Was that the Sabena which had virtually never made a profit?

Your company obviously was not that short of pilots to be able to wait the circa 18 months from start to being fully qualified.

I will take my chances thanks. The line in the sand is drawn as far as I am concerned and I am far from militant, gung-ho or keen on the idea but, take my word, I have had enough of the grabbing incompetents who seem to continually treat me and my colleagues with utter contempt.

So because everyone else is doing it, that makes it OK does it? Sounds a bit like turning a blind eye to the exesses of the Nazis to me (OK, that's an extreme example and not strictly analagous but nevertheless... If people had been prepared to stand up and be counted maybe things would have turned out differently?). [edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that BA or anyone connected with it is behaving like Nazis, my use of this admittedly spurious analogy is simply to illustrate that we shouldn't accept something that is morally wrong just because it is the norm.]
Sure, the fund is in deficit, nobody's arguing about that. What we are saying is that BA can afford to fund that defecit and still grow, pay dividends and purchase new aircraft. I would have to surmise that you have hit your own nail on the head... You don't understand it.
BA will not collapse. WW and his chums are close to their 10% operating margin. Rumour is that we have hit the 8.5% margin for the year just ended and the T5 savings are yet to kick in. Even the board says that with a 10% margin our future will be secured. I am sure that WW will get a handsome personal bonus out of an 8.5% margin for last year... We are the most profitable airline in the world and the good times have only just begun to return. Do you think they are going to spoil the goose that lays the golden eggs by cutting it open?
This is obvious by your lack of understanding of how things are inside BA.
Thanks for that, at least.
On that point we will have to disagree then. I believe it is only our obviously extreme resolve that got the initial offering from BA to be only this bad. Continued resolve will see continued improvements.

All the best to you though sugden - nothing personal, BE.

HAND

We DO need new aircraft!

The 737 fleet at LGW needs replacing NOW.

The best one we have makes the old Bcal buses look like a new BMWs.

It will also stop North Terminal becoming orange, and will keep the low cost wolves knocking on EFLHR's door.

I know it's easy to forget about us down here at LGW, but we do have a part to play.:ok:

Are you volunteering to pay for them with your pension? I once volunteered to buy a new Airbus fleet for BHX and MAN with my pay. They took my pay then didn't buy the Airbus for MAN. Then they closed both bases and pocketed the cash. They sent the 737-500s we paid for to LGW.

No that's not what I'm saying.

I was just correcting an important error in your post.:cool:

Hand Solo - SPOT ON! Your post accurately describes what we are dealing with - BA PILOTS CANNOT TRUST A SINGLE WORD THE COMPANY SAY. They have lied before (Manch and Birm) and did not even look contrite.

The opportunity to cheat the pilots out of their financial futures must seem irresistable to 'The Lord Protector', 'The Prince of Darkness' and the big cheese himself, 'The Leprachaun', pilot-haters to a man. Its not going to work. The line in the sand is there.

Just read the BA NEWS of 20Apr2006.

Page two, even BA mentions rate of pen pay increase will loose at least 1.5% per year, would expect some very clever pay deals to avr that out at 2% or more over time.

This is just 1 part of the fix. is it 3 or 4 more.....

These are very strong numbers.

Well I guess when the sleeping staff wake up and mention they not very happy about changes that were made, BA can just say "we told you what the changes would mean to you"

BA playing a very cool hand......

A view from waterside
 

Well, as a worker in waterside, I expect to have all sorts of criticism heaped onto my head typically by pilots, (unnecessary overhead, wonderful working conditions, normal working hours etc.).

Well for some of us, things are not so rosy.

There has been the constant threst of having to reapply for ones job.

The prospect of over 30% of SMs going, and 20% of middle managers.

This and the actual fact that many staff have actually gone leaving typically the same work to be done by maybe 30% less people.

Over the last few years this has taken its toll.

I for example, work typically from 7am (when I arrive at the rear entrance of Waterside having parked my car 25 minutes away- There is not enough parking space at waterside).

I leave at typically 7pm but it may be later. That's typically around 60 hours, and is not atypical of others in IM.

I do this partly to do the necessary work, and partly to keep my job.

In recent years I can number at least 3 people who have committed suicide (one a General manager) because of this sort of pressure.

I find it very difficult to feel sorry for pilots who simply do not have this sort of life destroying pressure.

They are lucky enough to have the skill and aptitude to do a job which carries a high salary, excellent perks, and a low retirement age with a good pension at the end.

