Good Bye BA

Could this be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back?

To put it extremely simply: don't striking cabin crew realise that BA's planned cost saving measures are there to protect the company that employs them?

No cost saving measures, unable to continue to oerate as a business.
Unable to operate as a business means nolonger a viable company.
No company, no requirement for staff.
No requirement for staff, no jobs for cabin crew.

Still I'm sure they can always apply to Virgin were the salary will be hald of what they earned with BA. Thick b@stards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10130274.stm

 

[Kryten]

I totally agree - I was watching the Beeb the other day and they were saying that BA has a reserve of cash, but that its going to be hit pretty hard, what with the volcano disaster and the original strikes...

I'd sell my gran into slavery to see Tony Woodley's face when BA go belly up and they're all out of a job - which is a distinct possibility in this current financial climate - and all his militant cronies end up working for Air Kazakhstan on 1/2 their original pay...

 

[ElTenEleven]

and it will all be the new Conservative governments fault as they always come down hard on the Unions!

ETEDT_Xtremez_30:

 

[The_Chicken]

The A Team just won't be the same without him.

 

[afc4life]

It's been an overpriced, bloody shoddy excuse for an airline for far too long now and to be honest I try to fly Virgin or even budget air (short haul) if possible.

Aside from the fact that it's our flag carrying airline would it really be missed?

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

Could this be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back?

Nope, like a bank, it`ll always get a bale-out purely because of its name.

To put it extremely simply: don't striking cabin crew realise that BA's planned cost saving measures are there to protect the company that employs them?

Utter cock. Its to protect the shareholders.

No cost saving measures, unable to continue to oerate as a business.
Unable to operate as a business means nolonger a viable company.
No company, no requirement for staff.
No requirement for staff, no jobs for cabin crew.

Oh very good. Now try starting the wage/conditions cuts at the top for a change. I don`t know what WW authorises as his own pay but i bet you could easily get 20 stewards.

While we`re at it, lets remember why the cabin crew are carried on every journey, because its not as ballast, or to serve drinks, as some like to think. Should the one in a million event occur that they are called into action, i would like them well rested and motivated. Read some of the accident reports from overseas and realise what well trained and motivated staff are worth. Its just like insurance, you can go years without needing it, but skimp and one day someone will have to pay, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it`ll be Joe Public and not a boardroom dweller.

 

[Tin basher]

I would agree that the BA flying waitresses are trained for that once in a career incident that may be a life saver for some one but they are hardly unique in that respect. All other cabin crew for the miriad of other airlines , who earn less, could have to do the same BA crew aren't "special". Heck RAF firefighters spend an awful lot of time preparing for a crash event they hope never to have to deal with. The unite union bod sounds like a 70's throw back the sort of lefty dinosaur that died out with Arthur and his cronies. The world of comerce is a bit skint right now and companies are going to the wall on a regular basis. It's time the flying waitresses took a man up pill and got on with it.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

The world of comerce is a bit skint right now and companies are going to the wall on a regular basis. It's time the flying waitresses took a man up pill and got on with it.

And i ask once again, why should the lowest of the low have to take a cut in wages/conditions, when the top brass are rolling in clover.
If we go back 50yrs the managers were paid around 4 times what the man on the shop floor was earning. Now the gap could be anywhere from 25 times to (literally) 100s of times the wage. And are they better ? Just look at the Terminal 5 fiasco for the answer to that.

At least Dave Cameron grasped this with his 5% pay cut. And if he can, why can`t the buisness leaders ?

 

[grumpyoldb]

Spot on, TB! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[metimmee]

Just look at the Terminal 5 fiasco for the answer to that.

Why would one of the most successful, to time and cost mega-projects be classed as a fiasco?

 

[Stevienics]

And i ask once again, why should the lowest of the low have to take a cut in wages/conditions, when the top brass are rolling in clover.

Because when they went to school, these mythical "Top Brass" and their ancestors had the foresight to pay attention..........all historical attempts to rectify this seemingly acute imbalance end in failure, for the same reason.

Thus turns the world.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

Why would one of the most successful, to time and cost mega-projects be classed as a fiasco?

Oh thats a toughy.
Lets see... by the third day they were still accepting passengers luggage, then sending it straight to a warehouse for storing and eventual destruction. Not a hint of even attempting to find its rightful location.

 

[metimmee]

Oh thats a toughy.
Lets see... by the third day they were still accepting passengers luggage, then sending it straight to a warehouse for storing and eventual destruction. Not a hint of even attempting to find its rightful location.

