Scorza has no idea of how business actually works and would make a very bad CEO?
Last edited:
Poll: Do you support the BA Cabin Crew 12 day strike at Christmas?
- Thread starter Spie
- Start date
Scorza has no idea of how business actually works and would make a very bad CEO?
I agree with this statement
Scorza your statement about cash reserves proves the point you nothing about business and how things are run.
Do you work as a BA trolley dolly ?
Above examples in different industries picked at random:
Microsoft has $20bn cash on a market cap. of around $163bn (<15%)
Royal Dutch Shell has $15bn cash on a market cap. of around $138bn (<15%)
Toyota has $15bn cash on a market cap. of $108bn (<15%)
BA has cash reserves of £1.7bn on a market cap of £2.3bn (>70%). The main question however is what cash reserves do other airlines have, since there's not much point comparing companies in different industries.
Edit: LOL technically that makes the value of BA excluding its cash reserves a paltry £600m. Nice going Willie.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I agree that BA are not going to come out of this in good shape. However,I believe that Willie Walsh (and probably other less visible members of his management team) have now got themselves into a position where they are simply incapable of amicably resolving the dispute with the cabin crew.
It would probably be best for BA, the cabin crew, the shareholders and what few passengers BA will have left if Willie Walsh were to take his particular skills elsewhere; he is after all allegedly highly regarded as a CEO and should have no difficulty finding another job
I wouldn't disagree with the idea that Derek Simpson, Tony Woodley and probably various other Unite negotiators would also have to be distanced from the negotiations which should be conducted with the significant involvement of ACAS.
This has now been shown to be a battle between Willie Walsh & the Union movement as much as a battle to ensure a future for BA - Willie Walsh is dispensable.
I agree that BA are not going to come out of this in good shape. However,I believe that Willie Walsh (and probably other less visible members of his management team) have now got themselves into a position where they are simply incapable of amicably resolving the dispute with the cabin crew.
It would probably be best for BA, the cabin crew, the shareholders and what few passengers BA will have left if Willie Walsh were to take his particular skills elsewhere; he is after all allegedly highly regarded as a CEO and should have no difficulty finding another job
I wouldn't disagree with the idea that Derek Simpson, Tony Woodley and probably various other Unite negotiators would also have to be distanced from the negotiations which should be conducted with the significant involvement of ACAS.
This has now been shown to be a battle between Willie Walsh & the Union movement as much as a battle to ensure a future for BA - Willie Walsh is dispensable.
I'm sure the shareholders will act to remove Walsh if they agree with you...
Walsh is, however, demonstrating that the militant portion of the workforce is also dispensible...
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I keep hearing this faint phrase which seems to include the words "baby" and "bathwater"
Willie Walsh through his confrontational style and incompetent management is doing just as much as Unite to destroy BA; as you suggest, I am sure that he will not be at BA long-term.
I suspect also that BA will before long get taken over by Air India / Emirates / Gulf Air or someone else.
I keep hearing this faint phrase which seems to include the words "baby" and "bathwater"
Willie Walsh through his confrontational style and incompetent management is doing just as much as Unite to destroy BA; as you suggest, I am sure that he will not be at BA long-term.
I suspect also that BA will before long get taken over by Air India / Emirates / Gulf Air or someone else.
Gulf Air is a tiny airline with about 30 planes.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
BA is also worth a lot more due to it's share of slots at Heathrow, it's fleet (largest operator of 747s, for example), it's order commitments, it's lounges around the world, and not least of all because of it's lease of Terminal 5. A takeover would be near impossible by a rival airline unless they had billions to splash, which most don't at the moment.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
In this context, I think that "Gulf oil" money may have more to do wth it than the size of the Airline.
Incidentally, having travelled on Gulf Air and BA (as well as many other carriers) in the past, I would certainly rather travel Gulf Air than BA given the choice - American Airlines was unexpectedly good, Virgin was invariably a disappointment although you did get lots of "freebies" and BA always seemed remarkably "up themselves"
As I've said, BA's market cap is around £2.3bn. Ryanair could almost buy them with their cash reserves alone (plus they'd pick up £1.7bn of BA's cash if they did). BA is horribly mismanaged at the moment and as a result they are under-priced for their actual assets. I fear that unless there's a change of management soon BA will go under.
Look at another example poor CEO, Adam Crozier who tried to deflect his own shortcomings by engineering a strike with the CWU at Royal Mail. Now that he's left the Royal Mail are suddenly returning to profit. I think the same will happen when Walsh gets given the heave ho, unfortunately he seems to be intent on squatting in the hot seat at the moment.
Another terrible example where you show a lack of knowledge. Crozier's changes were pretty much all accepted, and are the reason for the increased profits as and after he left.
I would imagine Walsh will do something similar, given his reputation as a troubleshooter.
I don't really understand the whole ins & outs of the deal on the table but I do question a work force that would go on strike after there company has announced record losses.
Having said that I do defend the right to with draw ones labour so I am ****** on this one.
Having said that I do defend the right to with draw ones labour so I am ****** on this one.
In this context, I think that "Gulf oil" money may have more to do wth it than the size of the Airline.
Incidentally, having travelled on Gulf Air and BA (as well as many other carriers) in the past, I would certainly rather travel Gulf Air than BA given the choice - American Airlines was unexpectedly good, Virgin was invariably a disappointment although you did get lots of "freebies" and BA always seemed remarkably "up themselves"
Weird, I found American to be awful, Virgin had the best in flight Linux based entertainment system and BA have always been pretty good to me as well. I have no doubt Gulf Air are brilliant - they cater for a certain market sector (Gulf oil does play a part yes) and they sponsor the best football team in the World. Their arabic logo has been in my sig for a few years now, although it does make some of the OcUK resident racists think I'm a dirty furriner which is also amusing.
However, they are in a completely different sector to BA on the whole and they are a rich airline for a reason - why would they want such a drastic transformation?
Last edited:
That is the epitomy of geekness
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
Yeah it's called fuel hedging...
Why would you make out that they did it on purpose? Do you even know what its for? Back in the time they did it analysts forecasted a barrel of oil to be close to $200 IIRC. And it's not like WW HIMSELF solely made the decision.
Huh? I was talking about when BA hedged aload of fuel back in late 2008 when fuel prices were at record highs with the fear that they would rise further. The volatility and fluctuations in price then showed this to be a bad move - the price, against the forecasted predictions, dropped by 60%.
And since fuel is an overhead and the fact that its use can't really be governed by BA (i.e not like inflight meals where they can take them away and say hey we saved some money) means that they didn't really save any money...
Last edited:
Yeah it's called fuel hedging...
So? Why should cabin crew staff pay for that mistake? They don't get rewarded when BA benefits from fuel price fluctuations do they?
And yes it was a mistake, other airlines benefited from coming to a different conclusion about the future direction of the price of fuel and acting accordingly.
Fuel is not an overhead.