If their retirement age is 60 rather than 55 that still makes them better off than the rest of us.

If they don't like it, they should make provision for earlier retirement themselves out of their (typically over £100k) salaries.

If they really don't like BA maybe they should consider working for Ryanair or easyjet

While not doubting your hard work and the fact that I amy be paid more than you I fear you are missing the point entirely.

In a nutshell we are being asked to work for an extra 10 years to earn the same if not less pension than was offered in our contracts. That is also going to be heavily reduced for the younger guys by the severely limited increases to the pensionable element of pay in future pay negotiations and for all by the future pension uplifts also being limited.
BA is being at best disingenuous with there hugely misleading pension projection spreadsheet which makes the whole thing look quite reasonable.

You say that perhaps we ought to move to another airline if not happy well unfortunately for pilots seniority does not transfer so the 20 years which I have accrued to reach my present position would be for nothing. Your skills are more easily transferrable and given how hard you seem to work I wonder if you have considered your own advice.

I can well imagine the fear and concern associated with a massive cull within staff ranks but one has to point the finger at the poor management which allowed the numbers to reach the levels and inefficiencies of a government department in the first place.

view from Waterside
 

Rzw30,

It is truly very sad if things are so bad at your end that people are committing suicide. I'm very sorry to hear it and, given that sort of pressure, I can understand a lack of sympathy for the pilot group which, let's face it, has an easy life (I speak as one - flew 800 hours short haul last year and it's still part time, whatever pilots who've never had another job in their lives will tell you).

On the specific issue of the pension I think what is becoming apparent is that all the talk of new aircraft is basically a bit of a smoke screen - or rather a half truth. What NAPS pilots perceive is that they will lose out massively in order that managers can achieve the 10% operating margin and so secure bonuses of around 250%. This is an abhorent equation - it is truly disgusting to find flight ops managers saying "oh yes, of course we'll still get our bonuses while you are 40% worse off in retirement".

Pilots are one of the very few educated work groups in the country able to stand up to that sort of nastiness because they have managed to organise themselves into a unionised workforce.

Moreover, for those of us on BARP, the situation is actually worse - we will be lucky to retire at age 65 on a decent pension which, because of the nature of the NAPS proposals, will be reduced by around a quarter if the changes go through. And with longer times to command etc that will result if the retirement age for NAPS increases, many of us will be looking to move on from BA soon.

It is a sad state of affairs for one of Britain's icons to be managed by such short termist crooks. It is true that there are many inefficiencies to be found in BA and these should be addressed - we could fly 900 hours short haul for instance - but I think attacking the pension is the wrong move and, sadly, there are troubled times ahead if the company doesn't back down.

I have had another job and, with respect, that statement is utter tosh.

The excessive hours forced on us all by the low cost airlines will sooner or later result in an accident due to pilot fatigue.

re: other jobs
 

You're kidding..? I still think a 12 hour day at BA beats working 36 hours non-stop in the City. I come home breazy and fresh...

