Unite boss on British Airways cabin staff strike

[Gerald A]

The strikes are set to begin on 22 December and run until 2 January. They are expected to cause significant disruption over the Christmas period.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8412523.stm

[Matt D]

What a nightmare for a company that is already losing close to $100,000,000 per month. (-GBP292M 2009 H1)

[Sarah C]

I am both amazed and dumbfounded by this action.

BA is in a dire financial position and this might be the final nail in the coffin. The cabin crew might not have a job to come back to in 6 months time if the company goes under - they seem very short sighted in their approach. The impact of this is huge - not only the million of so people travelling in that period, but people who might travel in the future. I am sure the strike won't change the BA management's position - the union needs to get in to the world of reality for any negotiation to happen.

On one hand, you have employees agreeing to forgo pay and then you have this union who wants the opposite. I understand the reasons why they are striking but they need to understand the state of the airline and the airline industry in general.

Meanwhile, the staff in all the other areas will no doubt do a fabulous job dealing with this in the holiday period, and yet cop the brunt of passenger frustrations.

[Owen H]

Sarah, why do you think that this strike is for a pay rise? Have you watched the video?

BA have been trying to unilaterally change the employee contracts, and while staff need to work with an airline in trouble, it is a fine line between that and letting them permanantly slash their conditions.

Its never good to see strikes threatened, but sometimes its necessary. I don't know enough of the details to say if it is warranted... but I'm still willing to bet that they're not striking for a pay rise... just to limit the damage the company is trying to get away with.

[David C]

As understand it , BA are proposing a cut in cabin staff levels on flights . This is surely a safety issue and not a pay issue . Safety must not, and cannot be compromised at any cost , even if it means the airline and its employees suffer financially by industrial action .

In these situations , the employer always appears to be in the right , and the employee is often castigated by the general public .. In this particular case I firmly believe that the workers have a good argument , and if cabin staffing is to be cut they should stand firm .

[Daniel F]

I don't see how it is a safety issue. The staff cuts would be in line with all safety requirements. They can not cut staff so that there is less than required by law.

EDIT: Having just read a bit more about it on the FT forums, it seems like the crew cuts apply to flights from Heathrow to bring them in line with the crew numbers for flights from Gatwick. So unless flights from Gatwick are unsafe, there is absolutely no safety issue.

[Nic P]

British Airways have one of the highest, if not the highest, staff costs per head of any airline in the world.

It is not a viable business model moving forward if the cabin crew, along with all other staff, don't recognise there will have to be some deterioration in their wages/conditions in order to keep the company viable.

Whilst it wasn't the main cause of Ansetts demise it certainly had an impact on the organisations profitability - I remember statistics showing their staffing cost per head being significantly more than Qantas et al.

[Matt D]

British Airways have one of the highest, if not the highest, staff costs per head of any airline in the world.

Nic has hit it on the head here. The competition's (Virgin Atlantic etc) crew provide better service at lower cost. BA have to reduce costs and bring them into line with their competition as a minimum.

Two BA cabin crew were on talkback radio this morning saying they are striking on behalf of the general public to make sure that BA don't become another EasyJet, cutting services, costs etc. Very misguided indeed.

If BA dont cut costs these cabin crew wont have a job to go to.

Matt

[Dan Hammond]

This has been issued by Qantas

Qantas Statement on British Airways Industrial Action

Sydney, 15 December 2009

Qantas said today that industrial action by British Airways (BA) cabin crew from 22 December would have no impact on Qantas operations between Australia and the United Kingdom.

Qantas Group Executive Government and Corporate Affairs, Mr David Epstein, said the airline's first priority was to its customers, including those booked on codeshare services operated by BA.

"All Qantas services between Australia and the UK will operate as scheduled over the Christmas and New Year period," Mr Epstein said.

"The action does, however, have the potential to disrupt the travel plans of Qantas customers booked on BA services.

"We have been working with BA overnight and today, and have determined we have sufficient capacity across the 12 days to accommodate Qantas ticketed passengers booked on BA codeshare flights between Australia and the UK on existing Qantas services.

"This will provide certainty for Qantas customers travelling to and from the UK."

Qantas will provide alternative options, where possible, for other affected customers, such as those booked on BA services into Europe out of London. These will include allowing changes to bookings without penalty and, on some routes, opportunities to travel on other carriers.

