BA Cabin Crew Vote 96% In Favour Of Strike Action
Jan 15, 2007, 9:57 am
#76
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Programs: Mucci Grandee (Upgraded), BA Silver, AZ MilleMiglia
Posts: 3,107
They have a long way to go before that ...!
At least with Alitalia when there's a strike it only lasts one day. Trouble is they happen every couple of months.
Also, my perception at least is the BA staff/unions are willing to talk/negotiate/compromise. The latest AZ strike (on Friday - aargh) is to send a message to management (i.e. not against anything concrete yet) that any future buyer of AZ (it's currently for sale) needs to guarantee all existing employees keep their jobs
.
At least with Alitalia when there's a strike it only lasts one day. Trouble is they happen every couple of months.
Also, my perception at least is the BA staff/unions are willing to talk/negotiate/compromise. The latest AZ strike (on Friday - aargh) is to send a message to management (i.e. not against anything concrete yet) that any future buyer of AZ (it's currently for sale) needs to guarantee all existing employees keep their jobs
.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:01 am
#77
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
Nice to see some sense prevail in the most recent post. BA and the train companies are the two most high-profile, embarrassing relics of 70's unionised Britain I can think of. I should start by saying that I've never had any time for the trade union movement so that will undoubtedly colour my views on this topic, but this is not the 19th century fa chrissake....surely unions were formed to ensure safety and fairness for workers - ok both boxes ticked long ago for both industries in question.
Nobody can doubt that aviation has hardly been the boom industry of the past 5-6 years. However compared to the US carriers, BA's staff have escaped quite lightly. Obviously BA remains the bloated, inefficient relic of the nationalised industry it once was, but its staff have to realise that it operates in one of the most viciously competitive markets in global business. And that businesses in those situations constantly strive to cut costs. That's the world in the 21st century. Yes, it's not especially pleasant for the little man. Yes, it means some people will lose their jobs. But by allowing yourselves to be wrapped up in cotton wool by a bunch of militant socialists, you're simply closing your eyes to the realities of the world. For every one of us high-revenue passengers who choose to fly with other carriers, that's another piece chipped off your future job security. Wake up, take a reality check, and if you don't like being a pawn in an evil capitalist machine, go and work in the public sector - at least you can get away with working to rule and doing nothing if you don't feel like it. Carry on as you are, and we will all lose out in the long run as our once-proud national carrier gets broken up and eventually swirls down the toilet, another symbol of Britain's shrinking importance in the global village.
Rant over.
Nobody can doubt that aviation has hardly been the boom industry of the past 5-6 years. However compared to the US carriers, BA's staff have escaped quite lightly. Obviously BA remains the bloated, inefficient relic of the nationalised industry it once was, but its staff have to realise that it operates in one of the most viciously competitive markets in global business. And that businesses in those situations constantly strive to cut costs. That's the world in the 21st century. Yes, it's not especially pleasant for the little man. Yes, it means some people will lose their jobs. But by allowing yourselves to be wrapped up in cotton wool by a bunch of militant socialists, you're simply closing your eyes to the realities of the world. For every one of us high-revenue passengers who choose to fly with other carriers, that's another piece chipped off your future job security. Wake up, take a reality check, and if you don't like being a pawn in an evil capitalist machine, go and work in the public sector - at least you can get away with working to rule and doing nothing if you don't feel like it. Carry on as you are, and we will all lose out in the long run as our once-proud national carrier gets broken up and eventually swirls down the toilet, another symbol of Britain's shrinking importance in the global village.
Rant over.
I have to agree with you about that on principle, I didn't say it quite like that in my post, but yes, ultimately the staff can either put up with it or go and work elsewhere where the conditions are better, oh but actually they don't go elswehere because BA are evidently one of the best employers.
I think that 96% however might indicate that management are being a bit deaf to voices of concern. You make the key point though that is BA has to be competitive; they are not as competitive as they should be, and BA needs to cut 10%, it is a fair target, it is achievable, but the employees are not helping the airline -or themselves in the long run -by taking this action. Furthermore, the staff need to realize that they are living in the real world, and that BA is still overstaffed in certain departments -maybe not in cabin services, but in some departments (they still issue paper tickets on some routes and for CC payments when the CC holder isn't travelling
I agree with you, that's just MY opinion, no need to bight MY head off for my view, but, let's put it this way, my company is not "unionised". This country is becoming unionized again and it isn't right.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:03 am
#78
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London Town
Programs: BA Silver, AF Silver
Posts: 465
At least someone on this board shares my point of view
Really quite shocking the number of people who still seem to believe, passively or otherwise, that unions should be able to inflict chaos on commercial businesses and, by proxy, that company's consumers....
