BA = British Leyland of the skies

Over to you Sir Richard, the true flag carrier of our nation. Virgin cabin crew (who earn nearly 50% less than the BA equivalents) voted against strike action on the basis that it would cost more jobs than it would save. Unite were sent with their bags packing....all the way to the British Leyland of the skies.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8411214.stm

I shall never fly BA again, I've witnessed too many bad experiences. They even bumped my daughter and her new husband on their honeymoon flight even though they'd booked and paid over a year in advance. There are plenty of alternatives, use them instead.

Airlines and unions are just not a good combination, more trouble than they're worth. Don't see what they're complaining about to be honnest. BA are in the sh*t and job cuts are a nescessity to keep them from going bust.

Pretty cynical by the unions to choose the xmas break. It won't win them much support.

Pretty cynical by the unions to choose the xmas break. It won't win them much support.

 

Indeed, anyone planning to travel to the US should reward the dedication of Virgin cabin crew to their customers, unlike the loony lefties who are quite happy to smash the childhood dreams of those looking for a once in a lifetime trip to disney at xmas or those who ar desperate to travel to loved ones at this special time of year.

 

Virgin crew get paid much less and have worse conditions, but are clearly more commercially aware than the loony lefties of the sky. Unite stirred this one up without any consideration for their 'customers'. It is time for people-power to crush the unions....vote with your feet and show them that we will not tolerate this bull****.

why we have unions who feel the need to strike in Britain in this day and age is beyond me...

 

this is hardly victorian england ffs

why we have unions who feel the need to strike in Britain in this day and age is beyond me...

 

this is hardly victorian england ffs

 

Quite. It also angers me in the current economic climate where so many have lost their jobs and face financial ruin, to see greedy ****s demanding more, more, more; when they should really be considering themselves lucky that they have actually still got jobs.

Quite. It also angers me in the current economic climate where so many have lost their jobs and face financial ruin, to see greedy ****s demanding more, more, more; when they should really be considering themselves lucky that they have actually still got jobs.

 

Having looked at the likely outcomes, I would like to make a U-turn of massive proportions. This action will make air travel more unreliable and more expensive in the long run - and continued action could bring BA down. This will result in less people flying which will in turn reduce the threat of global warming. Therefore I would like to congratulate the Union for taking such a brave step and it is truly a case of self sacrifice for the good of all of us. Bravo Unite!

BA need this like they need a hole in the head. This could cost more jobs than at saves.

 

Still, at least they get Christmas off which is the main reason most of them voted for it.

If they carry on like this they can have next Christmas off as well. And the next...

why we have unions who feel the need to strike in Britain in this day and age is beyond me...

 

this is hardly victorian england ffs

 

Ah, that old right-wing mantra; "Unions were needed once (e.g., Victorian England), but they're not needed anymore."

 

This is nonsense. Unions bring better wages and benefits and protect workers from the arbitrary power and inequitable teatment of management.

 

Employees in non-unionised enterprises often benefit from the improvements to working conditions that their compatriots in unionised workplaces bring.

 

Of course, there are some downsides to unionisation, but overall these are mitigated in a big way by the benefits.

Furthermore, right-wingers are always bleating on about welfare-cheats, but never comment on tax-frauds perpetrated by the rich and powerful.

 

Just to give one example from today's news here in Canada. An employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in B.C. has been caught helping hundreds of people establish tax-havens with secretive Lichenstein banks. They have defrauded the taxpayers of millions of dollars of tax.

 

Conservative governments often focus on welfare cheats, too, but do all they can to cut taxes to individuals and corporations - even whilst running up huge budget deficits and adding large amounts to the national debt. (Cf. Mr. George W. Bush)

Mmm, the idea is to maximise the tax revenue and reducing tax rates can very often do that. Government taxation is legalised daylight robbery and anything over 20% is far too high, in my opinion.