Customers will be contacted over coming days regarding their options. Some flexibility may be needed regarding changes to travel dates and times.

Updated information will be available on qantas.com as it becomes available, and customers will be contacted by their travel agent, or by Qantas where their booking was made directly with Qantas.

"We will continue to liaise with BA regarding its plans for the period between 22 December and 2 January, and closely monitor what further action we can take to minimise impacts on our customers," Mr Epstein said.

Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (3995)
Email: qantasmedia@qantas.com.au

http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2009/dec09/3995

[Nic P]

Andrew, where do you get these numbers from?

The most recent report I read had BA no. 1 subject to currency fluctuation. Even if your numbers are accurate being no. 8 in the world for cost of cabin crew/flight crew isn't something supportive of a competitive business model.

Regardless, you have to compare apples with apples - as Matt said airlines operating in the same regulatory environment and from the same airport (eg Virgin Atlantic) are paying as little as half (for what is subjectively better service).

Why would any management continue with that position when an airline is loosing money at a rate of knots?

I don't believe management are asking cabin crew to halve their pay, are they? My understanding is some wage changes along with some reduction in numbers of cabin crew per flight. If other airlines (and indeed their own LGW crew can) then why can't BA crew?

[NickN]

British Airways last year lost a record $713 million, and was in even worse shape this year with a $519 million loss in the first six months.

It says its cabin crew earn twice as much as counterparts on rival Virgin Atlantic, and accused the union of a "cynical" disregard for passengers


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/major-airline-british-airways-strike-over-xmas-holidays/story-e6frezhr-1225810644318

Are BA staff really hard done by earning so much more than Virgin Atlantic staff in the same positions?

And over the Christmas break of all times, that's just plain nasty IMO.

[D Chan]

This is just yet another perfect example of how some people don't really know how lucky they are to get what they are paid. If BA goes bust those crew can try their luck with VS and guess how much money they'll get then.

Goes to show how difficult it is for legacy carriers to reduce their personnel costs. JAL, BA - that's 2 oneworld carriers almost crippled.

[Gerald A]

THE Christmas holiday plans of A MILLION Brits have been saved — after a High Court judge today BANNED the British Airways strike.
Mrs Justice Cox said a ballot of 13,500 BA cabin crew contained "serious and substantial irregularities".



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2776340/BA-strike-action-is-ruled-invalid.html

[Owen H]

Stand by for another ballot!

It has been ruled invalid because the voting procedure they used was incorrect, not because of what they stood for.

I think it would be pretty naieve of BA to think that just because they got this ballot overturned that they don't have a serious problem that they need to negotiate.

I wonder when the next vote will be.

[NickN]

Union leaders — who made the mistake of balloting FORMER staff — said it was a "disgraceful day for democracy".


Am I the only one who thinks this is the funniest quote ever?

That's just like a government using deceased people to get votes!

Just goes to show the union is desperate to make a mountain from a mole hill.

I think the BA staff should swap places with the Virgin Atlantic staff for a month and see of they enjoy the reduced pay over at VA.

Same as with the Sydney bus drivers strike today, the government has a wage increase on the table and they still strike.

Blackmail is a crazy thing!

[Daniel F]

Its like unions have nothing else better to do than cause trouble just before Christmas... Qantas engineers, Australia Post, Sydney Buses, British Airways, Eurostar...

[Owen H]

Some of it is so they achieve maximum impact - The company is more likely to concede if they're faced with a large customer backlash.

On the flipside, sometimes companies make their hard push just before Christmas knowing the union is likely to be in "holiday" mode, and knowing that the union will be unpopular for taking action at Christmas, and they can just play to the media about that big, mean union disrupting everybodies plans.

Swings both ways.

[Ash W]

As understand it , BA are proposing a cut in cabin staff levels on flights . This is surely a safety issue and not a pay issue . Safety must not, and cannot be compromised at any cost , even if it means the airline and its employees suffer financially by industrial action .

In these situations , the employer always appears to be in the right , and the employee is often castigated by the general public .. In this particular case I firmly believe that the workers have a good argument , and if cabin staffing is to be cut they should stand firm .


You are of course assuming that they are already operating with the legal minimum level of cabin staff. But they are not, they are operating at a higher level, so any argument of passenger safety being decreased flies out the window. As far as I am concerned if an airline wants to reduce staff numbers and is still operating withing safety regulations then it is 100% an issue for management not the union.

