BA Strike back on

The_White_Horse

can't BA relocate its head office to Spain with its Iberia connection and sack all these trouble making cretins?

JasonLVC

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Would this make any sense. Surely the uncertainy is putting people booking with BA as it is.

There is likely to be another ballot, and for all the took of militant BASSA / UNITE / Scousers, it does seem like the union continue to get a huge vot in favour of industrial action.

The Union is only the conduit, the call for a ballot and the votes in favour are coming from one place, BASSA.

BA has many thousands of staff (such as those at Gatwick) who are not involved in this dispute, this is more a case of a militant branch making their mark at the behest of the other workers involved in my view.

The uncertainty is only a short term thing Kenny. BA are playing a longer-term game here. So they lose a few hundred million over the next 20 days and get a bit of bad press, they'll recover all that in time. What's important to BA today is to get the new contracts that will affect income for decades to come.

If they can also frustrate the strikes through legal routes or bringing in volunteers in just makes it harder for the Unions to carry on the fight and also delays could lead to strikes being illegal and mass-sackings.....so it's keeping everyone on their toes as well.

speedbird1973

JasonLVC wrote: »

Unite are now looking to do a third ballot now on the right to have their perks reinstated, this is to cover their backs should the 90 days threshold be reached, so in effect, the first strike may be out of time, but then you've got a second one to come on line straight afterwards.

Although the onus is on Unite to proove that new action is completely unlinked to the previous one. Which isn't the case as the the "demands" of the previous strike have been met (well not met, but a compromise reached). The fact that the current strike is still taking place links the them. So this is end game for the union.

Despite the the majority of voters (not CC) have voted positively.. most of them do turn up to work!!!

Amusingly, known strikers are in arms in the CRC at the moment as management have stopped them flying and sent out standby "real workers" in their place

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

If they carry on as they are, they'll simply bankrupt each other. The workers won't keep their apparently cushy T&Cs and the board will lose their share options and high incomes.

I have a vision.

In 1 or 2 years from now, BA is cash strapped and on the verge of bankruptcy. The Unions go on strike again, demanding government money to resuce BA. Another bailout. They refuse any changes to their terms & conditions.

ILW

lucylucky wrote: »

And lots of those 2.5 million people don't already work in the airline industry for good reason.

What's that then?

Thrugelmir

JasonLVC wrote: »

The uncertainty is only a short term thing Kenny. BA are playing a longer-term game here. So they lose a few hundred million over the next 20 days and get a bit of bad press, they'll recover all that in time. What's important to BA today is to get the new contracts that will affect income for decades to come.

Time is running out as cash reserves are depleted. You can destroy the global brand it takes years to build a matter of days. Consolidation is envitable in the airline industry with falling passenger numbers, and the more recent lost revenue through ash disruption accelerating the trend.

torontoboy45

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i fly on business regularly, using BA and Virgin. If BA back down on this travel perks issue, I will never fly BA again.

The cabin crew are scum and should be lucky they have a job. BA were perfectly right to take away the travel perks. In fact, they have backtracked already and reinstated it - just not at the same levels. That sickens me.

The first thing all the cabin crew that went on strike should get is all their non-contractual perks taken away - for good. the second thing they should get is the sack.

hateful money grabbing scumbags.

if they want to share in the massive profits BA makes (what was it, 336m loss?) then buy shares and get your dividend.

I HATE UNIONS. they shoudl ALL be smashed.

y'know WH: I don't know you personally because I've never met you but I've met lots of half-brains just like you over the yrs; the type who hold narrow- minded, self-interested views, bless 'em.
I've often been tempted to ram their moronic views right up theirs @rses, but then I'm not violent, so I've always held back.

if BA fails much of the blame can be laid at willie's doorstep for provoking this dispute in the 1st place. let's cut pay. increase BA's profits (or secure its market position with no guarantee of future job security by agreement).

jesus....you need help.

kennyboy66_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

The uncertainty is only a short term thing Kenny. BA are playing a longer-term game here. So they lose a few hundred million over the next 20 days and get a bit of bad press, they'll recover all that in time. What's important to BA today is to get the new contracts that will affect income for decades to come.

If they can also frustrate the strikes through legal routes or bringing in volunteers in just makes it harder for the Unions to carry on the fight and also delays could lead to strikes being illegal and mass-sackings.....so it's keeping everyone on their toes as well.

I wouldn't disagree - the danger is that BA will end up being viewed with the likes on Delta, Continental & United. Rancid customer service from start to finish and ignorant staff.

You only fly with them if there was no other option, or they were the cheapest.

BA have got hugely valuable slots at Heathrow and still have a perceived quality service. Once the latter is gone they might as well shut up shop and flog the slots to plug the pension gap. They need to reduce their costs but they will never by able to compete on price.

speedbird1973

torontoboy45 wrote: »

if BA fails much of the blame can be laid at willie's doorstep for provoking this dispute in the 1st place. let's cut pay. increase BA's profits (or secure its market position with no guarantee of future job security by agreement).

jesus....you need help.

I'm sorry.. but you THICK MORON!! He didn't offer to cut pay, he offered to raise it!, he promised NO compulsory redundancies and how can he "increase profits" when he's losing half a billion a throw!!

Read up before commenting, lucky for Willie is runts like you that are representing the cabin crew.

Want he wanted to do was give two years of small raises (when most of BA and the real world are taking cuts), get the pursor on board to work rather than just supervise and reduce the crew compliment by 1 on some flights by natural wastage.

Basically he wanted the LHR crews to be on the same T&C as the Gatwick crew who prefer the new regime.

Now go and play in the sun you !!!!!! little moron

ILW

torontoboy45 wrote: »

y'know WH: I don't know you personally because I've never met you but I've met lots of half-brains just like you over the yrs; the type who hold narrow- minded, self-interested views, bless 'em.
I've often been tempted to ram their moronic views right up theirs @rses, but then I'm not violent, so I've always held back.

if BA fails much of the blame can be laid at willie's doorstep for provoking this dispute in the 1st place. let's cut pay. increase BA's profits (or secure its market position with no guarantee of future job security by agreement).

jesus....you need help.

I would suggest that if there are people who can do the job just as well but for less money, a business would be mad not to consider getting rid of their current workforce and replacing it with a more efficient one. It does not take a genius to push a trolley up an isles dishing out tea and sandwiches.
I have used both BA and Virgin and cannot understand why the BA cabin crew think they are worth more than the Virgin employees.