British Airways strikes - here we go again

[Kinky Gerbil]

Well firstly, I absolutely agree with your stance on the first strike. It was diabolical reasoning and the striking staff were rightly pilloried by the public for whom they made lives a misery over a trivial but necessary cost cutting measure.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that the strike was called in a legitimate manner and members voted to strike fair and square. All totally above board. What I object to is big business encroaching on the rights of unionised staff to determine whether or not to strike irrespective of the outcome of that union ballot. For me, the threat of removing all uncontracted perks is tantamount to bullying, given that these perks had always existed for at least the previous 20 years at BA and removal had never been threatened prior to any other staffing dispute to my knowledge.

And ultimately, whilst I'm sure I'm in the minority amongst the general public regarding whose side I am on this time around, I also think that this is a particularly crap piece of management from Willie Walsh. Lets face it, the perks he has removed will mean that planes will fly half empty instead of seats being filled at cost. You should always pick your battles, and this one seems to me to be a particularly crap battle to pick, with the result that he now has a demoralised work force on his hands AND this strike action will cost BA a fortune.

Neither side covers themselves in glory here, but Walsh could have easily avoided this.

If its anything like my perks BA wont get anything from the seats being filled by staff, they just pay for the tax.

 

[Simster]

with respect, madness. american with their new product may at a push be worth a punt but continental? sorry doesnt compare.

As someone who has flown first class on 3 or 4 occasions on AA and "merely" Club Class on another 2 or 3 occasions by BA, I'd say AA doesn't compare either.

 

[The Spanish]

As someone who has flown first class on 3 or 4 occasions on AA and "merely" Club Class on another 2 or 3 occasions by BA, I'd say AA doesn't compare either.

bear in mind that US first is nowhere near what it means to european carriers (until the new AA product). two different beasts. BA's club transatlantic hard product knocks anything the US carriers offer transatlantc into a cocked hat. its just you get served by menopausal women with an excessive sense of entitlement and glamour by association - funnily enough the yanks love the snobbery on BA, to paraphrase Harold Shand.

 

[Simster]

Oh and if what you say is true about that offer, I'd say it's further evidence of shit management by Walsh, bearing in mind his job is all about the well being of BA. But I'm sure the caps doffed in his general direction by those members of the public who admire him standing up to the union by treating them as you and I might remove sweets from a naughty kid, will mean everything to BA shareholders as the firm loses 30-40% of its market share in the most profitable sectors because of avoidable strikes like this.

 

[Icy Gull]

The moral of the story is don't fly BA. The upside is that if they have financial difficulties they won't be able to run to the government to bail them out as they did in the eighties (so that Maggie could privatise them). .

Have to disagree, I can't see an upside in BA going bust, they are a good airline, even with all their problems.

 

[The Spanish]

Have to disagree, I can't see an upside in BA going bust

no ones going bust. if i was going to flog any british airline stock it would be virgin. up for sale and totally outdated business model and network in todays world. beardie knows it thats why he is tarting it about. he's not stupid. 40 bleeding aircraft while even carriers like turkish airlines are vying for a seat at the global table.

 

[Icy Gull]

no ones going bust. .

I agree just disagreeing with BHA. With regards to Virgin I've been told for years now, by city people, that Branson is too sharp for his own good and is gonna come unstuck in a spectacular fashion at some stage..still waiting.

 

[The Spanish]

Oh and if what you say is true about that offer.

why would i make that up.

http://www.thanks-by-flyingblue.com/


its not aimed at market share directly from the strikes, or BA for that matter, just a bit of a gamble in a difficult time that looks like it will pay off big time. big boys toys we are talking here its not for the faint hearted.

 

[Easy 10]

Oh and if what you say is true about that offer, I'd say it's further evidence of shit management by Walsh, bearing in mind his job is all about the well being of BA. But I'm sure the caps doffed in his general direction by those members of the public who admire him standing up to the union by treating them as you and I might remove sweets from a naughty kid, will mean everything to BA shareholders as the firm loses 30-40% of its market share in the most profitable sectors because of avoidable strikes like this.

I'm not waving a flag for Walsh here, but the flat refusal of his staff in not accepting the FACT that in the current economic climate just about every business across every industry in the country is HAVING to make operational changes just to survive, is staggering. Their jobs aren't even under threat (yet, anyway). Removing their perks was forewarned, and yes it is somewhat tit-for-tat, but why the hell should they be able to strike one day, then return to work and have a handily subsidised cheap flight to the Seychelles the next ?? Whilst its not going to help the situation, I can't bring myself to blame Walsh for his "hey, f*** you" attitude

 

[Simster]

I'm not waving a flag for Walsh here, but the flat refusal of his staff in not accepting the FACT that in the current economic climate just about every business across every industry in the country is HAVING to make operational changes just to survive, is staggering. Their jobs aren't even under threat (yet, anyway). Removing their perks was forewarned, and yes it is somewhat tit-for-tat, but why the hell should they be able to strike one day, then return to work and have a handily subsidised cheap flight to the Seychelles the next ?? Whilst its not going to help the situation, I can't bring myself to blame Walsh for his "hey, f*** you" attitude

You are really. You are happy for him to remove these perks because it serves them right. It's just that, in my opinion, he is not looking at the bigger picture which is that this trivial, avoidable strike will affect BAs bottom line.

As you say yourself, Walsh sticking to this bullying tactic will not help the situation at all. Apart from anything else, can you seriously believe that the staff at BA will do anything extra for the company under these conditions? He's made an absolute mess of company morale, and in the eyes of the strikers, it will simply justify their original strike action because they will now see it that they were standing up to a bully rather than what everyone else believes which is that the initial strike action was a disgrace.

