BA to strike

[Dolph]

Well no, thats probably not *the* reason the company is suffering massively, is it?

They charge broadly similar amounts to other airline providers, but have a wage bill that is around double, and a massive pension deficit, which means substantially greater overheads and a significant problem with finding money to invest in improving the service.

I'd say it probably is one of the biggest reasons the company is suffering massively, most of the other issues are knock on effects, just like they were at GM...

 

[beachBOYken]

there only striking because they want the christmas off! , i know some people will disagree but GREED does have a huge part in these sort of things , i can think of worse jobs out there on less pay.

they are severly damaging british airways by doing this in these financial times, they should be happy they have a job on good pay.

what happens if british airways went under because of these strikes all the workers would be out off a job?

 

[Reginald]

Have they not been overhauled yet? This will be (if it goes ahead!) my first long-haul flight with them since last year and I'm flying first again. I was rather hoping things had been improved since then, it's a pity if they've only updated club world.

I think club is the only one that's had a massive change.. First has had new bits and pieces put in but no drastic changes..sadly! Those suites on the a380 look pimp!

They need to have new terms imposed on them, the company is suffering massively due to excessive pay and benefits to the workers. The alternatives is job cuts or bankruptcy.

Hahahah.. ya ...er...do your research. Not the reason at all. Take a look at oil prices, how much BA paid, when, what then happened to prices... etc etc

Is this an admission that the union are trying to bully/blackmail walsh into making a decision that makes no rational or business sense through bad behaviour?

An admission? Sounds like you are trying to catch someone out! No I am not admitting that they are blackmailing BA...they are striking over illegally imposed terms being forced into their contract. Perfectly rational. As for people earlier saying why can they not cope with a "pay cut" in these hard times.. they are agreeing to a pay freeze. However if they accept these preposterous new contract terms they will in fact be stuck with them for life. Turning BA into the new ryan air.. The country's national royal warrant bearing carrier turning into ryan air? No.

Where is the money going to come from through? Perhaps if they were paying market rate wages and benefits, they would be able to afford it?

Read about the real reasons why they are financially stuffed - this is incorrect

 

[Dolph]

Hahahah.. ya ...er...do your research. Not the reason at all. Take a look at oil prices, how much BA paid, when, what then happened to prices... etc etc

I didn't say it was the only reason, but for some reason you think that paying twice the going rate for your staff while charging average prices is a good business model?

An admission? Sounds like you are trying to catch someone out! No I am not admitting that they are blackmailing BA...they are striking over illegally imposed terms being forced into their contract. Perfectly rational. As for people earlier saying why can they not cope with a "pay cut" in these hard times.. they are agreeing to a pay freeze. However if they accept these preposterous new contract terms they will in fact be stuck with them for life. Turning BA into the new ryan air.. The country's national royal warrant bearing carrier turning into ryan air? No.

There is nothing illegal about imposing terms on staff through revised contracts (although it is highly dubious whether a cut in one member of staff on each flight in any way alters the contractual obligations of individual employees at any rate). There are certain processes that need to be met, but provided they have done so (and it does not involve getting agreement from all parties incidentally), then there is absolutely no probelm.

Read about the real reasons why they are financially stuffed - this is incorrect

So they have been highly profitable for the last 10 years in comparison to their turnover? I think it is not me that needs to read up on the 'real reasons'...

 

[Reginald]

I didn't say it was the only reason, but for some reason you think that paying twice the going rate for your staff while charging average prices is a good business model?



There is nothing illegal about imposing terms on staff through revised contracts (although it is highly dubious whether a cut in one member of staff on each flight in any way alters the contractual obligations of individual employees at any rate). There are certain processes that need to be met, but provided they have done so (and it does not involve getting agreement from all parties incidentally), then there is absolutely no probelm.



So they have been highly profitable for the last 10 years in comparison to their turnover? I think it is not me that needs to read up on the 'real reasons'...

Perhaps the business model is not genius but BA have not always been floundering. Either way, yes the new terms they are forcing upon their staff are not legal. Furthermore, I have read all of the letters, negotiation drafts etc that have been flying back and forth since Sept/Oct and therefore have a clear view of the situation. The company should not be trying to drastically ruin the careers of their staff making it "a job for a couple of years" when to the staff this is their long term career. In addition to all of this, even if all of those cuts were made...it would STILL not make BA profitable or even come close to recouping their losses. Willie Walsh has made such a mess since he joined BA.

 

[z3b3dy]

I think club is the only one that's had a massive change.. First has had new bits and pieces put in but no drastic changes..sadly! Those suites on the a380 look pimp!

That's going to be a real pity, yet another nail in the coffin. Anyway I suppose if this strike goes ahead and my flight gets cancelled BA have lost my business for the rest of my life (not that they'll really care).

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Why? Do you just blanket support all strikes or something?

Pretty much, yes.