[Owen H]

It is most definately a matter for the union.

They are there to protect their members interests and jobs. You reduce your cabin crew per flight by 20%, then thats 20% of your members being fired a few days before Christmas.

There are other issues too - one that has come up before is that they operate with a reduced crew, but expecting them to do the same cabin service, something that is usually not possible. There are safety issues surrounding that - and I can imagine the cries from the management when they refuse to do the inflight service because they don't have enough people to safely work the carts/galley.

How about aircraft pre-flight expectations? Reduce the numbers but expect the pre-boarding safety procedures to be done in the same time? Or will they pay the crew for the extra time they need to be working to get the aircraft away on time? I think you know the answer to that one.

I'm not saying that the aircraft can't be safely operated, in a minimum way, by the legal minimum of crew. But to say that the union shouldn't have a vested interest in the working conditions of its members is silly.

[Ash W]

I don't beleive there has been any talk what so ever of people being fired, just natural attrition and re-working of rosters. As for asking them to do the same service with the same staff, so what? Have you ever flown BA before? I do quite regularly both long and short haul, and beleive me on the short haul flights in particular there isn't all that much for the staff to do. So loosing 1 cabin crew member, provided they still conform with safety regulations is not a bad thing.

But seriously if staff at BA don't accept change then they won't have to worry about being made redundant, they will have to worry about how the pension funds and their entitlements will be payed when the airline goes under.

PS. One other thing I can tell you from living in the UK, that is the unions over here are always use, or more correctly threaten to use strikes as a first course of action, rather than a last course. In recent months there have been several high profile strikes (mainly postal) and talks of strikes on public transport.

[Owen H]

The Staff at BA are totally aware they need to accept some change to help the company. The Cabin Crew alone offered 60 million in change for savings to the company. The staff are not so blind as to not see they need to help. They just want negotiation in how that is done, which to me, is reasonable.

I do not, for a minute, totally trust any company executive in these times. They know they will get through this, and opportunism is rife. But as I say, these strikes will not actually occur - BA management can't afford them to. They'll go back to the negotiating table. But if the Cabin Crew can show them a solid force to be dealt with, at least a fair (to both sides) agreement is possible.

[Anthony T]

Why do I get the feeling a certain Michael O'Leary is taking more than a passing interest in this.
He wants a premium long haul carrier, where he can charge lots for the front cabins and next to nothing in economy, using staff on lower wages and conditions.

MOL will get rid of the short haul euro routes, they will fly FR.

MOL can then sell the slots at LHR & LGW vacated by the demise of the euro ops to the highest bidder.

The buying of BA by MOL would be cost neutral, with the redundancies and the pension fund shortfall being funded from small change in MOL's back pocket. :D

Bye, Bye BA.
.....and the Australian dinosaur airline will go a similar way. :rolleyes:

Sad i know, but that's evolution.

[D Chan]

I do not, for a minute, totally trust any company executive in these times.

and so those cabin crew should trust the unions to protect them when they can't even get the ballot right and does a royal f* up? :rolleyes:

on one side you have people running an airline operation and they pay staff for their work; on the other side you have an union that collects fees for so-called 'representing' their members and can't even get a thing as simple as a ballot right (so far they haven't achieved anything substantial for their members - all they have achieved is to dent the public's confidence and reputation of their member's employer - which is nothing material for the cabin crew).

Tell me why any of the travelling public deserves to suffer uncertainties in their travel plans during such a busy time of the year?


Strangely enough some people choose to fly asian carriers because of their (perceived) better customer service and price of air fares. What they don't consider is how much less each cabin crew are paid comparatively and how these airlines are undercutting the legacy carriers which pay more to the operating crew. And then some people are led to think BA's cabin crew are underpaid and this or that. Ironic isn't it? The fact is simple. Evolve or get left behind. simple as that.


If conditions are really so bad in a company - vote with your feet and work for another company with better work and pay conditions. The reason most won't do that is because they know they are already better off already. Unions are good at rewarding scumbags - they don't do jack for the hard workers or those who deserves their genuine representation.

[Geoff W]

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/british-airways-cabin-crew-to-strike-in-late-march-20100312-q4ee.html

Kind regards,

Geoff