Hmmm. 30% too many managers already perhaps…?
Pilot establishment is a carefully calculated number of heads required by an agreed formulae.
How are your numbers worked out?? A mathematical formulae of by seeing how many people put in ‘desk time’?
We cannot do 30% more work as it is illegal. Just ask any of they guys n girls on the 900hr ‘list‘ (that’s airborne hours, not working hours.. which is typically 2500hrs p.a) The list a to warn pilots that they are very close (within minutes on occasions) of breaking the LEGAL (note industrial) limit of flying. Break that and the it’s a case of BA having its Operators Certificate withdrawn and the pilot have his or her license revoked. So no more 30 % extra for us, as it cant be done legally.
Hmm, yet again I would love a 7am start everyday. How about needing to swipe into the computer at 0500 sharp? So that’s a wake up of around 0345 for someone living 30 mins away. Yes, we too don’t park by Compass, we have allow 30 minutes to get from the carpart to the Compass Centre. Bugger…. Running late….. too bad the flight goes late and some serious explaining is to be done. So you are not late. Ever.
Oh, and after my 0345 wake up and 0500 check in, I might get the chance to see my bed at around 1800, in a different time zone, in a stuffy hotel room, far away from my family and the needs of my children. And when you do get back to LHR after a 5 day gypsy tour around Europe and finally get to set the park brake and look forward to seeing your own bed, wife and children, there is no bus to take the crew to the car park until 1 hour after shutdown, for the 4th time that month.
Ever heard of Draft Assign (or Force Draft). Ask a pilot next time you speak to one. You will instantly raise there blood pressure by several notches. We are commonly met at the aircrafts side upon arrival and told ‘ you know those next 2 days off you, your now working’
NO argument.
A disciplinary offence if you don’t turn up the next day.
A medieval rule for an archaic medieval company. Family? What family?
Without going into detail, it happens in all sections of the community, without exception.
Has any pilot here has asked for a Water Worlders sympathy? I cant recall it. And Im certainly not thanks.
I have worked in several office environments where redundancy has loomed large and can empathise to you situation. Have you every work a Pilot or a Cabin Crew roster for years upon years? Even if you have done so some years ago perhaps - it would not be anything like the pressurized environment that we currently endure.
Anyone who has not operated into and out of LHR of a extremely hectic environment on a permanent, short haul, multi sector day, years on end HAS NO IDEA of the crap we tolerate. Then there is the personal tolerance folks put up with. Away for upto 7 days Shorthaul, 10 days Longhaul, often seeing your children for maybe 1 night in that block, commonly getting home at 2000 and departing to go to work again less than 10 hours later, yes… 0600… Divorce is rampant, children asking who that strange man walking in the front door is….
Life destroying….? Hmmmm. You decide.
Lucky.
Now there’s an interesting word.
Years of hard graft at school.
Then years of hard graft earning the funds to pay fro £50,000 worth of vocational training that Doctors and Lawyers typically get funded for them.
Then a couple of hard years getting that elusive CPL, after having seen many of your friends fall by the wayside never having achieved that little blue book, only the large debt that goes with it.
But that’s the easy part.
Then comes getting that job.
Onto the first rung of the ladder.
Hauling mail around the Hebrides in the middle of a snow storm at low level in an aircraft that should really not be certified to operate in thos conditions, but it is.
Then a turboprop job with some skinflint operator paying around £15,000 for atrocious hours and a £20,000 bond ‘just incase’ you want to jump ship to an airline that doesn’t screw you over at every single opportunity.
Then that opening onto a jet comes good after much badgering and knocking on Chief Pilots doors. Now you might even get one or two of the days off that were meant to be a day off on your roster and start to even pay off your flying course loans which have only been increasing whilst you were living hand to mouth for the past 3 years working for sod all.
And then, maybe - then you might get a shot at the major Airlines.
Lucky. I don’t think so.
Being lucky is something you create individually.
Being unlucky is stepping in a dog !!!!.
Which excellent perks are those? Staff travel…? Don’t pull my plonker.
I must have been missing them for all these years.
Which retirement age of 60 is that. Yet again something I must have missed…..
Ahhhhhhh…… I know now what you mean now! You believed the companies line of ‘pilots to retire at 60’….!!!!
There is your error.
It is complete and utter fiction.
ICAO has already stated that as from November 06 pilots can work until 65.
Fiction.
Cadet pilots starting on £25,000….???!
I am thanks. Several irons in the fire already as it happens. Because I will strike until I get my pension promise which is after all - deferred pay.
I don’t want your sympathy rzw30.
None of the 3500 pilots in BA need it thanks.
All I really want is the truth surrounding all this total SPIN from the company.
Strike.??
You can bet you very last Latte from Waitrose on it buddy.
PS What is the web address of the Water Worlders website please? I’m contemplating like to come and poke my nose into your business and tell mis truths too. I wonder how you would like it.???
The key to this website is the first word in the name of it.
Pilot.
Its not the Office Person RUmour NEtwork
:mad:

Well more the fool you. I'm sure there are slave labourers in sweat shops working 48 hours non-stop, makes your city job (which you were no doubt hugely rewarded for) look easy.

If you come home breazy [sic] and fresh after a 12 hour day then you must be getting some easy lines because after a 3/4/3 early morning tour I was anything but.

I stand corrected
 

Hand Solo - many apologies. You are quite right - it's "breezy". Sorry.

Rzw30 - bet you're glad you bothered now. Look on the bright side - at least you won't have to sit in a confined space for days on end with these guys.

Let me guess, you're Gatwick based.

SlowDescent,

If you're daft enough to work for this bunch of thieves without being to prepared to protect what you signed up for (albeit what you signed up with BARP is a little different to what I signed up for), then you'll deserve everything you get I'm afraid.

Just think what will happen to the payscales if this goes through? Not sure how old you are but if you ever think you'll get to pay point 24, there's unlikely to be one by that time.

Think about the bigger picture.