Jan 15, 2007, 10:04 am
#79
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London Town
Programs: BA Silver, AF Silver
Posts: 465
Jan 15, 2007, 10:09 am
#80
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
? No-one on here can claim they didn't know this was coming. What an attitude to take! That is a wonderful advert isn't it -"if you really need to go, don't book BA". Need I say more? We all knew it was coming -but many of the public didn't, and that's true.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:11 am
#81
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
Jan 15, 2007, 10:13 am
#82
Suspended
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Programs: United 1K, HHonors Gold, MR Gold
Posts: 1,628
It seems that I have the Big Foggy Crisis to thank for the fact that I won't have to worry about the BA strike on my flight back to Europe at the end of my home leave in February. Originally, I had a) a return leg with BA on Dec 22, b) a new booking YYZ-CDG outbound on Jan 2, return to SEA on Jan 20 (whew, no longer have to worry about that one, unless there's a wildcat strike), and c) planned to buy a ticket on BA for early Feb with a return date to Canada in the summer. Since (a) had to be cancelled due to the Big Foggy Crisis, I ended up on LH on Dec 22 and will by flying back to Paris on LH in February, instead of with BA. (Unfortunately, the status miles on *Alliance got split between two membership years ...)
Jan 15, 2007, 10:13 am
#83
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA EC Gold
Posts: 9,236
Well, yes.
That's not a criticism, but a question. I don't know how bad the situation is, if it is as bad as the baggage situation at LHR, then something must be done, but why does it take a strike to do it? Why don't management do what's good for them and listen and communicate not only to staff but also to the passengers as well? Maybe BA should be run like John Lewis/Waitrose -a partnership????
Jan 15, 2007, 10:14 am
#84
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,806
I have to agree with you about that on principle, I didn't say it quite like that in my post, but yes, ultimately the staff can either put up with it or go and work elsewhere where the conditions are better, oh but actually they don't go elswehere because BA are evidently one of the best employers.
I'm really quite tired of all the crypto-capitalist nonsense in this thread. Taken to its logical conclusion this would welcome back slavery, sweat shops and children up chimneys? If they don't like it, they can always go and work somewhere else.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:15 am
#85
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
Out of interest, why? Surely the whole ethos of the "new millenium" is to embrace change, not to drive a company (after all that's what BA is) into the ground. The crew are not doing themselves any favours in the long run.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:17 am
#86
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,105
I don't work for BA so I don't see why my "attitude" is an advert for anything or anyone? I thought I was stating the obvious - every regular on this board knew there was a high risk of a strike in the first quarter of this year. If they booked non-refundable tickets with BA for this period then I can only imagine they don't really need to go wherever they were headed or else a rational person would have booked with a different carrier. Ordinary travellers are a different story of course but that isn't whom I was addressing.
Jan 15, 2007, 10:26 am
#87
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AMS (SEA, JNB)
Programs: Mucci Reperateur des Coeurs Brises
Posts: 4,107
Nice to see some sense prevail in the most recent post. BA and the train companies are the two most high-profile, embarrassing relics of 70's unionised Britain I can think of. I should start by saying that I've never had any time for the trade union movement so that will undoubtedly colour my views on this topic, but this is not the 19th century fa chrissake....surely unions were formed to ensure safety and fairness for workers - ok both boxes ticked long ago for both industries in question.
Nobody can doubt that aviation has hardly been the boom industry of the past 5-6 years. However compared to the US carriers, BA's staff have escaped quite lightly. Obviously BA remains the bloated, inefficient relic of the nationalised industry it once was, but its staff have to realise that it operates in one of the most viciously competitive markets in global business. And that businesses in those situations constantly strive to cut costs. That's the world in the 21st century. Yes, it's not especially pleasant for the little man. Yes, it means some people will lose their jobs. But by allowing yourselves to be wrapped up in cotton wool by a bunch of militant socialists, you're simply closing your eyes to the realities of the world. For every one of us high-revenue passengers who choose to fly with other carriers, that's another piece chipped off your future job security. Wake up, take a reality check, and if you don't like being a pawn in an evil capitalist machine, go and work in the public sector - at least you can get away with working to rule and doing nothing if you don't feel like it. Carry on as you are, and we will all lose out in the long run as our once-proud national carrier gets broken up and eventually swirls down the toilet, another symbol of Britain's shrinking importance in the global village.
Rant over.
