Poll: Do you support the BA Cabin Crew 12 day strike at Christmas?

Do you support the BA Cabin Crew 12 day strike?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 12.5%

  • No

    Votes: 656 87.5%
  • Total voters
    750
  • Poll closed .
"andy" said:
its not ideal for BA but im sure that some of our million unemployed would be happy to learn these jobs
Click to expand...

It is quite complex you know?
They have to walk up and down with a trolley that they fill up from cupboards.
Don't forget about the Health & Safety check that they have to get in the right order.
They also look if you've got your belt fitted right and then they have to press play on a video machine.
 
dmpoole said:
It is quite complex you know?
They have to walk up and down with a trolley that they fill up from cupboards.
Don't forget about the Health & Safety check that they have to get in the right order.
They also look if you've got your belt fitted right and then they have to press play on a video machine.
Click to expand...

Don't forget also that the heathrow staff are so incompetent they can't make the things that have been happening under BA at other airports work without extra people...
 
"andy" said:
even still its got little to do with it. theres loads of people DESPERATE for jobs. BA and anyone else can afford to be picky.

if those jobs where advertised in the job centre tomorrow, even at lower wages than any other airline their would still be hundreds/thousand of applicants. how much does training cabin staff cost ? is it as much as these strikes are costing them ? doubt it
Click to expand...

If only it were so easy. Cabin Crew are trained and tested to a very high level, the failure and dropout rates are high, especially for a service industry.

Replacing tens of thousands of employees in one fell swoop would be impossible as well as extremely foolish and expensive. Besides which it would be illegal to sack them under current legislation so BA would be liable for thousands of wrongful dismissal cases.

Epic fail.
 
BA report a pre tax loss of £531m. They are going to run them into the ground, why can't they see the big picture!?
 
xibinim said:
BA report a pre tax loss of £531m. They are going to run them into the ground, why can't they see the big picture!?
Click to expand...

Because management are short sighted and more concerned with establishing their own legacy as a union breaker rather than looking after shareholder's interests. Totally sucks to see a once-great British company being ruined for personal gain by the CEO :(
 
scorza said:
Because management are short sighted and more concerned with establishing their own legacy as a union breaker rather than looking after shareholder's interests. Totally sucks to see a once-great British company being ruined for personal gain by the CEO :(
Click to expand...


what??? :confused::confused::confused:

he is not doing it for personal gain?? he is trying to cut BA costs to make the company profitable.

its the union that are killing this company not willie walsh.

how anyone is defending this action beggars belief.
 
gjrc said:
what??? :confused::confused::confused:

he is not doing it for personal gain?? he is trying to cut BA costs to make the company profitable.

its the union that are killing this company not willie walsh.

how anyone is defending this action beggars belief.
Click to expand...

+1 if he gives in to the Union, BA go under and he's out of a job too and all of the staff.

What a bizarre comment that it's all for personal gain
 
gjrc said:
what??? :confused::confused::confused:

he is not doing it for personal gain?? he is trying to cut BA costs to make the company profitable.

its the union that are killing this company not willie walsh.

how anyone is defending this action beggars belief.
Click to expand...

BA was profitable until Walsh bought a load of fuel at record prices and then engineered this strike, partly to deflect attention away from the fuel screw up and partly to raise his profile as a union breaker. No doubt we can expect a book from him which all the Torybois on this forum will buy and jizz over.

I love how anyone who doesn't agree with the "management screw-up, workers pay for it" paradigm is instantly labelled as a communist on this forum lol :rolleyes:
 
This strike is not actually to do with the initial concerns that the Union had, it is because old Willie is not giving the staff their Staff Travel Concession back at the same level of what they had before the whole facade started.

So for that reason i do not agree with this strike, this is all wbout their own personal gains. If i went on strike i would be sacked quicker than i could say the word Strike!
 
scorza said:
Because management are short sighted and more concerned with establishing their own legacy as a union breaker rather than looking after shareholder's interests. Totally sucks to see a once-great British company being ruined for personal gain by the CEO :(
Click to expand...

BA has been in trouble long before Walsh came on the scene because their massive employment costs are a legacy of when BA was a state run monopoly... (Remember, I quoted the long term earnings/profits for you earlier in the thread when you made the same incorrect claim)

Changing the conditions for new staff while keeping the old ones the same is absolutely the fairest way of trying to fix this long term, I really can't see why the Union is so opposed to protecting their current members while allowing the company restructuring opportunities with new staff...
 
Reminds me of those idiotic Greek public sector workers protesting about cuts... See the bigger picture. Many, many companies have laid staff off or cut hours, and that's without taking into account the generous pay packet BA recieve.