Rzw,

What's the worst that can happen to you if you make a mistake at work because you're tired?

Now think of the worst thing that can happen to me.

....and the 400 odd bodies sat behind Human Factor.

Chaps & Girls,

You are showing a complete lack of appreciation for non-flying jobs, which is doing the PR for your cause no good whatsoever.

rzw30 & BKB:

BA has still many holdovers of inefficiency from state ownership; for example it is well known that there are many more managers at BA than Lufthansa or other comparable airline using any metric you wish. Equally, there will be a lot of pain as efficiencies are gained as people and the company have to learn what is and what is not core business - what can and what cannot be eliminated.

That surely manifests itself most clearly in the awful transport situation (caused I might add by a union), and the terrible forced draft policy (created by poor recruitment and planning - and lack of attractiveness of BARP).

BKB

You might take note that many of your colleagues non-flying also work across time zones and work as many and sometime more hours than the pilot group. It is not really comparable to complain of a 5-day rostered tour of Europe, where non-flying staff may not even have such forecast stability in the work that they are doing, having to react to events and get things done - and that is including forced draft and transport delays.

It would appear to me that rzw30 asked more for a little empathy and solidarity than a retelling of your superiority as a pilot.

2000 to 0600 example is again poor, incomparable to those time performed by many office workers who often do more, and divorce unfortunately is pervasive everywhere. Focus on the issue.

If you had any idea about the contract, it is not a promise and has never been a promise. It is not enforceable in court. I agree - as I have said before - that unilateral cuts are immoral. It is not however illegal and is not included in any way, shape or form as deferred pay in any company accounts. It is a moral obligation that has been made - which upon valuation appears dire thanks to the multiple cockups of this country's government, actuaries and accountants. The year-end's valuation may eliminate all defecit when the markets are better, but it does not detract from the fact that it is the most rubbish defecit of all the FTSE companies.

Get it?

Human Factor

There are no unions in these investment banks and city firms, and these people are no fools. The employers are not theives, but know how to run a business to obtain maximum productivity from their staff and maximum profits. Refusal to work hours required results in instant dismissal. Unions are not recognised and collective bargaining is unheard of. Why is this acceptable? Because there is a real incentivisation to work to progress. There is no seniority based upon years of employment and no annual pay rise. Make it to the top and you will be well rewarded.

That is why they literally print money - every person in those companies is incentivised to work. These people own BA and value your company and keep us all richer through driving the economy. You are not asked to work to their levels nor to sell your soul, but to earn a return on their capital. How many billions do you think Goldman Sachs made this quarter? Take a look at their results - and the amount of capital on which they make that figure, in a MORE competitive environment than that in which BA operate.

This is the reality of capitalism. If you don't like it then buy out BA and change it to a charitable trust!

It is a common misnomer that only safety is of importance in the airline. Of course it is important in a pilot's job, but do you really think you exist in isolation?

I therefore leave it to your imagination as to what happens when the company fails to file the Form 10-K with the SEC on time, where criminal penalties exist and the airline ceases to exist when liquidated by creditors. Feel free to imagine what the aforementioned capitalists will do if you continue to perform as currently.


In conclusion - some people's lack of empathy for their co-workers is appalling, and your PR is dire.

Engage brain before opening mouth (or typing).

Re-heat,

... because if I were, it would be illegal.

There may not be for you but there is for me. I knew that when I signed up. The compensation for not being able to move sideways between companies is a decent pension.

Suggest you engage yours and imagine being on that same aeroplane....

HF

It was you who said that city types were fools for working long hours, and I drew no comparisons with the flight deck in my rebuttal - I was setting the record straight.

My last point (quoted by yourself above) clearly relates to you considering the wider airline and the immediate and serious implications of others not performing their job. I repeat - ground staff too can cause as immediate consequences as an aviation disaster in running a company.

I shall await a constructive response to reply further...quite clearly my main point are so strong that you have to resort to plain obnoxiousness?

Actually I believe it was I who described the city types as fools, or more specifically Slow Descent for his complaints about working 36 hours non-stop. If you work in the city and accept the money then you accept the hours. No point complaining about how hard you're working if thats what you signed yp to and thats what triggers your bonus.

I signed up to a job with a pensions plan and accepted the sacrifices in career progression, salary and lifestyle that entailed. Now I'm being asked to make more sacrifices whilst seeing that pension snatched away. Do you think the city boys would be staying at Goldman Sachs if the management told them there'd be no more bonuses because the company had to use the money to invest in the business?