Mmm, the idea is to maximise the tax revenue and reducing tax rates can very often do that. Government taxation is legalised daylight robbery and anything over 20% is far too high, in my opinion.

 

Slightly hyperbolic, my friend. Government taxation pays for government services.

 

Some people are constantly pushing for lower taxes, but they want the level of service to stay the same (or even increase).

Mmm, the idea is to maximise the tax revenue and reducing tax rates can very often do that. Government taxation is legalised daylight robbery and anything over 20% is far too high, in my opinion.

 

Should a sports star, or movie star, or CEO of a major coprporation - people who earn millions each year - pay more in tax than an individual earning the average wage?

Should a sports star, or movie star, or CEO of a major coprporation - people who earn millions each year - pay more in tax than an individual earning the average wage?

 

They would, even if both paid 20%, and if they paid the same rate then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to put as much effort into finding ways of avoiding those payments.

Should a sports star, or movie star, or CEO of a major coprporation - people who earn millions each year - pay more in tax than an individual earning the average wage?

They shouldn't pay a higher percentage, no. I suspect that you haven't been to Britain for a while where even the middle classes are paying a horrendous prercentage of their gross earnings, and I include employers' NI in that.

Slightly hyperbolic, my friend. Government taxation pays for government services.

 

Some people are constantly pushing for lower taxes, but they want the level of service to stay the same (or even increase).

Government services are one thing but subsidising a bloated public sector by overtaxing the working classes is quite another.

They shouldn't pay a higher percentage, no. I suspect that you haven't been to Britain for a while where even the middle classes are paying a horrendous prercentage of their gross earnings, and I include employers' NI in that.

 

Well, I have been back three times in six years (I had the dubious pleasure of seeing Saints play at Swindon this past August ), but my conversations didn't dwell too much on politics!

 

Everyone is paying lots of tax - that's true, but my beef is the targeted attack on unions every time there is a strike (or impending strike) that is a major inconvenience.

 

Corporate misbehaviour is not always subject to the same fear and loathing as the behaviour of the "lower orders".

When people all around you are being made redundant it sticks in the throat somewhat when those who have well-paid and undemanding jobs find something trivial over which to walk out. I had to make one of my staff redundant back in March and it wan't very pleasant to have to tell someone that they didn't have a job anymore.

When people all around you are being made redundant it sticks in the throat somewhat when those who have well-paid and undemanding jobs find something trivial over which to walk out. I had to make one of my staff redundant back in March and it wan't very pleasant to have to tell someone that they didn't have a job anymore.

 

I sympathise with your need to make someone redundant. It's unpleasant.

 

If you read what you've written again, you'll notice your bias. You refer to unionised workers as "well-paid" (is that a bad thing?) people doing "undemanding" jobs. How would you know whether or not the jobs are "undemanding"? No doubt you have some particular types of workers in mind. But it's not fair to generalise. My wife is a nurse; I am a teacher. Our jobs are very demanding and often stressful.

 

You also characterise union members as looking for "something trivial" over which to strike. It's not like that; most strikes occur because of an impasse in the bargaining process over wages, or the threat of removing benefits gained in previous contracts ("contract stripping"). When workers do strike, they rarely get back the money they lose during their strike - so they're not going to walk out over anything "trivial".

 

It seems to me that the anxieties and insecurities of the modern economy - especially in the private sector - leads many people to resent unfairly those who are fortunate to have a secure situation. Would those who have been made redundant feel better if others got to suffer too? Wouldn't it be better to have all workers improve their lot, rather than have the wages and working conditions of all workers decline?

Edited 15 December, 2009 by Hamilton Saint

In an ideal world, all employees would take the rough with the smooth, instead of a few who have to be got rid of so that others can stay. In every case that I'm aware of, when a company has put to employees that they all take a pay cut, rather than several being got rid of entirely, the employees vote to take the pay cut. Yet, the practice of making a few jobless still persists.

