasted more than 5 years in BA without bailing out with a payoff.

2 Queens Counsel (the most experienced and expensive lawyers that money can buy) plus another senior Barrister?

I would hazard an informed guess that one weeks worth of High Court argy bargy with associated preparation will exhaust at least a quarter of Balpa's annual legal budget. (someone correct me if you have better knowledge but I believe this is of the order of £400 000 a year)

Make no mistake the legal issues are complex and arguable and if there is an appeal which would be to the Court of Appeal and then House of Lords I would like to know how or where Balpa will get the necessary resources from?

Litigation of this nature can be ruinous just on the basis of cost......From where I am looking BA are in an infinitely better position to play the legal game than Balpa ...and indeed could contrive to secure its ruin by prolonging the legal process.

Maybe I have missed something but unless someone is bankrolling Balpa (by legal insurance.....which I doubt) this is a pretty high stakes game with the ruin of Balpa a potential consequence. I sincerely hope all concerned know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

You never know..... :E

Indeed DB............but as a body accountable to its membership for the use of their subscriptions Balpa does not have the luxury of concealing the origin or quantum of its resources to fight this case........unlike a litigant in person who is under no obligation to disclose the fact that his legal fees are underwritten.

To alay the fears of those non BA members who might themeslves need recourse to the legal resources of Balpa in relation to non related matters some reassurance from the general Secretary that appropriate resources are available without prejudice to the routine business of Balpa might be appropriate.

On the other hand if BALPA wins then can they claim costs?

Sure they can claim costs (unlike in the Industrial Tribunal) but the amount awarded is invariably far short of the amount incurred....and you have to be in it to win it! which comes back to the point of my original post that this appears to be a very very high stakes gamble by a small union with pretty paltry resources.

I cannot imagine for one moment that these uncomfortable facts will have escaped Wee Willies attention and the fact that this battle is now in part to be played out in court...plays right into BAs hands.

"POULTRY resources'??? It made I larf... but maybe they could run a chicken farm. :oh:

Pressman I happen to know two people who are currently receiving financial help from IALPA for court cases yet to be heard. Neither they nor anyone I know has heard about "bankruptcy" or such problems. I think you are speculating - or are you stating what you know to be a fact?

As for the BA "loss of reputation and brand" ... I really do think that most barristers would prefer to be arguing for BALPA than for BA (what with the ammunition the T5 thing is producing...!). It is hard to believe that so many seem to be intimidated by such ill judged action by BA.

I don't think you will find many barristers will turn down BA's business.

Too right. The opportunity to engage in months of sophistry for a blue chip that turns over £9bn a year would be irresistable to a group of professionals who make airline captains salaries look like van drivers.:eek:

Why they haven't had a chance like this since the T5 enquiry!

For an employer to win a case like this would it would rock the foundations of our (sort of) democracy. And where would it leave the relationship between Labour and the unions? It just won't happen, or if it does, it'll be a seismic event in industrial relations.

Quite right. If BA win this it reshapes the industrial climate not just in the UK but across the whole of Europe. A lot of unions are looking at this case. It is in their interests that BALPA win. It is not in their interests that BALPA lose through a lack of funding. Read into that what you will.

BALPA is well funded, am sure it could muster more cash if reqd.

If it were to come 2nd in the event(which i think is not the way it will work out) best to wind all the UK clocks back to about 1971/77.

BALPA has a very strong hand, I wish em well......

ladies and gentlemen please. I do sometimes dispair at some of the posts here.

This is nothing more than BA management once again showing the world that their heads are firmly up their own backsides. This action radiates an air of typical BA arrogance yet like most incidents lately, it will come back and haunt them.

Why waste time even posting on this subject at the moment as such postings fuel BA's fire. Wait for the guaranteed BALPA victory and then post until the cows come home.

Actualy generally Balpa are not well funded....their accounts are a matter of record for any member. A union with only 12000 (?) members simply does not have the resources to take on potential multi million pound litigation.

If, as is being suggested, assurances have been gained from other unions to underwrite a war chest then that is great.........but on any other basis this is a disaster in the making. In the absence of reassurance from Balpa members have every reason to ask how this adventure is impacting on Balpas ability to look after the interests and issues of all its other members.

at posters like tinytim. Stop posting nonsense that takes away from the valiant effort being made by BALPA. They are in possession of all the facts you are not. Posts such as yours take away support which plays into the other sides hands.

The other side does read these posts.

Get behind your union, don't undermine.

This link makes interesting reading

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3688337.ece

oh really? exactly what nonsense are you refering to Yamaha?

Getting carried away in a tidal wave of emotion surrounding a just cause is no reason not to ask (as a member of BAlPA) exactly how they are going to fund this given the massive cost of the express train now boarded which has left the station.

Me too. Could not agree more.

I have refrained from commenting on Tinytim's posts because experience suggests that those who repeatedly post such confident, but ill informed, assertions just keep on going regardless. Here we have a guy - or even a dog which has got itself a bone - who just knows that Really? In fact he is happy to about legal costs. He then compares these estimated costs to his version of the BALPA budget (a budget of all things) without any consideration of the fact that this is manifestly an exceptional event.

He uses this comparison to declare that there may not be money to fight legal cases for other pilots and adds this pontification I wonder if the General Secretary would find this patronising?

tinytim is of course welcome to articulate his rumours and guesses and the like. But it might be better if he spent more time informing himself about the matters on which he evidently considers himself to be something of an expert.

And while I am at it, the statement "plays right into BAs hands" is a judgment to which he is welcome. It is nonetheless an ill-judged position and shows little appreciation of what is involved.

I was wondering if Queens Council could "cut and paste" a series of posts from the T5 thread here at "Rumours & News". He might construct quite a large collection of statements that might be called "defamatory" or "libellous"...Although most posts here are made with a false name, he might have some way of attributing them to BALPA members :=

Well hopefully flying judge (nee lawyer) will get the bench and we're quids in.:}

However much some of you may not like the question....it is a very simple one.

Given that Balpa have opened a seemingly blank open cheque book to fight this cause.

Where are they getting the money from to fight it?

Neither their income nor their disclosed reserves support litigation of this potential magnitude............

Tiny Tim has the right of it. However, I suppose all the BA BALPA members will be more than happy to contribute to a fund to support those expensive lawyers.....

So Tiny Tim, what are you proposing that BALPA should do then?

Yes, (to paraphrase J.F. Kennedy) the costs of action are high but so are the costs of inaction! If it's BA now who is going to be next?