And as the accountant employed by BALPA as part of the team to analyse the proposals said when asked the significance of that his reply was that it makes a good headline and errrr.....that's it or words to that effect.

It is a great shame that once again a thread degenerates into willy waving because an office worker in the same company is brave enough to politely express an opinion.

Any chance we could stick to the debate, I find the smouldering martyr style posts quite demeaning?

Re-heat,

Where, exactly?

Agreed but they're unlikely to kill themselves and take a few hundred others with them when they do it.

It was more the "daft enough to work for a bunch of thieves" comment to which I drew particular attention to quash.

Yes, changing working conditions will draw particular ire from any employee group whom is used to one situation or another (BOTH pilots, support staff, managers and groundcrew); the real difference is that the large change has not yet happened from the state-owned BA to the privately-owned BA. I think that the appreciation that the company is not able to support people NOT working to the max is not there, but it should be - because what else do you expect from a company that has to compete with othere who do?

True, if one works in the city that is taken as part and parcel of the job, but there needs to be more appreciation that we are all professinals working for companies whose needs are not fixed in stone and do change. Whatever you pay a Goldman Sachs banker, you will still irk him and his family to send him to NY over an Easter when he has planned other things.

Nobody is trying to compare the two since, as you rightly say:

The difference is that in the real world the Goldman bonuses are snatched away in the bad times, but people still fight for the jobs as there always remains the prospect of future riches - and when that occurs the whole market is suffering so there are no job alternatives.

The comparison that can be made is that both are companies owned by shareholders who require a return, and with creditors who must be paid. Why would you want to own a company with bolshy, self-important employees, who cannot empathise with how their fellow employees have to work to keep the whole thing together, and erode the value of your company?

The PR needs to be better to get any empathy from the public.


HF Apologies - I misread one of your lines above - it was not you!

I am not diminishing the importance of safety. I am stressing that it is not all that is important. What is the value of a very safe uneconomic company? NIL

Apology accepted. This will be my last post in this particular argument.

From a PR point of view, we neither need nor want public empathy. We require BA to honour a promise which it has been proven that it can afford - as well it should, being the most profitable airline in the world. A little research on the internet will reveal this evidence.



I'm inclined to agree with you in fact. There are numerous examples within BA of where this is the case, which I will leave to others to detail if they see fit. The Flight Operations department is not one of them. On longhaul, most pilots are regularly working to maximum LEGAL annual hours and have been for several years. It is starting to become the case on shorthaul as well. In the past, it was difficult to achieve this due to inefficient rostering by the company. There has to be some slack in the system to take into account the unforeseen - diversions and bad weather disruption, for example. This slack has been eroded to the extent that it is now no longer there in practical strength and a significant disruption now results in chaos.



I couldn't agree more, being one of the "fellow employees" who tries to hold everything together every time I turn up, despite the best efforts of others to prevent it.

Night.;)

rzw30:

Were you working for BA in Lord King's time? If so then you might remember or be interested to know that 3 people in Laker Airways commited suicide when we were put out of business. One of them was a very young engineering apprentice which was particularly sad.

As a proportion of the BA workforce you have another 30 - 40 suicides to go before you can catch up pro-rata.

That is not a very nice prospect but I cannot see that this can be prevented for all of the departments in the world's favourite airline seem to love each other so much.

Re-Heat, it's interesting that you talk about our lack of empathy with other workers. I'm sure for most of us the real world experience is quite the opposite - most other workers we meet, in fact most people in general, have a totally blinkered view of what we do, largely based on hearsay and films. No amount of good PR will change that. It's we who need to be on the receiving end of some positive empathy!

I would also hazard a guess that a large number of us have experience of doing other jobs at one time or another, while few other workers have experience of being a professional pilot. So this lack of empathy you accuse us of hardly seems to hold water as a factual proposition.

But anyway, that is all just a distraction from your main argument, which would appear to be that the management do everything for the good of an efficient, profitable company, and the pilots do everything they can to stop them because they are prone to laziness and out of touch with 'real' work.

Perhaps too simplistic for you? Well that's how it's coming across. Aren't management human as well? Do they never have their own little hidden agendas which might not always be for the total good? Do they never try to push the boundaries? See how much productivity they can squeeze out of people? Or maybe they'll be in a perfect Adam Smith type capitalist utopia once they get rid of those pesky pilots.

The only people who care about the pilots' terms and conditions are the pilots. How could you not expect them to fight their corner? Would management do anything different?

