tristan727

And stalkers usually love their targets, and would do anything to protect them - but often will try to harm or kill them in the end.

Undoubtably time now for Willie, as I've been shouting for ages here - to set up BA training centres in Poland, Latvia etc. They wouldn't blink at signing a no-strike deal, and would help consign these Merc-driving, curry & champagne-sloshing union anarchist goons to the dustbin of history. I don't think your pax would mind either in the slightest. Unless I am missing something here, related to a free market - are these staff unique, irreplaceable? No, obviously - therefore why the f*** they feel they can put a gun to the passengers head is completely beyond me. There's no point in the slightest for BA to give into this one - as they'll be striking about something else come May bank hols, or for someone else - regardless of where the bar is set they will try to raise it again.

Kibison

I'm glad someone had the courage to say it! ^ ^ ^

jjpb3

Hmmm, reasonable arguments are now being chucked out the window. You do your point a disservice with such needlessly broadbrush characterizations. The stalker analogy is particularly inappropriate for most of the BA crews I've encountered.
You are missing something. It's not always about irreplaceability, it's sometimes about being valued for what you have contributed and are willing to contribute.

But, as other (less emotional) posters have pointed out, there are two sides to every argument. Rather than carving into one side with such diatribe, I'll wait for more facts to emerge.

tristan727

Whether or not there are two sides to this argument is completely not the point - it's about using customers as their helpless pawns - something which as commuters in London we have been played about with mercilessly for far too long now.

And as for your stalker point, I am not referring to BA staff as a whole - merely the breath-taking arrogance and hypocricy of the OP's opening paragraph.

IceTrojan

Thank you for giving me the heads up to shifting my travels away from BA (not that I really needed much more reason to do so).

Aus_Mal

Why do people think striking actually benefits their cause?

I wish BA would sack every striking worker and replace them with outsourced labour (Hmmm. Is this the catering debacle happening once again?)

There are peaceful ways to negotiate job conditions. Striking is just a way in which unions choose to exert their pressure in the wrong way.

Please. Give me a break. As a BA customer, I deserve more than smarmy unionists striking for the "common cause" BS.

(BTW, I am a union member, but I don't support my union when they choose to do walkouts et.al. )

Oh - and I realise I'm liable to get flamed for this post, but quite frankly my dear ... I don't give a damn!

harryhv

You are describing the members of this board, shurely?

Phil the Flyer

And I'm surprised washbag hasn't followed up on his/her initial post to, at the very least, counter some of the comments made on this thread - unless work has prevented such a course of action to date.

fraisse10

You strike and *** up my long-planned, long-awaited 241 mid-February holiday to South Africa and I swear that it is it for me and BA. I have put up with enough from BA - both management and staff: cutbacks in the generosity of the FF programme; cutbacks in the CW standards, cutbacks in the LGW network and standards, endless endless delays, dirty aircraft, never-there (physically and mentally), slapdash cabin-crew....well you on the board know all this and more but I put up with it for the comprehensive coverage of the network and the rewards of BA Miles. But mess with my holiday and I will purposely choose an alternative at every single opportunity (and mostly there are such opportunities) from now 'til the end of time to *** you right back.

And don't even think about repeating this "more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger" bovine waste product. There is always another way.

You withdraw your labour for 1 day that affects me, I withdraw my custom, full-stop.

The Saint

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read in some time.

The cabin crew that are being spoken of in such derogatory terms are doing a job, like all of us. For the most part, they are sane, rational, hardworking people. I am prepared to assume that they don't strike for the hell of it. For many, it will be a very difficult decision.

I can well understand the "we really don't want to" argument. If you are employed by an organisation which, by a series of changes and cuts, undermines your position and reduces your pay and benefits, when do you say enough is enough? With the first cut (which may appear small and is explained by the need to become more efficient), or the second, third, fifth, tenth, twentieth?

And for those of you saying, there is "always another way", what is it? Negotiation? If you have an organisation which says, "We're doing this, take it or leave it", there's not much room for negotiation. Striking is not the first resort, it is the last resort. It costs the union money to ballot its members for strike action and unless the majority of the workforce want to strike, there won't be one. We have come a long way since Rob Roy and the 70s industrial unrest.

Capitalism has some virtues. Taken to its limit, unchecked by unions or legislation, it would produce sweat shops in the race to the bottom. It is not an attractive model, despite its adherents in the US and elsewhere.

aristoph

I don't read that most posters have been derogatory about the cabin crew, in fact they have received a fair amount of sympathy given that most of us would be the (unintended) victims of their strike action. The most common criticism seems to be that a) the OP was (naturally, no criticism intended) very one-sided and industrial relations are seldom quite so black-and-white and b) that a strike may ultimately harm BA and the job prospects of the crew more than it benefits them. As sane, rational, hardworking people who want to travel we also have a right to decide that BA is an unreliable travel partner and take our business elsewhere, either during this period of uncertainty or more permanently if we think this risk is embedded in BA (though I think few will really go that far).

Witch

That's an interesting spin on the reality. The labour may have only been withdrawn for a morning, but the impact went on for days and lost the company millions - the very millions that fund pay rises etc etc

typical

Agree with that and the rest of your post completely. People who walk out of work at the drop of a hat are one thing. Staff who really feel they have no alternative - especially if the company is trying to unilaterally alter contracts agreed between both parties - is quite another. It's sad to see people so infected by this customer-is-always-right, service at all costs mentality that they can't appreciate just how people react when they approach the end of their tether.

Strike action hurts everyone, but faced with a management who really won't listen and negotiate, it's a basic human right to be able to withdraw labour as part of seeking a negotiated settlement. As many have said, we don't know the full story yet. If one side can't keep to a contract, why should the other side be forced to? But clearly some here have ideological issues with the right to withdraw labour itself. You have the right not to use BA and go to an airline with better labour relations if you want - why see a strike as a personal attack?

BAHumbug

How true - a ten-year-old recently summed things up as:

Capitalism is a system that works but isn't fair. Socialism is a system that nobody has managed to get to work, but that is fair.

Out of the mouths of babe and all that.

BAH

bizgeez

There are 2 sides to the argument and what hasn't been mentioned are the very, very generous terms and conditions under which BA crews work to, namely LHR longhaul. Examples include: extra destination payments for turning up to work for certain "harder" flights/destinations (Miami, Mumbai, Harare..), extra payments for leaving London with one crew member down (even if the flight is empty), huge payments if a trip is changed, long range payments for longer flights, 5 supervisors on 747s.....the list goes on.

Now, yes the terms and conditions are what one would expect from a profitable company, but the crews are NOT meeting BA half way atall and LHR longhaul have so far refused to help cut costs because they want to keep the current, dated conditions. LGW crews have "suffered" a major overhaul, Manchester and the regions have also had their conditions streamlined in light of a changing airline industry. Did LHR crews help their colleagues? No.

So, before you feel sorry for the crew, there is another side to the story that is not being shown.