BA Strike [Merged]

[clapham_gull]

You must be a COMMUNIST.

Although ironically, your original statement makes you sound like one yourself.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wouldn't say that, before the recession the main business of BA was corporate banking customers and they made a record profit in the year before the recession, so customers leaving isn't really true. Obviously since the recession, corporate customers have dried up and now BA are looking to the leisure customers hence investments in BA Holidays to set up Dynamic Packaging etc.

If he/BA did nothing then they would be in a worse condition (if possible!)

If you check Wikipedia you will see that since 2002 passenger numbers have been steadily declining year on year from 40 mill to 33 mill.

I admit they have still maintained a profit, in fact this has increased. Maybe they have been flogging off redundant planes or something?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Someone has - they're called Virgin.

I could not agree more. Certainly my airline of choice. I would question why anyone would actively choose BA. Does anyone actually seek out BA flights? If so why?

 

[severnside gull]

What most people forget is that staff travel at BA is not free and is 100% profit. If Willie Wlash wanted to use staff travel and a full fare paying passenger wanted the seat the paying passenger would get it. Mt brother has just been to Thailand with his wife on his 'freebie' which cost £275 with fuel taxes etc, cheap yes but not free. That £275 is all profit to BA except for any meals that they may have had, which would have been disposed of at the end of the journey if not eaten so again no cost to BA. What hasnt been said by Willie Walsh is that yes they are flying 80% more planes than expected but most are empty and are being flown with just cargo. There are 2 sides to every argument and Willie Walsh has cost BA an absolute fortune since he has been chairman with fines etc.

Not true that the payment of taxes etc by the employee is profit to BA (or any other airline)- it's profit to the airport authority and government not the airline.

The staff are using otherwise unoccupied seats but there is actually a theoretical cost to the airline in fuel to meet the extra payload

I have benefited from staff seats via a very tenuous family link so I'm not entirely supportive of BA and I do think it is petty and vindictive................. but in the circumstances it's the sort of knee jerk reaction I might make myself and it'll probably get public support as the strikers have alienated themselves from general public opinion.

In the current climate I think the union have badly misjudged the situation. The only people who would worry if BA went to the wall and these people all lost their jobs are those with tickets to fly at some future date and that is a diminishing number as people look to book with alternative (relatively reliable) airlines.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The BA staff at LHR and the cabin crews in particular have always considered themselves a higher breed of human being to anyone else.

Pay structures in airlines have always centred around skill and qualifications for certain jobs pertaining to the industry. Cabin crews have, historically, been given some credence to their existence by being "involved" with flight crews. This has reflected in their high remuneration for what is a very basic job, serving food and drink with a bit of safety advice thrown in. They are only trained in basic first aid even though a full medical kit including resuscitation equipment is available. Interestingly this can only be used if a qualified doctor is on board. Statistics have shown that there is a high chance that a qualified medic will be on most long haul aircraft, travelling as a passenger. Basic training only takes 8 weeks for a person to become cabin crew compared to flight crews 5 years.

Similarly staff working on the ground earn good money effectively on the backs of highly qualified engineers who take on average 3 years after their initial apprenticeship of 4 to 5 years to become licensed followed by constant refresher training. At LGW a huge number of cleaners (renamed Maintenance Workers) were employed to carry out basic functions such as hangar cleaning etc. These guys easily earn more money doing that than as qualified tool makers etc on the Manor Royal industrial estate. Many were in their own disciplines highly qualified however could earn far far more pushing a broom.

What is going on now has been simmering for so long within BA and the industry as a whole. Frankly these people should be content to still have a job which is in one of the most volatile industries. It can be affected by so many differing incidents such as recession here or abroad, terrorist activity, fuel costs, exchange rate etc etc. All of these outside influences are out of the managements hands but they are expected to react and react quickly. For instance BA were holding their own upto Sept. 11th then bang overnight their forecasts were shattered, no customers from their most profitable routes but they were still expected to survive. BA and Virgin done bloody well to overcome that many didn't!

I worked for B-Cal and then BA for 18 years as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer ending up in management. Sept 11th finished my job as Project Manager LGW overnight. I was offered a new position at LHR which I declined and as many like me went on unpaid leave for 6 months in which time I decided to fully leave and started my own business and to be honest I'm glad to out of the industry.

 

[robbie c]

BA Strike

any NSCers on strike at the moment and want to put their side of the story?

I'm with the management on this one as they need serious reorganisation to be a viable business which means that wages and workforce have to be competetive; from what I read BA staff get paid wads more than other airlines.

Unite seem to be throwing a hissy fit that they want their perks back of 90% discount on flights before they will start talking again.:US:

Do they declare these perks in their tax returns as a benefit in kind?

comments please

 

[Billy the Fish]

I heard an interview yesterday which gave a pointer to the mindset of the cabin crew.

