[binabdulaziz]

Geohoveuk and N Tarrant, please to stop this fighting.

Your strong views different end of rainbow, not mix, no point continuing.

This strike very bad for British Airways, many customers don’t care who’s fault, just book other company.

Have flight booked next week 18th, hope it operate, important meeting in London.

[Account_Deleted]

Account deleted

[JonathanCohen09]

Geo,

you are still very vocal on the subject but have refused two requests to tell us what you would do if you were to replace WW as the CEO of BA.
Why will you not answer that simple question?

I totally respect your right to hold the views that you do but am frustrated that you will not say how you would fix the probles that you are keen to attack WW for the way that he is trying to fix them.

You have also not responded to the posts about your ‘far-right’ or ‘Nazi’ comments, again i would ask why not?

[Potakas]

Who would imagine a year like this for BA? strikes at the easter then volcanic ash and now 20 days of strike? Although i am a supporter of WW and i cannot know the truth exactly about the talks with the unite i am sure he is doing something wrong here.

He should be more aggressive with BA’s future decisions or he should give up to the unite and just compromise with them, i can’t see how the things can get harder.

At 9th of june BA will count 28 days of strikes and probably another 10 days in total affected from those strikes and those days are just for the half of 2010.

I can understand that maybe it is not his fault but who from us could believe that he would be a CEO to an Airline without being kicked out, that doesn’t flight properly for a month in a six month period and after so much damage to BA’s Brand name? He should find a solution or he should just step aside.

At the end of the day he is working for BA and the talks shouldn’t be something personal , it’s business and nothing more.

[VintageKrug]

Those who are calling for compromise are probably not aware of the long history of Union influence on British Airways, dating back to the early 80s when it was still a State run airline.

To compromise now would only postpone this unrest for a later date; previous CEOs fudged the issues and that is why WW is proposing new crew face a more dramatic re-alignment of salary/T&Cs than would otherwise be the case.

And geo, this is not a temporary period of poor financial performance; it is structural, which means it is a long term phenomenon brought about by high fuel costs, increases in taxes and lower cost competition worldwide.

Continuing this action could lead to even worse T&Cs for even existing crews (whose T&Cs would be largely unaffected under the current offer), a significantly smaller airline, and the loss of pension benefits for former employees.

BA would be entirely within its rights to offer 90 days notice of redundancy to those who choose to strike. I am a big supporter of BA crews, and also their right to union representation, but this has gone too far now, and WW much take tough action to weed out the troublemakers and those too ill-informed to realise how selfish their decision to strike is.

So, we ask you again: what would you do if you were CEO of BA?

[BABenji]

Dissapointing, but not the end of the world. I’m due to fly LHR-ZRH on 24/5 and return on 28/5, so there is a strong possibility my flight will be affected.

Like many of us, I can’t afford to not be there, so an alternative will have to be found. For me, it’s a fly in the ointment. An invconvenience, but nothing any experienced traveller hasn’t experienced before (redirecting, missed connections etc). If I have to travel on another carrier for this particular journey, I will, but I will be back to BA and I will keep on flying with them.

I will continue to support the company and a British Institution. A brand which I associate with and the thousands of jobs it provides (directly and indirectly) in this country.

My view on those taking strike action is indifferent. I understand why, although I don’t agree with it. My company introduced a change in travel policy…Business class only for flights 8 hours or more. This means the same number of people flying, but with less revenue for BA. I’ve had to accept a change in my working conditions in order to ensure the survival of my company. The cause: less revenue for our company; the effect: less money to spend.

No, it’s not much fun, but that’s life sometimes.

[Account_Deleted]

Account deleted

[BABenji]

geohoveuk,

You are obviously very passionate about this issue and understandbly so. It is always going to be divisive. As you state:

“Doesn’t it suggest with the sheer bulk of crew who are actually willing to throw their support behind industrial action, they are willing to put their jobs on the line.”

The fact of the matter is that their jobs ARE on the line, and many more with them.

What are the consequences for the majority of customers? Speaking personally, I stand to lose a few hundred thousand FFP if BA were to go the way of the Dodo. If they cease to exist, I, and everyone else on here will continue to fly, but just with another carrier. Life will go on whether BA exists or not.

I hope that it does exist for many years to come. I hope that common ground can be found, but the fact of the matter is, that BA is not a charity. It is a business which (legally) is obliged to make a profit.

Amongst the many posts on the various forums are people saying how much cheaper they can fly to destination X with carrier Y etc etc.

These people are voting with their feet. Customers which may never return to BA…a problem for any business.

I myself have had my travel budget restricted meaning no more business class for me on mid-haul.

These facts cannot be denied, and while I know you have put forward the solutions offered by UNITE et al, these are obviously not acceptable to the business plan of BA. BA has a great responsibility to all its employees and not just Heathrow-based cabin crew. There are 10’s of thousands who rely on BA for their livelihood, and they must also be protected. Their willingness to see BA survive demonstrated by the number of volunteers from other areas of the business to train as “cabin crew” in order to keep as much of the service running as possible.

I do not want to see BA go bust. As pathetic as it may seem, I would be very sad if the worst was to happen. For as long as the pounds, shillings and pence do not add up, there is only one direction for a great company, which would be tragic.

[VintageKrug]

1. You talk of a period of “poor financial performance” and in an earlier post mentioned the Olympics will sort all this out for BA. I am sorry but this is far from the reality. This is a STRUCTURAL CHANGE in the global airline industry which requires long term cost base reduction.