 

This ridiculous practice puts stress on those remaining, let alone severe stress on the newly jobless, and the company with the reduced workforce then works less effectively because, often they simply do not have the numbers or skills they need in anticipation of an upturn in the market.

 

But what does it say of employees and unions, that they vote to keep everybody in work at reduced rates..? It says that they are perfectly aware of what is, and what is not affordable, provided they are kept well informed. And that they are not as selfish as some would tarnish them.

Pretty cynical by the unions to choose the xmas break. It won't win them much support.

 

Absolute f**kin scum picking a time when tens of thousands of people are looking forward to being re united with relatives and friends they maybe haven't seen all year or even longer.

 

Blackmail of the lowest order. As Whitey Grandad has said, and thousands more will be in agreement, no way will they fly BA again. This strike if it goes ahead will alienate the flying public from BA and will lead to even more business and revenue loss leading to more pay cuts and jobs etc.

 

Okay, the staff have voted to go on strike, but I bet most of them are appalled at the dates chosen by the union to go on strike. If the ballot said do you want to go on strike between 22nd of Dec and Jan 3rd or whatever and completely screw over hundreds of thousands of peoples festive season, I bet the count would have been much lower. :cool:

There will be two less people at St Mary's on the 26th if this strike goes ahead - my family Christmas will be ruined. I have had first hand experience of dealing with UNITE and they were not interested in listening to reason, so I am not optimistic. Personally, I have also accepted changes in working conditions and reduced pay because I can see the current downturn in our company sales. I know many people who have also done the same and/or accepted wage freezes. I have no sympathy at all with the Cabin Crew over this - UNITE will only succeed in further damaging another British company. They need to get real - why should they be immune to the economic reality that most people can recognise and accept.

 

I am annoyed and angry at potentially having Christmas plans ruined and yet saddened for Britain, BA, and the cabin crew who are misguided enough to think that UNITE really does represent their best interests.

Ah, that old right-wing mantra; "Unions were needed once (e.g., Victorian England), but they're not needed anymore."

 

This is nonsense. Unions bring better wages and benefits and protect workers from the arbitrary power and inequitable teatment of management.

 

Employees in non-unionised enterprises often benefit from the improvements to working conditions that their compatriots in unionised workplaces bring.

 

Of course, there are some downsides to unionisation, but overall these are mitigated in a big way by the benefits.

 

So in 2010 britain, you think unions still have a purpose

 

ok then

Okay, the staff have voted to go on strike, but I bet most of them are appalled at the dates chosen by the union to go on strike. If the ballot said do you want to go on strike between 22nd of Dec and Jan 3rd or whatever and completely screw over hundreds of thousands of peoples festive season, I bet the count would have been much lower. :cool:

 

Ah but according to Unite, it is done with a heavy heart, which makes it OK then I guess.

There will be two less people at St Mary's on the 26th if this strike goes ahead - my family Christmas will be ruined. I have had first hand experience of dealing with UNITE and they were not interested in listening to reason, so I am not optimistic. Personally, I have also accepted changes in working conditions and reduced pay because I can see the current downturn in our company sales. I know many people who have also done the same and/or accepted wage freezes. I have no sympathy at all with the Cabin Crew over this - UNITE will only succeed in further damaging another British company. They need to get real - why should they be immune to the economic reality that most people can recognise and accept.

 

I am annoyed and angry at potentially having Christmas plans ruined and yet saddened for Britain, BA, and the cabin crew who are misguided enough to think that UNITE really does represent their best interests.

 

That sucks mate...

 

My parents come over in 3 days' time and were close to picking the new BA direct service from Heathrow to Vegas as it was more convenient in every way. Thankfully, Virgin got their business instead when they heard about possible BA action several months ago.

I'm almost always on the side of the unions and industrial action when necessary, but I've got nothing here. Times are hard, and if you want to keep your job you have to weigh up the options and make a compromise with management.

 

And yo Delldays - maybe if squaddies had a union or something akin to it they might not have such a tendency to get thrown on the scrapheap and end up in prison after they leave the army...just a thought.

