typical

Thank you sir - I appreciate your words.

I think it's very easy, especially in debates like this, to forget that we're all people (pax, CC, even the managers) who respond to incentives (following Adam Smith, anyway). It's interesting how people loyal to BA and irritated by the strike find such different targets for their anger. Even more interesting how those castigating the cabin crew for their behaviour seem to talk in the same breath of "economic realities" - if the dispute is that detatched from emotional content, what's the problem with silently switching airlines and walking away from BA?

I don't work for BA, but what worries me is WW is working towards a clear goal (10% margin, which may or may not be meaningful) with a clear process (slash costs while maintaining revenue) but without any clear or coherant vision of what BA will actually look like in five or ten years time. The same seems to apply to EI, for that matter - financially things improved, but what's the point of the airline now? What's the USP? Why would pax choose EI over another airline?

HedgeFundFlyer makes good points about BA's WACC. Maybe the 10% is meaningful: one report I remember reading had US airline WACCs calculated as around 8-11%. Certainly the BA share price is pricing in expected higher future dividends: higher expected ROE.

The airline industry is a damn hard market to do well in. BA is doing pretty well in it. Undoubtedly there's room for more 'efficiency'. However, at some point BA needs to communicate where all this is going (even if just internally). Does it want to turn into SouthWest? Is it aiming for a new niche, with cheapo Y packed in behind a mid-level J with a reasonable hard product? Does it believe hard product improvement drives more revenue than soft product improvement? What is it in business for? What need can it satisfy better than its competitors?

My problem with WW is we're seeing a lot of pain of the process, and being asked to trust in a vision nobody is seeing. I don't mind saying I'm still proud of BA, ediYank. I see companies as more than faceless and emotionless entities, or mere choices to be made in an efficient market. Emotions play a part in buying decisions. I like to believe that BA offers a superior service, performed in an understated but thoughtful manner, for which I have been willing to pay more in the past. It's harder and harder to justify that belief.

Sickness levels amongst BA CC does seem too high. The pensions issue is something that everyone is struggling with. I found the cheering when the strike vote was announced deeply uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the bigger picture is that relations have clearly got so bad that a strike is seen as a valid method of communication by a huge proportion. And for that, I blame the management. They could be getting the employees (and pax!) bought into the future of the airline. "10% margin" is NOT the vision of a successful company. At best, it's an outcome of such.

Yearly average rises in boardroom pay over the last few years:
28% (compared to a total workforce average of under 4%, 2005), 16% (2004), 13% (2003), 23% (2002).
Gosh, clearly no nest-feathering going on there, then!

What you say about why people might work is true, in so far as it goes (although maybe you should check the size of the public sector before claiming that Governments don't create jobs) - however, I firmly believe societies need some semblance of equality and fairness. In a country with very low social mobility (even lower than the US, goodness) and an increasingly wealthy top stratum, it's not that surprising people object to the inequality.