"some people have been with the company 15 or 20 years, the cabin crew ARE British Airways"

They're living in a world that's 20 years ago, where cabin crew were on comparitivley big wages for an unskilled job. I bet if they all left you could replace them all within 4 weeks and do just as good a job. They are expendable but don't realise it. If all the engineers or the pilots left, then BA would have a problem.

In my job I get paid about 15% less than some of the older blokes for doing the same job, because I got into telecoms 2 years too late and alot of the money had gone from it. I have to live with it, if I ever stop being happy I'll just find another job, that's life.

 

[Uncle C]

I heard an interview yesterday which gave a pointer to the mindset of the cabin crew.

"some people have been with the company 15 or 20 years, the cabin crew ARE British Airways"

And the classic phrase "they are fighting for their rights".
What f***ing rights.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This is an interesting listen from the BBC :

The view of a non-striker

Be interesting if Unite allow members that don't want to strike to continue with out haressment and bullying - I doubt it - looks like a return to the "scab" bullying by the miners !

 

[Uncle C]

This is an interesting listen from the BBC :

The view of a non-striker

Be interesting if Unite allow members that don't want to strike to continue with out haressment and bullying - I doubt it - looks like a return to the "scab" bullying by the miners !

I think she says she earns £37,000 a year as cabin crew!

 

[drew]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the savings made by Walsh amounted to about £62.5m and the union proposed other savings to match this but were rejected by Walsh.

The big problem for us all is that we only get to hear what each side wants us to hear rather than the full facts. There will be spin from both sides.

However for some idiots on here to suggest no one should strike is ludicrous. Employees have a right to protect their earnings, especially if it is part of a written contract with their employer.

 

[beorhthelm]

Employees have a right to protect their earnings, especially if it is part of a written contract with their employer.

but they are not trying to protect their earnings, they are trying to resist changes to how they do perform their job, changes that dont go as far as others in the industry or even apparently in BA if you happen to be based in a different airport.

 

[drew]

but they are not trying to protect their earnings, they are trying to resist changes to how they do perform their job, changes that dont go as far as others in the industry or even apparently in BA if you happen to be based in a different airport.

Thanks for quoting me out of context. Marvellous.

 

[casbom]

However for some idiots on here to suggest no one should strike is ludicrous. Employees have a right to protect their earnings, especially if it is part of a written contract with their employer.

Er....their earnings aren't being touched?? If your talking about staff travel then that isn't part of the contract...it's a perk...not a right.

 

[seagullwedgee]

get back to work you lazy selfish past your best cnuts, or move on.

you should be ashamed.

 

[beorhthelm]

Thanks for quoting me out of context. Marvellous.

not out of context at all. merely bring it on to the topic. if you werent talking about the BA issue and strikes, you didnt make that clear. i agree with the right to strike, it just recent strikes have tended to be about union power, not real issues about protecting workers rights. as said, this stike has nothing to do with rights, its an abuse of the right to strike.

 

[seagullwedgee]

forgot to add OVERPAID.

strike is broken, and you're looking plain greedy and stupid now, and you've lost ALL public sympathy and support.

i spose you earn so much bloody money you just wanted a few days off over easter, eh? funny how the previous strike was also planned in the christmas holiday.

 

[drew]

Er....their earnings aren't being touched?? If your talking about staff travel then that isn't part of the contract...it's a perk...not a right.

Willie Walsh says it is discretionary but Unite say they will fight it. It doesn't have to be in a written contract to be 'contractual'. Customs and Practices can be deemed to be contractual under certain circumstances. I suspect the withdrawal of these 'perks' will be decided by an employment court rather than Willie Walsh.

not out of context at all. merely bring it on to the topic. if you werent talking about the BA issue and strikes, you didnt make that clear. i agree with the right to strike, it just recent strikes have tended to be about union power, not real issues about protecting workers rights. as said, this stike has nothing to do with rights, its an abuse of the right to strike.

So I make a general comment of 'However for some idiots on here to suggest no one should strike is ludicrous' and you use it specifically to BA. And that's not out of context!

 

[SussexHoop]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the savings made by Walsh amounted to about £62.5m and the union proposed other savings to match this but were rejected by Walsh.

The big problem for us all is that we only get to hear what each side wants us to hear rather than the full facts. There will be spin from both sides.

However for some idiots on here to suggest no one should strike is ludicrous. Employees have a right to protect their earnings, especially if it is part of a written contract with their employer.

It has beenmentioned that the savings proposed impacted on (predominantly non-Union?) staff at Gatwick rather than Unite members at Heathrow so you're absolutely right. Spin from both sides.

Everyone has the right to strike as employers have the right to terminate your contract if you refuse to fulfil it?