- maybe if squaddies had a union or something akin to it they might not have such a tendency to get thrown on the scrapheap and end up in prison after they leave the army...just a thought.

 

Yes, and a ****ing stupid thought it is too.

So in 2010 britain, you think unions still have a purpose

 

ok then

 

In 2010 Britain, you think a nuclear deterrent still has a purpose.

 

OK then.

I'm normally on the side of the workers if I believe the cause just but in this case it isn't.

 

Times are hard and compromises have to be found or they will all end up signing on and doing it at Xmas is a cu*ts trick.

 

I normally would avoid BA but I've flights to the Caribbean booked with them next year.

Yes, and a ****ing stupid thought it is too.

 

I dunno, one in twelve UK prisoners have been in the armed forces, a statistic that's set to increase as more and more poor brutalised f*cks end up back here from Iraq and Afghanistan unable to adjust to life outside the services. Might make it easier if they were given a voice to lobby the government about better pensions, housing etc. after they leave.

 

Just another ****ing stupid thought

I'm almost always on the side of the unions and industrial action when necessary, but I've got nothing here. Times are hard, and if you want to keep your job you have to weigh up the options and make a compromise with management.

 

And yo Delldays - maybe if squaddies had a union or something akin to it they might not have such a tendency to get thrown on the scrapheap and end up in prison after they leave the army...just a thought.

 

i'd rather not have the army go on strike tbh...

Good to see all the BA pr spin is being swallowed by all.

 

Maybe those spouting stupid unresearched comments and vitriol calling the crew 'Scum' did a bit of personal research they may find they have a bit of sympathy for the BA Crew and be less inclined to believe what is printed in the Daily Mail etc?

 

A few points to start;

1. A number of these issues relate to agreements BA made with the union back during the threatened action of 2007 which BA have failed to come good on

 

2. BA crew are better paid than other carriers crew. There are reasons behind this - many have a second or third language, or a professional qualification in nursing, degrees, are ex-forces personnel - and to attract this kind of staff costs more. However some of the figures quoted in the press are wildley exagerated - Junior Crew earning £29,000 pa - i don't think so!

 

3. BA management have been trying to secretley implement massive sweeping changes to staff T&C's since 2007 which will not only effect the crew but ultimately the passenger experience. And they now have the ideal opportunity to bring them in under the effects of the recession and a sob story.

 

4. Maybe, just maybe this action is a last resort and one of complete desperation by staff that have had any relationship with their employer tossed to the scrap heap over the last few years and are seen as trained monkeys by the management?

 

Ultimately Willie Walsh needs to decide if he wants BA to be a Premium Carrier or just another Easy Jet?

i'd rather not have the army go on strike tbh...

 

Clearly you are unaware of the roles of a union.

 

In the cases of HMF he poster in question is suggesting that the role could be ensuring that the standards of housing for forces families were up to scratch and that there was extra help for those making the transition from military to civvi life.

 

With recent reports suggesting that an increasing number of ex-army are ending up doing prison time maybe it is worth looking at.

Ultimately Willie Walsh needs to decide if he wants BA to be a Premium Carrier or just another Easy Jet?

 

Good point.

Just another thing to consider;

 

BA narrowly avoided the pilots union BALPA taking strike action this year. Pilots are treated like gods - so how bad do industrial relations between the employer and your top front line staff have to be to reach this point, how big does the 30 pieces of silver need to be to get them back onside and what does it say about the reationship with the rest of your staff?

Might make it easier if they were given a voice to lobby the government about better pensions, housing etc. after they leave.

 

Just another ****ing stupid thought

 

You seem to be having lots of them today. (smiley thing) Those bodies/support mechanisms do exist; whether or not they do any good or are fit for purpose is another debate.

Good to see all the BA pr spin is being swallowed by all.

I've seen no comments from Unite that make the timing of the strike justified. They would get a hell of a lot more sympathy had they waited until the new year.