 

[Easy 10]

You are really. You are happy for him to remove these perks because it serves them right. It's just that, in my opinion, he is not looking at the bigger picture which is that this trivial, avoidable strike will affect BAs bottom line.

As you say yourself, Walsh sticking to this bullying tactic will not help the situation at all. Apart from anything else, can you seriously believe that the staff at BA will do anything extra for the company under these conditions? He's made an absolute mess of company morale, and in the eyes of the strikers, it will simply justify their original strike action because they will now see it that they were standing up to a bully rather than what everyone else believes which is that the initial strike action was a disgrace.

If it was a trivial, avoidable strike then it would have been resolved before he decided to remove the perks. The original reasons for the strike have still not (to my knowledge) been resolved yet, so forget the perks row, these strikes were almost certainly going to be on the agenda again for those original reasons when the bank holidays started to loom anyway.

You're quite right though, removing the perks has only served to excaberate the problem. Rightly or wrongly, I'm just saying I can see Walsh's reasons.

 

[Simster]

If it was a trivial, avoidable strike then it would have been resolved before he decided to remove the perks. The original reasons for the strike have still not (to my knowledge) been resolved yet, so forget the perks row, these strikes were almost certainly going to be on the agenda again for those original reasons when the bank holidays started to loom anyway.

You're quite right though, removing the perks has only served to excaberate the problem. Rightly or wrongly, I'm just saying I can see Walsh's reasons.

But you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see Walsh's reasons. He didn't like the reason they chose to strike (like most of the rest of us) so he's tried to get his own back by removing benefits. That doesn't make it good management though. His crass stance is costing morale, and an avoidable strike (supported by 83% of the union) which will affect BA's bottom line as well as their public standing.

Seriously, what does he gain by sticking resolutely to his guns here?

 

[Cian]

why would i make that up.

http://www.thanks-by-flyingblue.com/


its not aimed at market share directly from the strikes, or BA for that matter, just a bit of a gamble in a difficult time that looks like it will pay off big time. big boys toys we are talking here its not for the faint hearted.

If it wasn't for the fact that KLM ran away from DUB and ORK ages ago (as did BA actually) I'd be tempted, it looks like they'd take my EI Gold card and actually give me something of use for it. Right now it lets me check in faster, and bog all else due to single class on the A320/321s and I don't do trans-atlantic much.

 

[drew]

Isn't the point that the original 'confrontation' was about Walsh's aim to break the union rather than anything else. Yes, many companies have had to cut costs but didn't the union submit plans that would equal the savings that were being proposed by management? With regard to the cabin crew cuts, there have been comments here that BA service knocks the opposition for six. Perhaps there is a very good reason for that and it might have something to do with staffing levels.

At the end of the day, I still think Willie Walsh is a mole planted in BA by Michael O'Leary!!!!

 

[Cian]

At the end of the day, I still think Willie Walsh is a mole planted in BA by Michael O'Leary!!!!

Walsh saved Aer Lingus at the time when O'Leary had them close to dying, he's anything but. The CEO of Qantas is another ex-Aer Lingus manager, for a company that's nearly hit the wall many, MANY times they seem to have produced a few solid heads.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see Walsh's reasons. He didn't like the reason they chose to strike (like most of the rest of us) so he's tried to get his own back by removing benefits. That doesn't make it good management though. His crass stance is costing morale, and an avoidable strike (supported by 83% of the union) which will affect BA's bottom line as well as their public standing.

Seriously, what does he gain by sticking resolutely to his guns here?

Possibly that his company isn't destroyed by the Unions in the same way as the proper British Car Manufacturing was and in the same way that coal mining was.

As for bullying, during one of the previous strikes there was a BBC documentary which showed that Union members were intimidating staff that choose to work. This included damaging their cars, silent phones calls, abusive language and simply ignoring them when the strikers actually bothered to turn up to work. The Unite union is stuck in the 70's, full of bullies and if you're a member they're not interested unless you work for a big company they want to bash. Hope they all loose their jobs and people more deserving are given them.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Isn't the point that the original 'confrontation' was about Walsh's aim to break the union rather than anything else. Yes, many companies have had to cut costs but didn't the union submit plans that would equal the savings that were being proposed by management? With regard to the cabin crew cuts, there have been comments here that BA service knocks the opposition for six. Perhaps there is a very good reason for that and it might have something to do with staffing levels.

In which case why aren't people saying that flights from Heathrow knock for the opposition for six but not those from Gatwick I know two people who work for BA at Gatwick and they think the strikers are the most selfish, childish, idiotic people on the planet. One of them is an engineer and I can't even post what he's called them as it would make the thread NSFW.

 

[Simster]

Possibly that his company isn't destroyed by the Unions in the same way as the proper British Car Manufacturing was and in the same way that coal mining was.

As for bullying, during one of the previous strikes there was a BBC documentary which showed that Union members were intimidating staff that choose to work. This included damaging their cars, silent phones calls, abusive language and simply ignoring them when the strikers actually bothered to turn up to work. The Unite union is stuck in the 70's, full of bullies and if you're a member they're not interested unless you work for a big company they want to bash. Hope they all loose their jobs and people more deserving are given them.

What a load of old bollocks. How is removing perks going to achieve anything other than put the backs up of the union? And more specifically, how will it ensure that the company isn't destroyed by unions? It is bullying, pure and simple.

 

[Tummy Burger]

I do not blame anyone on here for not having a clue what they are talking about. But just feel the need to let most of you know.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I cannot explain further on here, and no I am not Cabin crew. Feel free to PM me if you are really that bothered / interested and I can advise the facts.

 

[Easy 10]

Are the press reporting this all wrong then ?
Happy to be corrected if the facts and reasons for the strikes have been misreported. I can only go by what I've read.