Flight Crew are highly trained. Cabin crew are not, and are commoditised. There are significantly fewer flight crew than cabin crew. So it is essential that cabin crew re-adjust their expectations; quoted on the radio this am was the statistics that the average cabin crew salary at BA is £31k, same role at Virgin gets about £17k. You can quote statistics till blue in the face, but it is clear BA pays well above the market rate for cabin crew.

BASSA/Unite has protected jobs and salaries to such an extent that these are now hugely out of kilter with the market and unfortunately a sudden shock is needed.

2. I don’t advocate squashing the union. There are a limited number of troublemakers who are either too poorly informed or are simply militant to the core; they should be let go and let the vast majority of crew develop proper, constructive industrial relations with BA; if you doubt BA/WW’s ability to do this then look to the agreeemnts reached with pilots, engineers and other parts of the business.

3. You then talk about the “sheer bulk of crew who are actually willing to throw their support behind industrial action”.

First I would say that many are blinded by BASSA propaganda and believe BA cannot make them redundant or rescind staff travel. It can and it will.

Second you should look closely at the actual numbers who voted not to accept the latest BA offer. It works out at less than half of BA’s total cabin crew workforce. They are are not the vast bulk at all.

Third, you should also note that many staff (both regular and volunteer) turned up for work in the last strike and had to be turned away as flights had already been cancelled as a precautionary measure. That will not happen this time round. Even despite all that 85% of people booked to travel got to their destination.

Unite/BASSA has no bargaining position of strength as the strike will be ineffectual. Support will get even weaker as the strike progresses.

[MartynSinclair]

Geo

I just said the 2 sides to every story message in another blog.

From one person who is anti everything a union stands for and wanted to sack the entire BA staff for casuing my business and me personally so much grief and aggrovation, very slowly you are making me at listen consider what you are saying. At the very least, I like you believe that there are two sides to every story. I know some of your collegues and even the CSD’s on the old contract, should not be forced into giving up what is by definition a contratural right.

You may not win the likes of VK, NTarrant and Jonno 09 around and i am not saying i am one of your supporters, but, its a pity the managment dont listen a little bit more.

I still beleive that Sir C and Lord K would never have seen the airline in this state.

[VintageKrug]

Oh, please.

MartynSinclair you should be aware that no CSD or anyone on the old contracts or current have been asked to give up one jot of pay, benefits or entitlement were they to sign the offer which is on the table. It was the Union itself which suggested that cabin crew should take a (temporary) pay cut.

In a nutshell, this is my (layman’s!) understanding of the issue:

The contractual concerns relate to ensuring that future employees should be hired on existing T&Cs and salaries which is plainly unsustainable; BA has proposed something called new fleet which would be hired on salaries more akin to Virgin, and without all the specially union-negotiated route payments which can amount to hundreds of pounds.

Obviously there is a concern that new fleet people would eventually crew the whole airline, thus reducing the overall take home of existing crew and naturally diminishing the influence of the union itself.

BA has undertaken to ensure that existing crew do not miss out by guaranteeing flying payments equivalent to what they receive now EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FLY. That is more than generous. The Union does not believe BA, so they took strike action.

Geo can’t even understand the difference between an average figure and an actual figure *rolls eyes*. Does your friend who joined in 1997 have a basic salary of £18k on top of which the various allowances and extra route payments are added? Or does he just take home £18k per annum having worked the role for over a decade?

As I stated in my original post, we can argue statistics till the cows come home. The fact remains; BA pays too much for its cabin crew. Nor is it seeking to pay current crew less, it is only seeking to amend future contracts by creating new fleet. End of.

And I am not anything whatsoever to do with BA or its management. Though I think I already told you that in another thread.

[Account_Deleted]

Account deleted

[VintageKrug]

It is the Union which has proven unreliable. BA Management has been riock solid throughout this Industrial Action.

I have had to re-book one flight, moved from LHR to LCY (which will not be partaking in this strike action).

The change was handled swiftly and effectively by the call centre and at no extra charge, and I will maintain my other BA flights for the duration of the strike as they will be largely unaffected.

Cost reductions from Cabin Crew will save over £60m per annum, and are absolutely necessary for the future profitability of the airline, and the wider precedent of Industrial Relations (particularly amongst transport workers) in the UK.

[JonathanCohen09]

Hi Martyn,

it is not a case of trying to win people like myself, Nigel and VK around, it is just that we do not see what alternative there is. We have asked Geo to tell us what he would do if he were the CEO of BA but so far he has steadfastly refused to do so.

I speak as someone who has not used BA as my carrier of choice for many years but who does not want to see them go under. I may not use them but I do not bash them like many others on this forum.

I am hoping to use them for a forthcoming trip to TLV but the strike may prevent that happening, although I hope that it will not.

Geo-I voted with my feet some years ago before all of this industrial unrest, not because BA are a bad carrier but because I could not justify paying more to fly BA than I needed to to fly with other carriers.

Not many people may be aware of this but for some time Singapore Airlines flew from Amsterdam to JFK. I do not know if they still do or not but I flew F with them for less than the cost of a J class ticket with BA including the return to AMS which was with BA. There are always alternatives to any home carrier and people will make their choice based on many factors. Sadly many people will choose to fly with BA’s competitors because of the strike. You cannot lay all the blame at WW’s door for that.

That said, just because i do not fly with BA does not mean that I am not behind the management in their quest to make the carrier profitable again, i do not see the Union making the same effort.

Regards to all,

Jonathan

[rodders]

What planet does Unite think it is on? After the last round of strikes and the Ash issue, you would think they would be happy to get round the table, accept BA’s offer and jointly work out how to get BA back in the air, or am I missing something?

[Author]

Posts