Originally Posted by Financial Times

BA chief attacks union after strike vote
By Kevin Done,Aerospace Correspondent

Published: January 17 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 17 2007 02:00

Willie Walsh, British Airways chief executive, yesterday criticised Bassa, the cabin crew branch of the Transport and General Workers Union for being unwilling to discuss modernising the airline and updating working practices.

The airline was locked in talks last night with the T&G to try to head off industrial action by 11,000 of its 14,000 cabin crew represented by the union.

The cabin staff have voted overwhelmingly in favour of striking over grievances including sickness absence arrangements, pay grades and seniority levels of onboard staff, as well as proposed reductions in pensions benefits.

No strike dates have been set, however, and the union hopes the strength of the vote - in an 80 per cent turnout, 96.1 per cent or 8,132 favoured strike action - will help persuade the airline to pursue a negotiated settlement.

"Bassa will not engage in change. They have the attitude: 'What we have we hold'," Mr Walsh said yesterday. "We operate in a brutally competitive industry," added Mr Walsh, who is facing his biggest official labour challenge since taking over at the airline in autumn 2005. "We cannot accept anyone in the business saying we will not talk about change. This must come about through dialogue. The T&G must accept that it must sit down and negotiate. This industry is constantly changing. We must be able to talk."

The T&G said on Monday that the overwhelming vote by BA cabin crew to strike was in response to the airline's "management by imposition and the breakdown of respect and industrial relations".

Jack Dromey, T&G deputy general secretary, who was leading the talks last night with BA, said on Monday that the airline must "rebuild the trust of its cabin crew by negotiating rather than imposing change".

Bassa, the British Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Association, is the biggest single branch in the T&G with 11,000 members alone at British Airways.

The branch survived a break-away in 1989 and the formation of Cabin Crew 89, a rival cabin crew union organisation.

Bassa proved to be the much stronger organisation, while the smaller Cabin Crew 89 joined Amicus, which has its main membership strength at BA among engineering staff.

Bassa's hardline position has given the T&G a difficult challenge to come up with a common stance on issues affecting the whole of the BA workforce, most notably pensions. The union has still been unable to decide on a public recommendation in favour of the pensions deal reached by the negotiators of the airline's four unions on January 5.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Originally Posted by Financial Times Editorial Comment

Fasten your seat belts
Published: January 17 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 17 2007 02:00

Apart from the pre-flight safety routine, the one predictable bet in aviation is labour difficulties at airlines. At British Airways, the challenge is particularly acute because of the heavily-unionised workforce and an urgent corporate drive to reduce employee costs. Moreover, BA operates in a sector that is peculiarly vulnerable to industrial action: the profit lost in every flight cancelled can never be regained. Yet the recent vote by cabin crew in favour of taking strike action is in a different class from the unofficial disruptions that can turn Heathrow into a summer nightmare. Finding a way through will be a critical test of the management's ability to introduce the changes the company desperately needs.

The vote points to an industrial relations malaise at BA in two ways. In order to reach this point, the normal run of processes for settling staff issues must have failed, either because of heavy-handed management or longstanding local union intransigence or both. Certainly, the scale of support for action was overwhelming. Turnout in the postal ballot was 80 per cent, and the majority of those in favour of strike action was 96.1 per cent. Such disaffection among staff who represent the public face of the airline for passengers is a warning shot to management.

Of all the grievances cited by cabin crew, the one where there seems most scope for a sensible agreement is the arrangement for sickness absences. A new policy, introduced for cabin staff from October 2005 and accompanied by a one-off payment of £1,000, has been enforced so strictly that some staff have said they are afraid to call in sick even when they are ill. On the other hand, BA rightly argues that attendance levels were unacceptably low.

BA cannot, therefore, be reasonably asked to unpick the deal. To do so would threaten any working practice reforms already implemented. It would also undermine talks underway about changing working practices of ground staff when BA moves into Terminal 5 at Heathrow in 2008. The company is wise to hold out the promise to review how the sick leave policy has been interpreted. A draconian approach may bring higher savings in the short term, but will cost more in damaged morale and greater staff turnover.

The other elements in the dispute, from pensions reforms to pay grades, would also probably have benefited from more adroit handling, but only up to a point. The underlying need to plug the company's pensions deficit and to cut costs further is indisputable. The longer it takes to resolve them, the worse BA's position becomes.

Willie Walsh, who became BA chief executive in September 2005, arrived with a reputation from his time at Aer Lingus for being able to execute tough cost-cutting plans. At BA, he must combine the right to manage with the ability to convince all employees of the need for reform. Otherwise, the airline is entering turbulent times.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007