You are correct that they had some initial operational difficulties. For a technologically novel, six year project costing £4.3bn with over 20,000 workers to come in on time and budget is acknowledged by industry as a fantastic success.

 

[Shugster]

And i ask once again, why should the lowest of the low have to take a cut in wages/conditions, when the top brass are rolling in clover.
If we go back 50yrs the managers were paid around 4 times what the man on the shop floor was earning. Now the gap could be anywhere from 25 times to (literally) 100s of times the wage. And are they better ? Just look at the Terminal 5 fiasco for the answer to that.

At least Dave Cameron grasped this with his 5% pay cut. And if he can, why can`t the buisness leaders ?

Yes the top brass should take a hit too. But from what I can gather talking to friends in BA the conditions they get are actually quite good.

They are lucky to have jobs, well paid jobs. A trolley dolly who knows how to evacuate an A/C can be trained in a few weeks.

 

[The Original Weasel]

if it wasn't for the strikes we would have recently flew BA. Sleezy jet and thomson are no substitute for the professionalism expected on a BA flight. They still earn more than most others and I'm a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for'!

 

[foxvc10]

Not checked but I believe that BA Cabin Crew earn somewhere in the region of £30000 a year (cant remeber if this is plus benefits or with benefits).

Virgin is somewhere in the region of £12000 to £14000 plus benefits.

I am only vaguely remembering so Im probably wrong


BA cabin crew are the best paid I believe in Europe.

I think its a bit obvious (tis to me) that its militant unions pressurizing there members....all you have to do is look at the percentage of staff that have turned up for work on strike days.

Airline industry is on its knees at the moment and really doesnt need this crap.

 

[Drill Bit]

And i ask once again, why should the lowest of the low have to take a cut in wages/conditions, when the top brass are rolling in clover.
If we go back 50yrs the managers were paid around 4 times what the man on the shop floor was earning. Now the gap could be anywhere from 25 times to (literally) 100s of times the wage. And are they better ? Just look at the Terminal 5 fiasco for the answer to that.

At least Dave Cameron grasped this with his 5% pay cut. And if he can, why can`t the buisness leaders ?

"Utter Cock" to coin a phrase. There is no mention of anyone taking a paycut in the ongoing dispute. The Cabin Crews' main concerns/objections are:

BA reduced the number of cabin crew on long-haul flights from 15 to 14 and introduced a two-year pay freeze from 2010. The Unite union said this would hit passenger service, as well as the earnings and career prospects of cabin crew - Long haul crew get more allowances for long haul so it's nothing to do with passenger safety.

The airline also proposed new contracts for fresh recruits and newly promoted staff. These included a single on-board management grade, no seniority, promotion on merit, and pay set at market rate plus 10%. Shock Horror, promotion based on merit. So it's those garbage carbin crew who now realise they won't get promoted due to seniority and but on merit.

This would still see new recruits paid significantly less than current staff.
According to a 2009 survey for the Civil Aviation Authority, BA's cabin crew are well paid in industry terms with average earnings of £29,900 a year, including bonuses and allowances, compared with £14,400 at Virgin Atlantic. The comparison with Virgin Atlantic says it all. The service I've received from Virgin is far superor to what I've received from BA.

Unite now says it has reached an agreement in principle with the airline on the changes, but the stumbling blocks are travel concessions and disciplinary action. So actually Cabin Crew are only really concerned about their travel perks?

The arguement about big people picking on little people is a little bit of a "working class hero" attitude. There may be an element of truth in your sentiments but it's not quite the whole story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8413529.stm

 

[Exile]

The remaining issues for them to sort with the travel concessions and disciplinary only affect those members that went on strike. Quite rightly they withdrew the 'perks' associated with hugely discounted travel from those members that had shown the airline disloyalty. As for the disciplinary issues against the fifty union members, if they truly believed they had been wrongly dismissed they would take BA to court. That they haven't speaks volumes

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

"Utter Cock" to coin a phrase. There is no mention of anyone taking a paycut in the ongoing dispute. ...

Top post Drill Bit!

It's very easy for people to 'knee jerk' when presented with a biaised argument, especially that provided by much of our news media.

It's always refreshing to see someone who has read up on a subject a little more thoroughly!
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[firestorm]

As for the disciplinary issues against the fifty union members, if they truly believed they had been wrongly dismissed they would take BA to court. That they haven't speaks volumes

They haven't as their appeals haven't run there course yet. BA have simply got rid of disenters, you know, like dictators do. I'm afraid this kind of action is happening more and more with militant managers.
Employment tribunals are skewed heavily in favour of the employer, hell, even if your wrongly dismissed you'll not get your job back. Not good news if you've got years of pension accrued.