Originally Posted by
Roger
To the outsider, attitudes within BA appear locked into outdated public sector attitudes without taking into account that the company is now a PLC. No longer feather-bedded, the company has to pay its way or fail in its current status. The world has changed. Passengers don't owe BA staff a living and can easily choose alternatives. EZ and FR been able to thrive and will doubtless continue to do so.
BASSA is a stone around BA's neck that will, if it continues in this way, bring BA close to collapse. I only hope, for everyone's sake, that BASSA will be seen to have made such serious errors this time round that it won't gain support for its strike and will finally be put back in its box.
The number of absurd things that BASSA have done are too numerous to mention. Of course, they object to the LCY-JFK service (because they treat this as a short-haul and long-haul trip, and say that their agreements provide that crew shouldn't have to work both short haul and long haul segments; they refuse to recognise a 'technical stop' and thus insist on more crew).
The information they have issued about this dispute is not only full of misinformation, but is beyond childish: containing images of Walsh with red eyes and a mock threat from BA (£140m or else) in newspaper cut-out letters.
As a passenger, I'm very worried about potential strikes. As a shareholder, I support Walsh 100% in refusing to back down this time. The cabin crew have to make savings, and - in this economy - having e.g. a non-serving CSD is a luxury that BA cannot afford. BASSA's refusal to recognise the economic difficulties; to accept that a saving of £140m is needed; and to negotiate sensibly towards that target have stripped it of any credibility it ever had.