I could quote the number of pilots within BA and known to me who have also taken their own lives.

No group in any company has exclusive rights to conditions so awful that employees commit suicide, it is a sad fact that it happens in all areas of life and the comparisons are as meaningless as they are tasteless.

I find this constant "BA are the most profitable airline in the world therefore they can afford to pay" angle quite interesting.

Certainly someone who made a long-term investment decision based on a possibly isolated "purple patch" that cannot yet be proven as part of a trend combined with a possible $100 oil price and interuption of Iranian supply (as a result of conflict no less!) has no business being in charge of an airline.

Fortunately, WW is not a moron, unlike the people making this suggestion!

M.Mouse:

I quite agree that bringing up the subject of suicide could be considered as tasteless but it was one of your lot that raised the subject in the first place and I was simply trying to point out that this was nothing new.

I have had five personal experiences of this phenomena in my life and every one of them was inexplicable.

Two of them worked (many years ago) for a well-known airline at Luton and I believe their score for that year was four.

I apologise if you think I was taking a cheap shot but I also think that people who use the threat of mass suicide to defend their argument are generally not worth listening to.

BahrainLad - This "possibly isolated purple patch" stretches back from the day BA was privatised circa 1986 to the present time. During that period BA has only once failed to turn a profit. At all other times up to 2001 not only has the company been in the black it has returned a substantial amount of money to investors by way of dividends.

But then that was not very difficult when the tax payer gave you a whole airline and all of its infrastructure for next to nothing.

From where I was sitting the billiard table had just adopted an 80° tilt in the favour of BA.

Well thats your opinion but if it really was as easy as you claim then they'd have been raking in the profits for the previous umpteen years when they were state owned and bordering on a monopoly would they not? Perhaps you still think they have a monopoly and thats why they are profitable today?

It may indeed come across as arguments of mine that support management, however I assure you that this is quite the contrary - I am well aware of the appalling quality that you have to endure. I post to ensure that one-sided tosh is not allowed to stand, and that some understanding of the real economics of the business is communicated.


Let me give you a prime example of poor management decisionmaking:

BA, as we all know eliminates jobs within the support functions quite frequently, however is fairly averse to paying out redundancy payments for compulsory redundancy.

They therefore are - at the very moment - offering roles to people who should by rights be fired as their roles are no longer required, within the highly specialised role of financial internal audit.

Whilst you might expect this role to be one that is filled by a qualified accountant, it is in fact one that is filled by people who are neither qualified for the role nor have appropriate accountancy qualifications - yet another example of the prime state-run company mentality pervading, years after the company has been privatised.

Your managers will continue to be utterly useless until they ensure that qualified people work in appropriate jobs, and that they hire from outside - even in the current environment of being an attack on the cost base - to ensure that top class is retained.

Maximum

I have contributed today as I am neither anti-flight crew nor pro-management, but that a Waterside employee posted a valid comment, but for which he was ridiculed by unempathetic posters.

Yes - I do believe that there are large elements of the company that are inefficient, and, I know that there are further inefficiencies. These must be shared.

Hmm - bilaterals restricting N Atlantic competition - not far off. What % slots are controlled at Heathrow - prime airport of the pre-eminent European financial capital?

Hmmm...seem to recall BA before privatisation was characterised by a heavily unionised, inefficient workforce willing to see the airline go to the wall rather than.....oh, wait...

JW411

I didn't think you were taking a cheap shot I just felt the direction of the thread was not one that was pleasant or productive to pursue.

Far less than any other flag carrier at their home airport actually.

Except in those days it didn't make a profit and certainly I wouldn't class the pilot workforce of today in BA, the only group I am truly qualified to judge, as 'heavily unionised and inefficient'.

If I didn't know better I would think you had an axe to grind.

No axe to grind at all (although it always seems to come back to that, doesn't it?) other than the fact that there are a hell of a lot of people, inside and out of BA (look at the commercial impact on London having a world-class airline calling it home for instance) who stand to loose a great deal if the airline goes to the wall, and we are slightly concerned at phrases such as "I'd rather see the airline go under than let these bastards win" which are about as selfish as they are irrational and inaccurate...

Certainly inaccurate because anybody who cares to read the company accounts and make a decent analysis can see that BA is in a far from tenuous position. Perhaps you would be happy for your management to help themselves to obscene amounts of money while telling you that your retirement will be less comfortable than you had planned and worked for and by the way it will continue to get worse for the rest of your natural life.

Seems fair to me.