 

They are using the time of the year as emotional blackmail, and quite frankly it's not on.

 

Over a million passengers could be affected, which could mean over a million people not being able to visit their families and friends over the Christmas period.

 

Ultimately, if BA end up having to refund the fares of those who are affected (as they have done in the past), it wouldn't surprise me if BA feel they have to wield the axe over a hell of a lot more staff than they were originally planning to.

 

In the current climate, people should be f**king glad they've got any form of employment, let alone one in which they are, IMO, treated pretty well, particularly compared to the staff at their competitors.

Unite are idiots, morons of the highest order and the cabin crew are complete tw*ts.

 

It's a changing world, people's job roles need to change, cut backs need to be made. Many people have been made redundant, had pay cuts, taken rate cuts, not had rises, not had bonuses paid out - yet do you see the majority of the British work-force striking because they are now over worked, under paid and having less of a home life? No. Because the majority of the British work-force, myself included, are thankful that we've still got an income.

 

Unite and the cabin crew are shooting themselves in the foot. This will damage BA long term, meaning more losses, meaning more cut backs. Many people, myself included, will NEVER book with them again. I'll stick to Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, Quantas etc etc etc.

 

Oh, I'm supposed to be flying to New York for Christmas on the 22nd. So I'm well happy.

Does a 20 year old dolly bird with one GCSE in ironing really understand what she is voting for?

Ah, that old right-wing mantra; "Unions were needed once (e.g., Victorian England), but they're not needed anymore."

 

This is nonsense. Unions bring better wages and benefits and protect workers from the arbitrary power and inequitable teatment of management.

 

Employees in non-unionised enterprises often benefit from the improvements to working conditions that their compatriots in unionised workplaces bring.

 

Of course, there are some downsides to unionisation, but overall these are mitigated in a big way by the benefits.

 

I would like these to be earnt, not stolen at knife-point.

Unite and the cabin crew are shooting themselves in the foot. This will damage BA long term, meaning more losses, meaning more cut backs. Many people, myself included, will NEVER book with them again. I'll stick to Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, Quantas etc etc etc.

 

This is the crux of it IMHO.

 

I only use BA as a last resort of if I'm cashing in airmiles as the alternatives offer a better service at a lower cost.

 

Consumers are no longer brand loyal as they were in the past. The internet generation are savvy shoppers and the BA staff are stupidly culling themselves with these actions.

Good to see all the BA pr spin is being swallowed by all.

 

Maybe those spouting stupid unresearched comments and vitriol calling the crew 'Scum' did a bit of personal research they may find they have a bit of sympathy for the BA Crew and be less inclined to believe what is printed in the Daily Mail etc?

 

 

Some good counter points. In fact you are the only person I have "seen/heard" brave enough to defend the BA cabin crew's action.

 

I should say that I support wholeheartedly the right of the crew to decide en mass to strike. I also support the unionisation of the work force. But the cabin crew here has got this terribly wrong from a PR point of view, or, as you say BA management has spun the story against them.

 

I should declare an interest or two. I am a regular business traveller and an executive club member and I always look to fly BA when I can. I also have two kids booked to go on a skiing trip over Xmas with their school, flying BA, that now looks in jeopardy.

 

Per you points above.

 

1. A number of these issues relate to agreements BA made with the union back during the threatened action of 2007 which BA have failed to come good on

I can see why cancelling a threatened strike and seeing BA renege on the agreement makes the cabin crew feel aggrieved. And they should find an acceptable way of holding management to account for this.

 

2. BA crew are better paid than other carriers crew. There are reasons behind this - many have a second or third language, or a professional qualification in nursing, degrees, are ex-forces personnel - and to attract this kind of staff costs more. However some of the figures quoted in the press are wildley exagerated - Junior Crew earning £29,000 pa - i don't think so!