Also, a simple view to take is that Willie Walsh's duty is to ensure value for his shareholders, business is cut throat, BA is no longer some publicly owned organisation that can get away with over paid staff.
 
lucasade1 said:
Also, a simple view to take is that Willie Walsh's duty is to ensure value for his shareholders, business is cut throat, BA is no longer some publicly owned organisation that can get away with over paid staff.
Click to expand...

I agree, and yet Walsh has delivered record losses for two years running (likely to be three because of the ash cloud and continuing industrial action that BA management engineered).

I also read that BA are sitting on £1.7bn of cash, isn't that the shareholder's money? Shouldn't the company be trying to compensate shareholders for the disastrous share price performance of Walsh's reign?
 
scorza said:
I also read that BA are sitting on £1.7bn of cash, isn't that the shareholder's money? Shouldn't the company be trying to compensate shareholders for the disastrous share price performance of Walsh's reign?
Click to expand...

That cash will soon be eaten up if the strikes and ash continue. The share price would be even lower if the Walsh had ignored problems and not attempted to cut back.
 
lucasade1 said:
That cash will soon be eaten up if the strikes and ash continue. The share price would be even lower if the Walsh had ignored problems and not attempted to cut back.
Click to expand...

The point is that businesses don't normally keep that sort of cash around, it normally goes to the shareholders. Why have BA built up such cash reserves? It's almost as if they knew there was going to be prolonged industrial action in the future, draw your own conclusions...
 
scorza said:
The point is that businesses don't normally keep that sort of cash around, it normally goes to the shareholders. Why have BA built up such cash reserves? It's almost as if they knew there was going to be prolonged industrial action in the future, draw your own conclusions...
Click to expand...

They know the union they are forced to recognise are a bunch of irrational *****?
 
scorza said:
The point is that businesses don't normally keep that sort of cash around, it normally goes to the shareholders. Why have BA built up such cash reserves? It's almost as if they knew there was going to be prolonged industrial action in the future, draw your own conclusions...
Click to expand...

Plenty of companies with shareholders have large amounts of cash.

Exxon Mobil - (XOM), Chart, Total Cash: $32.007 Billion
Cisco Systems - (CSCO), Chart, Total Cash: $29.531 Billion
Apple - (AAPL), Chart, Total Cash: $25.647 Billion
Berkshire Hathaway - (BRK.A), Chart, Total Cash: $25.539 Billion
Pfizer Inc - (PFE), Chart, Total Cash: $23.731 Billion
Toyota Motor - (TM), Chart, Total Cash: $23.151 Billion
Microsoft - (MSFT), Chart, Total Cash: $20.298 Billion
Google - (GOOG), Chart, Total Cash: $15.846 Billion
Royal Dutch Shell - (RDS.A), Chart, Total Cash: $15.188 Billion
Wyeth - (WYE), Chart, Total Cash: $14.54 Billion
IBM - (IBM), Chart, Total Cash: $12.907 Billion
Johnson & Johnson - (JNJ), Chart, Total Cash: $12.809 Billion
Intel - (INTC), Chart, Total Cash: $11.843 Billion
Hewlett Packard - (HPQ), Chart, Total Cash: $11.255 Billion
Oracle - (ORCL), Chart, Total Cash: $10.646 Billion
 
sanaxe1 said:
Plenty of companies with shareholders have large amounts of cash.

Exxon Mobil - (XOM), Chart, Total Cash: $32.007 Billion
Cisco Systems - (CSCO), Chart, Total Cash: $29.531 Billion
Apple - (AAPL), Chart, Total Cash: $25.647 Billion
Berkshire Hathaway - (BRK.A), Chart, Total Cash: $25.539 Billion
Pfizer Inc - (PFE), Chart, Total Cash: $23.731 Billion
Toyota Motor - (TM), Chart, Total Cash: $23.151 Billion
Microsoft - (MSFT), Chart, Total Cash: $20.298 Billion
Google - (GOOG), Chart, Total Cash: $15.846 Billion
Royal Dutch Shell - (RDS.A), Chart, Total Cash: $15.188 Billion
Wyeth - (WYE), Chart, Total Cash: $14.54 Billion
IBM - (IBM), Chart, Total Cash: $12.907 Billion
Johnson & Johnson - (JNJ), Chart, Total Cash: $12.809 Billion
Intel - (INTC), Chart, Total Cash: $11.843 Billion
Hewlett Packard - (HPQ), Chart, Total Cash: $11.255 Billion
Oracle - (ORCL), Chart, Total Cash: $10.646 Billion
Click to expand...


quick draw some conclusions!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom