I strayed into this thread and wish I hadn't.

Not a lot has changed, it seems, from the day I was recruited and medicalled at the BA offices at Hatton Cross, or thereabouts, in 1968. Now, a whole airline career later, not much of it with BOAC/BA, I do a lot of travel for my present aviation-related work, and pay for a lot of other peoples' travel.

BA staff still to appear to believe that the world owes them a living, and BA management still couldn't lead a boy scout troop. Both sides think that BA simply cannot collapse, no matter what they do. And BA staff still think they can win by taking out their grievances on their customers, apparently forgetting that they can and will walk.

In the short term we have cancelled all reservations we had with BA, including 7 round trips in the next 3 weeks, and rebooked on other carriers. We are not likely to return, ever. The risk of disruption is just too high. BA's problem is that hundreds of thousands of businesses, as well as leisure passengers, are doing the same. It's a risk we don't have to take, and so we don't.

It's sad and depressing. The final straw that tells me there's no hope at all was the sight of the CC cheering and waving for the cameras when the vote was announced, as they celebrated their 96% vote to kill off the airline and their own jobs as though it was some kind of triumph.

Believe me, BA can collapse with dramatic speed, as other large airlines have. The process of collapse feeds on itself and acclerates. Revenue is cut to nothing by a strike, and everyone knows it. Rumours of financial difficulties develop (competitors?). Airports, caterers, handlers, fuel companies and spares suppliers withdraw credit without notice, and aircraft are held all over the world. Pay cheques don't arrive. It can take less than 7 days to get from having a full operation to ceasing all flying and dismissing all staff, and BA is not immune to this process because "we're British Airways, don't you know".

Stll cheering and waving, are we?

Choxolate, happy you agree, you beat to my reply. Its true, "lowcost wont cause a problem" was the much sung chorus 5yrs ago. Low cost long haul will work, thats why Oasis & Air Asia are trying. But anyway, if it didnt work, dont think the premium pax will fly with BA. Why should they, after all, BA is always on strike isnt it?

Me to, held a gold card for 9 or 10 of the last 12 years (also previously), would have made it this year but for changing carrier over the last 6 weeks of my year and having already defected to Cathay /Quantas for HKG / SYD (and all the European trips in cattle class help the budget rather than the points).

Low cost long haul is already here........(http://www.maxjet.com/ ) amonst others.......... coupled with the fact that they avoid the third world conditions at LHR. A lot of people seem to use BA because of the loyality card, however it looks like many are defecting due to new "earning " points .:ooh:

Am I missing something here (ready to be chastised from both sides):

I agree that you can't expect CC to fly when they have various illnesses (blocked ears / colds / injuries) that would not prevent them doing an office job. What I don't understand is why, when they have these maladies, they are not expected / prepared to come in and do an office job / check-in?

The benefits of this approach, from both sides, are:

• The argument about the list of illnesses not to be counted as sick is irrelevant - since the staff are not off work, just grounded.
• The number of sick days comes down.
• It's not so easy for some to "swing the lead" and make the rest look bad.
• Staff won't feel they are being forced to fly while unfit.

Body armour on, ready for incoming...

OC619

I now understand the problem with BASSA
 

No wonder BA is having problems with BASSA!!
Bassa, a Kru language spoken mainly in Liberia by about 300,000 people.

Source: www.omniglot.com

If you know your Billy Connelly, its also an expression a very drunk Glaswegian uses. Bassa = bastard

old,not bold - you have it in a nutshell. I was FD with Lloyd International, Donaldson International, Tempair etc. When rumours start, credit stops. Unfortunately I am a Naps pensioner. The dinosaurs of the TGWU are still there *ucking everyone up. Perhaps it is too late for common sense to prevail!:ugh: :ugh:

CC/BA
 

Be aware, I fear there are Trojan horses afoot on this page posting physiclogical anti interpretations of your points of view. Big companies are very skilled at this, they pay phsycologists £££ for subliminal 'coaching' of staff.

Be aware of post from....SNasty, joined 2007 4 posts.
Bosshogg joined 2007 2 posts

I fear they might be WW boys.

Dave

Good for you Dave. :ok:

It's good to lighten a serious discussion with some humour from time to time. :ok:

52049ER

Couple of points for you.

Firstly if as you say BA pay in more to your pension for each £ you pay thats called now whats the term - AN UNFAIR AND BIASED PENSION SCHEME.

Secondly If as you say you and BA pay in more for your pensions then i think its obvious you should therefore accept a greater percentage of the deficit as yours per head - surely thats obvious.

Thirdly you are the only group in the company that has 24 incruments, even the trustees know that over a pilots career the % you pay in for your total pot is considerably less ( £ For £ ) than other groups.

Well I'm no Trojan Horse, but I will say the BA CC, having been whipped up into Industrial Strife fervour, are being led by the nose into a battle they cannot win for some rather nasty political and union purposes. I ws questioned once by a rather smooth (and wealthy!) longhaul Purser why I supported BALPA when they were just a little union 'out for their own ends' I told him I was happy with their representation of me. Now everyone is saying to the CC 'why are you supporting this daft action over such unimportant demands', and all that can be said is that they have been whipped up to do it, and now they are going to be sacrificial lambs to an industrial slaughter, the main motivation being powerplay between BA and TGWU and Amicus! What a union!

Rimmer, you're talking nonsense! The company pays into the Fund according to your relative earnings. One assumes it is proportional to your pay.

The cabin crew have stated (and possibly the union) that they want to give BA a bloody nose. This is what they are achieving at the moment. The union are on a dodgy wicket, perhaps that is why the General Secretary is now involved. How can the union save face? We will have to wait and see. I suspect the strike will be called off at the last minute, but too late to stop the majority of cancellations – BA’s nose well bloodied and CC don’t lose wages to boot!

There is something fundamentally wrong with BA, I cannot put my finger on exactly what that is, but at a guess, incessant cost cutting without appreciating the affects of the cuts would be one of them.

So how do BA recover? Will they recover?

Rainboe; I note from your Add Info your not cc. Sir!! Neither am I but I'll back any worker to fight for a fair working agreement, while you f/d earn ££££ one day my son the tables will turn on you, then lets see will the cc back you guys/gals.

You posted... "'why are you supporting this daft action over such unimportant demands', and all that can be said is that they have been whipped up to do it, and now they are going to be sacrificial lambs"

The cc boys and girls, yes! They strike for their working rights next week, but not only that Sir, these workers are striking for the future working rights of the BA cc of the years to come.

With respect Rainboe, just go and fill in your Times crossword on your next long sector and forget about the people who do the real work. I rest my case.

Dave O

Death Knoll
 

After many years in the company along with many others we are being taken to the wall by the cabin crew unions. There will be many sad days ahead for very little return from the heartless cabin crew who have been bleeding BA dry for years. Think about the staff that have to mopp up after the mess left behind. I am sure that the union reps will bank roll cabin crew ? after hearing just how much they earn (sorry take in ?)

Dear Mr regularpassenger, I presume you're the same customer who goes into ASDA and complains about the quality of their clothes.

I'm sorry. If you want Harrods, you can't pay Walmart prices.

We have the best people. They don't work for chicken feed.

WW should start sacking a few of these militant cabin crew starting 6am tuesday morning.If they can get a better job elsewhere,great, but would they go quickly and leave those who want to see the airline succeed to get on with their jobs.

The industry certainly isn't crying out for Pursers ? and CSD's? or are they ?

Offering................ pay rates of £30-50K+ PA,option to part time workone month on one month off,final salary pension,900 hrs year working(ground staff do 1,900 hrs),12-22 days sick leave on top of 5 weeks leave,destination payments if you go to somewhere BASSA dosn't like,one sector followed by a night stop,and long range payments with bunks if you get a little tired after your commute from europe using the cheap tickets you paid for with the tax you don't pay in the uk.

Oh and thanks for ruining my holiday, but don't let it worry you

Something else i've missed ?

Airbus Unplugged

Your arrogance is pretty amazing.

I flew 108 sectors last year, mostly in C/J/F, on a variety of airlines. I have been flying on business since 1978 and in the last four years have flown about 350 pax sectors, so I know what I am looking at when I travel.

Let me give you some feedback about British Airways, from my position of being able to compare several different airlines

1 - BA is not Harrod's, although the attitude of some CC would suggest they are suppliers to royalty

2 - You do not generally have the best people, although some of your CC are very good. Many are average in attitude and customer handling skills and some are below

3 - ASDA staff do not stitch their customers up

4 - On long haul, I find Emirates and Lufthansa beat your levels of service in J and F, can't say about Y as I don't travel in that cabin. Having NCW flat beds is not enough alone to make your company my first choice

5 - On short haul, Finnair, Swiss and Lufthansa offer a more consistent experience, even tiny Air Malta could teach you a few things about how to handle customers

6 - The only three airlines I tend to avoid are (a) Alitalia, who are awful in my experience, (b) Ryanair, because I can afford better and (c) BA, because I simply don't need the aggro

My short haul airline of choice in the UK is now easyJet, as their service is consistently better tha BAs and they have a gold plated weather disruption
policy fitting of a high quality airline.

Add this to the extra "security" aggro when connecting through the UK and BA is one of my last options when considering who to travel with.

Some on this forum say that BA may go under if the strike goes ahead.

I don't know if this is true and frankly I really don't care, since IMHO BA's days of being worth a premium are gone.

Finals, if you go through the posts on here, I've been fairly vocal in my defense of BA CC because in my opinion they (as a professional group) they do a pretty damn good job, in less than optimal circumstances.

I am surprised you feel EZY provide a better service than BA, considering you are required to purchase anything and everything on board and I say this as in my old job I used to position around the UK with EZY...a lot. I simply didn't see a standard that even approached BA's level.

Your other comment intrigues me also, what exactly is EZY's "gold plated" weather disruption policy?

Nothing unfair or biased about it. We don't live in a communist society and we don't all get paid the same, despite what the GMB would like. If BA want to pay a higher multiple for our pensions then they are welcome to do it, just like they pay us higher salaries. Perhaps you think the thats unfair too? Maybe you also think it's unfair that if I put more money into a savings account than you do I get more interest out of it?

I don't think anyone in the pilot community would argue that if we own X % of the deficit then we pay for X% of the deficit. Thats fair by me. I don't see any justification for accepting more than X% of the deficit.

I've already told you thats not true and the trustees have said so. Don't think you can give it a few days, repeat the lie and I won't be here to challenge it. As long as you are posting BS I will keep reminding the other contributors that its BS.