Nobody can doubt that aviation has hardly been the boom industry of the past 5-6 years. However compared to the US carriers, BA's staff have escaped quite lightly. Obviously BA remains the bloated, inefficient relic of the nationalised industry it once was, but its staff have to realise that it operates in one of the most viciously competitive markets in global business. And that businesses in those situations constantly strive to cut costs. That's the world in the 21st century. Yes, it's not especially pleasant for the little man. Yes, it means some people will lose their jobs. But by allowing yourselves to be wrapped up in cotton wool by a bunch of militant socialists, you're simply closing your eyes to the realities of the world. For every one of us high-revenue passengers who choose to fly with other carriers, that's another piece chipped off your future job security. Wake up, take a reality check, and if you don't like being a pawn in an evil capitalist machine, go and work in the public sector - at least you can get away with working to rule and doing nothing if you don't feel like it. Carry on as you are, and we will all lose out in the long run as our once-proud national carrier gets broken up and eventually swirls down the toilet, another symbol of Britain's shrinking importance in the global village.
Rant over.
(nothing personal by the way, just responding in general...)
I believe that miners in Africa also have 20, if not 200, applicants waiting to replace every miserable worker mining gold and diamond 3km beneath the surface. Domestics also apparently have lots waiting in the wings as well. Those must be fantastic jobs if so many people want them!!! Where do I apply?
Jan 15, 2007, 10:29 am
#88
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
One of the main reasons that it is unfair (and completely unrealistic) to expect workers to just up and leave and get a new job is many of them will have invested heavily in their pension with BA and have employment protection because of their length of service. Both of these would be lost or jeopardised if they were to leave to go to new jobs.
I'm really quite tired of all the crypto-capitalist nonsense in this thread. Taken to its logical conclusion this would welcome back slavery, sweat shops and children up chimneys? If they don't like it, they can always go and work somewhere else.
I'm really quite tired of all the crypto-capitalist nonsense in this thread. Taken to its logical conclusion this would welcome back slavery, sweat shops and children up chimneys? If they don't like it, they can always go and work somewhere else.
Well, I'm really quite tired of strike after strike and flights being suspended for days on end. I know what you are saying, but the point is that no other airline strikes as much as BA. Is that because BA are so bad -no they're not, I'm certain.
Your point about slavery/etc is not the same. No one is FORCING people to work for BA. Also, I don't see how the "logical conclusion" would lead to sweat shops and chimney sweeps.
I'm also completely fed up with socialists verging on communists who feel that employees are entitled to piss the customer off year after year, taking out their problems on the people who pay their wages.
I accept that 96% is a large number of people; similarly however, I think that BA do listen to their staff and need to listen to their staff. I am confident that BA would not sit back and let their staff strike for a few days if they could reasonably avoid it -it doesn't make sense. Unions are notorious for being un-cooperative, etc.
The new millenium is meant to be a place where changes occur, New Labour were voted in, and they are meant to support changes and cost-cutting. I think that you are being completely unreasonable, as are the BA crew.
According to your argument, people would be back down unprofitable mines, with our country being an LEDC.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to accuse me of being analogue in a digital age, but ultimately it is unions and evidently 96% of the particular union who are stuck in the past -yes they may have issues, but striking is NOT the way to help themselves. They will be sorry when they don't have an airline to work for, because they, through their spiteful actions, have driven the airline into the ground. It is quite clear to me that WW is unpopular among staff and pax, but if he really can save 10% and grow the business simultaneously, then he will be a success. We can always go elsewhere too!
Jan 15, 2007, 10:32 am
#89
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,229
I've always found it difficult to swallow the mantra "go work somewhere else if you don't like it" or "life sucks, get over it" or "this is the 25th century so face reality" and other such isms. Difficult because it often comes from people who are giving themselves and their friends among the top brass fat bonuses while telling everyone else they have to sacrifice already comparatively meagre compensation packages, at the same time that if they decide to jump ship they get a golden parachute and enough contacts to get an even better job with an even fatter bonus down the line. It simply boggles my mind, and I was born long after the heyday of the trade union movement...
(nothing personal by the way, just responding in general...)
I fail to see the logic? Why does wanting to protect your income and benefits equal hating one's position?
I believe that miners in Africa also have 20, if not 200, applicants waiting to replace every miserable worker mining gold and diamond 3km beneath the surface. Domestics also apparently have lots waiting in the wings as well. Those must be fantastic jobs if so many people want them!!! Where do I apply?
(nothing personal by the way, just responding in general...)
I fail to see the logic? Why does wanting to protect your income and benefits equal hating one's position?
I believe that miners in Africa also have 20, if not 200, applicants waiting to replace every miserable worker mining gold and diamond 3km beneath the surface. Domestics also apparently have lots waiting in the wings as well. Those must be fantastic jobs if so many people want them!!! Where do I apply?
it's different, African miners can't really get another job, BA crew can if they want to. I do accept your point on senior management getting bonuses/etc whilst cost cutting, but its just how it works. Maybe WW should lose his bonus anually if there is a BA strike? But then again, it probably wouldn't make any difference -the grass is always greener on the other side.