All valid explanations. But the flying public has less brass in pocket and as a result right now, and potentially never again, they will not pay the premium to be greeted by a "better" class of steward/ess.

 

3. BA management have been trying to secretley implement massive sweeping changes to staff T&C's since 2007 which will not only effect the crew but ultimately the passenger experience. And they now have the ideal opportunity to bring them in under the effects of the recession and a sob story.

I think I read the fact that the BA pension combined schemes' deficit is something in the order of £3+Bn. I also saw the record losses that BA posted recently. From the outside it looks like massive sweeping changes are required. Secretly? Definitely not. But changes needed? It appears so.

 

4. Maybe, just maybe this action is a last resort and one of complete desperation by staff that have had any relationship with their employer tossed to the scrap heap over the last few years and are seen as trained monkeys by the management?

Unfortunately they are fighting market forces and not just management. I feel that if they are successful then they will have a company so uncompetitive and out of touch with the needs of today's traveller that BA will die a sad slow death.

 

Ultimately Willie Walsh needs to decide if he wants BA to be a Premium Carrier or just another Easy Jet?

Agreed. But it's not just Willie Walsh that has to decide on this. It's the market. I will morn the passing of BA from premium carrier to low-cost seat shop. But I'd personally be more upset if the company failed to exist.

 

There are principles at play here and I can feel the bad place the cabin crews find themselves in. They are caught between management that has reneged on previous agreements and they feel that they must now show that they are serious. But right now, against a backdrop where some of the most extradoniary things have happened to our economy, the sad fact is that they will likely have to accept what management wants. But perhaps still have a company and a job.

 

There are principles for me too. If BA cancels my kids' school ski trip, I'll do what I can to never fly with them again.

I've seen no comments from Unite that make the timing of the strike justified. They would get a hell of a lot more sympathy had they waited until the new year.

 

They are using the time of the year as emotional blackmail, and quite frankly it's not on.

 

Over a million passengers could be affected, which could mean over a million people not being able to visit their families and friends over the Christmas period.

 

Ultimately, if BA end up having to refund the fares of those who are affected (as they have done in the past), it wouldn't surprise me if BA feel they have to wield the axe over a hell of a lot more staff than they were originally planning to.

 

In the current climate, people should be f**king glad they've got any form of employment, let alone one in which they are, IMO, treated pretty well, particularly compared to the staff at their competitors.

 

Unite are idiots, morons of the highest order and the cabin crew are complete tw*ts.

 

It's a changing world, people's job roles need to change, cut backs need to be made. Many people have been made redundant, had pay cuts, taken rate cuts, not had rises, not had bonuses paid out - yet do you see the majority of the British work-force striking because they are now over worked, under paid and having less of a home life? No. Because the majority of the British work-force, myself included, are thankful that we've still got an income.

 

Unite and the cabin crew are shooting themselves in the foot. This will damage BA long term, meaning more losses, meaning more cut backs. Many people, myself included, will NEVER book with them again. I'll stick to Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, Quantas etc etc etc.

 

Oh, I'm supposed to be flying to New York for Christmas on the 22nd. So I'm well happy.

 

Of course these dates are emotional blackmail - all dates chosen by any union or body for industrial action are designed to cause the biggest outrage in order to get the employer back round the negotiating table by maximising the potential for disruption to business/turnover. It is also the unions legal right to call a strike at this time having balloted its' members.

 

Maybe the axe needs to be wielded over a bloated mangement structure rather than front line staff - but this hardly ever happens does it?

 

Staff at BA have already taken on job changes, cutbacks, not taken rises etc so it's not like this is an issue in isolation - more like the straw that broke the camels back.

 

Yes everyone is happy they have a job in a recession - but we are all constantly looking over our shoulder seeing where the axe is going to fall next.

 

I work in the construction industry so you can imagine the last twelve months i have had - first to feel the pain, last to recover.

 

You are right - we British workers take it all on the chin and carry on - perhaps that is why we are right royally sh@t on while the likes of the banks continue to make billions and an ineffectual government saddles our grandchildren with a mountain of debt while we have no manufacturing industry to help us out.

