British Airways strikes - here we go again

[Icy Gull]

BA cabin crew vote for fresh strike - ttglive

 

[Easy 10]

Nobody deserves a dole queue more than that mob. And I sincerely hope they join one soon.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

When Bank Holidays come around, so do BA strikes.

They are lucky to have jobs.

 

[sten_super]

Doesn't this news just show how well BA have handled the whole thing? The union have been railroaded away from the main issue (cuts in staffing numbers) into voting about BA's treatment of striking staff, an issue in which seemingly the majority of the general public support BA. This gives the impression of a union/workforce that is out of touch with the general populace and a company desperately fighting to maintain 'common sense'.

Willie Walsh may not be a very nice piece of work but he's played this one to perfection, IMO.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

British Airways are turning into the new British Leyland.

 

[Reids-Belly]

One of the many reasons i'm glad my wife works for Virgin Atlantic.

 

[Peever]

Makes me happy that my flights to England are not with BA

 

[Icy Gull]

BA handled the last strike very well, with minimal disruption and most passengers being offered close alternatives, if their flight was affected, days before they flew. I imagine they will be equally as organised this time.

I am just staggered that so many cabin crew continue to think that they have even a remote chance of winning here and continue to vote to strike.

 

[El Presidente]

One of the many reasons i'm glad my wife works for Virgin Atlantic.

I bet the uniform helps too

 

[Simster]

It doesn't say as much, but didn't Walsh threaten to pull the plug on dirt cheap travel for striking cabin crew, and then carried that out? I'm actually suprised that what BA have done is legal to be honest because whilst those benefits weren't contractual obligations, they were very much implied, and Walsh has basically bullied these people into never striking again and whilst this is inconvenient to the rest of us, really ought to be properly protected.

I guess what I'm saying is that this strike is actually far more justified than the last one IMO.

 

[sten_super]

It doesn't say as much, but didn't Walsh threaten to pull the plug on dirt cheap travel for striking cabin crew, and then carried that out? I'm actually suprised that what BA have done is legal to be honest because whilst those benefits weren't contractual obligations, they were very much implied, and Walsh has basically bullied these people into never striking again and whilst this is inconvenient to the rest of us, really ought to be properly protected.

I guess what I'm saying is that this strike is actually far more justified than the last one IMO.

But Walsh must have known exactly what he was doing at the time. The travel benefits are no great cost to the company, and their removal was a purely symbolic gesture which Walsh knew would rile the unions. He's reduced the union from what may well be (I don't know enough of the ins and outs of it to say for definite) genuine grievances to striking in order to get pay back for people who were 'genuinely' ill during the last strike. He's made them look complete fools.

 

[Easy 10]

It doesn't say as much, but didn't Walsh threaten to pull the plug on dirt cheap travel for striking cabin crew, and then carried that out? I'm actually suprised that what BA have done is legal to be honest because whilst those benefits weren't contractual obligations, they were very much implied, and Walsh has basically bullied these people into never striking again and whilst this is inconvenient to the rest of us, really ought to be properly protected.

I guess what I'm saying is that this strike is actually far more justified than the last one IMO.

The removal of 'perks' for staff who decided to strike was, I think, quite justifiable. Remember, the ORIGINAL reason for the strikes was essentially the reduction in the number of trolly-dollys for long-haul, and the expectation for supervisors to muck-in and help serve us plebs (this was described as an "imposition" on them, if I remember rightly).

Those reasons for their strike still stand, nothing has changed in that respect. Why on earth should BA continue to provide perks to staff who are STILL prepared to walk out on them ?

 

[Icy Gull]

. Remember, the ORIGINAL reason for the strikes was essentially the reduction in the number of trolly-dollys for long-haul, and the expectation for supervisors to muck-in and help serve us plebs (this was described as an "imposition" on them, if I remember rightly).

/QUOTE]

Which would have brought them in line with other airlines, with lower paid staff, and their BA colleagues at Gatwick.

They were told their travel perks would be removed if they went on strike so no sympathy from me, I hope they don't get them back.

 

[Simster]

The removal of 'perks' for staff who decided to strike was, I think, quite justifiable. Remember, the ORIGINAL reason for the strikes was essentially the reduction in the number of trolly-dollys for long-haul, and the expectation for supervisors to muck-in and help serve us plebs (this was described as an "imposition" on them, if I remember rightly).

Those reasons for their strike still stand, nothing has changed in that respect. Why on earth should BA continue to provide perks to staff who are STILL prepared to walk out on them ?

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.

 

[Easy 10]

Exactly.
The UNITE union and the strikers have tried to dress it up as being a "health and safety" issue concerning the reduced number of staff for long-haul, when other airlines routinely function with those numbers and have done for years. If there was any danger to passengers then the CAA would hardly allow it to go on, would they.

Am I right in saying BA are looking to reduce the numbers from 19 to 17 (with NO redundencies) ? I'm sure it was something like that.

 

[The Spanish]

if you have any frequent flyer status with BA Air France/KLM will match it for a year for free if you get your application in before 31 March. Smart move.

 

[Icy Gull]

if you have any frequent flyer status with BA Air France/KLM will match it for a year for free if you get your application in before 31 March. Smart move.

Except no Silver or Gold BA card holder is gonna switch to using indirect Air France and KLM flights in preference to BA's direct ones unless they are flying to France or Holland. If they are long haul Business travellers KLM and AF cabins are well inferior to BA's imo. Can't see a big uptake myself.

 

[The Spanish]

Except no Silver or Gold BA card holder is gonna switch to using indirect Air France and KLM flights in preference to BA's direct ones unless they are flying to France or Holland. If they are long haul Business travellers KLM and AF cabins are well inferior to BA's imo. Can't see a big uptake myself.

they have as of today an 8 week waiting list for the offer and the offer only came online last week so with respect the figures speak for themselves. they are shocked themselves at the uptake believe me. I have BA gold and make that in 3 months and will seriously consider shifting to connect AMS or CDG for the rest of the year if necessary if there are problems, and I have the status that gives me lounge access and more likely bump ups with them if there are BA problems.

I am always loyal to BA but morale is at an all time low and that is reflected in the cabin service often. I would not fly AF unless I have to but if I have to which could be likely if this carries on I am not missing this offer, I know many people feel the same.

 

[bhaexpress]

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). However the downside is that a lot of totally blames BA employees will suffer. What should be remembered is that the original strike was due to Heathrow staff not wanting to adopt the the operational workings of BA staff at Gatwick and that of most other long haul airlines.

Still this is good news for Virgin, British Midland and various others although I would hate to fly long haul with either Easyjet or Heaven forbid, Ryanair. Personally if flying to the US I'd fly American or Continental, for any other long haul it would be Emirates or Etihad.

 

[The Spanish]

Personally if flying to the US I'd fly American or Continental

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