13901

I buy it up to an extent. If we really are to see a reduction and a long-term depression of flying (which I don't doubt, although I have reservations on its gravity), then of course it makes sense to reduce headcount. I would go in a more humane way, but hey it's BA.

What I don't buy is the need to reduce pay & T&Cs as a mean to "save the airline". IAG measures the various OpCos with metrics such as ROIC and seat-equivalent non-fuel CASK (equivalent in the sense that they harmonise seat count otherwise VY's values would always be better than BA). By my reckoning, putting all the crews on a similar package, reducing leave by a few days - as they were proposing - and lowering pay for everyone else would improve BA's non fuel seat-equivalent CASK by a couple of % points, making it the lowest of the airlines by a wide margin. It's a measure to sweat the assets even more, not to 'save the airline'. If BA was to see its latest profit margin (which hovered around 16% for the last few years) go to zero or worse beyond 2020 (it's a given that this year's gonna be a bloodbath) then putting Worldwide Debbie and Mixed Fleet Lauren on the same T&Cs won't make too much of a change.

Reducing it to the equation nastier labour laws = more employment is too simplistic. You have to factor in a lot more variable. Corporate taxation. Labour taxation. Openness to external investments. How the workforce's skills match up with labour demand. Presence of underdeveloped areas (see Italy's South). Public debt. Tax evasion. And so on. Germany has some great labour laws and low unemployment.

Dan72

I think BA's argument is not just around direct costs but the additional costs arising from the complexity of having several fleets. But I expect it's more about better managing the perceived threat from unions over the medium term.

Unions have typically had greater leverage in regulated transportation and have used this with good effect. BA have been trying to get rid of the separate fleets (WW and EF) pretty much since the airline was formed from BOAC and BEA and where the separate contracts originate from. I'm sure BA judges that having everyone on lower wages better protects them from future industrial action. It's difficult to strike for long on £24K. It also provides a lower base to work from should the union manage to squeeze better wage rises in future years (I recall that mixed fleet already secured improved terms through industrial action).

13901

From what I can gather by having a single fleet you'll have simpler management (which is already covered in the ground role redundancies I believe), a more streamlined rostering (with maybe some savings on Carmen - the roster thingy - operating costs, although I doubt it considering how well designed such contracts are...for the vendors) and, sure, cheaper operating costs (instead of having a 5-day EZE you can do it as a 3-day, or things like that). None of them are irrelevant costs, but not exactly life-saving. The per-capita saving on having everyone on the same MF-style contract is by far larger methinks, and again it's not a life-saver... more of a dividend guarantee IMHO.

I'd argue that BA has broken every single strike recently, including the ones in 2010. Even the much-feared united front with all CBAs asking for raises in 2018 folded pretty quickly, with BA picking every single TUs individually and with even BALPA, the most powerful of the lot, caving in fairly rapidly. Compare any strike at BA with those at Air France, or - even worse - at LH. UFO went on strike what, 12 times, in 2018? LH paid dearly for it. I agree with you, you can't strike for long on £24k, but it's also true that you've got a lot less to lose. In the words of a friend of my OH during the MF strikes in 2017, "I already have to sleep in my car at Westbase because I can't afford a room near London and I can't trust myself to drive up to Liverpool after a three-day Jo'burg.. it's not as if I've got much to lose!". Before, BA was quite good - and still is - in playing BASSA against MF Unite, now they'll have only one team, by now utterly p****d off and disenfranchised.

BOH

Sorry, but as I have said before, his type of extreme example is not relevant in any way. Living in Liverpool and having a BA CC job out of LHR is 100% a personal choice. If someone wants a CC job and lives in the NW then there are (were) opportunities far more local out of LPL and MAN.

Should BA pay more to staff to subsidise something that is really a personal choice?

13901

Not to sound flippant but... have you read the rest of my post?

I haven't said that BA should fund the Geordies for living in Newcastle, or the Scousers in Liverpool.

I used that example to say that people aren't exactly awash with cash on a normal day: if they were to go on strike the difference won't be massive, at least for a couple of days. Nothing to do with BA having to fund personal lifestyle choices.

Agent69

I would be suprised if somebody from BA doesn't make a parody of this. Something along the lines of:

• BA staff - Mr McClusky I'm concerned about a lack of union activity. I assume you have a cunning plan?
• Red Len - a cunning what?
• BA Staff - you know a plan to stop the redundancies and overturn the pay cuts
• Red Len - well we have been lobying government.
• BA Staff- what did they say?
• UK Gov - we said sod off and sort your own problems out. We have plenty of our own at present
• BA Staff - so was that it?
• Red Len - no, no we are rolling out a massive media campaigh to get the public on our side
• UK Public - well you won't get me on your side, you ruined my last 2 holidays because of your threats of industrial action
• BA Staff - so Mr McClusky is there any hope for us
• Red Len - sorry I'm going to have to hang up, the lines getting very crackly

Agent69

Maybe they should buy a house a bit nearer to where they work?

Agent69

And what about Unite. Should they compromise on their current position of no redundancies and no pay cuts?

BOH

But the specific example you gave to illustrate your point of hardship on £24k was the Scouser sleeping in his/her car at LHR before a flight. My point is that is a) an extreme example and b) a personal choice of this person to live in Liverpool and work as CC out of LHR. Totally irrelevant to the salary paid.

Ancient Observer

According to the Independant, median salaries last year were UKP25k for all employees, and UKP30k for all Full time employees.

Littlegirl

They don’t actually earn 25K though, that is the total figure including the allowances which are paid to buy food whilst staying away.

I’m quite sad about the level of debate here full of inaccurate statements from the same people over and over again. Repeatedly you are corrected and repeatedly you repeat inaccurate information.

I notice that you now all understand that BA are using a ‘fire & rehire’ threat, since seeing it added to the pilot S188, but none of you have apologised for saying that was not true over and over again.

BOH

But wouldn't the same person have to buy food if they were at home too? Having worked internationally myself and paid a per diem daily allowance I shopped for food at the local supermarkets rather than a restaurant each night. All fine

L1705

Almost as sad as the Union’s media campaign isn’t it

LHRLGW

Quite honestly I don't think BA will change its course of action on the fire & rehire plans unless their Customers take a stand.

A friend of mine has just set up this position on behalf of BA customers - worth a sign if you feel the same:

British Airways: Stop shafting your 42,000 staff (signed by BA customers)
https://www.change.org/BAcustomers

NB I appreciate that not everyone will share the same view as me, and that's fine too.

lloydah

Perhaps they should eat cake at the same time?