 

Maybe if we were a bit more militant like some of our european cousins we might have thimgs a bit better?

 

Anyway, last post - can't afford £5 - there's a recession on

Having spoken to someone to who IS BA cabin crew (and no, I didn't go off on them as they voted against it) - she fully intends to work as she really needs the money this time of year and thinks that many others will follow suit despite the "80% for" vote.

 

So we'll see what happens.

Prehaps the solution is to go genuine low cost for European and genuine Premium for long haul and pay the crew according to the sector they work in.

 

Ryanair and Easyjet have ripped up the business models for short haul in Europe and cost, not service is the driver for paying passengers and because we are so used to it BA is deemed as being way overpriced. This, of course, is also true for the other flag carriers.

 

I actually baulk at paying more that £50 all in for a return flight now!

This thread needs Fitzhugh Fella's input.

why we have unions who feel the need to strike in Britain in this day and age is beyond me...

 

this is hardly victorian england ffs

 

they do it because of the victorian attitude of the employers

My mrs has been senior cabin crew with Virgin for over 15 years, so I do have an insight into things. The fact of the matter is that Virgin crew were commercially aware enough to recognise that striking would be commercial suicide and hence they voted overwhelmingly against strike action despite Unite's attempt to get everyone out.

 

BA crew have the best pay and working conditions of any British Airline, something which was inherited from its nationalised predecessor.

 

A few points to start;

1. A number of these issues relate to agreements BA made with the union back during the threatened action of 2007 which BA have failed to come good on

 

I don't know if you have noticed, but the world has changed quite a bit since 2007 as we are now in the worst recession in history. What was acceptable in 2007 is probably totally irrelevant right now.

 

2. BA crew are better paid than other carriers crew. There are reasons behind this - many have a second or third language, or a professional qualification in nursing, degrees, are ex-forces personnel - and to attract this kind of staff costs more. However some of the figures quoted in the press are wildley exagerated - Junior Crew earning £29,000 pa - i don't think so!

 

As stated before, the reasons for better pay and conditions were inherited from the nationalised predecessor. A Cabin Services Director earns £50k+ on BA, whilst my Mrs who works in the equivalent rank at Virgin earns nearly half of this, with allowances that are less than half BA. If you are on an old BA contract, you are being paid in the way that cabin crew were paid 20+ years ago. Those recent joiners who are on new contracts are paid the equivalent of other airlines, so it has nothing to do with recruitment costs, qualifications or languages.

 

3. BA management have been trying to secretley implement massive sweeping changes to staff T&C's since 2007 which will not only effect the crew but ultimately the passenger experience. And they now have the ideal opportunity to bring them in under the effects of the recession and a sob story.

 

That's right, cos BA are rolling in it and all this is some secret agenda to screw the workers. I don't know if you have noticed but BA are hemoraging cash and racking up massive losses.

 

4. Maybe, just maybe this action is a last resort and one of complete desperation by staff that have had any relationship with their employer tossed to the scrap heap over the last few years and are seen as trained monkeys by the management?

.

 

Who the hell do BA crew think they are? The crew of other airlines have far more legitimate grievances.

 

Ultimately Willie Walsh needs to decide if he wants BA to be a Premium Carrier or just another Easy Jet?

 

Willie has no choice all the while the unions involved - BA could never be a low cost operator, because the Unions won't allow it. Ryan Air (the most successful low cost airline) doesn't even give their crew water during their flights (which is quite important considering increased dehydration whilst flying) - meanwhile the Union are kicking off about pay rises between 2-7% when most (including much of the Public Sector) will be lucky to get anywhere near this.

 

I heard one bloke on 5 Live's debate this morning go on about the power of the union and that they hold all the trump cards. Sorry, they don't, the CUSTOMER holds the trump cards and the unions need to be taught this very valuable lesson.