I have still reviewed the dispute in question and I do believe the workers/Unions actions are merited, so I stand by my earlier statement of wishing the workers/union luck in this dispute.

 

[LLBDTiberio]

Am scheduled to fly to Copenhagen on the 22nd so wasn't very happy at hearing this. From Speaking on the phone with BA, it looks like it's only Heathrow that will be majorly affected as I have a flight from Luxembourg on the 29th to Gatwick and there is no issue with that. But BA can't guarantee that my flight won't be cancelled so am currently looking around for a new ticket. Oh well, at least I now get a free flight to Copenhagen next year....

 

[zetec452]

Pretty much, yes.

I have still reviewed the dispute in question and I do believe the workers/Unions actions are merited, so I stand by my earlier statement of wishing the workers/union luck in this dispute.

It's the union lovers like you who are destroying companies. Perhaps you should read this.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/statement/public/en_us

In particular:

In fact, despite our financial backdrop, more than 10,000 of our cabin crew will receive pay rises of between two and seven per cent this year, and again next year. In the worst recession since the Second World War, these are increases many employees in other walks of life can only dream about.

We have created opportunities for voluntary redundancy, and more than 1,000 crew have taken that option. Similarly, more than 3,000 crew have volunteered to switch to part-time working.


To accommodate these requests, we have made a small change in our onboard crew numbers from Heathrow, without affecting service standards. Our Gatwick flights have been operating on equivalent crew numbers for years - with Unite's agreement.


Unite's chief complaint seems to be that we are "imposing" the changes at Heathrow. The truth is we had been discussing them with the union for nine months but, despite all the evidence of the company's (and the industry's) financial plight, Unite would not be realistic about the clear imperative to reduce costs.

Like I said. Greed, on the Union and employees behalf (more the union I feel).

I wonder how all these employees will feel when they are out of work?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

It's the work shy union lovers like you

I'm probably the hardest working person in my office I'll have you know.

With your personal attack you have instantly lost any argument you might have tried to make.

If you want to be civil we can have a proper discussion.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Pretty much, yes.

I have still reviewed the dispute in question and I do believe the workers/Unions actions are merited, so I stand by my earlier statement of wishing the workers/union luck in this dispute.

The problem is people aren't willing to sacrifice whatsoever, even if it risks killing a company completely. Union's have FAR to much power and no morals at all.

The fact is the air industry changed dramatically in the past several years, recession is just a long line in big hits to the industry.

But union members seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that strike action gets them a better contract short term but hurts them and the company in the long run. Look at RM's strikes, how much business have they lost this year from strike action. Amazon must be one of their biggest clients and they lost them, with plenty of others choosing to steer clear of them. Less business means bigger cuts long term.

Doing it over xmas is punitive, how many customers who had BA flights will not only never use BA, or avoid them at all costs, but tell all their friends what a bad ordeal it was over xmas and their friends are put off using them not to mention horrendous press over the XMAS period. You can already see the 24 news channels flooded with daily reports of the situation and interviews with people that have missed flights, had stuff go missing, had flights canceled, etc, etc, etc. Its beyond moronic.

 

[z3b3dy]

In regards to your quote from BA - it's actually a lie.

Out of interest can I see the proof that it's a lie.

Wow that was a quick edit amigafan2003.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Out of interest can I see the proof that it's a lie.

Wow that was a quick edit amigafan2003.

Edited out because I realised I wouldn't be allowed to post a link/quote to prove it so thought it better to not say it at all.

 

[Rich_L]

Just think, if the execs hadn't decided to break the law by colluding and price-fixing, they'd have ~£300million still in the bank so could pay the staff what they're asking for

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Just think, if the execs hadn't decided to break the law by colluding in price-fixing, they'd have ~£300million still in the bank so could pay the staff what they're asking for

Which comes down to the crux of the matter - if senior management were doing thier job properly EVRYONE could have what they want - bottom tier staff and customers included!

 

[Furton]

Which comes down to the crux of the matter - if senior management were doing thier job properly EVRYONE could have what they want - bottom tier staff and customers included!

Yes, because that would account for the extra £1bn they spend on fuel per year

A video of when the results were announced, like a bunch of children celebrating getting a snow day

 

[zetec452]

Edited out because I realised I wouldn't be allowed to post a link/quote to prove it so thought it better to not say it at all.

Of course

And I've edited my post, it was a little strong. Apologies.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And I've edited my post, it was a little strong. Apologies.

Thanks.

You're still wrong though - I don't love unions and I long for the day when they aren't necessary.

 

[JBuk]

snip

shock horror! they may have to actually ............work

 

[Dolph]

Yes, because that would account for the extra £1bn they spend on fuel per year

A video of when the results were announced, like a bunch of children celebrating getting a snow day

How is that different from the extra £15k per cabin crew in wages alone they pay each year compared to their competitors? (source)

All these aspects are problems, why should the massively overpaid staff be immune from the effects of the damage they are causing?